New York Times Article on how and why people and bands might get remembered.

The "conclusion" may surprise you . . . or maybe not.

Which Rock Star Will Historians of the Future Remember?

One quote from the piece: "When I think of rock and who might survive, I immediately think of the Rolling Stones. They’re a band that sounds like what we’ve all decided rock ’n’ roll should sound like: loose and wild. Their story reflects that ethos and sound: loose and wild. And also, they’re good.”


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-23 14:58 by camper88.

The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
The Who
Bob Dylan....at least I hope these are the guys that get remembered 300 years from now...

This subject is hard to tackle. It makes me wonder what people thought of Beethoven and Mozart at their time. Maybe people thought they were talented, but did they revere them the way we do with The Beatles and Stones? For instance could they walk freely through town without being tackled? And did they wait impatiently for new music for inspiration as we do/did? Another thought I'm having lately is why there isn't something as great as our heroes. It's kind of strange to see young people digging the dinosaurs. I know I didn't care about somebody that was 50 years older than me back in the day.

If I lived to be 300 I'm sure John Lennon would still be my hero. He has my vote for first place. Jimi Hendrix would be a close second, only drawback for him was that he wasn't the vocal activist John was. But musically he was the greatest thing ever in my opinion. And, oh yeah I do love The Stones too!

Quote
frankotero
This subject is hard to tackle. It makes me wonder what people thought of Beethoven and Mozart at their time. Maybe people thought they were talented, but did they revere them the way we do with The Beatles and Stones? For instance could they walk freely through town without being tackled? And did they wait impatiently for new music for inspiration as we do/did? Another thought I'm having lately is why there isn't something as great as our heroes. It's kind of strange to see young people digging the dinosaurs. I know I didn't care about somebody that was 50 years older than me back in the day.

Right - When I was a kid I thought it was very uncool to listen the music of my parent's generation. So, I also marvel at the thought of younger people liking a band as old as the Stones. But perhaps bands like the Stones really did change music forever. That beat; it produces a very visceral reaction. The kick is undeniable. Perhaps that hits the kids before they realize how old the musicians are. Back in 2005, I took my 9 & 11 year old sons to see the Stones and they were thrilled. When I was their age, I would have rather died than have been taken to see Sinatra or somebody like that. I'm of the opinion that there is just something primative, visceral, mystical, healing and empowering in that basic rock back-beat...and nobody does it better than Charlie Watts!

they just don't make 'em anymore ........



ROCKMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-23 16:09 by Rockman.

Elvis – for kicking the doors open (the first truly international pop star)

Dylan – for his poetry and the proof that rock music does not have to be anti-intellectual

Beatles – for the sixties hype and for being the role model of a pop band

Stones – less for the music but rather for the fact of being too successful over half a century to be ignored

Slewan - "....Stones – less for the music but rather for the fact of being too successful over half a century to be ignored."

I beg to differ. The Stones are responsible for a huge chunk of what is now considered classic rock. Yes, the longevity can't be denied but neither can the songs they created, especially during their prime of mid sixties to early seventies and then many isolated classics from the late seventies to early eighties.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
The Rolling Stones
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
The Who
Bob Dylan....at least I hope these are the guys that get remembered 300 years from now...

I think this will be the bare minimum core of musicians who are remembered. I'd also add:

Elvis (of course)
Chuck Berry (not as guaranteed, but SHOULD be...more than Elvis honestly)

I think history will hold rock'n'roll in higher esteem than we think and even more bands will be studied, but in terms of the true immortals who everyone will still know 200-300 years from now, the above list is about right.

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Slewan - "....Stones – less for the music but rather for the fact of being too successful over half a century to be ignored."

I beg to differ. The Stones are responsible for a huge chunk of what is now considered classic rock. Yes, the longevity can't be denied but neither can the songs they created, especially during their prime of mid sixties to early seventies and then many isolated classics from the late seventies to early eighties.

I hate to say it, but the Stones won't be TRULY appreciated by society at large until one of them is no longer with us and they've broken up for good.

I remember in high school in the '90s, I was the only kid who loved the Stones. You'd see Beatles and Zeppelin shirts, but no one was into the Stones. I think it's because they were all still alive and touring, and to most kids my age, they reminded them of their parents trying to rock, like, "Oh my god, Mick Jagger is my Dad's age...imagine him dancing like that?? Embarrassing."

The Stones have gotten over that hump and are culturally "cooler" than they've been since the early '80s, but I don't think people will TRULY appreciate their brilliance and longevity until they're gone. It's really a sad commentary but that's the way it goes.

The Beatles
Bob Dylan
The Rolling Stones

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
Slewan - "....Stones – less for the music but rather for the fact of being too successful over half a century to be ignored."

I beg to differ. The Stones are responsible for a huge chunk of what is now considered classic rock. Yes, the longevity can't be denied but neither can the songs they created, especially during their prime of mid sixties to early seventies and then many isolated classics from the late seventies to early eighties.

I hate to say it, but the Stones won't be TRULY appreciated by society at large until one of them is no longer with us and they've broken up for good.

I remember in high school in the '90s, I was the only kid who loved the Stones. You'd see Beatles and Zeppelin shirts, but no one was into the Stones. I think it's because they were all still alive and touring, and to most kids my age, they reminded them of their parents trying to rock, like, "Oh my god, Mick Jagger is my Dad's age...imagine him dancing like that?? Embarrassing."

The Stones have gotten over that hump and are culturally "cooler" than they've been since the early '80s, but I don't think people will TRULY appreciate their brilliance and longevity until they're gone. It's really a sad commentary but that's the way it goes.

Well put...sad but well put...

First and foremost it will be Dylan. There are already college courses about him. His music will live on because his songs blow everyone elses away as works of art. The Beatles will be remembered for their impact. The Stones will a minor point at that time. Elvis will be remembered for his impact and popularity.


It will still be talked about how bad Styx sucked.

Frank Otero is my hero!

I hope that Chuck Klosterman will do a companion piece about the great
black performers of the Sixties. The first LP I ever bought was by Ray Charles. I had nothing to play it on. I was about ten years old and I saved
up to buy a cheap little record player.

Re Jimi Hendrix, who I came to know quite well, I expect he will always
matter when it comes to music. One of a kind in so many ways.

I first saw the Stones in 1966 and for a time I owed every record they made.
I deeply regret getting rid of almost all my vinyl. I had quite a collection

Quote
frankotero
If I lived to be 300 I'm sure John Lennon would still be my hero. He has my vote for first place. Jimi Hendrix would be a close second, only drawback for him was that he wasn't the vocal activist John was. But musically he was the greatest thing ever in my opinion. And, oh yeah I do love The Stones too!

It not about your favorites. You seriously think Hendrix will be remembered before Dylan?

The Beatles will be remembered so Lennon will be remembered, no other reason to remember him besides the Beatles.

Dylan, surely, will always matter.

Quote
stonesrule
Dylan, surely, will always matter.

I certainly hope so. Sadly, that beast known as classic rock radio seems to ignore him these days.

This is funny.

The Rolling Stones are good, even when they release records like “Bridges to Babylon.”

This bit is just as inaccurate as usual: ...and classified themselves (with surprisingly little argument) as “the greatest rock and roll band in the world” since 1969.

Quote
camper88

Which Rock Star Will Historians of the Future Remember?

One quote from the piece: "When I think of rock and who might survive, I immediately think of the Rolling Stones. They’re a band that sounds like what we’ve all decided rock ’n’ roll should sound like: loose and wild. Their story reflects that ethos and sound: loose and wild. And also, they’re good.”

(continued: )
"This is true. The Rolling Stones are good, even when they release records like “Bridges to Babylon.” They’ve outlived every band that ever competed against them, with career album sales exceeding the present population of Brazil. From a credibility standpoint, the Rolling Stones are beyond reproach, regardless of how they choose to promote themselves: They’ve performed at the Super Bowl, in a Kellogg’s commercial and on an episode of “Beverly Hills, 90210.” The name of the biggest magazine covering rock music was partly inspired by their sheer existence. The group members have faced arrest on multiple continents, headlined the most disastrous concert in California history and classified themselves (with surprisingly little argument) as “the greatest rock and roll band in the world” since 1969. Working from the premise that the collective memory of rock should dovetail with the artist who most accurately represents what rock music actually was, the Rolling Stones are a strong answer.

But not the final answer."

If you wanna know the final answer: ...

If you want to know the final answer make sure your computer doesn't freeze up with the script issues that occurs more and more these days!

i think a lot of rock music and musicians will be remembered 300 years on, simply because of the increased and ever increasing sophistication of technology.

Something we didn't even have with the classical greats, mozart, bach, beetoven, brahms, tchaikovsky etc., is recording their original works.

We have that in spades now. We also have the use of the music of the stones, beatles, dylan, elvis in all sorts of different ways, from video games, movies, commercials, sporting events...i don't see this going away.

Different genres/sub genres will evolve but just as with classical music the big acts will all be remembered, and their music will survive, both because it is good, and has been recorded.

Chuck Berry - hail hail
Elvis - the King
Beatles - blazed the trails
Dylan - showed how to write proper lyrics
Stones - followed all the above, made it their own, and continue to roll
Hendrix - one word: guitar

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Elvis

David Bowie

Short Answer: None

Explanation:

Assuming that "history is written by the winners" is an accurate statement, right now I'd have to guess that, in 300 years, all references to the individuals and possibly the entire subject of "Rock & Roll" will be well on the way to being "white-washed" out of society's collective memory by whomever "the winners" happen to be. I say this because "Rock & Roll" at it's core celebrates individuals and their struggles/rebellion/non-conformity with establishment based society. When I think about the conformity that societies world-wide are allowing "PC Police" to impose on individuals and non-conformists, I don't see much of an opportunity/encouragement for future generations to celebrate an entire generation, movement or art-form which was firmly grounded in the opposition of the status quo/celebration of the individual over the collective.

Sad to think (IMO) that something so important to so many of us may come to be viewed by history as a rebellion of individualism on the way to the homogenization of the human condition.

Peace,
Mr DJA

all of what everyone said and more-

there are composers from hundreds of years ago that are looked up to as geniuses and their music is held up as the height of greatness.

it certainly doesn't matter if it's the hip thing this week or next,a good share of what is the classic rock and roll era will last many decades if not longer.

The "correct" answer has been mentioned only once in this thread. It's a fun piece of provocative writing, so I hope people get to the end. I have been in one of the scenarios Chuck Klosterman mentioned - talking to a classroom of kids about rock 'n' roll. And I might as well have been discussing ancient Egypt. So its slow crawl to a cultural footnote is under way, with room for only one person (not band).

Quote
DeanGoodman
The "correct" answer has been mentioned only once in this thread. It's a fun piece of provocative writing, so I hope people get to the end. I have been in one of the scenarios Chuck Klosterman mentioned - talking to a classroom of kids about rock 'n' roll. And I might as well have been discussing ancient Egypt. So its slow crawl to a cultural footnote is under way, with room for only one person (not band).

If the final answer is only one person, then it should be Keith Richards! Of course I may be a bit biased!