Which Rock Star Will Historians Remember?

[-Asdfgh-]

recognizing that if you wanted to understand real human experience, you had to study the things that were meaningful to real human beings, not just rarified classics produced for elites.

At school in the 70s and 80s we certainly learned about the ordinary medieval people and the oppression inherent in the system, as well as the names of kings and battles. Later we had the choice between 19th and 20th century social history and 20th century world history.

 

[troy mcclure]

Has to be The Bealtles

 

[Matt O]

Roll over, Beethoven. This post makes a huge and outdated assumption about how historical awareness works, that it's all about preserving Worthy Classics of Western Civilization that Garner the Admiration of Serious Old Men. That kind of thinking was largely jettisoned in historical scholarship starting in the 60s and 70s. People started taking an interest in ordinary people and marginal people, women and peasants and outsiders and such, who weren't part of the Canon of dead white males. Again, to use the example of medieval studies, it used to be the Middle Ages were about studying Charlemagne and Richard the Lion Hearted and Thomas Aquinas and Dante. We still study them, but we also study St. Guinefort and Margery Kempe and religious women who lived on the eucharist alone while their bodies exuded miraculous healing unguents from their pores. Umberto Eco, among others, led the charge here, recognizing that if you wanted to understand real human experience, you had to study the things that were meaningful to real human beings, not just rarified classics produced for elites.

I have to agree with this. The comparison rock/classical is problematic for a few reasons. One would be that classical music was the music of elites, and rock certainly is not. The vast majority of people lived and died not hearing a note of Beethoven or Bach in the era when those composers were active. Classical is infinitely more popular today than it was in past centuries. One reason it has sustained and grown an audience is because of its democratization through availability due to technology. While it does define certain aspects of the culture in which it was composed, it really doesn't speak broadly to human experience like folk music does. Rock is far more an evolutionary step in folk music than an offshoot of classical. I'm sure we could all agree on that. There are folk songs centuries old that are still sung today, the names of the composers have been long lost, however. The names of the rock composers have been recorded, so imagine thier compositions will be given proper credit.

Interesting how the article begins with Sousa, who we might say brought the orchestra outside to the people.

 

[BrentSimons]

I hope all of the members of Rush because they are just awesome.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Looking through the top 100, there seems to have been quite a bit of representation by The Bee Gees, and the Gibbs solo. Given that they wrote a lot for others too (e.g. Diana Ross) may be they will be remembered?

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Interesting how the article begins with Sousa, who we might say brought the orchestra outside to the people.

And then there is Rick Wakeman, who brought you rock opera on ice!

 

[Matt O]

And then there is Rick Wakeman, who brought you rock opera on ice!

Ack.

River Dance, what was that guy's name.

Don't tell me, I'm grateful for the ignorance at the moment!

 

[39-Bassist]

Well the "FACE" of rock in roll in 300 yrs.....hmmm......most likely Evis and The Beatles.....(they're not exactly Mozart or Beethoven) but the influences are there.

 

[Funky Ghost]

Fat's Domino in 1949 basically started this thing called rock n roll imo.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Ack.

River Dance, what was that guy's name.

Don't tell me, I'm grateful for the ignorance at the moment!

I'll give you three hints

__ Row the Boat Ashore

__ Scruggs

__ Marvin

 

[Matt O]

I'll give you three hints

__ Row the Boat Ashore

__ Scruggs

__ Marvin

You are eeeeevil.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

very, very few.

 

[Fat Freddy]

I'll give you three hints

__ Row the Boat Ashore

__ Scruggs

__ Marvin

And Don't Play____

 

[jacolyte]

 

[Jay2U]

Amongst many others, Lemmy, period!

 

[jacolyte]

Has to be The Bealtles

 

[hsech]

Beatles, Rolling Stones, Stevie Ray Vaughn

 

[stringtapper]

Correct. You are more knowledgeable than most. He had a very successful solo career in the early 20th century. My point is, how many people even know who he was and 100 years ago, he was the most well known singer of his time.

Now let's reel it back even further. Who was Niccolò Paganini?

If you hadn't gotten a music degree or taken a music history survey course then you probably would have never heard of him. Like Caruso, people who were known primarily as performers during their time are probably the first to be forgotten in popular culture because their primary impact came in the fleeting moments of performance. At least we have recordings of Caruso, so we have a more complete record of his impact, but all we have are stories of Paganini.

I guess that brings up the question of how the current "information culture" plays into what will be remembered. If everything after a certain point is being recorded and saved then how do we decide what is worth remembering? Or do we have to "remember" anything at all when we have so much data and material to refer to?

So then it comes down to not what will be remembered but rather what will be regarded as extraordinary and unique. By what criteria do we judge these things? As a music scholar I'd like to think it would depend on the work of specialists writing about music of the 20th Century and revealing, through analysis, the aspects of the music itself that makes it special. Of course pop culture memory probably doesn't hinge on the music itself as much as it does the social impact of the music, and I think that's an even bigger factor when it comes to how history will remember 20th Century pop music.

 

[Matt O]

Now let's reel it back even further. Who was Niccolò Paganini?

If you hadn't gotten a music degree or taken a music history survey course then you probably would have never heard of him. Like Caruso, people who were known primarily as performers during their time are probably the first to be forgotten in popular culture because their primary impact came in the fleeting moments of performance. At least we have recordings of Caruso, so we have a more complete record of his impact, but all we have are stories of Paganini.

I guess that brings up the question of how the current "information culture" plays into what will be remembered. If everything after a certain point is being recorded and saved then how do we decide what is worth remembering? Or do we have to "remember" anything at all when we have so much data and material to refer to?

So then it comes down to not what will be remembered but rather what will be regarded as extraordinary and unique. By what criteria do we judge these things? As a music scholar I'd like to think it would depend on the work of specialists writing about music of the 20th Century and revealing, through analysis, the aspects of the music itself that makes it special. Of course pop culture memory probably doesn't hinge on the music itself as much as it does the social impact of the music, and I think that's an even bigger factor when it comes to how history will remember 20th Century pop music.

I think this is exactly why Elvis may be largely forgotten. He was a performer, a hugely successful performer, but a performer none the less. The difference of course being that there are films and recordings of his performances, while the other forgottens just vanished after they left stage life.

 

[PluffMudQueen]

Who knows. They may not even have a concept of rock music 300 years from now. Definitely not Elvis. Rosetta Tharpe did way more for rock n roll.