Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Sorry!
Interesting theoretical question. I probably should read the article FWIW, but...
I am probably both more optimistic and less optimistic than many of you.
I am less optimistic, because the survival of our culture is premised on our survival. For perspective, 300 years ago, we were taking baby steps toward globalization; sailing around on the oceans, frequently getting lost and dying from scurvy, starvation, or any other ailment that was not understood and so was chalked up to divine intervention. We couldn't even locate longitude. Our population was a few percent of what we are today. Same planet different world. The music from that time survives because of the printing press, which was somewhat recently invented (ok, 150 years earlier). But, the point is that the music from that time survives in part because there is historical record. And, people like to play music; so, some of them keep playing it.
Fast forward to 2016. I'm sure some people think this planet is an infinite sink/source; but, it's not. Getting ourselves back into equilibrium with what is actually a very fragile biotic will require change. Change means some folks who currently "have" won't "have" any more, and we can all expect this will be resisted. Which means conflict. And at this point, conflict is a really big question; and I'll just leave it there. Except to say that we do know how to address some of these issues; but, we aren't doing much about it so far. And, I don't expect much to happen until there are no other choices. Ergo, the pessimism.
Meanwhile, popular music, which really started gathering steam after the Civil War, just keeps evolving. I did a paper in high school looking at parallels in the American Character and the evolution of Jazz; which is , of course, somewhat obvious, since popular music at any time reflects our culture. Which brings us to Rock, which has been a dominating influence for the past 60 years or so. We are now 3 years away from the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. I am absolutely certain Woodstock will occupy a spot in the historical narrative. And, it should. The factors which would seem to guarantee a spot in the historical narrative for Rock are mainly the wealth of historical record, which is far more sophisticated than our 1716 ancestors had. That and people continue to enjoy playing and listening to music. Amazing.
Enough rambling. If people are still around in 2316, I think history will recognize that a variety of rich cultural influences coalesced in a genre called Rock n Roll first performed by Chuck Berry, and that Elvis and the Beatles were subsequently important performers and composers. And that Woodstock happened. The latter being significant in our progress of global cultural exchange.
I am probably both more optimistic and less optimistic than many of you.
I am less optimistic, because the survival of our culture is premised on our survival. For perspective, 300 years ago, we were taking baby steps toward globalization; sailing around on the oceans, frequently getting lost and dying from scurvy, starvation, or any other ailment that was not understood and so was chalked up to divine intervention. We couldn't even locate longitude. Our population was a few percent of what we are today. Same planet different world. The music from that time survives because of the printing press, which was somewhat recently invented (ok, 150 years earlier). But, the point is that the music from that time survives in part because there is historical record. And, people like to play music; so, some of them keep playing it.
Fast forward to 2016. I'm sure some people think this planet is an infinite sink/source; but, it's not. Getting ourselves back into equilibrium with what is actually a very fragile biotic will require change. Change means some folks who currently "have" won't "have" any more, and we can all expect this will be resisted. Which means conflict. And at this point, conflict is a really big question; and I'll just leave it there. Except to say that we do know how to address some of these issues; but, we aren't doing much about it so far. And, I don't expect much to happen until there are no other choices. Ergo, the pessimism.
Meanwhile, popular music, which really started gathering steam after the Civil War, just keeps evolving. I did a paper in high school looking at parallels in the American Character and the evolution of Jazz; which is , of course, somewhat obvious, since popular music at any time reflects our culture. Which brings us to Rock, which has been a dominating influence for the past 60 years or so. We are now 3 years away from the 50th anniversary of Woodstock. I am absolutely certain Woodstock will occupy a spot in the historical narrative. And, it should. The factors which would seem to guarantee a spot in the historical narrative for Rock are mainly the wealth of historical record, which is far more sophisticated than our 1716 ancestors had. That and people continue to enjoy playing and listening to music. Amazing.
Enough rambling. If people are still around in 2316, I think history will recognize that a variety of rich cultural influences coalesced in a genre called Rock n Roll first performed by Chuck Berry, and that Elvis and the Beatles were subsequently important performers and composers. And that Woodstock happened. The latter being significant in our progress of global cultural exchange.
300 years from now? Nobody. Not a one. It's not a genre made to endure in the first place, and it won't. The music is simplistic and utterly forgettable. 20th/early 21st century music will simply be a giant black hole in history, assuming there's anyone left to study it or in a position to care. Which I very much doubt will be the case.
This isn't Beethoven, folks.
This isn't Beethoven, folks.
Also the only singer other than Roy Orbison who has been recorded regularly hitting the C over high C. Put's him in pretty good company.
Maybe someone should ask this guy next time he's in our time zone.
They may have sold more records, but they can't hold a candle to the rock and roll mystique surrounding The Rolling Stones.
I don't think its the stones - based on this more people know these acts
250 million or more records
Didn't reply to this earlier as I thought that just about everybody would know who Caruso was....
Did you just call me a geezer? I new the answer, and I'm no geezer. I'm only... oh, wait... never mind.
Someone mentioned his recording of Over There. I might actually have that recording. Need to fix the phonograph so I can crank it up and play it sometime.
The only two things I'd really disagree with there is I don't think Elvis wrote his material, AFAIK.
In the UK (I don't know about the USA) there was a pretty vibrant culture of songs in pubs and in the streets that did get recorded to some extent from the 17th century onwards, so I think there was some form of popular music, although whether you would call it popular or folk music I don't know. A lot of it doesn't conform to the finger-in-ear litany of sea shanties and bucolic if bawdy tales but is often more satirical and urban. Maybe that makes it a form of early punk
Wasn't me that mentioned Over There, must have been another of us geezers. I claim senior geezer status. Tomorrow I hit 73.
fretter's the one who mentioned it.
I'm not a senior geezer yet. More like an apprentice geezer (just turned 60).
Punk prior to Lonnie Donegan???....The mind boggles!The only two things I'd really disagree with there is I don't think Elvis wrote his material, AFAIK.
In the UK (I don't know about the USA) there was a pretty vibrant culture of songs in pubs and in the streets that did get recorded to some extent from the 17th century onwards, so I think there was some form of popular music, although whether you would call it popular or folk music I don't know, but a lot of it doesn't conform to the finger-in-ear litany of sea shanties and bucolic if bawdy tales but is often more satirical and urban. Maybe that makes it a form of early punk
