Poll:Will recent musician's music be taught in the same as music by people like Mozart?

[Chewster]

Well with any luck all rappers, black or white, will be first against the wall when the revolution comes and have all their shitty 'music' erased from human consciousness till the end of time.

I think most reasonable people tend to scoff at such perilous attitudes, given the broad nature of most music genres.

Jazz was, after all, viewed the same by most academics and even some of the older population, back in the day.

yes but jazz is actually music, i honestly dont believe that modern day rappers can be classed as musicians because they do not sing or have any musical talent

I suppose if we were operating on a more narrow definition of what "music" is, you'd have a point. How do you define what a "musician" is? Keep in mind, I'm not asking for a definition that involves a value judgment or anything, just the basic outline.

In any case, I maintain that it is rather shortsighted of you to discount all rap/hip hop, seeing as how you're talking about a whole genre, with many variations and intricate complexities. At what point do you draw the line? Is K-os a musician? He makes hip-hop albums, but his style of rap tends to be more melodic in nature. What about MIA? She is much the same. To take another example that often gets lumped in with rap, is electronic music not music either? That genre is just as wide, and often contains very little singing, depending on the sub-genre. At what point do you make the distinction between "music" and "noise"?

If this is the case, that rap and hip hop are not music, then Bob Dylan isn't a singer, since he couldn't sing worth anything. Beck isn't a musician either, since he never sings.

I could agree with that yes, im not sure but didnt bob dylan write the lyrics and music though? Making him a talented muician regardless of a lack of singing talent due to his strong lyrcial value. As for Beck i dont know who that is.... My point is mainly directed against the kind of current generation thinking that labels people who get up on stage and talk about 'pimping up their cars' or 'bitching them hoes' (not racist, white people do it too) to a beat and are deemed to be worthy musicians. This is just my opinon though i suppose, the sheer ammount of fans these people have is somewhat saddening i feel..

If you're talking about "gansta" rap in it's current mainstream incarnations, you'll get no argument from me, seeing as how most rappers are so over-the-top and absurd, they've almost become self-parodies. In any case, alternative hip hop might be more for you. Just don't discount an entire genre thanks to the likes of Soulja Boy and 50 Cent.

And the point I was making with the Dylan comparison was that he didn't have all the conventional elements of most musicians of his day (he had most, to his credit) and it didn't matter, because he was a solid poet.

 

[Jaranja]

More or less.

But, at that time, Mozart will be even more famous!

EDIT: Forgot once again...

Welcome to the Escapist!
We'll make sure you enjoy your stay.
Just don't go into the basement.
Never go into the basement.

But the basements fi- AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

*pants* I'd say "WHAT?!" to the poll question because I can't make sense of it.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Some like the Beatles and Led Zeppelin will be remembered

There will be a large number that will be remembered for a single song.

 

[Lexodus]

For one, Hendrix is already taught in contemporary music history classes.

Secondly, you can't even compare the two. Mozart is a significant figure in the entire of Western music history. He broke ground like few others have, and in a way that can't be repeated let alone topped. His music is technically far far far superior to anything that Hendrix or Metallica could have ever hoped to create.

Hendrix did have a significant contribution to music yes, but it's nothing compared to how important Mozart is.

He set his guitar on fire. FIRE!

 

[Spitfire]

If Metallica or Hendrix would be taught in music classes, they definitely wouldn't be regarded as high as Mozart.

 

[Peanut Butter]

Well with any luck all rappers, black or white, will be first against the wall when the revolution comes and have all their shitty 'music' erased from human consciousness till the end of time.

I think most reasonable people tend to scoff at such perilous attitudes, given the broad nature of most music genres.

Jazz was, after all, viewed the same by most academics and even some of the older population, back in the day.

yes but jazz is actually music, i honestly dont believe that modern day rappers can be classed as musicians because they do not sing or have any musical talent

I suppose if we were operating on a more narrow definition of what "music" is, you'd have a point. How do you define what a "musician" is? Keep in mind, I'm not asking for a definition that involves a value judgment or anything, just the basic outline.

In any case, I maintain that it is rather shortsighted of you to discount all rap/hip hop, seeing as how you're talking about a whole genre, with many variations and intricate complexities. At what point do you draw the line? Is K-os a musician? He makes hip-hop albums, but his style of rap tends to be more melodic in nature. What about MIA? She is much the same. To take another example that often gets lumped in with rap, is electronic music not music either? That genre is just as wide, and often contains very little singing, depending on the sub-genre. At what point do you make the distinction between "music" and "noise"?

If this is the case, that rap and hip hop are not music, then Bob Dylan isn't a singer, since he couldn't sing worth anything. Beck isn't a musician either, since he never sings.

I could agree with that yes, im not sure but didnt bob dylan write the lyrics and music though? Making him a talented muician regardless of a lack of singing talent due to his strong lyrcial value. As for Beck i dont know who that is.... My point is mainly directed against the kind of current generation thinking that labels people who get up on stage and talk about 'pimping up their cars' or 'bitching them hoes' (not racist, white people do it too) to a beat and are deemed to be worthy musicians. This is just my opinon though i suppose, the sheer ammount of fans these people have is somewhat saddening i feel..

If you're talking about "gansta" rap in it's current mainstream incarnations, you'll get no argument from me, seeing as how most rappers are so over-the-top and absurd, they've almost become self-parodies. In any case, alternative hip hop might be more for you. Just don't discount an entire genre thanks to the likes of Soulja Boy and 50 Cent.

And the point I was making with the Dylan comparison was that he didn't have all the conventional elements of most musicians of his day (he had most, to his credit) and it didn't matter, because he was a solid poet.

Well jolly good discussion, you've given me a lot to think aobut.
I am definitely in agreement aobut soulja boy and 50 cent!

 

[Treefingers]

For one, Hendrix is already taught in contemporary music history classes.

Secondly, you can't even compare the two. Mozart is a significant figure in the entire of Western music history. He broke ground like few others have, and in a way that can't be repeated let alone topped. His music is technically far far far superior to anything that Hendrix or Metallica could have ever hoped to create.

Hendrix did have a significant contribution to music yes, but it's nothing compared to how important Mozart is.

Ah jeez.
Way to rip on our music, man.
Although Enter Sandman is hardly an opus magnum.
Just saying, there's plenty of better Metallica around.
In retrospect, you look at say, Pachbel's canon, and you look at a classic 30's pop track, and you have to admit that classical truly was a great genre, as some music was just not made to last.
I say classic 30's pop track with disdain, as pretty much all music prior to Elvis is held with contempt in my eyes.
I don't even know what I'm talking about most of the time.

Don't get me wrong, im not some classical music snob, but you can't deny the ground-breaking complexity of guys like Mozart. It carries a lot more weight than that which contemporary music has to offer.

I love Hendrix. I really do. But comparing Hendrix (or Metallica) to Mozart is just silly.

As a side note, all Elvis did was everything that black blues musicians were doing prior to him, except that he stuck a pretty white face on it and so he became way more famous. To be fair though, he always acknowledged his influence, which was pretty brave in the 50's. There is a lot of good music that came before Elvis though is my point.

 

[ilion]

Dont even compare, people like Bach, Shostakovich, Mozart, Beethoven ... are the essence of intelligent and stimulating music, as much as i like those crazy hendrix guitar solos, its not the same.

 

[RobThePrezodent]

I'll think it will be studied, but it's so detatched from a lot of classical music in terms of the level of musicality; compare a band like oasis to something like beethoven's 9th and you see what i mean; no matter which you prefer, you can't deny that beethoven is much more musically talented. I think it would be interesting to see what'll become of music over time, it's something that's always changing and being revolutionised, it's virtually impossible to predict what it'll be like 100 years from now. Music has unquestionably become a lot simpler over the past century, if it continues this way, then perhaps bands like the beatles will be looked at in a similar way to Beethoven or Mozart or whoever. It all really depends on how music changes in the future. But overall, I can't see them being studied from a musical point of view in the same way as Mozart; there just isn't enough going on in them to even compare to someone like Mozart. You couldn't write a PHD thesis on Wonderwall or whatever

 

[Treefingers]

Given the way the world is headed its more likely that Miley Cyrus will be taught in class...

Only if Disney buys all the world's universities.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

No, because who would want to listen to Metallica?

I may not be a fan of Mozart but at least I can appreciate the talent he had when I hear his music.

You may not be a fan of Metallica, my friend, but you still have to admit that as a band they are technically competent.
~snip~

And then there's Lars.

Seriously though, Metallica are solid musicians all around, though Lars is kind of a doofus as far as his actual playing more than a couple beats and his attack on Napster, which was just the digital equivalent of tape trading, the thing that got Metallica popular back in the 80s, was extremely stupid.

 

[Treefingers]

No, music today is simplistic in style, and as an instrument the guitar is limited in range.

No way!! The guitar is one of the most variable instruments available. Perhaps topped only by synthesizers, but that's cheating. But the guitar fits perfectly into so many styles of music. Especially when compared to say, a violin or something. The guitar is far from limited.

 

[Rayansaki]

As long as they don't teach future generations about nickelback

 

[Aunel]

More or less.

But, at that time, Mozart will be even more famous!

EDIT: Forgot once again...

Welcome to the Escapist!
We'll make sure you enjoy your stay.
Just don't go into the basement.
Never go into the basement.

yes, never go there, a long time ago it was safe, but they captured Max there...

OT: they will remember my bass lines damnit!

 

[damselgaming]

Reading all your comments about music makes me feel really stereotypically blonde. I'm glad you don't have to understand all this to like music. I didn't realise Metallica was so widely read into, I just watch them live/listen to them and go "YAY!".

I think there will be an increased interest to learn about more contemporary music, but I don't think it will cancel out 'the classics' all together.

 

[Rayansaki]

No, music today is simplistic in style, and as an instrument the guitar is limited in range.

How is the guitar more simplistic than a piano?

 

[MmmFiber]

I think it's going to be split. People will study them, but it will be the same as they do nowadays. Mozart wrote a lot of music, hundreds of pieces, operas, operettas, piano solos, whole orchestra instrumentals. Basically, he had a masisve back catalogue, of which most people know Fur Elise.

Music buffs know more songs, but most people recognise the tune, but may not even know it was Mozart. This is probably the fate of rock musicians, people may still know the name Hendirx in 200 years, and they may also recognise the opening notes of Voodoo Chile, but they won't connect the two, and only dedicated music students will have any idea of other songs.

But at least that's better than current pop music (2000-2010), which in the future will be remembered as 'That generic period characterised most by synthesised drum beats and a absolute lack of talent and notability.'

Well, besides Beethoven writing Fur Elise, you have picked up on some of my points.

Mozart is so respected because he wrote great music. His pieces are also great from a technical point of view. So, will bands/singers be taught JUST for making popular songs? Probably not, unless they defined the current musical period. Will truly great musicians, lyricists, composers, and singers be taught? Some will. Just like the classical period. Most people only know of a few names from the Classical/baroque/romantic/impressionist periods(when people refer to "classical music" they usually mean the span of these genres). Maybe Hendrix, maybe the Beatles. Who knows how future generations will look back at our recent collection of artists? They are the ones that will ultimately determine what is taught. But, yes, I think that some the really talented musicians will be taught like Mozart is taught now.

 

[Berethond]

No, music today is simplistic in style, and as an instrument the guitar is limited in range.

How is the guitar more simplistic than a piano?

Speaking from a purely mechanical stand-point, the guitar is much more simple.