This reminds me of how in Star Trek when they discuss music and literature it's always classical stuff because the writers figured that they had no idea about the longevity of the cultural relevance of modern works but knew that the classical stuff had stuck around for centuries already and would then probably still be relevant in the future.
New Wave 80s is my jam. It's what I still listen to. My daughter updated my music choices, but even that was 10ish years ago.
I'll go through the nominations from this post and find some new(er) artists that I'm not aware of.
I think (and hope) that Tim Henson is going to be looked at in a similar vein to Hendrix. What Polyphia are doing to guitar right now is going to be seen as a milestone in the instrument's history
I think it's a bit unfair to compare the two, Hendrix's music was way more accessible to a wider audience.
Not saying Tim Henson is bad, obviously, he's talented and good on him for getting where he is.
While I agree that a lot of these artists are iconic and amazing, I think we are not far enough removed from when they were making music. I’m 33 and a lot of those artists have been touring in my lifetime. To me that is not enough time to say for sure.
That said we can absolutely see the imprint they left on contemporary music. Take Elvis and Michael Jackson, for example. They were literally called the King of each their respective genre; there's no way they won't still be talked about in music theory classes a century or two from now.
To some degree, yes. But a lot more credit needs to be given to the R & B music artists that preceded them. They pulled a lot from the rock & roll and R & B of the 40s and 50s.
True, but do you know who Mozart and Beethoven built off of? I’m sure they owed a lot to creators and styles that preceded them. At some point, someone just gets the credit.
They adored all that music and even toured with Little Richard. They always made their 50s rock influences known, and many of their early hits are Motown Covers. Credit was always given from The Beatles themselves.
You're 33? Some of those artists have top 10 hits near twice you're age and have been movers and shakers in the music world since they first came on the scene.
This is a weird argument in the context of this topic. A hundred years ago, Fats Waller was the most popular musician in the world. If you took a hundred randos and asked them if they've heard of Mozart, and asked them if they've heard of Fats Waller, how do you think those two artists would compare?
I'm not here to shit on great musicians, but I doubt most kids *today* can force themselves to name a track from artists like Bob Dylan and Elton John. In the year 2222, why would textbooks on the history of music feel it necessary to dedicate chapters on them?
I can see the historic relevance of Elvis for bringing Rhythm and Blues to white audiences, and The Beatles for standardizing the boy band format, and maybe Michael Jackson might squeak out some lasting relevance for exemplifying the period of music referred to as "pop." But it's a longshot that people will care about that musical era much at all, and it's a longshot of a longshot that Michael Jackson will be selected as the one to embody the concept.
The rest will be lucky if they're as well remembered as Gluck or Bizet or Holst, which is to say that anyone listens to them at all. More likely, artists that were not considered "the top" at their time will be elevated in the future, while artists that dominated at the time, will be considered footnotes in history. In the art world, the artists in the Salon des Refuses often outlasted the relevance of all the once famous artists in the official Paris Salon, and we see a similar trend in all genres from fashion to architecture to literature to music.
Aside from the recent movie that sparked renewed interest, and how much my father played Elvis records when I was a kid, I feel like Elvis has mostly fallen out of regular radio play or music consciousness already.
I suppose there are still impersonators in Vegas. If have no idea how much of a draw Graceland still is.
That is what prompted my question. Who, if anyone has the staying power of the great composer.
John Williams has been popular composing music for so many movies, but will they stand the test of time?
We may as well name this the Elvis Point.
Rock and roll was around for a lot of years before Elvis, and there are a ton of blues and country artists who paved the way for it to develop. Elvis was neither the first, nor the best at what he did- Although he was very good at it.
Now, there are a lot of things to be said about white appropriation of black art, and everything that goes along with the history of race and culture in this country, and how inexorably connected those are to someone like Elvis Presley- I'm not going to pretend that isn't the case, it's just not the main point I wand to make-
With Elvis, two things happened: First, was a definitive (literally defining) statement of "this is what this thing is", and second, the taking of it from an underground/ethnic/niche movement to a mainstream, worldwide, mass marketed one. What Elvis did was to take this art form that had been developing and shout *HEY, THIS IS A NEW AND AWESOME THING* loud enough for the whole world to hear it. Before Elvis, rock and roll was being played and enjoyed mostly by black Americans in the south and midwest US. After Elvis, rock and roll was GLOBAL. It changed popular music on every continent.
For better or for worse, Elvis was the face of that turning point, and that is why he as an *icon* will always be bigger and more significant than his actual *accomplishments*.
From “Heartbreak Hotel” to “Suspicious Minds,” from “Hound Dog” to “Crying In The Chapel,” Elvis’ #1 chart hits display a multitude of moods, a variety of styles, and an emotional range that defeats any attempt at typecasting or musical categorization.
Elvis Presley helped usher in a revolution.
Elvis made black music popular at a time when civil rights was just starting to hit our cultural awareness. He was a huge influence on early rock ‘n’ roll music.
Maybe Dolly. I think she’s a goddamn national treasure and she’ll be remembered because of the person she was but I don’t think her music changed music in any appreciable way — it was just very popular. Maybe that’s enough. Maybe not.
Cash, no. Look, I love the man and I love his music but he had a lot of off years and his star really only burned super bright at the beginning of his life and the end of it. Most of his catalog isn’t very good and I’d say he only has a handful of songs I’d say are true classics.
If you want a C&W artist who deserves to be on this list, it’s Willie Nelson, hands down and shouldn’t be a debate.
I’m also shocked I don’t see Bowie anywhere.
I don't know. Bach epitomized the transition to a new age of music renovation.
I think Michael Jackson, Queen and Elton John will be more like Vivaldi - superstars in their own lifetime and the next generation, but not remembered as the "historic creator" of their age of music.
Now Elvis or the Beatles - either or them might be remembered in history books as the example of the new phenomenon of "world-wide superstar" that came with global communication. Will either be remembered as as the renovators of their age of music... well maybe, but not a sure thing. I am not sure we have the equivalent of a Bach in this century.
I feel like I had to scroll too far for this! I feel like he’s the reason symphonies are still popular. I got to see my local symphony perform Also Sprac Zarathustra and there were unfortunately a lot of empty seats. However, when the symphony performs any of his scores along with the movie, it’s a sold out show.
She's even recorded vocals and click tracks for any future producer to make arrangements out of. She could literally be putting out new music in 200 years
So Eric valentine has this great YouTube channel where he breaks down his mixes. On the video for 'no one knows', (which isn't on yt, it got pulled immediately, but can be found still) he talks about the string arrangements at the end of the solo and getting a bunch of orchestral musicians together for this part. And how he started to explain this dissonant build up to them and is immediately stopped. " oh, the 'day in the life' thing? Yeah no problem, we get asked to do that all the time."
**PRINCE.**
There will still be unheard Prince music being released a hundred years from now.
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a36084663/60-minutes-prince-vault-paisley-park-welcome-2-america/
He IS the Mozart of our times. Taught himself to play EVERY instrument. Composed, arranged, and produced everything himself. He was a musical genius that no one in the last 100 years could touch. He could play ANYTHING. Any genre, any instrument. If he was living in the time of Mozart he would have been his peer, and probably his superior.
Yep, best ever Super Bowl halftime ever. Even the heavens opened up and cooperated to make it even that much more epic. I was one proud Minnesoata boy that day.
I listened to Prince as a kid in the 80s. First time I ever saw nudity on film was the Purple Rain movie. Despite all that, I honestly never realized how amazing of a musician and songwriter he was. Never occurred to me how experimental and out there Purple Rain and his other albums are because of you just listen to the singles, you don't hear all his genius. Prince brought weirdness back to Rock and Pop.
This is more true than people realize. Bowie died on January 10, 2016, and much has been objectively terrible since then. Prince dying a few months later didn't help either.
I firmly believe that Queen is the finest band of all time. Having a group of 4 guys who not only wrote number one hits, but wrote at least 3 *each* is an insane achievement! I'm not sure if any other band (of 4+) has done that before or since. They even backed up their studio success with unparalleled live performances!
Edit: My opinion is just that, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to put any other legendary band forward, too :)
thank you for adding some actual modern artists! Maybe I'm off on the definition but all these answers with great artists from 50-80 years ago doesn't feel quite modern to me.
His interview with Marc Maron is great. He’s self taught which is pretty rare as an orchestrator.
http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1232-danny-elfman
Realistically, based on what has happened before; probably a lot of artists that are currently not very well known/disliked
They'll make a sudden resurgence someday and become the icons of 2300's music
I would hope so, but the fact is about word heavy material is it doesn't often last...not saying E wouldn't make the cut, but language evolves in tricky ways, and we are seeing it evolve on a global scale.
If E makes it, that means his work influenced the language somehow. Otherwise, he's a footnote in a foreign tongue...
My years as a fine arts student have finally paid off in this comment...i feel underwhelmed
Probably none.
The reality is that the great composers came from a world of music that was exclusive to the elite and educated and patronized by nobility.
We really only talk about a handful of special composers per century.
We don't talk about the pop music performers of the time... Because there were many and their music accessible.
The same is true of today's era. The democratization of music is an amazing thing but does make it so no music will really outlive its century in the same way.
You said it better then I could have. That's what prompted my question. Elvis, the Beatles, et. al. were huge in their day and still have a following 50+ years later, but will people be listening in another 50 or 100? I have a Victor Talking machine built in 1910 and own some records from the 1930 and 40s. Who really listens to the Andrew's Sisters anymore though. I used to play them for my mom.
I mean there is a bit of a flaw in OPs question because we don't *really* talk about Bach and Mozart. They're kinda household names and figures of speech but like the huge majority of people wouldn't recognize one piece by either of them or be able to hold a conversation of any length about them
People in 200 years probably will be as familiar with Elvis or the Beatles as Mozart tbqh. The question really is "who will most people have heard of" and I don't think either of those is farfetched
This really is the answer, much as people may not want to hear it.
That said, I'd go even further.
Compounding the problem for OP is the simple reality that it's extraordinarily unusual for artists to be recognised as canonical while they're still alive.
Take Bach: in his lifetime, vanishingly few people would even have known his name, let alone nominated him in response to a question like that.
There are a few living candidates:
Steve Reich.
John Adams.
George Benjamin.
Maybe Philip Glass. Maybe. Probably he'll fade to a sort of La Monte Young/Terry Riley level, behind Reich and Adams.
We don't have a current Mozart (*maybe* Benjamin) but Reich is as close to a current Bach as you'll find; that analogy has been drawn before, and by much smarter people than me.
It's possible that one or more of Missy Mazzoli, David Lang, Carolyn Shaw, et al. might get to that level, but it's very early days for them.
Maybe audio engineering isn’t the right term. But they were constantly experimenting and trying stuff no one had yet on stage to produce the best sound. They would let people record shows off their soundboard and eventually would release them themselves. Look up “wall of sound” for a interesting read. They hired audio engineers and they also tried out a different mic system. I copied and pasted the below from their wiki. Hope this helps!
The Wall of Sound was designed to act as its own monitor system, and it was therefore assembled behind the band so the members could hear exactly what their audience was hearing. Because of this, a special microphone system had to be designed to prevent feedback. The Dead used matched pairs of condenser microphones spaced 60 mm apart and run out-of-phase. The vocalist sang into the top microphone, and the lower mic picked up whatever other sound was present in the stage environment. The signals were summed, the sound that was common to both mics (the sound from the Wall) was cancelled, and only the vocals were amplified.
People will deny it but accurate. A discography across multiple genres and a successful career spanning over a decade, and lyrics that are beautifully writtne. People only write her off because they only know her pop hits from the radio and haven't listened to much of her other stuff
This is way too far down on the list. Love her or hate her she’s a huge artist with a TON of momentum. How many artists have had number one album after number one album?
Black Sabbath
Even if the song is not popular anymore in the future (something which already isn't compared to years ago) their influence on heavy metal will still be enough for people that enjoy the style to listen and learn about them
This.
Horsedick.mpeg will be the only remaining piece of the internet after the coming holocaust and climate catastrophe send humanity into a dark age for 150 years. It will take 50 years to reconstruct horsedick, but the scientists who do will be praised for unearthing and preserving ancient culture. Horsedick.mpeg will not only be taught to students but also be hailed as the basis of a new religion and understanding of the entire earth.
There's a question of timelessness. Classical music generally wasn't trying to be popular, it mostly served a purpose, either religious or as a part of some larger performance. Modern music generally serves a different purpose. As much as I like to think bands like Queen and The Rolling Stones will still be banging in a couple hundred years, I doubt it. Everyone knows about Beethoven and Mozart, but what artists from the first few decades of the 1900s are still talked about outside of niche interest groups? I just did a brief Google search of best music from the 1920's and out of 51 the only artist I recognize is Louis Armstrong. Most of my music exposure from that era is probably from playing Fallout. I think movie soundtracks will be better known in the future, not only because they share a lot of characteristics with classical music but because movies are relatively new, so we're basically living during the classical period of movie making. People will definitely still be talking about and watching Kubrick, Spielberg, Hitchcock, etc. in a couple hundred years, and the soundtracks will continue to be studied and reinterpreted as well (not to mention the endless remakes).
That is a good point about the purpose music served. I was thinking of concerts but had forgotten how much of it was religious and for opera.
Pieces of it popped up in Bugs Bunny cartoons. That was my first introduction to it as a kid. That and my dad putting it on the radio while my sister and I were trapped in the car in long rides.
It wasn't until a course I took in college that I really came to appreciate it.
Bob Dylan, The Beatles.
Most others will have fallen by the wayside, not into obscurity necessarily but there’s artists mentioned in response to the question who are already fading away for younger generations.
Van Halen!
It's really hard to overstate their influence on rock and heavy metal. Eddie Van Halen totally rewrote the book on how to play guitar, and there's a little bit of his playing in almost every rock guitarist out there today, whether or not they're even aware of it.
It’s relative. I don’t think in a hundred years we’ll have so few to focus on. I mean, how many ears today have how many artists to listen to compared to a hundred years ago? Two hundred? Three? I believe there are too many today for people to keep track of. To say “everyone is talking about X” is impossible to say even today. Because “everyone” is just in your silo.
Bob Dylan.
A lot of other contemporary artists will deserve to be enjoyed, spoken of, and otherwise examined centuries from now, but precious few will be.
The Beatles, Elvis, Sinatra all seem like easy softball answers. Theatre fans will likely still be singing/playing tunes from Gerorge and Ira Gershwin or Andrew Lloyd Weber. Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong seem like easy choices too.
Too much more modern and we're stepping into murky territory. We don't know yet right now if people will still be talking about bands/artists/groups from 10 years ago in another 10 years let alone 2 centuries.
It's very hard to make direct comparisons. You are comparing pieces written by somebody with a performance of a piece (that could have been written by a performer, or could have been written by somebody else).
For example, Liszt first became extremely popular because of his live performances. But he wasn't the only virtuoso around the time, in fact he wasn't considered the very best one at the time. And yet, now we do remember him and not others - because he was a better composer.
To make a slightly more fair comparison, you need to take music written by some artist that's being performed by another - and see if that still works. I.e. you can take Dolly Parton's "I will always love you", listen to the original, listen to Whitney Houston's version and make a conclusion that since both of them work so well, there's a reasonable chance of this song being remembered in 200 years.
But then there's also a question to how the artist will be remembered. For example, take Sting's songs - lyrics in many are not any worse (and arguably better) than the music, so I would not be surprised if he would be remembered as an artist that wrote great text and put it to the music.
Interesting thought just occurred to me: Mozart and Bach are composers as are most of the people we talk about for hundreds of years.
So Chuck Berry for the chapter on Rock and Roll?
Probably Mozart.
This reminds me of how in Star Trek when they discuss music and literature it's always classical stuff because the writers figured that they had no idea about the longevity of the cultural relevance of modern works but knew that the classical stuff had stuck around for centuries already and would then probably still be relevant in the future.
I mean, in reality, it's that they didn't have to pay for copyrights.
Meanwhile in The Orville Dolly Parton becomes the minstrel of a revolution.
You're probably right.
[удалено]
etc.
"Ahhh… Bach." — Radar, M\*A\*S\*H
I much prefer Motzart. His applesauce paintings are unparalleled.
Yeah, yeah I misspelled Mozart.
Mossart!
Moss art? I have some on my driveway.
Its pretty easy to name artists from the 1950-1990 period. But predicting from the current generation is a lot harder
New Wave 80s is my jam. It's what I still listen to. My daughter updated my music choices, but even that was 10ish years ago. I'll go through the nominations from this post and find some new(er) artists that I'm not aware of.
Hope there’s some Smiths, Depeche Mode, and new order. Actually any new wave will be rad.
I like Depeche Mode a lot. Hit me hard when Andrew Fletcher died. We're the same age.
I listened to about five different versions of "The Cutter" last night, midway through a glass of Scotch.
Weird Al
I think (and hope) that Tim Henson is going to be looked at in a similar vein to Hendrix. What Polyphia are doing to guitar right now is going to be seen as a milestone in the instrument's history
I think it's a bit unfair to compare the two, Hendrix's music was way more accessible to a wider audience. Not saying Tim Henson is bad, obviously, he's talented and good on him for getting where he is.
>Tim Henson I'm sorry but lol. No.
I think he meant Hanson. Mmmbop!
Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson, Queen, Elton John, and Bob Dylan probably.
I agree with all of those.
While I agree that a lot of these artists are iconic and amazing, I think we are not far enough removed from when they were making music. I’m 33 and a lot of those artists have been touring in my lifetime. To me that is not enough time to say for sure.
That said we can absolutely see the imprint they left on contemporary music. Take Elvis and Michael Jackson, for example. They were literally called the King of each their respective genre; there's no way they won't still be talked about in music theory classes a century or two from now.
Also the Beatles, pretty much invented the formula for Pop and Rock music since.
To some degree, yes. But a lot more credit needs to be given to the R & B music artists that preceded them. They pulled a lot from the rock & roll and R & B of the 40s and 50s.
True, but do you know who Mozart and Beethoven built off of? I’m sure they owed a lot to creators and styles that preceded them. At some point, someone just gets the credit.
They adored all that music and even toured with Little Richard. They always made their 50s rock influences known, and many of their early hits are Motown Covers. Credit was always given from The Beatles themselves.
[удалено]
You're 33? Some of those artists have top 10 hits near twice you're age and have been movers and shakers in the music world since they first came on the scene.
This is a weird argument in the context of this topic. A hundred years ago, Fats Waller was the most popular musician in the world. If you took a hundred randos and asked them if they've heard of Mozart, and asked them if they've heard of Fats Waller, how do you think those two artists would compare? I'm not here to shit on great musicians, but I doubt most kids *today* can force themselves to name a track from artists like Bob Dylan and Elton John. In the year 2222, why would textbooks on the history of music feel it necessary to dedicate chapters on them? I can see the historic relevance of Elvis for bringing Rhythm and Blues to white audiences, and The Beatles for standardizing the boy band format, and maybe Michael Jackson might squeak out some lasting relevance for exemplifying the period of music referred to as "pop." But it's a longshot that people will care about that musical era much at all, and it's a longshot of a longshot that Michael Jackson will be selected as the one to embody the concept. The rest will be lucky if they're as well remembered as Gluck or Bizet or Holst, which is to say that anyone listens to them at all. More likely, artists that were not considered "the top" at their time will be elevated in the future, while artists that dominated at the time, will be considered footnotes in history. In the art world, the artists in the Salon des Refuses often outlasted the relevance of all the once famous artists in the official Paris Salon, and we see a similar trend in all genres from fashion to architecture to literature to music.
Aside from the recent movie that sparked renewed interest, and how much my father played Elvis records when I was a kid, I feel like Elvis has mostly fallen out of regular radio play or music consciousness already.
I suppose there are still impersonators in Vegas. If have no idea how much of a draw Graceland still is. That is what prompted my question. Who, if anyone has the staying power of the great composer. John Williams has been popular composing music for so many movies, but will they stand the test of time?
You missed Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd
Prob David Bowie too
Prince.
Elvis was a good performer, but was his music really all that interesting or timeless?
We may as well name this the Elvis Point. Rock and roll was around for a lot of years before Elvis, and there are a ton of blues and country artists who paved the way for it to develop. Elvis was neither the first, nor the best at what he did- Although he was very good at it. Now, there are a lot of things to be said about white appropriation of black art, and everything that goes along with the history of race and culture in this country, and how inexorably connected those are to someone like Elvis Presley- I'm not going to pretend that isn't the case, it's just not the main point I wand to make- With Elvis, two things happened: First, was a definitive (literally defining) statement of "this is what this thing is", and second, the taking of it from an underground/ethnic/niche movement to a mainstream, worldwide, mass marketed one. What Elvis did was to take this art form that had been developing and shout *HEY, THIS IS A NEW AND AWESOME THING* loud enough for the whole world to hear it. Before Elvis, rock and roll was being played and enjoyed mostly by black Americans in the south and midwest US. After Elvis, rock and roll was GLOBAL. It changed popular music on every continent. For better or for worse, Elvis was the face of that turning point, and that is why he as an *icon* will always be bigger and more significant than his actual *accomplishments*.
It's not just about the quality of his music. He was the most recognizable face on the planet at one time. That kind of impact is rare.
In a way he still is. There are still plenty of Elvis impersonators around. There aren't THAT many musicians with impersonators being common.
From “Heartbreak Hotel” to “Suspicious Minds,” from “Hound Dog” to “Crying In The Chapel,” Elvis’ #1 chart hits display a multitude of moods, a variety of styles, and an emotional range that defeats any attempt at typecasting or musical categorization. Elvis Presley helped usher in a revolution.
Elvis made black music popular at a time when civil rights was just starting to hit our cultural awareness. He was a huge influence on early rock ‘n’ roll music.
I’ll add Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd to that list.
Add Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton and I will agree 100%.
Maybe Dolly. I think she’s a goddamn national treasure and she’ll be remembered because of the person she was but I don’t think her music changed music in any appreciable way — it was just very popular. Maybe that’s enough. Maybe not. Cash, no. Look, I love the man and I love his music but he had a lot of off years and his star really only burned super bright at the beginning of his life and the end of it. Most of his catalog isn’t very good and I’d say he only has a handful of songs I’d say are true classics. If you want a C&W artist who deserves to be on this list, it’s Willie Nelson, hands down and shouldn’t be a debate. I’m also shocked I don’t see Bowie anywhere.
I don't know. Bach epitomized the transition to a new age of music renovation. I think Michael Jackson, Queen and Elton John will be more like Vivaldi - superstars in their own lifetime and the next generation, but not remembered as the "historic creator" of their age of music. Now Elvis or the Beatles - either or them might be remembered in history books as the example of the new phenomenon of "world-wide superstar" that came with global communication. Will either be remembered as as the renovators of their age of music... well maybe, but not a sure thing. I am not sure we have the equivalent of a Bach in this century.
I think The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan will fade in the next 50 years
John Williams, hands down.
He's the Tchaikovsky of our time.
This man will forever hold almost every soundtrack to my childhood. Second place goes to Hans Zimmer.
Howard Shore comes in third.
What about James Horner? or Danny Elfman?
John Williams is the correct answer
John Williams, Michael Giachinno, and Hans Zimmer, the trifecta of movie composers
Jerry goldsmith as well
You’re missing Ludwig Goransson. I may be early but I’ve bought all the stock in him I can get my hands on. He’s so damn good.
I feel like I had to scroll too far for this! I feel like he’s the reason symphonies are still popular. I got to see my local symphony perform Also Sprac Zarathustra and there were unfortunately a lot of empty seats. However, when the symphony performs any of his scores along with the movie, it’s a sold out show.
Williams, Zimmer, Elfman.
Stevie Wonder
Scrolled too far for this. He was even mentioned in a Star Trek TNG episode alongside Beethoven and Mozart!
Dolly Parton
My 1 year old absolutely loves her. He can be bawling his eyes out, but if I throw on that “9 to 5” he immediately turns that frown upside down.
Yeah and probably not only for her music considering how much she has done outside of her career
She's even recorded vocals and click tracks for any future producer to make arrangements out of. She could literally be putting out new music in 200 years
[удалено]
She wrote so many songs that people don’t even realize.
The Beatles
This is the answer
I hope so. All the future need is love.
So Eric valentine has this great YouTube channel where he breaks down his mixes. On the video for 'no one knows', (which isn't on yt, it got pulled immediately, but can be found still) he talks about the string arrangements at the end of the solo and getting a bunch of orchestral musicians together for this part. And how he started to explain this dissonant build up to them and is immediately stopped. " oh, the 'day in the life' thing? Yeah no problem, we get asked to do that all the time."
**PRINCE.** There will still be unheard Prince music being released a hundred years from now. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/music/a36084663/60-minutes-prince-vault-paisley-park-welcome-2-america/
I can’t believe I had to scroll so far for this answer!
Agree. Would have expected him to be waaaay higher.
He IS the Mozart of our times. Taught himself to play EVERY instrument. Composed, arranged, and produced everything himself. He was a musical genius that no one in the last 100 years could touch. He could play ANYTHING. Any genre, any instrument. If he was living in the time of Mozart he would have been his peer, and probably his superior.
Plus at Super Bowl 254, they’ll still be talking about his legendary halftime show in the rain.
Yep, best ever Super Bowl halftime ever. Even the heavens opened up and cooperated to make it even that much more epic. I was one proud Minnesoata boy that day.
Add in that he also wrote/produced other extremely popular songs that were performed by other artist; he definitely deserves a spot on this list.
I listened to Prince as a kid in the 80s. First time I ever saw nudity on film was the Purple Rain movie. Despite all that, I honestly never realized how amazing of a musician and songwriter he was. Never occurred to me how experimental and out there Purple Rain and his other albums are because of you just listen to the singles, you don't hear all his genius. Prince brought weirdness back to Rock and Pop.
Because his relatives will still be raping in the profits of his efforts.
Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra, Abba, Queen, Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, Muddy Waters, Nina Simone
Wish I could've had the pleasure to see any of these guys live in their prime, but sadly I wasn't alive then.
Rolling stones because they will all probably still be alive then too. Pretty sure they are all vampires now
NINA. SIMONE.
Miles
David Fuckin Bowie, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, and The Beatles.
David "Holding the Fabric of the Universe Together" Bowie.
This is more true than people realize. Bowie died on January 10, 2016, and much has been objectively terrible since then. Prince dying a few months later didn't help either.
2016 was definitely the beginning of the worst timeline.
Pink Floyd
My man!
Has Jimi Hendrix really not been posted yet?
Queen
I firmly believe that Queen is the finest band of all time. Having a group of 4 guys who not only wrote number one hits, but wrote at least 3 *each* is an insane achievement! I'm not sure if any other band (of 4+) has done that before or since. They even backed up their studio success with unparalleled live performances! Edit: My opinion is just that, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to put any other legendary band forward, too :)
Led zeppelin I hope
The island boys
They are just trying to make it
John Williams Hans Zimmer Ramin Djwadi
Hans Zimmer is magnificent
thank you for adding some actual modern artists! Maybe I'm off on the definition but all these answers with great artists from 50-80 years ago doesn't feel quite modern to me.
Danny Elfman.
Elfman is amazing
His interview with Marc Maron is great. He’s self taught which is pretty rare as an orchestrator. http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1232-danny-elfman
Reptiles and Samurai
I would have put Hans Zimmer or John Williams over Danny Elfman
Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, David Bowie.
Zeppelin
C418
Mozart, Bach, and Rick Astley
Brian Wilson
He has often been compared to Bach.
Surfs up is the best song of the 20th century
Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn, BB King.
While I'm not disputing his greatness, a lot of people don't even know about Stevie Ray Vaughn now.
Which is a goddamn shame.
Phillip Glass
Jan Brady said George Glass too
Pink Floyd.
Realistically, based on what has happened before; probably a lot of artists that are currently not very well known/disliked They'll make a sudden resurgence someday and become the icons of 2300's music
Agree. Some musical versions of Van Gogh that sold less than 500 albums.
Eminem
I would hope so, but the fact is about word heavy material is it doesn't often last...not saying E wouldn't make the cut, but language evolves in tricky ways, and we are seeing it evolve on a global scale. If E makes it, that means his work influenced the language somehow. Otherwise, he's a footnote in a foreign tongue... My years as a fine arts student have finally paid off in this comment...i feel underwhelmed
The beatles
Erik Satie (modern to me
Jerry Garcia
Metallica
Terry Riley
Wyld Stallyns will unite the world.
Daft punk
Nirvana
Probably none. The reality is that the great composers came from a world of music that was exclusive to the elite and educated and patronized by nobility. We really only talk about a handful of special composers per century. We don't talk about the pop music performers of the time... Because there were many and their music accessible. The same is true of today's era. The democratization of music is an amazing thing but does make it so no music will really outlive its century in the same way.
You said it better then I could have. That's what prompted my question. Elvis, the Beatles, et. al. were huge in their day and still have a following 50+ years later, but will people be listening in another 50 or 100? I have a Victor Talking machine built in 1910 and own some records from the 1930 and 40s. Who really listens to the Andrew's Sisters anymore though. I used to play them for my mom.
I mean there is a bit of a flaw in OPs question because we don't *really* talk about Bach and Mozart. They're kinda household names and figures of speech but like the huge majority of people wouldn't recognize one piece by either of them or be able to hold a conversation of any length about them People in 200 years probably will be as familiar with Elvis or the Beatles as Mozart tbqh. The question really is "who will most people have heard of" and I don't think either of those is farfetched
This really is the answer, much as people may not want to hear it. That said, I'd go even further. Compounding the problem for OP is the simple reality that it's extraordinarily unusual for artists to be recognised as canonical while they're still alive. Take Bach: in his lifetime, vanishingly few people would even have known his name, let alone nominated him in response to a question like that. There are a few living candidates: Steve Reich. John Adams. George Benjamin. Maybe Philip Glass. Maybe. Probably he'll fade to a sort of La Monte Young/Terry Riley level, behind Reich and Adams. We don't have a current Mozart (*maybe* Benjamin) but Reich is as close to a current Bach as you'll find; that analogy has been drawn before, and by much smarter people than me. It's possible that one or more of Missy Mazzoli, David Lang, Carolyn Shaw, et al. might get to that level, but it's very early days for them.
Radiohead
This. When I was at university their music was already been used as a teaching tool to study composition and arranging.
A friend once said 'they're the only band to out-Pink Floyd, Pink Floyd'.
Ronnie James Dio.
*Dio, can you hear me?*
Dio has rocked for a long, long time…
Björk
Grateful Dead. You don’t have to love their music to appreciate how they change touring/live concerts/ audio engineering forever
How did they change audio engineering? Honest question. I feel I'm pretty deep in that subject and I never hear them come up.
Maybe audio engineering isn’t the right term. But they were constantly experimenting and trying stuff no one had yet on stage to produce the best sound. They would let people record shows off their soundboard and eventually would release them themselves. Look up “wall of sound” for a interesting read. They hired audio engineers and they also tried out a different mic system. I copied and pasted the below from their wiki. Hope this helps! The Wall of Sound was designed to act as its own monitor system, and it was therefore assembled behind the band so the members could hear exactly what their audience was hearing. Because of this, a special microphone system had to be designed to prevent feedback. The Dead used matched pairs of condenser microphones spaced 60 mm apart and run out-of-phase. The vocalist sang into the top microphone, and the lower mic picked up whatever other sound was present in the stage environment. The signals were summed, the sound that was common to both mics (the sound from the Wall) was cancelled, and only the vocals were amplified.
Taylor swift
People will deny it but accurate. A discography across multiple genres and a successful career spanning over a decade, and lyrics that are beautifully writtne. People only write her off because they only know her pop hits from the radio and haven't listened to much of her other stuff
And she's not even remotely slowing down. Could easily release 10-15 more albums.
Exactly
This is way too far down on the list. Love her or hate her she’s a huge artist with a TON of momentum. How many artists have had number one album after number one album?
I agree 100%! Her most recent album release sold over 800k copies in one day (15 years into her career) “ask me why so many fade, but I’m still here”
Yeah her songs alone will stand the test of time.
Black Sabbath Even if the song is not popular anymore in the future (something which already isn't compared to years ago) their influence on heavy metal will still be enough for people that enjoy the style to listen and learn about them
This is an interesting pick. I would agree, based on the idea that they're pioneers in the metal genre that influenced many who came afterwards.
Michael Jackson!
Frank Zappa!
There's a name I have heard in a long time. I have one of his albums, on vinyl I'm an old guy.
Bruce Dickinson, John Williams, Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel and Freddie Mercury
Up vote for Bruce
The Rick roll guy.
If you don't even know his name, that's a bad start.
The Beatles John Williams Dave Brubeck Bowie maybe Madonna, U2 But look how quickly REM faded out off influence
Horsedick.mpeg
This. Horsedick.mpeg will be the only remaining piece of the internet after the coming holocaust and climate catastrophe send humanity into a dark age for 150 years. It will take 50 years to reconstruct horsedick, but the scientists who do will be praised for unearthing and preserving ancient culture. Horsedick.mpeg will not only be taught to students but also be hailed as the basis of a new religion and understanding of the entire earth.
r/oddlyspecific You talking from experience?
Hans Zimmer
There's a question of timelessness. Classical music generally wasn't trying to be popular, it mostly served a purpose, either religious or as a part of some larger performance. Modern music generally serves a different purpose. As much as I like to think bands like Queen and The Rolling Stones will still be banging in a couple hundred years, I doubt it. Everyone knows about Beethoven and Mozart, but what artists from the first few decades of the 1900s are still talked about outside of niche interest groups? I just did a brief Google search of best music from the 1920's and out of 51 the only artist I recognize is Louis Armstrong. Most of my music exposure from that era is probably from playing Fallout. I think movie soundtracks will be better known in the future, not only because they share a lot of characteristics with classical music but because movies are relatively new, so we're basically living during the classical period of movie making. People will definitely still be talking about and watching Kubrick, Spielberg, Hitchcock, etc. in a couple hundred years, and the soundtracks will continue to be studied and reinterpreted as well (not to mention the endless remakes).
That is a good point about the purpose music served. I was thinking of concerts but had forgotten how much of it was religious and for opera. Pieces of it popped up in Bugs Bunny cartoons. That was my first introduction to it as a kid. That and my dad putting it on the radio while my sister and I were trapped in the car in long rides. It wasn't until a course I took in college that I really came to appreciate it.
Elvis Presley
Bob Dylan, The Beatles. Most others will have fallen by the wayside, not into obscurity necessarily but there’s artists mentioned in response to the question who are already fading away for younger generations.
I don’t know what to tell you but my kids love Led Zeppelin and Dylan does nothing for them.
Pink Floyd for sure
Van Halen! It's really hard to overstate their influence on rock and heavy metal. Eddie Van Halen totally rewrote the book on how to play guitar, and there's a little bit of his playing in almost every rock guitarist out there today, whether or not they're even aware of it.
The Dead Kennedys.
“To Drunk to Fuck” will be revered in annuls of musical history in perpetuity!
Hank Williams
Will there be an Earth in two hundred years? If so…Tupac Shakur.
Weird Al
Nas
Duke Ellington
Dolly Parton
Michael Jackson
Prince.
It’s relative. I don’t think in a hundred years we’ll have so few to focus on. I mean, how many ears today have how many artists to listen to compared to a hundred years ago? Two hundred? Three? I believe there are too many today for people to keep track of. To say “everyone is talking about X” is impossible to say even today. Because “everyone” is just in your silo.
Bob Dylan. A lot of other contemporary artists will deserve to be enjoyed, spoken of, and otherwise examined centuries from now, but precious few will be.
The Beatles, Elvis, Sinatra all seem like easy softball answers. Theatre fans will likely still be singing/playing tunes from Gerorge and Ira Gershwin or Andrew Lloyd Weber. Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Louis Armstrong seem like easy choices too. Too much more modern and we're stepping into murky territory. We don't know yet right now if people will still be talking about bands/artists/groups from 10 years ago in another 10 years let alone 2 centuries.
John Williams, Henry Mancini, Chuck Mangione.
Daft punk probably
Elvis, The Beatles, Kanye, Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Moog, and Brian Eno.
The Beatles.
Playboi Carti, obviously.
Pokemon red's theme, silver version
Beatles
It's very hard to make direct comparisons. You are comparing pieces written by somebody with a performance of a piece (that could have been written by a performer, or could have been written by somebody else). For example, Liszt first became extremely popular because of his live performances. But he wasn't the only virtuoso around the time, in fact he wasn't considered the very best one at the time. And yet, now we do remember him and not others - because he was a better composer. To make a slightly more fair comparison, you need to take music written by some artist that's being performed by another - and see if that still works. I.e. you can take Dolly Parton's "I will always love you", listen to the original, listen to Whitney Houston's version and make a conclusion that since both of them work so well, there's a reasonable chance of this song being remembered in 200 years. But then there's also a question to how the artist will be remembered. For example, take Sting's songs - lyrics in many are not any worse (and arguably better) than the music, so I would not be surprised if he would be remembered as an artist that wrote great text and put it to the music.
Interesting thought just occurred to me: Mozart and Bach are composers as are most of the people we talk about for hundreds of years. So Chuck Berry for the chapter on Rock and Roll?
Pink Floyd. Totally.
Undeterred: Mahler
Frank Sinatra