I started thinking about this the other day. Do you think any artists from the say 1950 to the present day will ever be as revered as say Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven? Will there be a day that Nirvana will be viewed the same way we view the Beatles (just to give an example)
I don't think there is any way, or value to be blunt, to answer this correctly. Bands like The Beatles and Nirvana weren't really viewed as visionaries, or pioneers, or really anything beyond the new "thing" during their time. Heck, the year Abbey Road came out, Sugar, Sugar was the #1 song. Everyone ragged on Paul McCartney's solo music as the worst thing ever made. And people thought Beatles For Sale was going to mark their downfall. People familiar with Grunge knew that Nirvana was nothing special, they were just a streamlined and radio-friendly Mudhoney. The real visionaries like Mother Love Bone, Tad, and The Melvins never achieved near the level of fame. Similarly, a lot of the "trailblazing" The Beatles were credited with had been done by Zappa beforehand. Remember, Freak Out! came out before Sgt. Peppers. And to take it back even further, the common people weren't listening to Mozart or Beethoven, that was the music of the very upper crust of society. The common people were more likely to be entertained by local minstrels or vaudevilles (which admittedly Mozart did participate a in a bit). But because there was so much money thrown at Mozart and Beethoven their works survived and were preserved. This isn't to say they aren't amazing and groundbreaking artists, but they were a huge outlier in a world of a very different kind of music. "Classical" (to keep it simple) was never the common and general style of music. So which artists will be remembered? The most popular who can be easily tagged onto a movement. I love Kanye, but I imagine he'll be tagged onto the Alternative Hip-Hop movement that toppled Gangsta Rap in the early 00's. He didn't necessarily trailblaze, but he was original, fresh, and most importantly, insanely popular. Similarly, Jack White, while not really doing anything new or very special, will likely be tagged as popularizing the Garage Rock revival. tl;dr: it comes down to a combination of popularity and timing. If you're popular enough at the coming tide of a new sound, you'll be remembered.
'Nother thing about Kanye was that he made it cool to be a sensitive rapper in a male, misogynistic, violent genre of music. Without Kanye, there'd be no Gambino, and the other artists that followed. That being said, while Kanye will forever be immortalized in hiphop, JayZ will probably be remembered in future generations by more than just intense hiphop listeners. I also vote Michael Jackson.
Michael Jackson and Prince without a doubt. And you're definitely on point with Kanye, emotional rappers like Drake and Kid Cudi, may've been doing it at the same time, but definitely wouldn't've been so popular without Kanye. Even with the ego, he showed an emotional, insecure, and hypocritical side that a lot of rappers would've avoided. Personally, I love both styles, but I probably wouldn't've gotten into the genre without his influence. I also agree with Jay-Z, with the only stipulation being that his spotty discography may be a bit of a black mark. However, The Who and Queen have atrocious discographies and they're still remembered fondly.
Agreed on Mike oh and Prince. Edit: added oh and Prince.
Honest question: Why do people enjoy Kanye? I really like Gambino, but I just can't take Kanye seriously when his lyrics include "I Am A God, Hurry up with my damn massage ... hurry up with my damn croissants". Maybe that's the point and I'm just missing it?
Shit is smart, yo. It's not always smart and it's not always good. But I think that's part of the hook. I also think a lot of young African American men may feel like they are able to relate to Kanye. This is a shot in the dark however as I fit only the descriptor of "young" above and cannot expect to accurately know the experience of this collective group of people or its members. "Oh my god is that a black card?" "I turned around and replied "Why yes, but I prefer the term African American Express"
Thank you for your response, and I didn't even think about the common folk of the past not having access to artists like Mozart. I think that has a lot to do with the "disposable" nature of music today. Anyone from a millionaire to a poor college student has access to such a vast variety of artists, that things are only "popular" for about a month, then forgotten. (Gagnam style for example)
I would almost argue that music of their time was even more disposable, just in a different way. The common artists had no way to record, and usually didn't have the education to write it down. So music lived and thrived in a live setting, but could then be forgotten. As much as I love music and the physical medium, something about that just seems so special. Every performance is different and original, and definitely improvised upon. It's been awhile since my music theory and music history classes, but we had an extensive portion on secular music during medieval and renassaince times, and it was so different; the sound was really more comparable to Bluegrass or squaredancing. Although, I dunno, I'm iffy on big picture questions about art, like this. It's fun to discuss and analyze, but I'm also afraid it will color people's opinions more than it should. In the end, it doesn't matter if an artist is a trailblazer or totally disposable, if it's entertaining or it speaks to you, it's important. I don't mind my CD case having Chopin's complete works sit next to Katy Perry's Prism. They both have their own place and importance, and I wouldn't give up either. EDIT: To clarify, I think beyond analyzing certain trends, art is much better discussed on an individual basis. I don't like terms like "disposable" because they can so easily invalidate the opinion of someone whom that song deeply touched, silly as it may seem.
Yeah man I totally get what you're saying, something disposable to me may be a most coveted artist by another. I happen to love anything, and to use your example, dont mind my Cannibal Corpse album followed by my Johnny Cash album, followed by my Deadmau5 album. It is a personal thing.
That is what I miss the most about having a physical media for music. 33,000 songs on an iPod is cool, but staring at a wall of CDs/Vinyl just has this majestic nature to it.
Moving was a bitch, but I'm glad I kept them. 4 bookcases of CDs, a rack of tapes, and several milk crates of vinyl make my favorite room in the house. I just wish I could afford a decent speaker setup beyond an old guitar amp... And hey, at least you can organize your iTunes and make it all pretty! Physical media aside, I spent a week doing that and am so glad I did.
>old guitar amp... Haha, I've been there. I think speaker set up also has a lot to do with situation. When I have a cook out at home, I have an old crappy mono speaker radio on my deck. The quality sucks, but the tinny crackle of the speaker, while enjoying a beer, and grilling some food just sets the mood perfectly. I also have a $330 Sony speaker system inside, so when I want to hear the whole piece, I still can.
Our house has a pretty open floor plan, so I've got the amp set in an end table (which it fits snug in, thankfully) with an old 100-disc CD changer and tape deck on top of it in our living room. My wife and I will load up the CD player (25 mine, 25 her, and so on) and let it play all day. The sound quality isn't bad, but it'll be so nice when we can finally get a real speaker setup. Someday, but it's hard to reconcile A) less music, better sound or B) more music, the sound we're used to. I'm not great with money.
That is a tough one, but I think I'd go with option B.
>Now I just need the audio cable replaced for the 3rd time on my record player. Damn rabbit. Kids too man. I built a $2100 laptop, only to have my 2 year old son at the time think it was a good idea to grab my large cup of orange juice all over it.
Oof, thankfully our 1-month old isn't quite a hellion yet. But this rabbit has caused us to replace 7 phone chargers, a hair straightener, several video game cords, 2 alarm clocks, and who knows what else in the past year. Seriously, never get a rabbit without severely bunny-proofing your house. Thankfully we learned.
Luckily I can't own any rodent due to the smell driving my pet python crazy, but the cat has a good time with all of my cords too. Congrats on the new baby!
Our cat goes crazy hunting down the rabbit, but thankfully he's a Flemish Giant, so he can take the cat. And thanks!
Holy shit! If I saw that thing I'd definitely think twice, as a human!
Erykah Badu Coltrane Thelonious Monk u Morton Feldman Benjamin Britain John Adams Pere Ubu NWA Nas RZA Jay-z Miles Davis Albert Ayler Ike Turner Buddy Holly Billie Holiday Elizabeth Cotton Maybelle Carter John Fahey And a few others.
Out with thenewgreen and ecib recently, we had a lively discussion with a few others about "What has been the most influential band from the US?". Of course, there is no correct answer. However, once NWA was suggested, we couldn't think of a band that could top them.
Some artists contain universes. In 1984 hip hop was kinda silly break dance music then it wasn't.
Well it did start as party music. But to discredit party music as mindless is too hurtful to the genre. Basically, Hip-Hop's instrumental origins come from DJs taking the "break" or the instrumental rhythm part, and repeating them, crossfading them with other song's breaks, and adding turntable tricks along the way. The lyrics in this case came from the DJ announcing moves to the breakdancers. This had a lot of importance because breakdancing was seen as a way of expressing and getting rid of aggression, rather than through violent means. These blockparties were an important part of the culture and of breaking down tension. This was eventually mixed with Hip-Hop's vocal influence: poets like Gil-Scott Heron and America's take on the Jamaican art of "toasting" as popularized by Bootsy Collins and Bob Dylan. When these two forms combined, that's when the New School Of Hip-Hop really formed, where artists like Run-DMC and LL Cool J took both aspects and combined them into a completely new sound. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend the doc Rhyme & Reason. It's on Netflix, and follows Hip-Hop from its inception in 1975 up until 1997 when the doc was made. They interview a bunch of legends like Ice-T, KRS-One, Pharcyde, Run-DMC, Dr. Dre, Heavy D, Notorious BIG, Ice Cube, Ras Kass, Q-Tip, Arrested Development, Da Brat, Salt & Pepa, Wu-Tang, Redman, and so many more.
The Message wouldn't have been written if Gill Scott or The Last Poets hadn't plowed the field ahead of time. "The New Sound" had a lot of socially conscious stuff that came before it. Afrika Bambaataa, Kurtis Blow and The Furious Five are all good examples. And surly the whole political consciousness stuff didn't hit it's full blossom until, I'd say, Public Enemy hit the the scene but it was foundational right from the start.
Oh don't get me wrong, I know it was there from the beginning, but it was still largely a "party" scene. Afrika Bambaataa's politically conscious songs were still very party-oriented, and Grandmaster Flash actually wasn't comfortable with The Message being on the album because he considered it too different from the style. The synthesis was definitely there from the beginning, but it really gained prevelance in the early 80's when there was more importance put upon the lyricism. This is part of why I always considered Hip-Hop and Punk to be sibling genres. They didn't arise out of political reasons, but they gravitated to them so easily.
I'm going to be completely honest here: I haven't heard of most of these artists. Pretty sure that I've listened to many songs from them, but their names didn't really stick to me. I wonder why that is? Maybe today's artists are mainly defined by the Hits that they've produced and not by their oeuvre?
Hits by definition are short lived events. The pieces by which Bach et. al. Are best known today are often not the things they were famous for in their day.
Notable artists here, any reason why you chose them? (over others)
I think all of them mark actual Milestones in the evolution of music forms. I.e. the Crickets line-up defined the roles of the members of the rock four piece. The members of the list not only are innovators the have catalogs to back it up.
Although pop culture says you're supposed to hate him, Kanye West.
I believe that to find some backwards echo from the future one might look to the prolific artists rather than the temporally localized fame that we attribute to good bands. So I would look to singer/songwriters like John Darnielle or others with a huge catalog to survive the test of time. Not that I expect others to find his actual musicality timeless but rather the mass of the catalog helps against the worms going in and the worms going out.
That's why I consider my holy trinity of 1950-beyond to be Tom Waits, Nick Cave, and Lou Reed. They have massive discographies, they innovated while also borrowing from the past, and they kept getting better. Definitely cosign John Darnielle, too. I don't think I respect any songwriter more.
John Darnielle, Stuart Murdoch, Jeff Tweedy, Elliot Smith, and Dylan Baldi probably round out my five favorite songwriters (not necessarily musicians or bands) of the past twenty years. Going beyond that, Tom Waits and Lou Reed are hard to top. I have to throw Van Morrison and Brian Wilson into that mix though.
Coming from a poet, to this I sigh and say "Sure - to the people who don't read poetry." This isn't meant as disparagement against you but against the general public who hold up Cohen as the pinnacle of poetry or such without a real awareness of everything poetry is these days. You can throw Dylan up there under the same exact moniker if you want, people will eat it up and agree as well. Hell thenewgreen you can add Jewel to this list whose 1998 book of poetry sold over a million copies probably more than any poet laureate has done. If we're gonna start talking about the average person's perception of poetry vs. quality poetry.he'll at least be remembered as one of the greatest poets of our time
That's a mighty large assumption of me based on a little comment in a little website. I can appreciate Cohen's poetry as well as any other poet, and I can consider him a great even if he doesn't hold a candle to ee cummings or Frost. Don't use my appreciation of Cohen as a means to condescend, you're assuming the entire breadth of my knowledge and appreciation of poetry based on a throwaway comment.
When you take my statements as they are intended and in fact explicitly stated, you can tell me what to do: And also: That's not meant as condescension? I explicitly state that my comment has nothing to do with you, but with "the general public." You took it personally. That's not my problem.This isn't meant as disparagement against you but against the general public
Don't use my appreciation of Cohen as a means to condescend
based off a little comment on a little website
You can add Jewel to the list for sure, but her quality of poetry in no way diminishes or adds to the validity of Leonard Cohen's work. I think there is a tendency to discount the poet that happens to be a musician or the musician that happens to be a poet, which is silly because the two often coexist so beautifully. One of my favorite poets is David Berman, he's a great song writer too, you may be familiar with his band "the Silver Jews." I haven't read Jewel's poetry, but my guess is that it's pretty bad. I have read some of Leonard Cohen's poetry and as you would expect, given his songwriting, it's good. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that many of the poets of "our time" that you would put on the list of those worthy of being called "great" would also consider Cohen's contribution to the field of poetry/lyricism "great." So while your annoyance that Jewel is a widely known "poet" may be justified, I think you should be grateful that Cohen is helping to keep the appreciation for poetry alive. Also, I would wager that fans of Cohen are likely aware of other modern poets whereas fans of Jewel... well, probably not.
Sure, I'll give you that. I actually don't know how many poets would include Cohen, if asked, but I think that may be as much a result of "mental typing" - i.e., Cohen writes songs therefore isn't a poet - as in terms of regard - for instance if you asked me to name my favorite rappers I wouldn't include a spoken word poet in there even though theoretically I believe the two genres are very close and you can be very good at both in part because they relate so much. I believe a divide is seen even though in practice that divide may be small or not exist. However, because of the way we label things, they become compartmentalized. As for being grateful to Cohen for keeping the appreciation of poetry alive, I'll give you a skeptical sure that can't make an argument against the assertion and so therefore is agreeing.I think there is a tendency to discount the poet that happens to be a musician or the musician that happens to be a poet, which is silly because the two often coexist so beautifully.
This is an accurate fact but my point about "mental typing" still stands - in fact, I think your point only serves to corroborate mine. If you took a street poll about "Who Leonard Cohen was?" I think you would get 9/10 people saying he was a musician or a songwriter over a poet, even despite this fact that he made an attempt in poetry before becoming famous for song.
HA. I think you are probably right on all counts.
Either, both. I hope, anyway. We even have a newish hubbie who calls himself LeonardCohen He seems to be an accountant, not a singer - but who knows?
me too, just in case. Maybe after his financial problems, he became an accountant:“It was a long, ongoing problem of a disastrous and relentless indifference to my financial situation,” .... “I didn’t even know where the bank was.”
Surprised nobody's said Radiohead. That seems to be an obvious one in my opinion.
Coming from a musician, to this I sigh and say "Sure - to the people who don't understand music." This isn't meant as disparagement against you but against the general public who hold up U2 as the pinnacle of pop or such without a real awareness of everything popular music is these days.
You can throw Pearl Jam up there under the same exact moniker if you want, people will eat it up and agree as well. -Sorry, I couldn't help myself :-)
Go for it - just because I'm noting U2's absence does not mean I think they should be included on this list. I have opinions about U2. Maybe I am really just slighting the Radiohead mention. (Not intentionally, but it's a possible interpretation.) I also think the use of "understand" instead of the more appropriate "listen" or "listen consciously" puts a pretty different flavor on that comment. Cohen's a poet to people who don't read poetry. U2 may very well be a canonical band to people who don't listen to a variety of music. I think it may be accurate that Cohen straddles genres but I don't think most people who call him a poet spend much time with poetry outside of listening to Cohen. Feel free to argue that statement.
edit: Yes, we will have hover cars.Maybe I am really just slighting the Radiohead mention.
-I think history will judge music in different ways. There will be those that are connoisseurs of music, that really appreciate it and then those that just want to sing Piano Man in their hover cars. The connoisseurs will revere Radiohead. The rest can have their Billy Joel.
Frankly, I have no appreciation for either band[1] (u2 or radiohead) but they seem to come up in conversation together. [1] This is a lie. Some of U2's songs are good. Most aren't. I'm sure I've heard some Radiohead and enjoyed it as well, although I have no awareness of this.
Sweet weave of Columbus. I hope I never have to witness that. They're very very different bands, and Radiohead is a far more elaborate/complex machine than U2, with tons of unpublicized records and songs, as well as an exponentially increasing dose of crazy on an annual basis for every album they had released, whereas U2 stayed largely in its comfortable pop home. I say this as a raging Radiohead fan (more a fanof the god-king Thom Yorke who fronts the band than the group itself) and thus with the utmost bias. But dude, the legacy of Radiohead is a vast city, I truly believe there is no way you won't find at least one album that connects with you.Frankly, I have no appreciation for either band[1] (u2 or radiohead) but they seem to come up in conversation together.
I haven't ever heard radiohead or U2 come up in the same conversation. I think U2 has a lot of really good songs, they're expert craftsmen of pop. I like U2. I don't think their music is akin to Radioheads, in my opinion it's apples and oranges.
I actively dislike U2, to be honest. I've tried a few of their albums but none of the modern stuff seems to have the actual power of their older, more political music. It has all been disappointing. It reminds me of Coldplay in that it sounds great but to me it feels like there is nothing underneath it. I'll try and listen to some Radiohead singles today, see what I've heard and haven't. Maybe I always see them mentioned together in threads like this. I don't know. I just know I have a very strong mental link of the two, as if they always appear hand-in-hand. As someone who doesn't listen to either much, I'm probably not surrounded by people who are very into either band. Although I did find out that one of my oldest friend is super-into Rancid recently; I mentioned the band sarcastically and she exclaimed "I love Rancid!" So sometimes people'll surprise ya.
To add / counter nowaypablo on Radiohead, I think the band is really good for me but not necessarily for everyone. Radiohead makes music that clicks with me, the last puzzle piece to complete my mind, so to speak. It makes sense on a deeper level. This is why a lot of fans reeeally want you to listen to it: if you get into it, there's so much fulfillment to get from their songs. I went to Thom Yorke's concert last year and my god it was the most amazing thing I have ever heard. But I'm really sure that it's not for everyone and it took me really long to get into the band - Yorke always seems to balance between repulsive music and really great music. That being said, I recommend these songs, but don't expect to like them immediately. Subterranean Homesick Alien. From their first big rock album, OK Computer. You've probably heard Karma Police or Creep, but I much prefer this song on the album. Reckoner. Long high-pitched Yorke. Quite different from the first song, isn't it? Go To Sleep. More upbeat. I personally love the opening guitars and the changing atmosphere 1:30 in. This is a great example of Thom only just singing good (to someone who isnt a fan), and distortions thrown in that might put ya off. Little by Little - live from the Basement, from 43s on. I always swing with this version. Give Up The Ghost, also live. A song for when I feel weak, when you want to give up. Hope that's a good representation of the band. If there's a particular song you like, I can recommend more of that. Also, pablo, AustinBrock is back online! Whoo!
I'm going to be an obnoxious prick again to plug in my favorite band, if you're going to listen to Radiohead's songs. Note: In Rainbows is the most friendly and summarizing album, you could start there or: if you're into rock and more hesitant of electronic/"Weird shit" listen to: Paranoid Android Karma Police Street Spirit (Fade Out) Creep My Iron Lung These are their biggest rock hits, from albums The Bends and OK Computer. If you can dig deeper into some nonconventional stuff, listen to the Hail to the Thief and Amnesiac albums, especially: 2+2=5, Sit Down Stand Up, Backdrifts, Myxomatosis, and A Wolf at the Door (<-all four grow on you quickly)
Pyramid Song, I Will (these are mellow-er)
I apologize and enjoy! edit: I really like radiohead
Radiohead definitely has legs. I think they will be remembered and regarded as a band that (much like the beatles) evolved and changed while retaining some of the original grit. I think they will also be regarded for their musicianship. The band members' side projects are breathtaking, ranging from print art, film, more music - in other genres… I could go on. Radiohead is brilliant. Having said that - I know a LOT of people who like the sound radiohead… but dislike Thom's vocals. "Too whiny" or "too melancholy", etc.
I think artists which defined decades of music might have a better chance of being remembered especially if they have a memorable image. David Bowie is one that definitely comes to mind, Jimi Hendrix too. Simon & Garfunkel, The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, The Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Fleetwood Mac would be some bands which I could see lasting a long time.
Interesting. To throw in an obvious third, I'm gonna choose Nirvana. I was just discussing with mk this morning about how amazing it would have been to hear the music that Ian Curtis and Kurt Cobain could have made later in life, when their perspective on the world was more fully developed. The same certainly applies to Nick Drake. Each died way too young, and by their own hand no less. Shame, but I think people who are that in tune can never be happy, because they can see problems with humanity that may be lost on the rest of us, but can't see how they can fit in in such a cruel world.
The musicians that are most obvious to me would be The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. Are these artists too dated to be considered of our time? I think that these artists impacted so many other musicians and the broader culture that their influence will reverberate through generations. A couple hundred years from now, I don’t think a person could write a history of Western music without mentioning them. As much as I want to add some of my favorite artists, like Bob Dylan, I don’t know if he is too specific to a certain place and time. Maybe hundreds of years from now he will have a thriving subculture following, but may not be a household name the way I expect The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Elvis still will be.
I think you have picked three good examples of artists that will be revered for centuries to come for different reasons. The Beatles defined an era and yet their music has a timeless quality that is somehow globally appealing. Michael Jackson and Elvis both had this global appeal as well. Michael will be known for the great music as well as his showmanship and bizarre persona. -It's worth mentioning that Beethoven and Mozart were both odd in their time too. Elvis is the one of the three that I personally don't enjoy listening to much at all. However, I can understand that there are many people that differ with me. I just don't think his music translates well over the generations. But definitely, I think people will revere all 3 a century from now. I would add Bob Dylan to the list as well. EDIT: Since we have you hear, perhaps you could clarify the meaning of some song lyrics... :)
I am a bit obsessed with Cohen. I have been for many years. I remember the first time I was exposed to his music: it was at a coffeehouse, and a guitarist played a cover of "Hey, That’s No Way To Say Goodbye." I went out and bought Songs of Leonard Cohen, listened to it, and then went back and bought every album of his the store had. Cohen's music is so rich with allusions and poetic ambiguity, that I don’t think Cohen himself could give an exhaustive explanation. Rather, it has many nuances and is more thematic than it is a cohesive narrative, so I think it is better understood like a poem than a story. If you aren’t familiar with them, the passages most obviously alluded to are David playing the lyre (1 Samuel 16), David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), and Samson and Delilah (Judges 16), among others. In verse one ("I've heard there was a secret chord..."), I believe Cohen uses the symbolism of King David to refer to himself and his creative process, and he is addressing the listener directly: Cohen is the baffled King David. He is describing the structure of the song itself. In verse two ("Your faith was strong but you needed proof..."), I believe Cohen is now addressing himself, in a kind of introspective and self-critical monologue, in which he alludes directly to himself as David and then as Samson. Both are references to sensuality and brokenness in romantic relationships (one of Cohen's favorite themes), especially in the last line of the second verse. The third and fourth verses ("Baby I've been here before..." and "There was a time when you let me know...") are focused on this theme of broken romance and the ambivalence of love. I believe the verses starting with "It's not a cry you can hear at night…" are referring to someone in love, and Cohen is dispensing the poetic notions of it, as he both praises and laments it, drawing parallels to a troubled faith. I love the fourth verse. Cohen directly confronts these themes, and provides a kind of definitive opinion: "There's a blaze of light in every word / it doesn't matter which you heard / The holy or the broken Hallelujah." The duality of the experience of love—suffering and ecstasy—are both the authentic experiences of the human condition—we are most human when we suffer as well as when we are blissful on account of love. The final verse, in my opinion, is again putting love back on a pedestal, although it is a more authentic love—it is praised despite the suffering it creates, so central is it to the human condition. I feel like I've only scratched the surface, and a more literary mind could better interpret and express it than myself, but those are my thoughts. If you know Cohen, you know he is all about religious allusions and frequently embodying scriptural figures, as well as his ambivalent and intense views on romance and sensuality. It is truly a beautiful song, one of my favorites. (Just as a point of trivia, the song was met to a very cool reception, until Bob Dylan popularized it by performing it live, long before there were any covers.)
so you are not the real Leonard Cohen. I can not express how disappointed I am. ;(
I'm not sure where Cash will be when the chips fall? -Too much gambling imagery? I personally think Johnny Cash has a great way of telling a story and the perfect voice to tell them with. Will that still translate a century from now? I think it probably will. Let's be sure to save this interaction and revisit it in 100 years, when we are both part of the matrixed-global-brain!
I'll bite on the tangent. I was recently at a bar in Wilmington NC and had a great conversation with a guy there that also said he'd pass on it. "But what about immortality and the ability to be the best version of yourself etc...?" "no thanks." Was his reply. Immortaility, it's not for everybody. What is your reason for "refusing?"
I don't think that I talked about this in the thread about death we had recently. I think I watched that thread but didn't participate. I can't remember much more than that otherwise I'd try to find it. We were all talking about how we feel about death and dying. A long time ago I used to agonize over the fact that I'd eventually die and fade away and my life would be "pointless" and, therefore, what was even the point of living day-to-day? (I used to be a big "destination" person, not a big "journey" person, if that makes sense.) In coming to accept my mortality I have come to see it as a beautiful thing which I look forward to. I am not afraid of death. I find the idea that we all disappear into nothing at the end of our lives is, in a way, a giant relief. I've had one or two people say that the way I approach death is depressing. I find it factual and in its factuality reassuring. Mark Twain said "I do not fear death. I was dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and did not suffer any inconvenience from it." (Or something similar.) That is kind of how I feel. I want my life to matter, which it will & does to a certain select group of people, and then I want it to stop mattering. Because everything stops mattering at some point, and that's not a bad thing. That's life. I think immortality would become, in many ways, a burden. I think it would take some of the joy out of life. I think knowing that you don't get all of the sunsets makes each sunset you get more valuable. And those are more valuative statements that people can disagree with or not, based on economics and sentiment and a bunch of other things, but at the crux of it, I find the idea that I am going to disappear into nothing reassuring and grounding. Would you live forever, tng? It sounds like you might - be the best version of yourself - I think as someone with children you are also approaching this from a different angle than I do.
The musicians that became legends reached fame because they tried something new that no one had ever thought of before. What they did was revolutionary and in many cases only appreciated by younger generations. I might be wrong, but I don't think that history classes will teach kids about present-day musicians in the future. There is nothing that really raises the overall standard at the moment, like the Beatles did for example - introduce a whole generation to a new (and incredibly popular style). I'm not saying that today's music is bad in any way and I enjoy a lot of songs that are in the charts or top 100 at the moment, but I don't think they are comparable to people like Mozart or Beethoven. There are just so many and different talented artists today that it's hard to say that one of them is a musical genius that will be remembered for hundreds of years and others aren't. Really interesting question, though! I'm interested in what other users think about this.
> but I don't think they are comparable to people like Mozart or Beethoven. I have to agree with you here. As I said in my comment to Maphen above, I think music is just too disposable these days, and with how easy it is for anyone to record music and get it out to a vast audience, it almost floods the market (which is great for the common listener though)
Jup! With such a huge supply of new music and great songs there isn't really something that will be popular for decades, because the next big hit is right around the corner. And I agree, it really is great for the listeners, especially if you're interested in something that's not main-stream music. The internet has made it possible that I can listen to a song that someone has recorded in his garage somewhere in Russia if I want to.
>The internet has made it possible that I can listen to a song that someone has recorded in his garage somewhere in Russia if I want to. My favorite part about it. I remember back in 2007, I got an iTunes gift card from someone. I went on, went to electronic music, and just randomly scrolled and stopped on a random artist. That artist was Tycho, and I have to say that I've yet to hear a song by him that I do not like. Hes huge now, but if not for the internet, I would have never found one of my favorite artists.
By all means YES! I guess you could call it chillwave, but here are my favorite songs. Listen to them in this order (chronological) to see how he grows with each album.
The Disconnect
Let me know what you think
I loved Past is Prologue so much, every song is perfect. When I found out about Dive coming out, I'll admit that I was skeptical that Scott could woo me again. I was dead wrong. Not only did he capture his classic sound once again, but he evolved it into something better.
Google his EP the science of patterns. Then listen to PiP. I feel like that change in his arrangement is the same as the change from PiP to dive. I love how his music keeps the same backdrop, but gets more complex with each album.
That sucks, I have all of his work, so if you need it, I can probably get it to you somehow. What country are you from?
I'm from Germany. And thanks to the GEMA (shitty copyright agency) more than half of the YouTube videos are blocked here - with less than 10% being actual copyright violations. It sucks, but luckily almost everyone younger than 40 knows how to get around these restrictions.