• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Which Rock Star Will Historians Remember?

#122
hrodbert696 said:
But a lot of this misses the point. The question is not what rock and roll acts will still be popular 300 years later. That would be impossible to expect. The article makes the quite valid point that far-distant-future perceptions of our era's music will NOT be based on what was popular, but on what historians fixate on as "significant." It rightly points out that this is already happening, as bands like the Clash or the Ramones, who were never very popular, are already remembered as more important than artists who far outsold them. To some extent, it's impossible to predict what future intellectuals will think was significant, because they will choose based on a combination of the information available to them and the questions and preoccupations of their own times, which are impossible for us to predict.

When teaching survey courses, I DO at certain points talk about musicians of the past, particularly in the 19th century. I talk about Beethoven in the context of Romanticism and Chopin to talk about the emergence of popular culture (he was one of the first "celebrity" musicians to make his career before a ticket-buying public rather than wealthy patrons). I don't talk about either in much depth - there simply isn't time. Because I also need to talk about industrialization, urbanization, shifting gender roles, secularism, nationalism, etc etc. So I understand exactly what the article is getting at, the way that our awareness of past creativity tends to get boiled down to just a single exemplary creator or work.

Incidentally, you're way off in your characterization of how US (or any) history gets taught. That caricature of teachers is itself driven by modern political agendas. Slavery and westward expansion (at the expense of natives) do indeed play a prominent role in teaching US history, because they were indeed very important. But one also talks about federalism, populism, industrialization, religious revivalism, voluntarism, conspicuous consumption, labor organization, the growth of university culture, all kinds of things. History is not about labeling who the good guys and bad guys are, it's about understanding the dynamics that shape societies.



Agreed. That gets to the division between musicologists researching 20th century music and culture and those teaching it for students or talking about it before the general public. I think you're absolutely right that there's an interaction between them - the figure a teacher settles on to talk about will likely be the one that the most incisive and revealing piece of scholarship has been done on.

For instance, in teaching medieval Christianity, one might choose to talk about "spiritual" (i.e. celibate) marriages. There are only a few hundred such unions attested over the course of centuries in the medieval sources - they were by no means common or typical. But they embody such a distinctively medieval way of thinking and such interesting research has been done on the phenomenon, that they loom far larger in our teaching of medieval culture than their popularity would suggest.



I actually think that's a good nominee. Zappa would be the Van Gogh of Rock and Roll, the genius who was little-known in his own lifetime but that later scholars will have a ball writing about.
Click to expand...

My whole point was that I think exactly zero of it will be viewed as significant as evidenced by what is no longer viewed as significant in other aspects of history. I don't think Elvis or The Beatles will even be discussed at all by the youth of the year 2316. I don't think any will even get a passing mention. I think not one single artist of the 1900s will pass the lips of the vast majority of humans 300 years from now. In fact, history disappearing is happening faster and faster as each generation passes. I actually started a thread on it a few months ago. None of my children's generation will have any idea who John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Neil Young, Don Johnson, Carol O'Connor, or the Bee Gees are. Their names will never ever be read, seen or said by my children. They won't know who Magic Johnson, or David Ortiz is. There is simply too much "new" hitting them in the face every day that anything "not new" simply won't matter. So, if my children will never ever know who Kool and the Gang are, why would we believe ANYONE in the future will have any idea whatsoever who Elvis or The Beatles are?

"How we got here" will be a discussion for stuffed shirts in college staff lounges (and those "lounges" will be virtual). Nobody else will know or care. They won't give a crap about WWI, much less who started the musical British Invasion. Music won't sound the same. Our instruments will be seen as crude at best, savage at worst. Guitars will be seen as the equivalent of banging on rocks. So why would they even cared who "excelled" at it? Do we know who was the first person to become an effective sword sharpener? No, and we don't care. Historically speaking, the music of our day will be the same.

You see, some of our music is still influenced by the music of the Classical period (for example). But much of it is not. It is getting further and further from that style. The same is happening to modern music. It is getting further and further from Elvis and The Beatles. And as that influence dies out, so will the desire to study or remember it.

Of course, these are just my views. I can't see the future. And, of course, you guys will trot out the exceptions. Yes, there are a few youngsters who give a crap who James Taylor was......but not many. Most don't and won't care. They will never ever hear a song of his or say his name. And it's happening quickly. Their kids won't know or care who Journey or Michael Jackson is/was.....at all. They may hear "Don't Stop Believing" at a baseball game but that's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arbiterusa, cdef and the yeti
#126
two fingers said:
My whole point was that I think exactly zero of it will be viewed as significant as evidenced by what is no longer viewed as significant in other aspects of history. I don't think Elvis or The Beatles will even be discussed at all by the youth of the year 2316. I don't think any will even get a passing mention. I think not one single artist of the 1900s will pass the lips of the vast majority of humans 300 years from now. In fact, history disappearing is happening faster and faster as each generation passes. I actually started a thread on it a few months ago. None of my children's generation will have any idea who John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Neil Young, Don Johnson, Carol O'Connor, or the Bee Gees are. Their names will never ever be read, seen or said by my children. They won't know who Magic Johnson, or David Ortiz is. There is simply too much "new" hitting them in the face every day that anything "not new" simply won't matter. So, if my children will never ever know who Kool and the Gang are, why would we believe ANYONE in the future will have any idea whatsoever who Elvis or The Beatles are?

"How we got here" will be a discussion for stuffed shirts in college staff lounges (and those "lounges" will be virtual). Nobody else will know or care. They won't give a crap about WWI, much less who started the musical British Invasion. Music won't sound the same. Our instruments will be seen as crude at best, savage at worst. Guitars will be seen as the equivalent of banging on rocks. So why would they even cared who "excelled" at it? Do we know who was the first person to become an effective sword sharpener? No, and we don't care. Historically speaking, the music of our day will be the same.

You see, some of our music is still influenced by the music of the Classical period (for example). But much of it is not. It is getting further and further from that style. The same is happening to modern music. It is getting further and further from Elvis and The Beatles. And as that influence dies out, so will the desire to study or remember it.

Of course, these are just my views. I can't see the future. And, of course, you guys will trot out the exceptions. Yes, there are a few youngsters who give a crap who James Taylor was......but not many. Most don't and won't care. They will never ever hear a song of his or say his name. And it's happening quickly. Their kids won't know or care who Journey or Michael Jackson is/was.....at all. They may hear "Don't Stop Believing" at a baseball game but that's about it.
Click to expand...

I don't know who David Ortiz is...
 
#127
freddiemercury_wide-87fe276170b66db0ecec2002ea623a037ee6ecb2-s900-c85.jpg
 
#129
Yes, there are a few youngsters who give a crap who James Taylor was......but not many. Most don't and won't care. They will never ever hear a song of his or say his name. And it's happening quickly. Their kids won't know or care who Journey or Michael Jackson is/was.....at all.
Click to expand...

So of these are pretty country-specific. Ask most people of any age in the UK who James Taylor is and you'll get a blank look. Elvis, The Beatles, Beethoven have all transcended national boundaries.

People in the UK have little idea who Peter Frampton is and he's British. I had literally never heard of him before seeing him as a cartoon character on Family Guy.
 
#134
two fingers said:
My whole point was that I think exactly zero of it will be viewed as significant as evidenced by what is no longer viewed as significant in other aspects of history. I don't think Elvis or The Beatles will even be discussed at all by the youth of the year 2316. I don't think any will even get a passing mention. I think not one single artist of the 1900s will pass the lips of the vast majority of humans 300 years from now. In fact, history disappearing is happening faster and faster as each generation passes. I actually started a thread on it a few months ago. None of my children's generation will have any idea who John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Neil Young, Don Johnson, Carol O'Connor, or the Bee Gees are. Their names will never ever be read, seen or said by my children. They won't know who Magic Johnson, or David Ortiz is. There is simply too much "new" hitting them in the face every day that anything "not new" simply won't matter. So, if my children will never ever know who Kool and the Gang are, why would we believe ANYONE in the future will have any idea whatsoever who Elvis or The Beatles are?

"How we got here" will be a discussion for stuffed shirts in college staff lounges (and those "lounges" will be virtual). Nobody else will know or care. They won't give a crap about WWI, much less who started the musical British Invasion. Music won't sound the same. Our instruments will be seen as crude at best, savage at worst. Guitars will be seen as the equivalent of banging on rocks. So why would they even cared who "excelled" at it? Do we know who was the first person to become an effective sword sharpener? No, and we don't care. Historically speaking, the music of our day will be the same.

You see, some of our music is still influenced by the music of the Classical period (for example). But much of it is not. It is getting further and further from that style. The same is happening to modern music. It is getting further and further from Elvis and The Beatles. And as that influence dies out, so will the desire to study or remember it.

Of course, these are just my views. I can't see the future. And, of course, you guys will trot out the exceptions. Yes, there are a few youngsters who give a crap who James Taylor was......but not many. Most don't and won't care. They will never ever hear a song of his or say his name. And it's happening quickly. Their kids won't know or care who Journey or Michael Jackson is/was.....at all. They may hear "Don't Stop Believing" at a baseball game but that's about it.
Click to expand...


Point taken, and I agree in part. But what you say assumes that history is only held in the minds of the young. Kids are usually too interested in making history, or paying attention to what is new and current to care about what happened last week, it's the elders that are the ones that are reflecting upon history. I doubt there is a question regarding medieval history that @hrodbert696 couldn't answer, however, if you were to ask him the same question when he was 13... you get the picture.

I firmly believe that 20th century history will be a subject of interest in 300 years, provided our species isn't extinct or in another version of the dark ages. Rock and roll would absolutely be a part of the discussion, if only, as you say, to point out how primitive and arcane it is compared to their current experience of whatever they call music.

Anyway, I still say Little Richard.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Pyrat and hrodbert696
#137
Elvis, The Beatles and maybe Bob Dylan and Jimi Hendrix will be mentioned in footnotes on popular "rock" culture in the post-WWII "youth revolution", if not brushed out by totalitarian revisionist policies. But as said, nobody will really care.
 
Last edited:
#139
jwilson67 said:
The real question is will anybody even know what Rock Music was 300 years from now. Based on what is happening now "music" will be nothing more than monophonic electronic beats set to the image of dancing vaginas.
Click to expand...

What do people know now of 18th century music beyond Bach, Mozart and Beethoven? They bracket the entire century, so it would mean just three people to represent the whole of 20th century music. Elvis, Michael Jackson and Stravinsky? Elvis, Bernstein and Shostakovich? Stockhausen, Elvis and Kraftwerk? Gordy, Elvis and Kraftwerk? It's a tough call...
 
#140
Matt O said:
Interesting read in NYT.

300 years from now, who will be the face of 20th century rock and roll?

Who gets your vote? Author is leaning toward Chuck Berry or Dylan... or maybe the Sex Pistols.

Discuss.

Link: Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
I don't think the 24th century will remember anyone outside of classical/operatic music. Data could have listened to AC/DC, Jaco, or the Beach Boys. But instead, it's classical.



Ok, my actual suggestion: I bet you The Who will be remembered in 2365. I've met people who gave John Entwhistle major props for the work he did, despite not being bass players (or even musicians!) themselves. He did something right.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back