# What recordings will people still be listening to/studying in 100 years?



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

Another topic got me thinking: what, if any, recordings will people still be listening to and studying 100+ years from now? I use the word "recordings" to mean a specific instance of recorded sound, so pieces/songs that may still be listened to through then-current covers/reinterpretations don't count. The only one I would be willing to bet for sure is _The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady_ by Charles Mingus. What qualities would a recording have to have to ensure timelessness? Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## Nevohteeb (May 5, 2010)

Bach; Beethoven; Brahms; Dvorak; Haydn; Mendelssohn; Mozart; Rachmaninoff; Schubert; among others.


----------



## userfume (Nov 21, 2012)

Born to run!!!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

These:


----------



## Nevohteeb (May 5, 2010)

I agree. Glenn was a phenomenonal musician/pianist, and his base camp, was Bach. Another phenomenal musician/pianist is Mitsuko Uchida. She makes every work she plays, sound like it was brand new.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

Probably some dreck like The Beatles.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Why only that one Mingus album? People with an interest in jazz will want to listen to the entire evolution of recorded jazz history. We're already approaching 100 years since King Oliver, Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, and people are still listening to these recordings.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In 100 years we'll be listening to music designed to enhance our productivity, streamed into our brains. Our glandular secretions will be monitored to optimize the mix we receive. All will be well, and we'll be happy. Very happy.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

One thing I take comfort in, is that stuff like Bieber and 90% of the other populist stuff currently doing the rounds, as it always does- will be long dead and buried and forgotten.............:tiphat:


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Why only that one Mingus album? People with an interest in jazz will want to listen to the entire evolution of recorded jazz history. We're already approaching 100 years since King Oliver, Louis Armstrong, Bix Beiderbecke, and people are still listening to these recordings.


You're right. I don't know what I'm thinking lol


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I think people will always listen to the Beatles (I like the Beatles). And possibly Led Zeppelin (I like them too).


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Since this thread is a non-classical thread...

Judging by the popular (non-classical) musics of the past, I don't think popular musics have the necessary ingredients for timelessness. Pop from days gone by appeals primarily to a connoisseur listener. We can see this already in our time. Older generations still listen to Gene Autry, Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland, Bing Crosby, etc. The boomers listen to classic rock: the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Doors, etc. The younger generations have their own pop stars and aren't clued in _en masse_ to the music of the older generations, excepting those with an exceptional interest in music who have taken the time to dig into the past.

Of those few who will take the time to dig into the past, some will want to hear rock, others jazz, others pop... Some will want to hear only the big names, others will explore the era deeply and ferret out the most obscure artists. I don't expect this to be any different than it is today. Music fanatics always want more


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2013)

I just had a horrid vision of someone in the future calling Coldplay "classic rock"


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

The Rolling Stones--unless they're still touring!


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

I think The Beatles for listening but I am not sure if they will still care too much about interpretations of the lyrics and all that stuff. There are many books on the music creation process by The Beatles already.

For interpretations, I don't know about you guys but I am still trying to make sense out of "Kid A".


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

There will always be those who have to follow the modern trend and listen to whatever "popular" music some record company or radio station or advertising agent tells them is good and should be listened too. And just like like all that music that is currently popular in our own time it will all be forgotten over time.

There will always be people who like Jazz, Classical, Blues, Country, etc. And things that have continued to be strong will be strong for another 100 years. People will still listen to Elvis and The Beatles 100 years from now the same as they do today.

Now if civilization makes it a 1,000 years...things might be different.


----------



## Inceptionist (Oct 10, 2013)

realdealblues said:


> Now if civilization makes it a 1,000 years...things might be different.


I'd be surprised if we even make it 100 years...


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

Scientists in the future will clone the greatest classical composers, this will be possible extracting ADN from body parts or blood or from saliva or others fluids. This cloned composers will be doing concerts and selling CDs around the world. Imaging Bach back to life. Creating new music, using iTunes for promoting his pieces, and appearing in talk shows.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Almost nothing. In a non-classical context.
Well, there'll be a few tiny enclaves of people who enthuse over recordings made by people who died 75 years prior, but as far as mainstream consciousness goes, it'll all be just footnotes.
There'll be a market for covers; someone may make the 500th cover of White Christmas or something, but you seriously think people will have any interest in rock or most popular forms of music as sung by someone who's never been seen live by anyone around any more? Nah, not gonna happen.

You think if we had top-quality sound recordings of the most 'popular singers' from 1895, that anyone beside a very few specialists would ever listen to it?
No chance.
GG


----------



## MJongo (Aug 6, 2011)

GraemeG said:


> You think if we had top-quality sound recordings of the most 'popular singers' from 1895, that anyone beside a very few specialists would ever listen to it?
> No chance.
> GG


Who said we were restricting this to pop music? I could guarantee that if we had top-quality recordings of, say, Mahler's 2nd from over 100 years ago, classical fans would be listening to them, and they may even be preferred due to being more "authentic".


----------



## Katie (Dec 13, 2013)

The dead is immortal; actually the paradigm of improvisation while incorporating an unprecedented spectrum of musical influences including country-western; jazz; Nawlins R&B; gospel; rock; psychedelic; classical; olde English balladry; and reggae, all integrated with the unparalleled lyrical contributions of Hunter and Barlow, will, much like the enduring core classical catalogue (as pointed out by MJ) continue to be discovered by generations to come./Katie


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

GraemeG said:


> Almost nothing. In a non-classical context.
> Well, there'll be a few tiny enclaves of people who enthuse over recordings made by people who died 75 years prior, but as far as mainstream consciousness goes, it'll all be just footnotes.
> There'll be a market for covers; someone may make the 500th cover of White Christmas or something, but you seriously think people will have any interest in rock or most popular forms of music as sung by someone who's never been seen live by anyone around any more? Nah, not gonna happen.
> 
> ...


You could reasonably classify the entire classical audience as "a few specialists", given it's size relative to all music listeners.

I do think that people will be interested non-classical musics from the past. People have mentioned the Beatles, who are still very popular 50 years after the first became successful. I know lots of young people who have an interest in pop music that is well before their time.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

What recordings will people be listening to in 100 years? Well, not only will that generation of folks have access to everything we have access to today, they will have 100 years worth of new stuff to add to that which we currently have. That's a lot of music. Of course, the music will change and develop, and what folks will hear of new music in 100 years will be a bit different from what we hear now, mostly because their ears will be more "open" to a variety of new sounds and styles -- styles which will come from multi-cultural music which will work its way into the mainstream, from new inventions and sound generators and new instruments, and from adapting to the "strange" non-melodic, complex harmonic stuff we today call avant-garde music.

I figure that "pop music" will have caught up to folks like Penderecki and Xenakis and Stockhausen in some 100 years, so it should be quite interesting. Which means folks will gain a new appreciation for Penderecki and Xenakis and Stockhausen, and so will most likely listen to their albums. I do think that technologically entertainment will advance so much so that we will have near "natural" sounding music reproduction from new recordings, which means the "old" recordings will suffer in quality compared to the new. Even today a lot of listeners don't appreciate the "sound" of recordings from the first half of the 20th century, and I suspect that improvements in sound experiences will cause a lot of future folks to shy away from the "non-real" stuff we listen to today. I mean, even the best high quality playback gear of today won't get you the "real" deal sound that I predict will be available in 100 years. But I also think that a lot of that music will be experienced visually as well, which will make non-visual media seem primitive. How many of you still listen to the old 78 rpm records? Or Edison cylinders? Why would most folks of 100 years from now care to listen to a CD?

People will still listen to Bach and Mozart and Beethoven, but the popular songs of today will most likely become curiosities of interest to historians moreso than common folks. How many of you listen to popular songs from 1914? And when you do hear one of those, what do you think? Aren't they somewhat "old fashioned" and "irrelevant" to us and our times? Why would Beatles' songs from the 1960s be meaningful to someone in the 22nd century of 2114? And yet I would think the Beatles among all the most popular rock bands will have the best chance of survival. Does anyone really think Black Sabbath or Rolling Stone songs will be of much concern 100 years from now?

Yes, some small segment of listeners still tune into jazz players like Bix Beiderbecke and Jelly Roll Morton, but the sound quality of their recordings is substandard to what is available today, and the music is, face it, "old fashioned" sounding. Again, there is always an historically minded crowd who will seek out the old. But most folks embrace current trends, and I don't suspect human nature itself will change much in 100 years, even if the music does. Of course, new inventions may allow for old sound recordings to be reprocessed as if they were "live" recordings of today, and that may improve interest in the older music, but most folks will likely choose what is new and current, as they do today.

A handful of the really great and influential music makers of pop culture will survive in some fashion, but there will be so much more new stuff in the next 100 years that it will be hard to compete with the old stuff -- and few of us will likely be around to advocate for our favorite contemporary groups.

What "recording" will survive? I will suggest that Miles Davis's _Kind of Blue _will still be popular in 100 years. This is an album of music that one can simply "listen to" -- it doesn't need video, it doesn't need updated instrumentalism or enhancement. It remains a document of a shift in jazz, but it's actually more than jazz. Beethoven symphonies will survive for 100 more years, but not necessarily any of the present recordings, since new recordings and new methods of sound production will take on that work. But the Miles Davis album isn't quite like a Beethoven symphony. It's not written down to be replayed. It exists rather somewhat as a painting does -- in its pure original form as a perfect work of art. In fact, while a Beethoven symphony doesn't need to be recorded to be considered an art form, _Kind of Blue _is only an art form as a recording. So that's my pick for 100 years from now -- _Kind of Blue _by Miles Davis.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

brotagonist said:


> Older generations still listen to Gene Autry


It's always nice to hear somebody else mention Gene. Seeing your avatar, I have a feeling you like him for more than Rudolph.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SONNET CLV said:


> What recordings will people be listening to in 100 years? Well, not only will that generation of folks have access to everything we have access to today, they will have 100 years worth of new stuff to add to that which we currently have. That's a lot of music. Of course, the music will change and develop, and what folks will hear of new music in 100 years will be a bit different from what we hear now, mostly because their ears will be more "open" to a variety of new sounds and styles -- styles which will come from multi-cultural music which will work its way into the mainstream, from new inventions and sound generators and new instruments, and from adapting to the "strange" non-melodic, complex harmonic stuff we today call avant-garde music.
> 
> I figure that "pop music" will have caught up to folks like Penderecki and Xenakis and Stockhausen in some 100 years, so it should be quite interesting.
> Which means folks will gain a new appreciation for Penderecki and Xenakis and Stockhausen, and so will most likely listen to their albums.


excuse me but Schoenberg imagined a future where the mailman whistle his music, after hundred years do you see anything like that?



SONNET CLV said:


> People will still listen to Bach and Mozart and Beethoven, but the popular songs of today will most likely become curiosities of interest to historians moreso than common folks. How many of you listen to popular songs from 1914?


maybe not from 1914, but from the twenties to the sixties american popular music was the equivalent of the lieder, so if people (ok, a little group of persons) listen to Schubert, Hugo Wolf or Dowland for the quality of the music (even if they are "old fashioned" sounding too) I guess that there will be a small group of persons who will listen to Stardust, Lazy afternoon, Lush life, Laura, Ev'rytime we say goodbye, Summertime, Last night when we were young, etc for the same reason.
After all Stephen Foster died 150 years ago and his songs are still enjoyable


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

norman bates said:


> excuse me but Schoenberg imagined a future where the mailman whistle his music, after hundred years do you see anything like that?
> 
> maybe not from 1914, but from the twenties to the sixties american popular music was the equivalent of the lieder, so if people (ok, a little group of persons) listen to Schubert, Hugo Wolf or Dowland for the quality of the music (even if they are "old fashioned" sounding too) I guess that there will be a small group of persons who will listen to Stardust, Lazy afternoon, Lush life, Laura, Ev'rytime we say goodbye, Summertime, Last night when we were young, etc for the same reason.
> After all Stephen Foster died 150 years ago and his songs are still enjoyable


That mailman ain't whistling Verdi or Mozart either, or Sondheim or Duke Ellington or Irving Berlin either. Maybe the mailman is whistling another good composer like Stevie Wonder or Daryl Hall or Carole King or Walt Becker and Don Fagan or Michael Jackson or Pharrell Williams - that would be nice

I'd expect Xenakis and Stockhausen to be listened to more 100 years from now and some people will be listening to the above composers. The interesting question for me is how the distinction between pop and classical as we know them now is made given pop will have an ever richer and longer history by then!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

dgee said:


> That mailman ain't whistling Verdi or Mozart either, or Sondheim or Duke Ellington or Irving Berlin either.


Maybe not Sondheim (I think that his most popular song is Send in the clowns, that is popular but not SO popular), but Verdi, Mozart and Berlin have some pieces that are universally known. Obviously not necessarily their best works, but I think that melodies like those of eine kleine nachtmusic, va pensiero or puttin' on the ritz are widely known.



dgee said:


> I'd expect Xenakis and Stockhausen to be listened to more 100 years from now and some people will be listening to the above composers.


they were composing sixty years ago and in sixty years even if their name is not unknown on forum like talk classical their music is certainly not listened much (and the use of electronic devices in the music I know of stockhausen sounds quite primitive to me, it's like to see a Murnau movie), why do you think this will change in the future?

edit:a proof of Berlin's popularity


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

The like is for the joke I eventually got! They're not called ritz where I live

Looks to me like modernist music will be reassessed as time goes by just like other musics have been - they become less scary with exposure. I think modernism is being normalised already - the shock and awe are gone and more interested people are interested in assessing the aesthetic results. Xenakis and Stockhausen are properly recognised as giants of the post-war culture for their own unique reasons and people want to explore their art further with perspectives from the future (whatever they are)

And while I agree that a lot of people might know Verdi and Mozart tunes (maybe from TV commercials - I was practicing some Beethoven recently and my son said "that's the music from the washing up ad!"), they're not whistling them or really identifying with them. And if knowing the tune was the mark of greatness then hats off to the composer of Happy Birthday


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

dgee said:


> The like is for the joke I eventually got! They're not called ritz where I live
> 
> Looks to me like modernist music will be reassessed as time goes by just like other musics have been - they become less scary with exposure. I think modernism is being normalised already - the shock and awe are gone and more interested people are interested in assessing the aesthetic results. Xenakis and Stockhausen are properly recognised as giants of the post-war culture for their own unique reasons and people want to explore their art further with perspectives from the future (whatever they are)
> 
> And while I agree that a lot of people might know Verdi and Mozart tunes (maybe from TV commercials - I was practicing some Beethoven recently and my son said "that's the music from the washing up ad!"), they're not whistling them or really identifying with them. And if knowing the tune was the mark of greatness then hats off to the composer of Happy Birthday


but I'm not confounding popularity with value (and by the way I don't think at all that the fact that a music lasts is just a matter of quality), just answering to your statement about the fact that the everyman isn't whistling the music of those composers. 
Considering Xenakis and Stockhausen... well, yes they are recognized as historical figures of the avantgarde. Does that means as your optimistic view that for the man of the future they will be known as Mozart or Berlin? I seriously doubt it, for the reasons I've explained above. And as I've said, when I listen to Stockhausen (I have to recognize anyway that I could have listened not much more than maybe twenty works of him) he sounds more like a pioneer, more David Ward Griffith than Hitchcock, if you know what I mean.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

norman bates said:


> but I'm not confounding popularity with value (and by the way I don't think at all that the fact that a music lasts is just a matter of quality), just answering to your statement about the fact that the everyman isn't whistling the music of those composers.
> Considering Xenakis and Stockhausen... well, yes they are recognized as historical figures of the avantgarde. Does that means as your optimistic view that for the man of the future they will be known as Mozart or Berlin? I seriously doubt it, for the reasons I've explained above. And as I've said, when I listen to Stockhausen (I have to recognize anyway that I could have listened not much more than maybe twenty works of him) he sounds more like a pioneer, more David Ward Griffith than Hitchcock, if you know what I mean.


Look, I don't understand your film analogy and we just probably have different tastes about the work. Some of Stockhausen's more recent electronic work has been criticised because it is quite "low tech" but Gesange der Junglinge or Kontakte I would have thought of as timeless due to artistic merit. I don't know what would be pioneering only and dated about, say, Gruppen, Stimmen or Momente for example.

I would consider Mozart and Berlin are only of special interest to a limited group now in the context of our mailman - yes, both wider interest than Karlheinz and Iannis. I would realistically expect the gap to close a little as Stokhausen and Xenakis enjoy wider acceptance while Mozart and Berlin (what an odd couple) remain roughly the same - but it will all be special interest only!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

To criticize a composer's work for being 'low-tech' is nonsensical. Would these critics prefer that Stockhausen be dependent on technology in order to create music?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

People will probably still listen to Sinatra 100 years from now. As little as I'd like to admit it, The Beatles might get a listen, but who knows? If Jay Z is what my generation will be remembered for, all I can say is


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> People will probably still listen to Sinatra 100 years from now.
> View attachment 46165


I pray you're wrong. Sinatra is obnoxious in the extreme.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Dude, Jay-Z has done some awesome stuff. Lope, I think the criticisms leveled at recent Stockhausen that I've come across are that he hasn't kept pace with developments in computer/electronic music. Still artistically compelling but using tools from the 60s/70s. Which seemed to be Norm's beef with him?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

To each his own I guess. I'm not one to like things that everybody likes, but I actually really like Sinatra.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

dgee said:


> Dude, Jay-Z has done some awesome stuff. Lope, I think the criticisms leveled at recent Stockhausen that I've come across are that he hasn't kept pace with developments in computer/electronic music. Still artistically compelling but using tools from the 60s/70s. Which seemed to be Norm's beef with him?


Yeah, 20 years ago.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I quite like the 10yo collaborative stuff with Missy, Mary J Blige, Ghostface, Beyonce, Pharrell - to each their own!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> I pray you're wrong. Sinatra is obnoxious in the extreme.


I used to hate him because I really didn't know his music and I associated him with "my way" (that was a song he didn't like because he saw it as a self-celebration), but even if I'm not a great fan of his voice he really cared about the music, and he usually choosed great songs and great arrangers. 
One of my favorite musicians ever, Alec Wilder had an album of his pieces recorded because Sinatra was a fan of him and even if it wasn't certainly a great commercial move he "conducted" it, just because he loved the music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Just to have an idea
http://www.newser.com/story/60725/sinatras-way-would-have-been-no-my-way.html


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Sinatra is streets ahead of Jay-Z. 

Who is Jay-Z by the way?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

A pompous businessman who cares nothing about the people that brought him so much success.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2014)

dgee said:


> Dude, Jay-Z has done some awesome stuff. Lope, I think the criticisms leveled at recent Stockhausen that I've come across are that he hasn't kept pace with developments in computer/electronic music. Still artistically compelling but using tools from the 60s/70s. Which seemed to be Norm's beef with him?


Half the technology, hundred times the compositional ability...he doesn't seem to be doing too badly, tbh.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

I was kidding for those of you who think I came from under a rock somewhere... 

If the human race is around in 100 years I doubt that Jay-Z will be remembered, along with countless others in todays music industry. They will all pile up on an epic mountain of jejune entries considered today to be popular music. Beethoven was right the general public are "cattle and asses".


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

Fugue Meister said:


> Beethoven was right the general public are "cattle and asses".


The early 19th century equivalent of "sheeple". Beethoven and I would've gotten along in that regard.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Listening and studying are two different things really. One implies enjoying and the other academic purposes. They will be able to study everything but they will only enjoy a few.


----------

