100 years from now who will be remembered?

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by Simp

The list of musicians who will be remembered is quite different from the list of musicians who contributed quality music.

That suggests that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al were merely the 50 Cents and Brittany Spears of their time. Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's sub-standard. And just because something is obscure doesn't make it superior. That's just elitist BS.

Bach et.al. were not performers or entertainers. They were composers, whose work survived intact after their death, in exactly the same form, not dependent on memory or fashion or cult followings. Bach declined seriously in favor late in his life and after his death, and his populatity was revived much later. Vivaldi was not know at all in his lifetime and for almost 200 years, before his work was discovered in the early 20th century. However, there is no way we could know about the great musicians or singers of the time, for their work died with them, and their legacy is lost forever.

But if there are truly great and timeless artists and performers today, when we have a way to preserve their work, future generations will find them and recognize their genius. Even if it is Britney Spears.

[Simp]

I knew that Bach went largely unnoticed for many years, but Mozart and Beethoven were performers as well as composers. They were celebrities. And it's not in exactly the same form. What we hear today of their compositions is a few steps higher since they did not have the stronger, steel strings of today, just to nitpick.

[dlb]

Bach was a performer. He played the organ in his church every Sunday. It would also be a mistake to claim that his music comes to us exactly as he played it. There was plenty of room for improvisation in his works as he wrote them. As I recall my music history class, performers were expected to add their own touches.

If you want to see how big a difference interpretation can make, get a copy of Glenn Gould's recording of the Goldberg Variations and also one by Roslyn Tureck (for a more recent interpretation, you could also throw Simone Dinnerstein into the mix). You can tell it's the same piece of music, but the differences are substantial.

[Grandstander]

In the Roman Senate they had a large sign which read:
"De gustibus non est disputandum "

Sometimes attributed to Cato, it means: "Matters of taste are not to be disputed."

[Simp]

"Matter of taste" can be taken too literally. There are areas of gray when comparing similar artists: Rossini vs Beethoven, Led Zeppelin vs Rolling Stones, etc. But just because someone may prefer Tupac doesn't mean they can claim with any validity that he's a superior musician to Wagner.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by dlb

Bach was a performer. He played the organ in his church every Sunday. It would also be a mistake to claim that his music comes to us exactly as he played it. There was plenty of room for improvisation in his works as he wrote them. As I recall my music history class, performers were expected to add their own touches.

.

But there is no way to know how they were played. All we have is the original sheet music, and know nothing of any improvisations except those that were written down at the time. For all we know, he was a a lousy organist with a smile like Liberace's. We have videos of Korla Pandit playing the organ, but not Bach. Ella FitzGerald is one of the artists who may be remembered for centuries, precisely because she didn't sing anything at all the way it was written by the composer. So which is worth remembering: Hoagy's songs, or Ella's renditions?

YouTube - Korla Pandit

[Zen653]

That suggests that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al were merely the 50 Cents and Brittany Spears of their time. Just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's sub-standard. And just because something is obscure doesn't make it superior. That's just elitist BS.

I did not say that there is no overlap whatsoever between legitimate talent and fame - only that some talented people are forgotten, while some untalented people are remembered.

I see three groups of musicians: talented and famous, talented but not famous, and famous but not talented. Beethoven, Mozart and the Beatles all belong to the first group. Artie Shaw, Miles Davis and Placido Domingo belong to the second group. Madonna belongs to the third group.

[Simp]

But there is no way to know how they were played. All we have is the original sheet music, and know nothing of any improvisations except those that were written down at the time.For all we know, he was a a lousy organist with a smile like Liberace's.

We have the accounts of their contemporaries. It's pretty well known that Mozart and his sister gave virtuoso performances when they were children, playing blind-folded and such. Beethoven was known as a great improviser. Paganini was said to be so great a violinist, the whole "sold his soul to earn his skills" legend may have started with him. Are you claiming these are all fabrications?

[jtur88]

Liberace's contemporaries thought he was a great pianist, too. Luckily we have videos.

[apicalbodscan]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Liberace's contemporaries thought he had a great pianist, too. .

Fixed

[Simp]

We have videos of Van Cliburn too...Isaac Stern...Yo-Yo Ma. Why does the lack of any kind of recordings of past greats automatically discredit them?

[jtur88]

The real answer to this questionl is, of course "The Americans". No matter how good anybody was at what they did, we are talking here about Fame, and that is a byproduct of the invincible American publicity machine.

Whom among you has ever even heard of Lata Mangeshkar, who recorded over 25,000 songs and sang the sound-track in 980 movies. What are the chances she will be 'remembered' 100 years from now? Half the people in the world have seen dozens, hundreds of her films and can sing her songs by heart. The wrong half. Nobody cares whom they remember.

Nobody in England thought the Beatles were any more brilliant or talented than Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs. Their fame rested entirely on the later American publicity for their work.

Look at any list of the "Top 100" of anything. They're all Americans. Raise you hand if you think Houdini was the world's greatest illusionist up to his era. No, he was the most publicized illusionist in the USA.

Would anybody like to answer this question on the assumption that America will go down the tubes in the next decade or so, and somebody else gets to decide who is remembered?

[perfectstormhits]

Look at any list of the "Top 100" of anything. They're all Americans.

Hockey players?

[dlb]

Certainly not chess players.

[Simp]

Nobody in the music biz becomes famous or memorable unless someone(s) deems them marketable. That includes so called mavericks like Dylan and Neil Young. Every act is a production. Everyone "sells out" to some extent.