<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Jan 6 2008, 11:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How 'bout Selena?</div> No. Shakira easily out does her in Spanish music with PD and DELL in the 90's, and the live performance on MTV Unplugged. Shakira was particularly special because she was the one who was able to crossover into English and actually be a major success. I think Selena is more famous for her death than for her music.
The beatles first and foremost. Elvis, definately. Dylan Sinatra and several others from the rat pack In no particular order: The Who The Stones Led Zeppelin Michael Jackson The Eagles Pink Floyd Black Sabbath Elton John James Brown Hendrix Clapton Rod Stewart Aerosmith Rush Yes (nobody who started post 1980, FWIW) There were a lot of super groups pre-1980 who continued beyond 1980. Their music will always be remembered, and will technically become classical music, by definition. The question is ultimately which ones will be considered as Beethoven/Mozart types and which ones will be remembered like the lesser classical composers are. My choices above are based upon one of two factors. First is if they radically changed music and continued to influence it going forward. Second is simply a large number of albums/cds in multiple decades.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Jan 6 2008, 11:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ Jan 6 2008, 11:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How 'bout Selena?</div> No. Shakira easily out does her in Spanish music with PD and DELL in the 90's, and the live performance on MTV Unplugged. Shakira was particularly special because she was the one who was able to crossover into English and actually be a major success. I think Selena is more famous for her death than for her music. </div> huh...I've recently have become a big fan of Shakira, but imo her best stuff we're in the 2000's. Selena was in in the 90's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 7 2008, 12:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The beatles first and foremost. Elvis, definately. Dylan Sinatra and several others from the rat pack In no particular order: The Who The Stones Led Zeppelin Michael Jackson The Eagles Pink Floyd Black Sabbath Elton John James Brown Hendrix Clapton Rod Stewart Aerosmith Rush Yes (nobody who started post 1980, FWIW) There were a lot of super groups pre-1980 who continued beyond 1980. Their music will always be remembered, and will technically become classical music, by definition. The question is ultimately which ones will be considered as Beethoven/Mozart types and which ones will be remembered like the lesser classical composers are. My choices above are based upon one of two factors. First is if they radically changed music and continued to influence it going forward. Second is simply a large number of albums/cds in multiple decades.</div> See, I don't think these bands "radically changed music." If you are making a list of the rock bands or artists that are most likely to be remembered 100 years from now, they may be on that list, but (if not for the rock-and-roll HOF) I think that outside of a small niche of people that will listen to their albums, no one will remember much about them. You have to think that part of the answer has to be: How likely is it that people will go to hear these artists' music performed 100 years from now? How likely is it that their music will become "standards? and covered by other bands?" How likely is it that musicians 100 years from now will cite these bands as major influences, or that critics will cite the similarities between them and then-current bands? How often will you read about them in the newspaper? Did they create a new genre, or did they contribute drastically to its popularity (in relation to other bands of their era?) I think they all fail on those criteria. Elton John probably has the best chance, because I wouldn't be surprised if his music continues to be performed regularly. But most of the others have pretty unique sounds, and, while great acts and very talented, will end up little more than a footnote in the march of musical progress. There are many 18th and 19th century musucians and composers who are remembered and whose music is still performed, but they are no Beethoven or Bach or Mozart. These are musicians who, when people hear their name, will think, "oh, yeah, I've heard of him," without knowing why or ever hearing their music. Like, say Schumann or Verdi. I mean, I could name dozens of jazz musicians from 60, 70, or even 80 years ago, but I wouldn't consider them to be in the spirit of the question. 100 years from now, you're not going to turn on the radio and hear the DJ say, "That was X-splat performing "Tom Sawyer." You're not going to hear "Roundabout" as the background to a commercial. To ask the question another way: If Beethoven or Mozart came back to life for one day, and you had a chance to play ten albums for them so they could see the direction music has taken since their death, would you toss in a Rod Stewart CD? Come on. I'd play a Keith Jarrett CD--who I believe is the most influential and original musician alive today, who arguably created a new genre of music singlhandedly, but who I wouldn't consider for this list, because I think he'll just be remembered as a footnote, as once he's gone, no one will expound on his work. (Let me add that I have albums by most of these groups, and listen to them often. If you want to make a list of most influencial rock bands, I'd probably have many of the same names. Of course, you forgot Queen, which is unforgivable.)
musicians? as in individuals who may be part of a band but did something revolutionary? Les Claypool, Bootsy Collins, Bo Diddley, Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Dimebag Darrell, Ray Charles, Tony Iommi, Keith Moon, Dave Lombardo, Ian Anderson (jethro tull), Larry Graham - Sly Stone, Stevie Wonder, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Harrison-McCartney-Lennon (yes in that order, George was the superior guitarist), Benny Goodman. Coltrane, Thelonius Monk, Robert Johnson, Robert Fripp.... etc I see people like Bob Dylan, Jay-Z and Ice Cube fitting in with Ginsburg. Without superior music behind them, they are a little ordinary to listen to. Im not hating, as I am a fan of all three but they are lyricists not musicians. And dont tell me dylan is a century defining musician, his voice is average, his guitar playing is pedestrian but his Harmonica playing has got pretty darn good over the years, just not "All Time" good.
Regardless of how "mentally unstable" people think Michael Jackson is he clearly is a pop genius. The man set the record for most albums sold with Thriller selling over 50 million copies! No one has come close to breaking it. Ever. His name is definitely enshrined in the pantheon of musical greats. No question.
Its a tough question, because we're not all that removed from the century. I think there's a tendency to try and encapsulate the progression of whatever genre's in our list, but its really not needed. People don't remember the hundreds of notable artists that preceded Bach and Mozart and very likely built towards their achievements. Those two are remembered solely on their own. I also think a list of musicians from the 1900's needs to take into account the iconic status that a lot of artists have been able to attain and the impact that status has on society. Bob Dylan wasn't the greatest singer, songwriter, or musician (not that he was bad), but he became associated and represented something in the '60's that was much greater than just his music. My list would include: Robert Johnson, Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, Elton John, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Run DMC That's just off the top of my head. It's definitely biased towards North America (somewhat justified) and reflects what little knowledge I've picked up. And I definitely don't think all of those artists will be remembered so greatly, but I couldn't narrow it down any further.
Have to add Nas, Eric B. and Rakim as well. they came out with two of the best albums of all time in the 90's. Paid In Full is probably the best hip-hop album of all-time, and IMO Illmatic is a close 2nd.
In No order >Beatles >Elvis >Hendrix >Michael Jackson >Dr. Dre >Miles Davis >The Rat Pack e.g. Frank sinatra. By the Way i only included English language Singers/Bands as i don't know too many Foreign Bands/Singers
Keep in mind, that this question is a little unfair in that Mozart and Bach are remembered for their compositions, not their performances. That said, you really think those people will be remembered before Irving Berlin? Erik Satie? Pavaratti? Enrico Caruso? John Cage? Philip Glass? Vladimir Horowitz? Woody Guthrie? Hank Williams? Did the Eagles or Clapton define an entire genre of music for 50 years? Did they change the way other think about or listen to music? Will their compositions be played by high school bands 200 years from now? I think those are the questions that you have to ask yourself.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Jan 7 2008, 06:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Keep in mind, that this question is a little unfair in that Mozart and Bach are remembered for their compositions, not their performances. That said, you really think those people will be remembered before Irving Berlin? Erik Satie? Pavaratti? Enrico Caruso? John Cage? Philip Glass? Vladimir Horowitz? Woody Guthrie? Hank Williams? Did the Eagles or Clapton define an entire genre of music for 50 years? Did they change the way other think about or listen to music? Will their compositions be played by high school bands 200 years from now? I think those are the questions that you have to ask yourself.</div> Most bands do cover music. Few end up writing their own tunes and make a career of playing those. So yeah, based upon all the music I've seen covered by bands here in Vegas at all the various stages in the hotels and casinos, Elton John, Clapton, the Eagles, etc., will continue to be covered for decades to come. There's also an oldies station on the radio in every city and town I've been in, keeping the music current and out there in front of new generations of listeners. My best definition of "Classical" music is music that is over 100 years old. Given that Elton John was making records in the late 1960s or early 1970s, he's already proven that he appeals to multiple generations of people and that his music is popular for half the required time. And still going. True for every band I mentioned - the Stones sell out sports stadiums to this day. Another test is the transition of the bands' music through various formats. When music moved to CDs, some of the music on vinyl didn't make the transition. Now music is becoming digital (MP3, etc.) and there's going to be some more music that won't make it. All the music from all the bands I listed has made multiple such transitions. As well, I consider the wealth of classical music (Mozart, etc.), and there's LOTS of it that is still played in orchestras, string quartets, and by pianists by lesser known names. So that music has survived; no reason to think much of the music made since the advent of the LP is going to be totally forgotten. There are other genres that I didn't mention at all. It's hard to believe that Country and Western is going to disappear, and there are lots of talent there that has survived the test of time and generations. Willie Nelson, for one.
To add to my previous post... When they teach about music in schools in the future, they're going to talk about the Beatles making Rock and Roll music popular among the masses, as well as being the first of the great British Invasion bands. The depth of their fame was, and still is, astounding. Before Dylan, there was a movement called Beat or Beatniks. It was primarily a movement of poets and poetry. They "played" venues that most bands today play - cafes and bars and that sort of place. Their performances consisted of reading of poetry. Over time, they looked to add to their shows and it started with drums for rhythm. Dylan was a Beatnik who moved the whole movement into the mainstream by adding folk guitar and harmonica and ultimately full rock-style bands. Though his music might be classified as folk... His impact on modern music cannot be denied, as he brought an emphasis on spirituality and meaning and emphasis to lyrics that has transcended genre. I would argue that Rap and Hip-Hop are all about lyrics and Dylan taken to the extreme. Clapton made the guitar a lead instrument and the guitarist a star. Elton John and Paul McCartney were knighted by the queen of England, they won't be forgotten. When Lennon was killed, there were vigils held for him around the world; the closest thing to it I've seen since are the death of a pope or Princess Di.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 7 2008, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>To add to my previous post... When they teach about music in schools in the future, they're going to talk about the Beatles making Rock and Roll music popular among the masses, as well as being the first of the great British Invasion bands. The depth of their fame was, and still is, astounding. Before Dylan, there was a movement called Beat or Beatniks. It was primarily a movement of poets and poetry. They "played" venues that most bands today play - cafes and bars and that sort of place. Their performances consisted of reading of poetry. Over time, they looked to add to their shows and it started with drums for rhythm. Dylan was a Beatnik who moved the whole movement into the mainstream by adding folk guitar and harmonica and ultimately full rock-style bands. Though his music might be classified as folk... His impact on modern music cannot be denied, as he brought an emphasis on spirituality and meaning and emphasis to lyrics that has transcended genre. I would argue that Rap and Hip-Hop are all about lyrics and Dylan taken to the extreme. Clapton made the guitar a lead instrument and the guitarist a star. Elton John and Paul McCartney were knighted by the queen of England, they won't be forgotten. When Lennon was killed, there were vigils held for him around the world; the closest thing to it I've seen since are the death of a pope or Princess Di.</div> Your response is too genre-specific. Of course they will all be remembered, since this century witnessed the rise of recorded music, but I really don't think they'll be held in the same regard as Bach, beethoven, and Mozart, which was the thrust of the question. Again, I could name jazz musicians that have been "remembered" for 80 or 90 years already, but just haven't had the same impact on the development of music. Obviously, we can all interpret the question however we want, and there's nothing wrong with your answer--you've named the most influential rock msusicians of their time--but I don't see them as genre-defining or influencing generations of musicans that came or will come after them. I don't think being popular is enough by itself. I wouldn't put Frank Sinatra or Streisand on the list, for example. Do they belong on the list more than, say Beverly Sills? Enrico Caruso? Pavaratti? With regard to country music: Hank Williams? Johnny Cash? Willie nelson? Patsy Cline? Waylon Jennings? Buck Owens? With regard to jazz: Louis Armstrong? Miles Davis? John Coltrane? Duke Ellington? Count Basie? Charlie Parker? Keith Jarrett? Monk? With regard to folk music: Woody Guthrie? Joan Baez? Classical music: Igor Stravinsky? Strauss? Rachmaninoff? Isaac Stern? Dmitri Shostakovich? Boris Tchaikovsky? Claude DeBussy? Gustav Mahler? Vladimir Horowitz? New age: Phillip Glass? John Cage? What about Leonard bernstein? Charles ives? Aaron Copland? George Gershwin? How about composers like Stephen Sondheim? John Williams? Richard Rogers? Andrew Lloyd Webber? How about the blues/R&B? Robert Johnson? Ray Charles? Aretha Franklin? Muddy Waters? What about world music? Paco DeLucia? Julio Iglesias? Dozens of artists I've never heard of? There are just too many genres to limit yourself to rock. What we listen to today is very different from what popular tastes were like 50, 75, and 100 years ago. If you go under the assumption that people--other than a small niche of listeners--aren't going to be listenting to the same music we listen to today, then you have to limit yourself to artists that transcended their genre, artists that others aspire to imitate, or will play thier songs, or who have changed the future of music (which is why the Beach Boys should probably be on your list, by the way). The reason I'd put Louie Armstrong on the list is that he effectively created the modern instrumental solo. No one really listens to his music any more, but he influenced multiple genres with his development of musical style. I just can't feel the same about, say, the Eagles. Good music, yes. Beethoven-like? No way. By the way, I'm pretty sure that Glass and Cage's music will be studied 300 years from now.
