# Biggest musical achievement of the 20th century



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Poll thread... let's see where we'll go with this.

BTW, I vote for rock'n'roll. 
I think it profoundly changed the music, democratized it in two ways... by both allowing it to become more accessible to much larger public, and also by allowing it to be created by much larger number of talented artists, while still maintaining high quality, at least when it comes to *good *rock music.
Also it became extremely influential and gave birth to countless derived genres. It was also extremely socially relevant and contributed to some social movements, subcultures, etc.

I didn't include sound reproduction technology in my poll, because it's too technical and not so interesting for this thread, and it's not a musical achievement, but just a technology.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

I'd go for the development of musical theatre and especially the Hollywood musical.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think it will be very interesting to see all the things that will fall into "something else" category...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Although I don't listen to it much these days, I have to go with rock music. Its impact was huge.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

_Electronic music, _without the pick up there would be no Rock & roll


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think rock has had the biggest impact. Jazz was popular in the first half, but rock went beyond popular music and became the voice for societal change, whether for good or bad, and became the dominant art form in the world in the last half of the 20th Century, at least from what I can tell. When the Nobel Committee puts on a concert for the best and brightest and chooses Simply Red to be the headliner, that tells you something.


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> When the Nobel Committee puts on a concert for the best and brightest and chooses Simply Red to be the headliner, that tells you something.


It certainly does. 

Anyway, I voted rock.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Bartók's Six string quartets get my vote.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

You said biggest, so I probably should have voted Rock and Roll, but I went with favorite and chose A-Tonal music. Schoenberg is fantastic!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I think that the biggest achievement was surviving atonal/serial/etc., etc.,


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

I have a difficult time thinking of rock and roll as an _achievement,_ per se. It provided an interesting turn, and has had tremendous musical and cultural significance, more than any other musical genre of the 20th century. But _achievement_ speaks of arriving at a pinnacle through uncommon skill and effort. That doesn't generally describe rock and roll, in my opinion.

I went with jazz.


----------



## licorice stick (Nov 24, 2014)

The biggest achievement of 20th century music was everything that happened before classical music and then music in general was taken over by stuff I have no respect for (incoherent babble nurtured in wackademia, violent thumping about teenagers humping). Stragglers of the great tradition remain, such as John Adams, but otherwise, no single musical movement can be called an achievement.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> _Electronic music, _without the pick up there would be no Rock & roll


I think by "electronic music," the O.P. meant music using solely synths, computers, drum machines, etc. Pickups only "pick up" sounds for amplification that have been created by natural vibrations.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Electronic music, even at it's most complex (which it most often isn't), is very irritating to my ears. It suits video games best.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The invention of music so loud you can't hear it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

IMO, Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du printemps_ in 1913 blew open the doors of modernity for the entire rest of the 20th century... In jazz, it was Louis Armstrong playing _West End Blues_... In rock, it was Elvis singing _Heartbreak Hotel_... In electronic music... the invention of the _vacuum tube_ in 1904 by Sir John Ambrose Fleming.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Starting in the 50s, lifting off with artists such as Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis Presley, Rock grew by leaps and bounds catapulted in the 60s particularly by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones and continuing with myriad of singers and groups into the 70s and 80s, each decade having its own characteristics depending on what was going on in society (e.g. The Vietnam War). 

The 90s found Rock as still popular, but starting to give way to other genres and sub-genres (particularly Rap/Hip-hop). Suffice it to say that Rock relegated all other forms of music to minority status for at least 4-5 decades of the century. So, it's Rock by a landslide. 

Atonal music in the 20th century was but a tiny blip on the radar screen in the musical firmament. Jazz, Big-Band music and even music of the great musicals of Rodgers and Hammerstein et al were more influential than atonal music in the first half of the century.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Starting in the 50s, lifting off with artists such as Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis Presley, Rock grew by leaps and bounds catapulted in the 60s particularly by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones and continuing with myriad of singers and groups into the 70s and 80s, each decade having its own characteristics depending on what was going on in society (e.g. The Vietnam War).
> 
> The 90s found Rock as still popular, but starting to give way to other genres and sub-genres (particularly Rap/Hip-hop). Suffice it to say that Rock relegated all other forms of music to minority status for at least 4-5 decades of the century. So, it's Rock by a landslide.
> 
> *Atonal music in the 20th century was but a tiny blip on the radar screen in the musical firmament. Jazz, Big-Band music and even music of the great musicals of Rodgers and Hammerstein et al were more influential than atonal music in the first half of the century.*


You are certainly right. It was the century with the start of music by numbers. Classical was divided, more varied. Sinatra over Scriabin. The recording industry had a lot to do with it. Technology over technique


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

All technological advances related to recording, sound and music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> I think that the biggest achievement was surviving atonal/serial/etc., etc.,


'Surviving'?........................


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Subjectively:
'Something else':
Stravinksy's _Rite of Spring_
Sibelius's _5th and 7th Symphonies_

Objectively:
Rock music


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

What does 'biggest musical achievement' mean?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Lisztian said:


> What does 'biggest musical achievement' mean?


I was wondering that too.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Lisztian said:


> What does 'biggest musical achievement' mean?


Hm... well, it could be interpreted to mean greatest single work, or greatest general development, trend...
I opted for this 2nd interpretation with my poll options... so here it means the most significant development (in positive sense) in music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I would interpret it in the sense "what music the 20th century will be remembered for" and the clear answer is rock music. Atonality is absolutely peripheral and most people do not even know it exists.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

My vote goes to the invention of the recording studio and its transformation from a vehicle for recording sound to being thought of and used as its own musical instrument. There are few commercially available recordings today that have not been "tweeked" or manipulated in some way by the studio. And it's all been for our listening pleasure. We should be thankful! The studio is to music what James Jamerson was to Motown - vitally crucial to the sound, and mostly underappreciated.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Becca said:


> I think that the biggest achievement was surviving atonal/serial/etc., etc.,


Hear, hear! ..................


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> Hear, hear! ..................


What do you think Becca means?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I think the biggest "musical achievement" is the advent and widespread use of *sound recording and electronic transmission* of all varieties of music. This changed the musical world, in all regards, to a huge extent....much more than any one particular genre of music...


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Lisztian said:


> What does 'biggest musical achievement' mean?





janxharris said:


> I was wondering that too.


May I ask the same question?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Heck148 said:


> I think the biggest "musical achievement" is the advent and widespread use of *sound recording and electronic transmission* of all varieties of music. This changed the musical world, in all regards, to a huge extent....much more than any one particular genre of music...


In the OP, I recognized this fact, but said that it is not included in poll because it's just a technology, even though it had a profound influence.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

My inner sceptic says that the biggest achievement of music in the 20th century was the development of marketing procedures that generated big financial returns for minimal talent. 

Yes. I remember the Monkees, Bay City Rollers etc etc


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Greatest musical achievement of the 20th Century: Recording technology for preservation of great performances and production of studio recordings.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

The convenience of digital media.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Pat Fairlea said:


> My inner sceptic says that the biggest achievement of music in the 20th century was the development of marketing procedures that generated big financial returns for minimal talent.
> 
> Yes. I remember the Monkees, Bay City Rollers etc etc


The development of Auto-Tune to help assist the vocally challenged.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I think this is a good question. I went with rock and roll. Its impact has been huge. There are more people listening to and more money involved with rock and roll than jazz or classical. But, as some have mentioned above, the recording studio and amplification are hugely important.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

Baroque revival movement?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

The obvious answer to the question is the development of ever more sophisticated ways of recording music, coupled with vast improvements in sound quality, and mass production of the media making it cheaply available in the home of ordinary people. That aside, some further comments below:

Biggest change in music in the the 20th C - A much increased focus on the people (whether an individual or band) who present the music as opposed to those who composed it. Listeners generally became far less concerned about the identity of the composer of the music, and a lot more interested in the people who performed it. This trend developed to such an extent ithat the music became almost unique to each performer, so that if anyone else tried to perform a particular song it would not be considered acceptable.

Biggest musical achievement of the 20th C - The huge rise in the general popularity of rock'n'roll from the mid 1950's and its various follow-on varieties, including general "pop" rock, progressive rock, heavy rock, metal, and possibly including some electronic music (e.g. Tangerine Dream type of materail). "Rock" rather fizzled out in the mid-90's, but a 40 year run was quite something. In its heyday it was associated with a very large proliferation in the number of artists, who in some cases earned huge fortunes. Some of the more famous names - like Buddy Holly, Elvis, John Lennon for example - were virtually national monuments and their early, unexpected early deaths caused a lot of grief almost universally.

Biggest classical music achievement of the 20th C - More difficult to say but I would suggest that it had little to do with 2nd Viennese School (and all the offshoots loosely described as atonal or serial etc) but rather the growth of alternative forms of mainly tonal music containing nationally diverse traits. I'm thinking of the likes of Bartok, Janacek, Sibelius, Syzmanowski, Copland, Vaughan Williams, all of whom invigorated classical music in forms that remained largely accessible to people with more traditional tastes.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

Psychedelic Trance


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Wah Wah pedal


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I think _Rite of Spring_ deserves a mention for busting things open as regards how the sheer power of music could change the way in which ballet could be presented.

Non-classical? Where to choose? Ok, here's one. Jimi Hendrix didn't pioneer the playing of electric guitar but he showed unlike anyone else back then what the instrument was capable of producing. Half a century later he's still difficult enough to copy - damned impossible to surpass.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Lip-synching .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Wardrobes !


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The erase head.............................


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)




----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Electronic music in the form of Tomita, Synergy, Vangelis, and a few others. I think it's just begun and it's amazing that so many today are only using it for that 4/4 "dance" stuff.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

What about the 5/24 "dance" stuff


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The movement of most of the music people actually listen to from the efforts of individuals to creative teams of experts.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/hit-charade/403192/


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

The invention of the radio.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> The invention of the radio.


Sorry 19th Cent, so no can do
"The first systematic and unequivocal transmission of electromagnetic waves was performed by Heinrich Rudolf Hertz in his experimental proof of their existence, described in papers published in 1887 and 1890. Hertz famously considered these results as being of little practical value."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_of_radio


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> "The first systematic and unequivocal transmission of electromagnetic waves was performed by Heinrich Rudolf Hertz in his experimental proof of their existence, described in papers published in 1887 and 1890. Hertz famously considered these results as being of little practical value."


Yeah, as Hertz said: "Radio's a loser. Everybody will be listening to CDs of else streaming from the Internet."


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

I voted jazz because it was the creation of the first real popular music as opposed to the classical establishment. Without jazz, we wouldn't have had rock or any other forms of popular music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

R3PL4Y said:


> I voted jazz because it was the creation of the first real popular music as opposed to the classical establishment. Without jazz, we wouldn't have had rock or any other forms of popular music.


In the US, at least, there was a substantial popular music market before jazz. See, for instance, the best-selling Stephen Foster. And my grandfather had a pretty big collection of 78 RPM singles with popular songs from 1915 and prior...here's one of my favorites, from 1912.

https://secondhandsongs.com/work/71761/all


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> Electronic music in the form of Tomita, Synergy, Vangelis, and a few others. I think it's just begun and it's amazing that so many today are only using it for that 4/4 "dance" stuff.


The 4/4 "dance stuff" is generally the most marketed and popular (I like some of it myself). But really, there's lots and lots of electronic music of any type to be found on the web. From smaller independent labels, independent artists, free or not. It's huge, once you start looking. And if you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find electronic music to your liking among it as well.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The choice of electronic music as the biggest achievement of the 20th Century escapes me. In record stores before 2000, electronic music would have occupied a mere fraction of a bin. Whatever amount of it is on the internet now does not apply to the 20th century and even at present is still very much a niche


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2018)

R3PL4Y said:


> I voted jazz because it was the creation of the first real popular music as opposed to the classical establishment. Without jazz, we wouldn't have had rock or any other forms of popular music.


Do you mean in terms of influence? Rock mainly comes from blues and country doesn't it? (Think Elvis Presley)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I also think it was jazz. Genuine popular _art_ as opposed to just popular.

After that, funk.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> What about the 5/24 "dance" stuff


I'm fine with dancing to very odd electronic music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

It depends how one defines 'biggest musical achievement'. I see some good arguments for rock and jazz and the Rite of Spring etc. For me the biggest achievement of 20th century music are the compositions of Maurice Ravel, because I think he composed the finest music that was created in the 20th century.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

1. New tonal methods like polytonality, as that pushed musical boundaries of tonality.

2. Recording techniques and electronics in Classical (eg. Stockhausen, Varese, Pierre Henry) and in Rock (eg. Beatles, Zappa)

3. Creation of new genres and subgenres (of which Blues may be the most influential).

4. 12 Tone and Serialism


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Sticking strictly with " the biggest achievement of 20th century music", I would say is that Romantic style adapted --and preservered -- via Barber, Walton, Elgar, V. Williams and became a powerful player in film (John Williams).


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Just stumbled upon this. Even though here the individual works are listed, instead of trends, it still might be interesting for this thread.

Pierre Boulezs picks his top 10 XX century favorites.
https://www.newsounds.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Just stumbled upon this. Even though here the individual works are listed, instead of trends, it still might be interesting for this thread.
> 
> Pierre Boulezs picks his top 10 XX century favorites.
> https://www.newsounds.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/


Member EddieRUKiddingVarese will like this.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Poll thread... let's see where we'll go with this.
> 
> BTW, I vote for rock'n'roll.
> I think it profoundly changed the music, democratized it in two ways... by both allowing it to become more accessible to much larger public, and also by allowing it to be created by much larger number of talented artists, while still maintaining high quality, at least when it comes to *good *rock music.
> ...


I used to play with old guys from the bebop era. These guys played with Art Farmer, Charlie Parker, Sonny Stitt and guys like that

Stan, who played with Art Farmer in San Francisco in the 1950s, told me that in the 1940s, the record companies had to chase the few musicians who actually could play bebop jazz. the musicians were in control. there were rock and roll players in the 1940s, but they were the worst players in town.

What the record companies did was push rock and roll on the kids, and then they had an unending line of imitating idiots just dying to be rock stars, and so the record companies were back in control. If you didn't play ball, they dropped you and got somebody else. Something that they could not do with bebop men

you seem to take this as a good thing?

music is a meritocracy. It means you have to be good. "Democratizing" music? you mean dumbing it down so that any moron with big hair can get a gig? Is that what you think is "good" ???

my God, spare me from this generation


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nate Miller said:


> I used to play with old guys from the bebop era. These guys played with Art Farmer, Charlie Parker, Sonny Stitt and guys like that
> 
> Stan, who played with Art Farmer in San Francisco in the 1950s, told me that in the 1940s, the record companies had to chase the few musicians who actually could play bebop jazz. the musicians were in control. there were rock and roll players in the 1940s, but they were the worst players in town.
> 
> ...


The thing I think some people over look is that music is not about just whatever is the most difficult and complex to master. I think rock and pop music have shown there is also a power in simplicity. I prefer a simple song with honest expression and 'heart' to a 20 minute improvised jam which is really mostly about musical elitism and showing off.

Not all jazz is like that, but its not so black and white as some people suggest. To claim that pop and rock have no artistic merit because they are simpler is simply ignorant.

To have enduring success in rock a musician requires a certain musical 'feel', this feel can't really be taught and a lot of jazz players do not have it and would make terrible rock musicians (and vice versa). To claim any imitating idiot can make good rock music is incorrect. Very few people can create quality pop or rock music.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

ZJovicic said:


> Just stumbled upon this. Even though here the individual works are listed, instead of trends, it still might be interesting for this thread.
> 
> Pierre Boulezs picks his top 10 XX century favorites.
> https://www.newsounds.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/


He certainly wasn't modest picking one of his own works, but he put it on no. 10 at least.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> music is a meritocracy. It means you have to be good. "Democratizing" music? you mean dumbing it down so that any moron with big hair can get a gig? Is that what you think is "good" ???
> 
> my God, spare me from this generation


No I just mean allowing people who haven't been in professional music education since age 5 to be able to express their musical talent. If music was limited to only classical we would be deprived of musical creations of likes of Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, John Lennon etc... as for all of them it was probably too late to get into classical music education when they started making music.

And perhaps the fact that they weren't in education is maybe even their advantage because they created music more freely and spontaneously, without limiting dogmas of academic music.

Of course formal musical education is a great thing, but perhaps its not the only way and not always the best way for someone to become a good musician.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I do enjoy the proficiency and dedication Classical Musicians have for perfection. Rock and rollers have an "I don't care" attitude, it's more about unleashing, mostly, unrefined emotion in unrefined ways. In the 60s and 70s, it was about taking drugs and embracing a flow of unrefined emotion. I don't think I need to explain on this forum that Classical Music is very much about being aware and sharp. The emotions are contained and expressed in sophisticated ways. 

I really much prefer the complexity, intricacies, and subtly found in Classical Music. And I've played in many, many rock and roll bands, but much prefer my solo piano output of which some of you are familiar.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> Just stumbled upon this. Even though here the individual works are listed, instead of trends, it still might be interesting for this thread.
> 
> Pierre Boulezs picks his top 10 XX century favorites.
> https://www.newsounds.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/


Yes what a good list with Edgard Varèse, Ameriques well ahead of The Rite of Spring, ah the world is in order


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

I think that Beatles are the greatest music accomplishment; and by the Beatles I don't just mean John, Paul, George and Ringo, but also Brian Epstein (manager) and George Martin (producer). 

The Beatles were able to incorporate the sounds of Rock, Motown, folk, blues, electronic, East Indian and even a classical (listen to the string quartet on "Eleanor Rigby"); they took all those sounds and organized them into a unified and seamless whole. I'm not even a person who has a great liking for rock music and I love the Beatles' music and live by many of their lyrics: "Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting", "All you need is love", "Take a sad song and make it better", "Let it be"...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Boston Charlie said:


> I think that Beatles are the greatest music accomplishment; and by the Beatles I don't just mean John, Paul, George and Ringo, but also Brian Epstein (manager) and George Martin (producer).
> 
> The Beatles were able to incorporate the sounds of Rock, Motown, folk, blues, electronic, East Indian and even a classical (listen to the string quartet on "Eleanor Rigby"); they took all those sounds and organized them into a unified and seamless whole. I'm not even a person who has a great liking for rock music and I love the Beatles' music and live by many of their lyrics: "Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting", "All you need is love", "Take a sad song and make it better", "Let it be"...


Meh. Whatever does it for you though, more power to you! They had a good sense of melody.


----------



## 13hm13 (Oct 31, 2016)

Sticking strictly with the orig. query: *What was the biggest achievement of 20th century music?*

That most of it (the art of music) _remained_ very listenable and enjoyable regardless of it being splintered into highly diverse styles (rock, electronic, 12-tone, atonal, jazz, etc.)


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Meh [to the Beatles]. Whatever does it for you though, more power to you! They had a good sense of melody.


My 13 year old son plays piano, and about a year or two ago was ready to quit; a dilemma for a parent who wants to encourage talent and, yet, not force the child to do something that the child really doesn't want to do. I told reminded my son that he had talent but the hard work also needs to be done if he wants to be good at it. I told my son, though, that he could stop with the exercises and the classical music and just play whatever he wanted for a while.

My son said that he liked some of the Beatles songs that he heard me play, so I purchased a book of Beatles songs. He played the Beatles for about a month and renewed his interest in music and now he likes to practice so much that sometimes I have to ask him to stop because its bedtime, and he's even gone back to trying to learn classical music.

The thing that struck me, though, about the Beatles, is that unlike us older ones who were introduced to the Beatles by way of their records, my son (born some 34 years since the Beatles' break-up) was introduced to much of their music through his book of Beatles' songs. Bare bones, apart from the culture (or counter-culture) that places the Beatles into a certain context-dependent experience; my son could relate to their music as music. That tells me that unlike a good deal of other pop music, the Beatles' music never sounds dated. It remains fresh to each new generation.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Boston Charlie said:


> My 13 year old son plays piano, and about a year or two ago was ready to quit; a dilemma for a parent who wants to encourage talent and, yet, not force the child to do something that the child really doesn't want to do. I told reminded my son that he had talent but the hard work also needs to be done if he wants to be good at it. I told my son, though, that he could stop with the exercises and the classical music and just play whatever he wanted for a while.
> 
> My son said that he liked some of the Beatles songs that he heard me play, so I purchased a book of Beatles songs. He played the Beatles for about a month and renewed his interest in music and now he likes to practice so much that sometimes I have to ask him to stop because its bedtime, and he's even gone back to trying to learn classical music.
> 
> The thing that struck me, though, about the Beatles, is that unlike us older ones who were introduced to the Beatles by way of their records, my son (born some 34 years since the Beatles' break-up) was introduced to much of their music through his book of Beatles' songs. Bare bones, apart from the culture (or counter-culture) that places the Beatles into a certain context-dependent experience; my son could relate to their music as music. That tells me that unlike a good deal of other pop music, the Beatles' music never sounds dated. It remains fresh to each new generation.


We have to accept that our kids may have very different tastes in music (and other things) than us. My own son went through the stage where he wanted to give up but we encouraged him but realised his tastes were not classical but rock and pop. He is now a professional musician playing his sort of music. Not the Beatles though.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Biggest doesn't mean best. I wouldn't presume to say what's best in that dizzying century. Biggest is the recording industry, which has opened up to all and for all time the whole range of the world's music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> Just stumbled upon this. Even though here the individual works are listed, instead of trends, it still might be interesting for this thread.
> Pierre Boulezs picks his top 10 XX century favorites.
> https://www.newsounds.org/story/10-great-works-20th-century-pierre-boulezs-90th-birthday/


I do not take Boulez seriously since I read his comments about Shostakovich. Read some of his opinions and it becomes clear that the guy was nuts
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2015/mar/26/boulez-in-his-own-words


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jacck said:


> I do not take Boulez seriously since I read his comments about Shostakovich. Read some of his opinions and it becomes clear that the guy was nuts
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2015/mar/26/boulez-in-his-own-words


Imagining that the whole of Western culture was a Gertrude Stein salon in macrocosm and dropping opinions like cigarette ashes on the carpet to scandalize the few people who were actually paying attention was a Modernist thing, and a French thing. Tres amusant, tres passe.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Boston Charlie said:


> My 13 year old son plays piano, and about a year or two ago was ready to quit; a dilemma for a parent who wants to encourage talent and, yet, not force the child to do something that the child really doesn't want to do. I told reminded my son that he had talent but the hard work also needs to be done if he wants to be good at it. I told my son, though, that he could stop with the exercises and the classical music and just play whatever he wanted for a while.
> 
> My son said that he liked some of the Beatles songs that he heard me play, so I purchased a book of Beatles songs. He played the Beatles for about a month and renewed his interest in music and now he likes to practice so much that sometimes I have to ask him to stop because its bedtime, and he's even gone back to trying to learn classical music.
> 
> The thing that struck me, though, about the Beatles, is that unlike us older ones who were introduced to the Beatles by way of their records, my son (born some 34 years since the Beatles' break-up) was introduced to much of their music through his book of Beatles' songs. Bare bones, apart from the culture (or counter-culture) that places the Beatles into a certain context-dependent experience; my son could relate to their music as music. That tells me that unlike a good deal of other pop music, the Beatles' music never sounds dated. It remains fresh to each new generation.


That's great The Beatles renewed your son's pursuit of music, but, it's important to remember that their music is much easier to digest/play which could be the reason your son gravitated towards it. The reasons for his falling in love with The Beatlles apart from the culture has got to be for several reasons, one certainly having to be that they could write a great pop song.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

tdc said:


> The thing I think some people over look is that music is not about just whatever is the most difficult and complex to master. I think rock and pop music have shown there is also a power in simplicity. I prefer a simple song with honest expression and 'heart' to a 20 minute improvised jam which is really mostly about musical elitism and showing off.
> 
> Not all jazz is like that, but its not so black and white as some people suggest. To claim that pop and rock have no artistic merit because they are simpler is simply ignorant.
> 
> To have enduring success in rock a musician requires a certain musical 'feel', this feel can't really be taught and a lot of jazz players do not have it and would make terrible rock musicians (and vice versa). To claim any imitating idiot can make good rock music is incorrect. Very few people can create quality pop or rock music.


The thing I think some people over look is that rock music is crap. Period. Rock musicians are the worst musicians in any town. Want to get a rocker to turn down the volume? ...put a sheet of music in front of them

that's nice talk there, but "enduring rock musician"???

you mean like those geezers from the 60s that didn't overdose in 1970 like everybody else?

has nothing to do with "difficult" music, you missed the whole point. My example was told to me by a jazz man because he was around the recording industry in the 1940s. Has nothing to do with jazz. You are WAY off.

my point is that musicians used to have control, but our art was taken away by the dopes in suits who then committed cultricide by releasing "Frampton Comes Alive" to sell to morons who think music doesn't have to be difficult

thank you very much for destroying the art of music :tiphat:


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> that rock music is crap. Period.


Here's a good selection of rock music "crap":


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Here's a good selection of rock music "crap":


and you threw in Guns and Roses? Really?? 

anyway, thanks for illustrating my point that the public has no concept of what the art of music is all about


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nate Miller said:


> and you threw in Guns and Roses? Really??
> 
> anyway, thanks for illustrating my point that the public has no concept of what the art of music is all about


You aren't a member of the public?

This is crap? Genesis - Supper's Ready No way...


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Guns 'n' Roses have some crappy songs but Sweet Child O' Mine is a timeless classic.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Rock song:


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

janxharris said:


> You aren't a member of the public?


no, I am a musician

the rest of the population that can't play are civilians


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nate Miller said:


> no, I am a musician
> 
> the rest of the population that can't play are civilians


None of us has a monopoly on what constitutes great music.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

listen, guys...it is ok to like rock and roll.... just don't try and tell me that rock and roll is the art of music

I play rock. I know what I'm talking about. Rock is about having fun. Rock trying to be art is just pretentious. 

so while you are busy telling me how wrong I am, remember that I actually have a gig this weekend so if you can't play anything but your iTunes, give me a flipping break, ok?


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

janxharris said:


> None of us has a monopoly on what constitutes great music.


no, but some of us have union cards


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Nate Miller said:


> Rock trying to be art is just pretentious.


I don't agree................


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Nate Miller, your arrogance is charming, but you're still wrong, there are countless rock artists who take their music very seriously and also there are rock critics who thoroughly dissect and scrutinize rock albums. There are even genres who intentionally avoid being just fun, or catering to public tastes, or being commercial. There are big underground scenes, there are many genres I never heard of that are thriving and developing each day and pushing the limits of popular music.

As long as you make a sincere effort to express something real with your work and you achieve a satisfactory result, this can be considered true art.

Also fun is not antithetical to art. A lot of classical music is fun. Serious literature can also be fun etc... Even some art theoreticians said that art should be dulce cum utili, pleasant (or fun) and useful, at the same time.

But even though fun is perfectly fine, there are whole subgenres of popular music that try to explore depressive or existential themes and that avoid being fun, think of death metal, doom metal, or things like that.

Or punk music which was in many cases highly politically critical.

Or singers-songwriters like Bob Dylan who are poets and musicians at the same time... even Nobel Committee recognized it.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Nate Miller said:


> listen, guys...it is ok to like rock and roll.... just don't try and tell me that rock and roll is the art of music


Well Nate, maybe not the way you play it, but these guys are artists and their music is art:





















Maybe we have a different definition of what art is. I've sung Schumann lieder. Good stuff I think. None of it struck me with the artistic force of the above.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Guns 'n' Roses make me want to commit hara kiri, but I have found a less painful solution: not listening to their godawful squawkings. They really dressed like hobos.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Boston Charlie said:


> "Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting", "All you need is love", "Take a sad song and make it better", "Let it be"...


"Why don't we do it in the road?" :devil:


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Kivimees said:


> "Why don't we do it in the road?" :devil:


no truer words were ever recorded on vinyl


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Nate Miller, your arrogance is charming,


look, sorry I came down on you so hard, but when I was growing up there actually was a lot of work for regular musicians. I even had a friend in school who's dad was a piano player, and he was able to raise 4 kids playing piano in nightclubs

years ago I would get hired for what they called 6-nighters. It was like a regular job. You played 6 nights a week and were basically the "house band". but back then restaurants, hotels, bars, all sorts of places had live music because it would bring in crowds

then somewhere in the mid 1980s things started to change

I haven't been booked at the same place on consecutive nights in 25 years now.

where am I going with this? well, I wanted to make a living playing music. But then the jobs dried up and I had to work a regular job and play on the side

to me everything that takes music, repackages it, and sells it back to us had a hand in killing the jobs for local working musicians in towns all over the place. Anything that replaces a real musician with piped in digital playlists is killing the art

this is serious stuff for me

I have played thousands of professional gigs, thousands of hours of practice, am a university trained musician. I'm arrogant because I'm the real deal and I know it. I call it "confidence". I have to be confident because I have to put it on the line all the time. I don't get to sit home and think about it, I have to go and do it and I have to do it better than the other people out there trying to do the same thing, or my phone stops ringing.

so give a working musician some latitude here


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> The thing I think some people over look is that rock music is crap. Period. Rock musicians are the worst musicians in any town. Want to get a rocker to turn down the volume? ...put a sheet of music in front of them
> 
> that's nice talk there, but "enduring rock musician"???
> 
> ...


I don't see how Rock is responsible for a musician not getting the gigs one was used to. Calling Rock crap and inferring that all rock musicians are incompetent is so extreme and untrue that it raises the question whether someone is trapped in yesteryear and suffering from delusions of grandeur.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Boston Charlie said:


> The thing that struck me, though, about the Beatles, is that unlike us older ones who were introduced to the Beatles by way of their records, my son (born some 34 years since the Beatles' break-up) was introduced to much of their music through his book of Beatles' songs. Bare bones, apart from the culture (or counter-culture) that places the Beatles into a certain context-dependent experience; my son could relate to their music as music. That tells me that unlike a good deal of other pop music, the Beatles' music never sounds dated. It remains fresh to each new generation.


The Beatles music is an integral part of my family - all of my kids [5], all of my grand-kids [10], love the Beatles, know most all the songs, the lyrics...two of my sons play in commercial rock bands, and Beatles songs are of course part of their repertoire..
3 of my grand-daughters are quite good singers, and when we visit them we often have sing-alongs in the car to Beatles tunes - I teach them the harmonies, which are pretty simple, and they catch on right away. I've taught them quite a lot of music theory thru this fun exercise - intervals, major chords, minor chords, sevenths, etc....yes, the Beatles seem to span the generations quite readily....their tunes seem to be timeless...


----------



## nospr (Mar 19, 2018)

Electronic Music allows the composition of any tone, timbre, sound, noise imaginable. You can full and complete range over everything when producing electronic music. In a sense everything made after 1980 (rock, pop, jazz, avant-garde) is all in some way just Electronic Music.

The notion of electronic music being too simple or too irritating is absurd because electronic music simply just means that it was created using an electronic/digital instrument or computer. It could be anything from Aphex Twin to Kraftwerk to Katy Perry to Stockhausen to Daft Punk. Electronic music isn't really even a genre, it's just a descriptor to the instruments used.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think there's perhaps a difference between electronic music as a technology and electronic music as a genre.

As a technology it can be used in various genres, but as a genre it's more specific. What I intended in my poll as one of the options was electronic music as a genre, including all its subgenres, (so not only techno, house, etc...)


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nate Miller said:


> so give a working musician some latitude here


I've noticed a large percentage of your posts allude to your excellence as a musician. Do you notice anyone else on here that does that? Do you think you are the only good musician in the world? Or perhaps other musicians don't feel the need to constantly tell others how good they are?

I'll tell you what - I have respect for any musician that can play jazz or classical well, but they are not the only forms of artistry in music. Many people can achieve that by putting in enough work and practice into their craft, and many jazz players play like trained monkeys rehashing musical clichés not really creating anything fresh or new.

Creating something original and inspired can't be taught (although some of the tools can) it is either done or it is not and musical style or ability is largely irrelevant in this. New creation is true artistry - spending thousands of hours practicing so that you can sound just like thousands of other trained musicians, not so much.

Until you show evidence of one of your original creations, or unique and original style of improvisation, then I have news for you - you are not an artist to the same degree that many rock musicians are - you are a well trained musician that likely sounds largely the same as countless other musicians.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Nate Miller said:


> listen, guys...it is ok to like rock and roll.... just don't try and tell me that rock and roll is the art of music
> 
> I play rock. I know what I'm talking about. Rock is about having fun. Rock trying to be art is just pretentious.
> 
> so while you are busy telling me how wrong I am, remember that I actually have a gig this weekend so if you can't play anything but your iTunes, give me a flipping break, ok?


I can sympathize with Nate. Personally I can listen to everything down to rap, but tend to hear much of popular music is like amplified minimalism. I find it seductive sometimes, with interesting production, but it opens the doors to substandard technical ability. 
Image pumping, marketting is huge especially in the popular music business.

That said I'm a big Blues and Rock n' Roll fan (Son House, Bo Diddley). It doesn't need to be Art to be entertaining.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> I can sympathize with Nate. Personally I can listen to everything down to rap, but tend to hear much of popular music is like amplified minimalism. I find it seductive sometimes, with interesting production, but it opens the doors to substandard technical ability.
> Image pumping, marketting is huge especially in the popular music business.
> 
> That said I'm a big Blues and Rock n' Roll fan (Son House, Bo Diddley). It doesn't need to be Art to be entertaining.


But ole Nate was not questioning the value or art of some rock. His comments were that rock is crap and not art. Watch and listen to live performances of groups such a U2, particularly The Eagles and more recently The Killers (just as a few examples) and tell me they aren't artists from every point of view.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

nospr said:


> Electronic Music allows the composition of any tone, timbre, sound, noise imaginable.


Exactly. That's why I think electronic music, synthesizers and other electronic tools were enormous developments in 20th century music. Especially from the moment when synthesizers became more portable and flexible in their use; the late 60s and the 70s. The sonic possibilities of music were expanded immensely. This increased even further in the digital age. It's like a breath of fresh air from the sounds of the usual accoustic, traditional instruments that we all know.

In terms of sound, timbre, texture etc. you can achieve a lot with accoustic instruments, especially with an orchestra of course, but synthesizers have their own place and charm. They produce different, unique worlds of sound that were previously unattainable. And with that come new kinds of feelings and atmospheres for the listener to enjoy. Electronic music expanded what one can feel and experience from listening to music. And that's why to me it's the greatest achievement of 20th century music. Anyone who's a fan of electronic and ambient music will surely recognize this. 
A lot of people just don't seem to like electronic sounds and music very much, and that's just fine. I don't think much of most rock music myself.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

DaveM said:


> But ole Nate was not questioning the value or art of some rock. His comments were that rock is crap and not art. Watch and listen to live performances of groups such a U2, particularly The Eagles and more recently The Killers (just as a few examples) and tell me they aren't artists from every point of view.


I think of Art as working on multiple levels. Not much of Rock works that way. I just took Nate's bashing as an exaggeration, that what he meant was Rock doesn't operate at a level like Classical in general.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think of Art as working on multiple levels. Not much of Rock works that way. I just took Nate's bashing as an exaggeration, that what he meant was Rock doesn't operate at a level like Classical in general.


It certainly doesn't. I'm getting old by stating that I think Rock is the devil's music! :lol:
But, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't even like Jazz very much.


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

I think the biggest achievement?? of 20th century music was giving rise to talentless musicians/artists?? with egos the size of planets.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Rock and Roll brought the idea of making music into the minds of millions of wannabe Rock Stars and garage "musicians". Music became People's Music. Anybody could aspire to creating and playing music that millions would or could listen to. Revolutionary idea. Still going strong, though becoming more and more fragmented.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It certainly doesn't. I'm getting old by stating that I think Rock is the devil's music! :lol:
> But, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't even like Jazz very much.


Surely there are exceptions? I've already posted 'Supper's Ready' by Genesis.


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

alan davis said:


> I think the biggest achievement?? of 20th century music was giving rise to talentless musicians/artists?? with egos the size of planets.


Pretty narrow view this. Of course there were absolutely rubbish performers but there are also highly talented musicians and song writers emerged,


----------



## Star (May 27, 2017)

If we going to talk about music and influence then rock 'n' roll has been vastly more influential in Western society than any classical music.


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

Star said:


> If we going to talk about music and influence then rock 'n' roll has been vastly more influential in Western society than any classical music.


True as is the Big Mac to Western cuisine.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

tdc said:


> I've noticed a large percentage of your posts allude to your excellence as a musician. Do you notice anyone else on here that does that? Do you think you are the only good musician in the world? Or perhaps other musicians don't feel the need to constantly tell others how good they are?


and here I thought you had no passion

but you are actually pretty emotional, aren't you?

I keep mentioning that I actually play because, while I know I'm not the only musician in the world, I sometimes wonder if I'm the only musician in the discussions around here.

If you are playing a lot, too, then I can't see how anything I say would bother you

so I was bashing rock and roll and yet you took out an attack on me...

keyboards are awesome, aren't they?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> and you threw in Guns and Roses? Really??
> 
> anyway, thanks for illustrating my point that the public has no concept of what the art of music is all about


One of my very favorite quotes is widely applicable to and throughout any discussion of music, as it involves the lessening of inherent vitality and universality of any musical genre when it becomes increasingly the province of aesthetes and the cognoscenti. If the shoe fits....

"A high culture must, historically speaking, originate with an aristocratic class, because this alone has the time and energy to create it. If it remains for too long the preserve of the aristocrat, it becomes first elaborate and then silly....."

H.D.F. Kitto, _The Greeks_

Sometimes an art or musical form can begin within a much "lower" socio-economic or cultural stratum, but, if seized upon by the cultural aristocracy, can suffer the same fate as noted above.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

and not for nothing, but Slash was the last of the true "guitar heroes" 

kids just don't play solos like they used to do, but the progressive rock guys are playing pretty intricate stuff, so I never missed solos in any of that

(see? I like rock, I really do....I just don't think of it as art music)


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

speaking of guitar solos, I like this:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Nate Miller said:


> so I was bashing rock and roll and yet you took out an attack on me...


Not trying to attack you as much as help you.



Nate Miller said:


> (see? I like rock, I really do....I just don't think of it as art music)


I think sweeping generalizations of entire genres are generally not really accurate or helpful. Some rock is more artistic than other rock, and its the same with classical music. For example I'll take The Beatles or Zeppelin over one of the 3rd tier classical era guitar composers any day.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

I have to add my vote to both Robert Pickett and Larkenfield. The String Quartets of Bartok are a monumental achievement as is Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I would also include Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony. 

It may be trite, but I do have to ask what will stand the test of time? European folk music of the 18th and 19th centuries were immensely popular during that time, but Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms endure even hundreds of years later. I think there is a parallel between Rock and Roll and the folk music of yesteryear. In 2100 or 2200 what will be remembered of the 20th Century? I suggest it will be Sibelius, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Shostakovich and not Rock and Roll.

I immerse myself in classical music every day. I really enjoy jazz and listen to it often. I grew up with Rock and Roll and Pop and enjoyed it then, but it does little for me now. My bias is clearly evident. Regardless of the current impact Rock and Roll has had, I just don't think it will be long-lasting.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Beet131 said:


> I have to add my vote to both Robert Pickett and Larkenfield. The String Quartets of Bartok are a monumental achievement as is Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. I would also include Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony.
> 
> It may be trite, but I do have to ask what will stand the test of time? European folk music of the 18th and 19th centuries were immensely popular during that time, but Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms endure even hundreds of years later. I think there is a parallel between Rock and Roll and the folk music of yesteryear. In 2100 or 2200 what will be remembered of the 20th Century? I suggest it will be Sibelius, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Shostakovich and not Rock and Roll.
> 
> I immerse myself in classical music every day. I really enjoy jazz and listen to it often. I grew up with Rock and Roll and Pop and enjoyed it then, but it does little for me now. My bias is clearly evident. Regardless of the current impact Rock and Roll has had, I just don't think it will be long-lasting.


7 decades after the birth of Rock, it has more influence than any of those composers you mentioned did 7 decades after their main compositions. Like it or not, Rock has influenced more generations in a greater way than those composers ever did. Classical music was a juggernaut of music in the 19th century and before. Its influence has progressively diminished throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. At present, Rock has splintered into subcategories, but still hangs on.

The Beatles will be remembered by more people than Sibelius, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> 7 decades after the birth of Rock, it has more influence than any of those composers you mentioned did 7 decades after their main compositions. Like it or not, Rock has influenced more generations in a greater way than those composers ever did. Classical music was a juggernaut of music in the 19th century and before. Its influence has progressively diminished throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. At present, Rock has splintered into subcategories, but still hangs on.
> 
> The Beatles will be remembered by more people than Sibelius, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.


You may be right, DaveM. I'm just wondering about 100 years or even 200 years from now. It took awhile for Bach to be fully appreciated, but he is one of the great triumvirates of classical music now. And, you hear him everywhere. His influence is virtually ubiquitous. Procol Harem, Iron Butterfly, etc. etc. even chose to use a Bachian influence in their really interesting Rock and Roll songs - "A Whiter Shade of Pale" and "Inagodadavida."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Beet131 said:


> You may be right, DaveM. I'm just wondering about 100 years or even 200 years from now. It took awhile for Bach to be fully appreciated, but he is one of the great triumvirates of classical music now. And, you hear him everywhere. His influence is virtually ubiquitous. Procol Harem, Iron Butterfly, etc. etc. even chose to use a Bachian influence in their really interesting Rock and Roll songs - "A Whiter Shade of Pale" and "Inagodadavida."


I do hope that classical music of the early 20th century is that relevant 200 years from now.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Greatest musical achievement of the 20th century.

The Motown sound! Detroit's where it was at!!!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DaveM said:


> 7 decades after the birth of Rock, it has more influence than any of those composers you mentioned did 7 decades after their main compositions. Like it or not, Rock has influenced more generations in a greater way than those composers ever did. Classical music was a juggernaut of music in the 19th century and before. Its influence has progressively diminished throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. At present, Rock has splintered into subcategories, but still hangs on.
> 
> The Beatles will be remembered by more people than Sibelius, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.


I think this remains an assertion doesn't it? - though perhaps you are correct regarding Schoenberg and Bartok.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

If the past in classical music is any indication of the next 200 years, the music will be just as relevant as the last 1000. Even Medieval music is still being played going back more than 500 years, including before that Hildegard de Bingen.

Rock has about a 70-year history by comparison and so much of it has already faded. But I'm sure the Beatles will be heard because of the group's unprecedented creativity in a genre that had its early beginnings in Black culture and the blues. The Beatles did it so well in what essentially started out as folk music in New Orleans going back to 1830.

The difference I see between Rock and CM is _the beat_. As I've gotten older I no longer require the same intensity of the beat except every now and then. Without it there are still many other rhythmic possibilities but also all kinds of colors, more involved and engaging harmonies, all the orchestra texture possibilities, the subtleties, the exquisite refinement that's possible, the great artistry and its high demands of performance, the years of training the performers go through to reach that high peak of expression-and they didn't get to that level by starting out in a garage band.

Overall, the artistic demands between the two genres are just not sufficiently comparable, though great artistry can also be found in the famous bands. But I view Rock as lower on the hierarchy of psychological and emotional needs when one gets older. I believe that age will always be on the side of CM rather than the overall longevity of most Rock, in which the beat can be stimulating but pounding, the harmonic changes basic, the volume excruciating, the sentiments base and sometimes crude. Much of it doesn't hold up because it's more about the day-to-day, the focus on overt sexuality, cultural wars, the MTV attention span where there must be a visual change every two or three seconds, or an harmonic hook in order to succeed, expected by its wider audience.

Other than the intensity of the beat, though with some exceptions, CM also has the refinement of each instrument that has been developed over hundreds of years, composers of infinite variety involved with many of the movers and shakers in history. The thought of Bach, Mozart or Beethoven fading out is unthinkable, at least for me; it's gotten wired into the collective unconscious even if it appears to be a minority interest, and I believe some listeners forget that the musical genres are no longer in competition with each other, because so much of it, practically the history of everything musically, at least for the time being, is available online for the price of a song.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> If the past in classical music is any indication of the next 200 years, the music will be just as relevant as the last 1000. Even Medieval music is still being played going back more than 500 years, including before that Hildegard de Bingen.
> 
> Rock has about a 70-year history by comparison and so much of it has already faded. But I'm sure the Beatles will be heard because of the group's unprecedented creativity in a genre that had its early beginnings in Black culture and the blues. The Beatles did it so well in what essentially started out as folk music in New Orleans going back to 1830.
> 
> ...


Well-said, Larkenfield! I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> If the past in classical music is any indication of the next 200 years, the music will be just as relevant as the last 1000. Even Medieval music is still being played going back more than 500 years, including before that Hildegard de Bingen.
> 
> Rock has about a 70-year history by comparison and so much of it has already faded. But I'm sure the Beatles will be heard because of the group's unprecedented creativity in a genre that had its early beginnings in Black culture and the blues. The Beatles did it so well in what essentially started out as folk music in New Orleans going back to 1830.
> 
> ...


I know you stated this as a subjective opinion, but I question the validity of it, even though I want to agree with it right off the bat.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I agree with a lot of the Beet131's general sentiments on the topic rock vs. classical.
But I would add something in defense of rock. I think there are exceptions. While most songs indeed have strong beat, talk about sex, and are perhaps more appropriate for younger audiences and having fun, I think there is also the other side of rock which has not only itself produced lots of compelling and thoughtful songs, not always with strong beat, but has also influenced other genres such as art pop, indie rock, some adult contemporary stuff, which doesn't always have the aggressive beat, etc... and while most of such pop songs might be bland there are some with lasting value, which are comparable even to art songs.
And I think most of this, even if doesn't directly belong to the genre of rock itself, is somewhat based on rock or related to it, as rock revolutionized pretty much entire popular music production since 1960s...

Right now I am 30, and I listen to classical around 60% of the time, and 40% of the time to various popular genres, mostly rock or based on rock. If there wasn't these 40% I think I would miss a lot of good music.

And regarding more aggressive rock stuff, I think it also has its place and can also be remembered. Perhaps it won't be a favorite of older audiences, but thanks to sound recording technology, I can imagine youngsters in the future still enjoying some hard rock and metal hits.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

I voted : Jazz beats atonal any day of the week .


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Charles Ives Concord Piano Sonata, completed around 1915. If there is any highly dissonant music that can be considered as hauntingly beautiful, even sensual, this composition is it. Throiughout, the opening motto to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony appears many times and the sonata is a virtual tribute to the opening of that symphony.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DaveM said:


> The Beatles will be remembered by more people than Sibelius, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg and Shostakovich.


In fact, those guys probably don't remember the Beatles at all.


----------



## chefmclean (Jan 28, 2018)

Coltrane


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

alan davis said:


> I think the biggest achievement?? of 20th century music was giving rise to talentless musicians/artists?? with egos the size of planets.


Well, you could say that even more for Hollywood actors that are so full of themselves with self-importance and professional athletes who seem to have forgotten what it's like to be in love with a game.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Making it to the 21st


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Stravinsky - especially the Rite of Spring. What else caused the audience to riot, but then became mainstream?

In what way is Mozart and Beethoven, or the Rite of Spring, not accessible? I'm a working class chap, brought up on popular music, with no music education beyond murdering "ba ba black sheep" on a recorder in infant school, but I got Beethoven as soon as I moved the radio dial to BBC Radio 3 by accident. 

There are plenty of classically trained musicians, with hundreds trying desperately for each orchestral place. So we don't need a host of bedroom rock & rollers to provide enough musicians. 

Rock musicians didn't make any more significant contribution to social movements, subcultures, etc., than any other section of society. And the leaders of the more positive social movements & subcultures were not rock musicians (Gandhi, Martin Luther King, didn't play lead guitar...) Maybe the "rock gods" led the drug culture, but is that a positive thing? The music itself is rather limited, to my ears, although I don't mind listening to a bit of rock & roll, now and again, just as I don't mind listening to a bit of 17th century folk music.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

science said:


> In fact, those guys probably don't remember the Beatles at all.


Just saw this. Gave me a good laugh.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

20th century Classical Music and, to a lesser extent, Jazz in my entirely biased, largely uneducated and probably worthless opinion.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Biggest musical achievement of the 20th century


that century had no achievements in music.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

^
^

None at all? I'd best throw half my collection away, then.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> that century had no achievements in music.


?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> ^
> ^
> 
> None at all? I'd best throw half my collection away, then.


Think of all the Russians that would end up in the dumpster :lol:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> that century had no achievements in music.


Seriously?

Sibelius's 7th Symphony (1924) - voted 14th greatest symphony by 151 conductors after a survey by BBC Music Magazine.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Biggest musical achievement? I nominate comrade Joseph Stalin, whose helpful comments encouraged Shostakovich to move away from cacophonous modernism and to write music better fitting the needs of the masses of the Soviet people. 

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/muddle-instead-of-music


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Biggest musical achievement? I nominate comrade Joseph Stalin, whose helpful comments encouraged Shostakovich to move away from cacophonous modernism and to write music better fitting the needs of the masses of the Soviet people.


Is Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District that bad?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Is Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District that bad?


Comrade Stalin thought it was! And I have reason to believe that Shostakovich valued his opinion far more than mine.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

janxharris said:


> Is Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District that bad?


Lady Macbeth is awesome.....violent and wild tho...rapes, beatings, murders, betrayals....apparently Comrade Stalin , the...um....Great Leader and Teacher., found it most offensive....stalin, of course, noted for his "delicate sensibilities" ....[sarcasm off]


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Sibelius' symphonies 2-7. 

Honourable mention to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Zhdanov said:


> that century had no achievements in music.


Wow, you must have one of the greatest Edison wax cylinder collections in existence.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sibelius' symphonies 2-7.
> 
> Honourable mention to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.


I would personally limit the Sibelius to 4, 5 and 7 but I know the other symphonies are liked by many.

And not forgetting Shostakovich 5 etc


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Not forgetting Shostakovich 5 etc


Not forgetting Amériques Varese


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Not forgetting Amériques Varese


Thus far I have failed to appreciate it, but will try again.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Berg's opera Wozzeck.

Video starts at 1:17 for the 3-4 readers who might be interested.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

I voted for Jazz. I wouldn't trade Louis Armstrong for all the classical music written.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Making it to the 21st


True. The music helped me survive into the 21st. Century-Shostakovich, Bartók, Prokofiev, Copland, Persichetti, Mahler, etc. They all helped!


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

elgars ghost said:


> None at all? I'd best throw half my collection away, then.





janxharris said:


> Sibelius's 7th Symphony (1924) - voted 14th greatest symphony by 151 conductors after a survey by BBC Music Magazine.


you guys...

i did not mean classical music, of course.

but why didn't you read the OP before replying my post?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

gosh, i thought i've been around this forum long enough to make my support for strictly classical more than obvious, but some folks on here just seem to pay no attention to others...


----------



## xrysida (Nov 29, 2018)

Jazz extends and expands the music into infinity......:trp:


----------

