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.