# In 200 years will contemporary classical have ended as an era?



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

Who will be the considered greats of this era?

What will replace it?

Will there be anything new added to the music theory?


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

It certainly won't be called "contemporary" any more.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

LordBlackudder said:


> Who will be the considered greats of this era?
> 
> What will replace it?
> 
> Will there be anything new added to the music theory?


Hard to tell what will happen in a fraction of that time, let alone 200 years.

Maybe, if you are young, 50 years later in your old age you will learn what music of today has made it and what other things have been forgotten. 50 years ago, in the early 1960's, _total serialism _was still the rage in some cliques in Europe and the UK. Now it's seen as just part of the picture of what music was composed back then. Composers who wrote music avoiding or even modifying serialism to their own ends where poo-pooed as conservative fuddy duddies by Boulez and others. Even the big three of the Second Viennese School came under fire for stuff like being too emotional, too autobiographical, too tonal or melodic, etc. & so too did experimental composers who could not be put into a neat little box - eg. Xenakis came under fire from Boulez as well. Funnily enough, Boulez himself hardly produced any _total serialist _works himself, showing to me that it was basically an artistic dead end. Good things came out of serialism, but what these guys didn't realise is that it's only a technique, not a dogma.

What we value is often coloured by dogma which has little or nothing to do with the thing at hand. Objectivity, or at least less bias, often comes with the passing of years and maybe decades. Look into J.S. Bach, how his reputation declined after his death and then was revived later. When the first performances of USA minimalists where done in the late 1960's and early 1970's there where various reactions, including from critics welded onto _total serialism _and other cliquey fads. They said it was too simple, too tonal, childish, stuff like that. Some of them walked out during premieres of things that are now popular, or didn't clap at the end, like John Adams' _Grand Pianola Music _(& that was as late as the 1980's). Dinosaurs like that are still around, but not many are.

So as I said, wait for 50 years to pass, then get back to answering your own question. Until then, just enjoy all the great new music that's coming out today.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2012)

LordBlackudder said:


> Who will be the considered greats of this era?


In two hundred years, I won't be around. And I can't seem to get as excited about what somebody's great great great grandchildren, whom I will never meet, are going to think about the music being done today as some people apparently can.



> What will replace it?


Something we'll never get to hear.



> Will there be anything new added to the music theory?


Well, there's something new added to music all the time. Music theory? As taught in schools? That does seem to have gotten stuck somewhere in the distant past somehow. Indeed.

The present. That's enough, eh?


----------



## humanbean (Mar 5, 2011)

In 200 years, string ensembles performing in separate hovering vehicles will be commonplace.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

200 years from now, people might imagine sounds using neuro-electronic helmets, and make/produce music through telekinesis.

It may also be known as the Age of Silence. Music for the last 60 years has progressed in the extended use of silence as an element in music. Eventually, there will be no sounds whatsoever. Like a bell curve, we hit the loudest, most complex music in the 20th century, and now we decay to minimalism.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 200 years from now, people might imagine sounds using neuro-electronic helmets, and make/produce music through telekinesis.
> 
> It may also be known as the Age of Silence. Music for the last 60 years has progressed in the extended use of silence as an element in music. Eventually, there will be no sounds whatsoever. Like a bell curve, we hit the loudest, most complex music in the 20th century, and now we decay to minimalism.


It's so lame 

Well, The tradition of classic was damaged in middle of 20th century, but still there is some good works.

I cannot predict what will happen to other genres! But I can think that Classic Music continues and will be listened for its greatest composers, like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and Shostakovitch.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 200 years from now, people might imagine sounds using neuro-electronic helmets...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalophone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocardiophone


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Arsakes said:


> ...
> 
> I cannot predict what will happen to other genres! But I can think that Classic Music continues and will be listened for its greatest composers, like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms and Shostakovitch.


So too since 1945 there have been big names and major contributors to classical music. My own favourites incl. Xenakis, Harry Partch, Peter Sculthorpe, and others who were already active before like Messiaen, Shostakovich who you mention, Walton, Tippett, and many more. There is consensus of sorts today, but as to what will be valued in 200 years time, maybe even 50 years time, that is dicey - it can change with fashions of the times. Classical music is a fickle & constantly changing business in many ways, even giants like J.S. Bach can disappear off the radar - of public consciousness, not of musicians - so in this more plural and diverse atmosphere that's even more marked.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

humanbean said:


> In 200 years, string ensembles performing in separate hovering vehicles will be commonplace.


That's what they said in the 60's! Im still waiting...

I dont think much music from today will survive. What we have now from 200 years ago is merely the tip of the iceberg. Given the amount of composition and exploratory work performed since, I think this era will be largely ignored.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

In 200 years, we would have made contact with aliens from other planets/galaxies, and we might then begin to explore what they listen to, and vice-versa.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

As i will be long gone in 50 years i don't have any idea. I like Penderecki, Birtwistle, Rautavarra and a few others but what their staying power will be is again a matter of speculation.

The one thing I am sure of is that Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Mahler et al will still be as popular as they have always been though what medium they will be played on is a matter of speculation. Considering the short space which brought us from 78's, vinyl, tapes (ugh), to the current trend of high quality digital media.

Wouldn't it be nice for technology to have a time machine facility so we could see Mahler conduct.
It's ok i am off to take my medication.
Have fun.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I consider that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and the like may sound as ancient as Renaissance polyphony does to us now.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2012)

The greatest gift of technology is to make it possible for people to live in the past?

Ugh!

But seriously y'all, isn't speculation about the future (and a future too distant for any of us to have any chance of seeing) just another strategm for avoiding the obvious, that most classical listeners are not familiar with the music of right now?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In 200 years, we would have made contact with aliens from other planets/galaxies, and we might then begin to explore what they listen to, and vice-versa.


That honestly would be really cool, if that could actually happen.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In 200 years, we would have made contact with aliens from other planets/galaxies, and we might then begin to explore what they listen to, and vice-versa.


No.they will wipe us out so nobody human will be listening to anything.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The contemporary music of the 1975 - 20XX will have become a body of music distinctly characterized by style and period - it will have been given another name in 200 years time, just as 'Classical, Baroque, Romantic' eras were given a name after the fact.

200 years into the future, the music of that time will be the 'contemporary' music.

Of course, as is typical, some composers of today already recognized as good and great will still be known, and others who were great but not fashionable will also be more highly esteemed. Some with a high-profile career an recognition will be mere footnotes of music history.

Remember, 200 years from now, our current contemporary classical is going to sound to people then as say, Bach, Rameau Mozart and Beethoven sound to us. Earlier classical music might, 200 years from now, be called 'early music' like we think of medieval and Renaissance as 'early music' - and sounding as if from a far distant past.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

There could be affects on the music from war or disaster. Maybe some looney stops us from listening to classical music and brings a different kind of music. Crazy old islam, china and korea probably would like to see it go.

Technology will lessen the pompous image of classical music and bring it too more people. I don't think human emotions will change that much in 200 years and we will still want to hear it.

Concerts will be performed by robots. I can imagine devices everywhere that you can connect to somehow and listen while watching a holographic performance infront of you.

I can imagine a sub world consiting of robots and holograms. A whole holographical orchestra on a street corner.

Humans will still perform the music but maybe have to compete with robots and holograms for the next gig.


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

Off topic, but I ask anyway. Any performance databases of contemporary music? What are top 50 most performed contemporary works? After 200 years situation is totally different, but current status might tell something already.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Whatever you consider your favorite great masterpiece to be, whether it's this or that guy's ninth or this or that opera or piano concerto or whatever,...there will not be another. Those times are gone, never to return. That is my position and I won't budge. (reference the 'are you stubborn' thread)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

moody said:


> No.they will wipe us out so nobody human will be listening to anything.


They might wipe us out if we shared with them music by _Merzbow_, but not if we shared with them music by Mozart.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2012)

You know the tastes of these putative aliens?

You have strange powers, HC.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"Take me to your Lieder."

View attachment 5371


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

LordBlackudder said:


> There could be affects on the music from war or disaster. Maybe some looney stops us from listening to classical music and brings a different kind of music. Crazy old islam, china and korea probably would like to see it go.
> 
> Technology will lessen the pompous image of classical music and bring it too more people. I don't think human emotions will change that much in 200 years and we will still want to hear it.
> 
> ...


How completely ghastly, classical music hasn't got a pompous image it is the people who talk about it on forums that are often excruciatingly pompous and we have our share.
One or two concerts that I've been to were certainly performed by robots--so there's no need to wait 200 years.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

But seriously y'all, isn't speculation about the future (and a future too distant for any of us to have any chance of seeing) just another strategm for avoiding the obvious, that most classical listeners are not familiar with the music of right now?

Or alternatively... is it not possible that much of the music that YOU particularly like of right now is a lot of pretentious crap while some of the music of today that others listen to and enjoy may just possibly survive and continue to speak to listeners and composers in the future?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The repertoire of classical music, far from being "ossified" as some critics and musicologists fatuously claim,
is in fact, in constant flux . The repertoire performed by orchestras ,opera companies and other groups
is so vastly different from what it was a century or even 50 years ago that people who lived at that time could never has imagined what things are like today .
True, certain works by Bach,Handel, Haydn,Mozart, Schubert,Schumann,Mendelssohn,Brahms, Dvorak,
Tchaikovsky and others have achieved a lasting place in the scheme of things , but these have never prevented new works from being heard . 
Of course, there's no way of knowing exactly what things will be like 200 years from now. But if the world as we know it is not destroyed by catastrophic events some time in the future , and the symphony orchestra ,
opera companies , etc are still in existence, it's impossible to know which of the composers of the present era
and the last half of the 20th century will be regularly performed . We might be very surprised if we could ocme back.
When Mahler died just over a century ago, many critics and other composers were convinced that his music would die with him . How wrong they were ! Possibly a time machine will exist, and we will be able to go back in
time and hear Mozart playing his piano concertos or directing his operas from the keyboard , and we'll be able to know just how close musicians such as the late Gustav Leonhardt, Norrignton, Gardiner, Hogwood,
Harnoncourt and others came to "authenticity". We might be very surprised and find out that the music of the past sounded very different . 
The plays of Shakespeare are still very relevant and will always remain so, as well as the novels of
Cervantes, etc. The same with the music of the past.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

moody said:


> No.they will wipe us out so nobody human will be listening to anything.


MARS ATTACKS!!! :lol:

Remember that film from the '90's, when the aliens where destroyed by country music being piped from loudspeakers? The singer's high tones made the aliens' heads burst! So maybe we can wipe them out with some country music...or the screaming at the end of _Gotterdammerung_ put onto a repetitive tape loop (maybe Steve Reich or John Adams can compose that?)...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> You know the tastes of these putative aliens?
> 
> You have strange powers, HC.


Well, given how well received Mozart's music has been ever since he wrote them compared with Merzbow's, I kind of feel confident to share with aliens muisc of Mozart than the crap of Merzbow!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But seriously y'all, isn't speculation about the future (and a future too distant for any of us to have any chance of seeing) just another strategm for avoiding the obvious, that most classical listeners are not familiar with the music of right now?
> 
> Or alternatively... is it not possible that much of the music that YOU particularly like of right now is a lot of pretentious crap while some of the music of today that others listen to and enjoy may just possibly survive and continue to speak to listeners and composers in the future?


What side are you actually with?!


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> MARS ATTACKS!!! :lol:
> 
> Remember that film from the '90's, when the aliens where destroyed by country music being piped from loudspeakers? The singer's high tones made the aliens' heads burst! So maybe we can wipe them out with some country music...or the screaming at the end of _Gotterdammerung_ put onto a repetitive tape loop (maybe Steve Reich or John Adams can compose that?)...


Definitely start an intergalactic war.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> What side are you actually with?!


Hey Arsakes, St has been attacking me personally for about three years now. On different boards, too. It ain't no thing. It evidently fulfills some deep need of his, and it doesn't affect me in the least, so....

Anyway, St does report as liking some modern music, as you've noticed already. But he also can't stand quite a lot of other modern music, and takes every opportunity to say so. Modern music is a broad field, you see, and full of all sorts of different things. So you can have "modernists" at each others' throats for not liking the "right kind of modern music."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What side are you actually with?!

I'm on the side that believes there is probably just as much good music today as there was at any other time in history... if not more. But as always has been true, the great majority of all music today... all art... is mediocre at best. I can only trust in my own perceptions... my own hearing and my own experience... in deeming what music has real worth. I have little use (it is true) for some of the latest experiments in the _avant garde_ that sound like crap to me... regardless of the number of academics and critics who champion this or that composer as a "genius" or "contemporary classic". None of us holds a monopoly upon the process by which a work of music becomes a classic and so I am more than suspicious of anyone who presumes to know that this or that composer represents the "true classical music" of today... while that one is a mere pastiche.

Contrary to someguy's bit of creative fiction, I have simply disagreed with his opinions concerning certain music. I suppose if you are absolutely sure that your taste represents the objective truth, then anyone who disagrees with you might be thought of as attacking you. After all, how could someone dare to question objective reality?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Hey Arsakes, St has been attacking me personally for about three years now. On different boards, too. It ain't no thing. It evidently fulfills some deep need of his, and it doesn't affect me in the least, so....
> 
> Anyway, St does report as liking some modern music, as you've noticed already. But he also can't stand quite a lot of other modern music, and takes every opportunity to say so. Modern music is a broad field, you see, and full of all sorts of different things. So you can have "modernists" at each others' throats for not liking the "right kind of modern music."


Lol - I was _forewarned_ that if I signed on, and appeared to show any real knowledge, experience, be of any weight, etc. that one particular party would eventually notice and _'Challenge my credentials'_ was the exact phrase. That forewarning was very accurate  Some bluster and, 'need' as you say. - Not discounting what _is_ worthwhile from that party mentioned. Evidentally, though, it seems that one specific tic is cookie-cutter reliably predictable - an Old Faithful, another geyser of Talk classical. Many here, including this writer, are fairly constant in being themselves


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's so sad that people who like the same music I do can't talk about it politely. So many people seem to need to puff themselves up and/or put others down. It turns me off to them on a personal level, making it harder for me to gain the knowledge they offer.

Back on-topic: 200 years from now: 

I'd be happy just to know that we'll still be around in 200 years - I'm not sure we'll survive two more centuries of ever improved weaponry. And there is an outside chance that the environmentalists are right that we'll run our of resources and collapse. And of course robots could enslave us.

But ideally we'll still be here, living in relatively free societies, consuming music according to our tastes, and (I suppose) insulting people whose tastes don't agree with ours. 

If so, I would predict that far fewer people will care about the distinctions between Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music, which will be grouped together as something like "classical" or "historical European" music. Probably the same thing will have happened to various forms of pop music - the distinctions between jazz, country, blues, bluegrass, rock, and so on will mean as little to them as the difference between ars antiqua, ars nova, and ars subtilior mean to us. They might all be known as "historical American" music, and there might be similar labels for the musical traditions of East Asia, South Asia, Africa and so on. 

But none of those tradition will be distinct anymore. There will be no distinctive music of any particular region for long, because everything will spread so quickly from one place all over the globe. 

People may not perform classical musics anymore, because they will be able to hear recordings done to a far higher level than any human or group of humans would be capable of. The robot-musicians will even have learned how to introduce variations into their performance to create the pleasure of spontaneity for us. 

The electronic creation of music will have become so easy and perhaps commonplace that most people might come to consider themselves composers, and the normal unit for a "concert" might revert to a small group of family and friends. If capitalism and science have continued to flourish, we'll have so much leisure time that this kind of thing might be our main activity.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

If you asked that question in 1912 about 100 years hence - at a time when Beethoven, Mozart etc were strong - I expect many would have pointed with great optimism to new names emerging and poo-pooed the idea that the taditional masters would command and even greater grip on the musical throne - but look where we are - the old masters are still there and will stay now and in time to come. We have to face it - the great era of music is now behind us but will be preserved.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

This is quite interesting:

"In 1935, a survey made by CBS of its radio audience asking the question 'Who, in your opinion, of contemporary composers will remain among the world's great in 100 years?' placed Myaskovsky in the top ten along with Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, de Falla and Fritz Kreisler.[SUP]"[/SUP]

How accurate has this been? Certainly at least 7 of those are still considered great. Falla has been relegated to the 2nd ranks as far as I can perceive. Myaskovsky and Kreisler have fallen into obscurity. Still, I would consider that the audience was fairly accurate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

So what 10 living composers do you think will be recognized among the world's "great" composers in 100 years?

Perhaps a question for a new thread?


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2012)

stomanek said:


> We have to face it - the great era of music is now behind us but will be preserved.


We have to face nothing of the sort.



emiellucifuge said:


> Still, I would consider that the audience was fairly accurate.


Ives, Janacek, Varese, Bartok? Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Nielsen?

Shostakovich, just by the way, was only 29 in 1935. He had written only three of his symphonies, two and three being um questionable at best (and even known in the west?). His first piano concerto was written in 1933, but how well could it have been known to CBS audiences only two years later? Aside from _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_ and symphony no. 1, his most famous works are from after 1935, so how did he even get on this 1935 survey, much less into the top ten? On the strength of _The Golden Age_ or _The Bolt_? The piano trio no. 1? Maybe it was that Scherzo in E-flat that got people all worked up.... Or "Murzilka". Yeah. That must have been it.

Doesn't sound quite right, does it? (Besides, the source for this quote about Myaskovsky is the liner notes for a CD. Not the most historically convincing source. Has anyone checked with CBS about this? Google turns up two links for these exact words, one is an Amazon classical music forum thread and one is the Wiki article on Myaskovsky. I smell urban legend here....)


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So what 10 living composers do you think will be recognized among the world's "great" composers in 100 years?
> 
> Perhaps a question for a new thread?


I just removed my post to the new thread.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

some guy said:


> Ives, Janacek, Varese, Bartok? Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Nielsen?
> 
> Shostakovich, just by the way, was only 29 in 1935. He had written only three of his symphonies, two and three being um questionable at best (and even known in the west?). His first piano concerto was written in 1933, but how well could it have been known to CBS audiences only two years later? Aside from _Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District_ and symphony no. 1, his most famous works are from after 1935, so how did he even get on this 1935 survey, much less into the top ten? On the strength of _The Golden Age_ or _The Bolt_? The piano trio no. 1? Maybe it was that Scherzo in E-flat that got people all worked up.... Or "Murzilka". Yeah. That must have been it.


I was looking at StLukes new thread where I first read the quote about the 1935 poll. I came to exactly the same conclusion. I'm just not sure that his Sym 1, Lady Macbeth, and Piano Trio 1 and other lesser works could make people feel he was "a great". Maybe the people who replied to the poll did know his Piano Concerto? It does feel odd.

Maybe Myaskovsky, de Falla, and Fritz Kreisler were "safer" choices for those who were not ready to embrace new music. I really don't have a sense of how Ives, Janacek, Varese, Bartok, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, and Nielsen were viewed back then. I would have thought that Nielsen, Bartok, and Janacek (and even Ives) would not have been considered more difficult than Shostakovich, Prokofiev, or Stravinsky.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

emiellucifuge: _"In 1935, a survey made by CBS of its radio audience asking the question 'Who, in your opinion, of contemporary composers will remain among the world's great in 100 years?' placed Myaskovsky in the top ten along with Prokofiev, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Ravel, de Falla and Fritz Kreisler."_


I would consider that the audience was fairly accurate.

Someguy- Ives, Janacek, Varese, Bartok? Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Nielsen?

Is Ives packing in the crowds today? Schoenberg? Webern? Seriously, they don't seem to be accepted among the greatest composers any more today than they did in 1935... regardless of their influence. Janacek and Bartok? One would have to ask just how well they were known outside the borders of Eastern Europe in 1935.

Shostakovich, just by the way, was only 29 in 1935. He had written only three of his symphonies, two and three being um questionable at best (and even known in the west?). His first piano concerto was written in 1933, but how well could it have been known to CBS audiences only two years later? Aside from Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District and symphony no. 1, his most famous works are from after 1935, so how did he even get on this 1935 survey, much less into the top ten? On the strength of The Golden Age or The Bolt? The piano trio no. 1? Maybe it was that Scherzo in E-flat that got people all worked up.... Or "Murzilka". Yeah. That must have been it.

Doesn't sound quite right, does it? (Besides, the source for this quote about Myaskovsky is the liner notes for a CD. Not the most historically convincing source. Has anyone checked with CBS about this? Google turns up two links for these exact words, one is an Amazon classical music forum thread and one is the Wiki article on Myaskovsky. I smell urban legend here....)

Shostakovitch would have also composed his other opera, _The Nose_, by this time, as well as any number of film scores... but I also wonder how well known and admired he might have been at this time. As great as the operas may have been they don't strike me as something that the larger audience might have seen as indicating a masterful composer. And how well known was Myaskovsky outside Russia at this time? Hell, I only first heard of him here through the efforts of a member who repeatedly championed his symphonies.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> (Besides, the source for this quote about Myaskovsky is the liner notes for a CD. Not the most historically convincing source. Has anyone checked with CBS about this? Google turns up two links for these exact words, one is an Amazon classical music forum thread and one is the Wiki article on Myaskovsky. I smell urban legend here....)


That looks like good research. I'm not double-checking it or anything. But the Shostakovich selection is interesting.

His symphony #1 did make a splash.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

If there are figures as major as Beethoven still to come - where do you see them emerging and when? We keep waiting and waiting and the majority of classical sales in CDs and ticket sales worldwide are for the old masters. Until I see some evidence to the contrary I will stick to my opinion that the era of great compositions is at an end. Of course if you enjoy contemporary classical music - your Beethovens are already here.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Yikes. Well I dont want to make any claims on my quotes validity, I just thought it was interesting if true! And certainly an interesting exercise to repeat.

Another interesting and relevant tidbit I read recently: In Wagner autobiography; Mein Leben, he quotes someone.. (I cant remember exactly who,.. someone musical - perhaps a professor or conductor) as saying that after Gluck no worthwhile advances were possible in music.

Really it seems obvious to me, that there have always been conservatives such as this man and such as stomanek, but they are invariably proven wrong with time.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

stomanek said:


> If there are figures as major as Beethoven still to come - where do you see them emerging and when?


Miles Davis.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Really it seems obvious to me, that there have always been conservatives such as this man and such as stomanek, but they are invariably proven wrong with time.


Invariably? Are there many post-war (WW2) examples you can cite? Or has there not been _enough_ time?
Is it possible that some of the the so called avant garde who enjoy a great reputation among the cognoscenti today, will be viewed by the cognoscenti of tomorrow as somewhat......lame?


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2012)

What a great idea! Let's argue today about what people will be arguing about tomorrow!!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

In 200 years the classical music being composed at the time will be contemporary classical music......
Someone lacks a basic understanding of English...
I forgive you if you are from a non-English speaking country


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

In 200 years, I think people will have a different concept of what 'classical' is. As in, rock & roll could be considered classical in 200 years. Who knows? That's a long time for thoughts and concepts to evolve.


----------

