Will we be listening to today's music in 20 years?

It's a lot easier to find and listen to older music these days thanks to the internet.

There's countless Spotify playlists dedicated to all types of genres and ears, I'd have had to have borrowed my mum's vinyl or embarrassingly purchase a CD from HMV as a kid to listen to 60s music as a kid.

I wonder if this has also lead to a bit of fragmentation with new music, with all this abundance it's hard to see where the next Elvis, The Beatles, Queen, Michael Jackson, Madonna or Beyonce will come from.

It doesn't seem that today's biggest artists like Ed Sheeran, Taylor Swift or Drake are anywhere near as big as those above were.

Maybe generation Z has too many distractions like social media and videogames to be as into music as previous generations were.

I think you're under appreciating the contemporaneous nature of music. We don't know it's "good" critically and with longevity until decades have past, in order for many new audiences to manifest and to see how it appeals to all of those people, as bands like Queen, the Beatles and Michael Jackson have done. In other words it's not possible to answer your question.

The Beatles used to just be a small club band touring in Germany, for years nobody knew who they were. The same goes for Radiohead. These are both bands synonymous with British music these days.

If you want to compare with Queen look at a world touring stadium band like Muse.

Your last comment suggests that you're inferring an experience you cannot know because you're not 12 anymore. There were video games, tv and films all of our lives.

In your last post you said the Internet and therefore inherently smart phones improve access to music rather than reducing it.

Green Gecko wrote:If you want to compare with Queen look at a world touring stadium band like Muse.

Muse have been around for ages though. I actually own a couple of their albums but I've just had to Google who's actually in the band where as almost anyone could tell you who Freddie Mercury was.

Look at the recent Bohemian Rhapsody movie and how successful it was (including the lead actor winning an oscar). Everyone and their dog knows Bohemian Rhapsody, my girlfriend's young daughter was recently given a homework assignment to write about a "legend" and she wrote about Mercury.

But again your experience is inherently limited; Matt bellamy is the frontman and is idolised by millions because he is the songwriter, singer and lead/only guitarist all in one. In that sense of multiplicity and showmanship arguably even better than Mercury as he is multitalented as a performer.

That was the case when they broke out in 1999 with origin of symmetry and again winning the Mercury prize in 2003. This is literally decades ago now. Queen was also decades ago, it takes about that long for a band to settle into history and become somewhat "past it" as many say Muse are, although I don't personally agree.

You can't have this perspective of a global audience and time will transcend all of us.

In the 90's I'm sure many people wouldn't feel Madonna or Beyoncé would exist beyond "pop" status but they have.

My point is essentially transience and these posts of yours I find kind of interesting because I'm also getting older but I don't feel the same way.

Green Gecko wrote:The Beatles used to just be a small club band touring in Germany, for years nobody knew who they were. The same goes for Radiohead. These are both bands synonymous with British music these days.

Indeed, though it is unfortunate as Radiohead are utter garbage.

Green Gecko wrote:But again your experience is inherently limited; Matt bellamy is the frontman and is idolised by millions because he is the songwriter, singer and lead/only guitarist all in one. In that sense of multiplicity and showmanship arguably even better than Mercury as he is multitalented as a performer.

Ridiculous.

In the 80s you could've taken a picture of Freddy Mercury around the streets and asked people who it was and the vast majority would know, same as if you played them a sample from Bohemian Rhapsody.

Do the same with Matt Bellamy today and most people would shrug, only a small percentage would recognise him, same as if you played them Knights of Cydonia.

I absolutely love Muse but to compare their fame to that of Queen and Mercury is absolutely absurd.

Vermilion wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:The Beatles used to just be a small club band touring in Germany, for years nobody knew who they were. The same goes for Radiohead. These are both bands synonymous with British music these days.

Indeed, though it is a shame as Radiohead are utter garbage.

Again, Radiohead are nowhere near as famous as The Beatles were.

Where's the Radioheadmania? If Tom York were to be shot in New York most people wouldn't care.

Muse have been around for years yet i can only think of two of their songs off the top of my head (supermassive black hole and one song i can't actually recall the title of).

I didn't say the band were as recognisable, and they can't be because they haven't really entered history. I'm comparing the band and their current impact. The point you're missing is that queen have been in the music lexicon for longer, therefore they will never match up.

I think it's this shifting of layers in history, like tectonic plates, that skews your view of how current music probably won't be canonised. Nobody can experience history before it's happened and so I think it's premature and a bit pointless to ask what we'll be listening to in just 20 years, when you are referring to bands from much longer ago than that i.e. Sixties with the Beatles.

I don't think it's a stretch to say there's about a million Matt Bellamy fans out there, they must have hundreds of millions of plays on a platform like Spotify, radio, cd all bundled together. The band spawned multiple fan sites and a wiki that was eventually folded into the official website.

That's just one example of a rock band, to refer to your comfort zone, that consistently sells out world tours over and over again. The reason Queen were so iconic was because of their eccentric performances, so it's a valid comparison. A comparison doesn't mean saying two things are the same, it means presenting why they are similar or disimilar.

But whatever edit gifs into your replies if you insist nobody is as world famous as older bands are, because that's, well, strawberry floating obvious.

I'm pretty sure there would be a headline in the BBC an hour after Thom Yorke got shot. You're being deliberately obtuse now. Meh.

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:But again your experience is inherently limited; Matt bellamy is the frontman and is idolised by millions because he is the songwriter, singer and lead/only guitarist all in one. In that sense of multiplicity and showmanship arguably even better than Mercury as he is multitalented as a performer.

Ridiculous.

In the 80s you could've taken a picture of Freddy Mercury around the streets and asked people who it was and the vast majority would know, same as if you played them a sample from Bohemian Rhapsody.

Do the same with Matt Bellamy today and most people would shrug, only a small percentage would recognise him, same as if you played them Knights of Cydonia.

I absolutely love Muse but to compare their fame to that of Queen and Mercury is absolutely absurd.

You’re focusing on one performer but ignoring that taste in genres have diversified over the years.

The Beatles and Queen were massive bands that everyone would recognise (although both had their detractors then and now). But who could name the lead singer of the Kinks? Some sure, most maybe, everyone though?

Most people would recognise a picture of Beyoncé. Most people would recognise Rhinanna’s Umbrella or Gaga’s Bad Romance.

But none of that answers the question of the thread. Will people be listening to today’s music in 20 years time? Yes, the teenagers of today will listen to the music of their youth, just like every other generation has done.

Green Gecko wrote:I didn't say the band were as recognisable, and they can't be because they haven't really entered history. I'm comparing the band and their current impact. The point you're missing is that queen have been in the music lexicon for longer, therefore they will never match up.

I think it's this shifting of layers in history, like tectonic plates, that skews your view of how current music probably won't be canonised. Nobody can experience history before it's happened and so I think it's premature and a bit pointless to ask what we'll be listening to in just 20 years, when you are referring bands from much longer ago than that i.e. Sixties with the Beatles.

The Beatles are still famous 60 years after they formed.

They've sold hundreds of millions of albums

America's highest ever TV viewing audience was for an appearance by them on a chat show

They're bigger than Jesus


Think anyone's going to give a strawberry float about Muse in 40 years?

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:But none of that answers the question of the thread. Will people be listening to today’s music in 20 years time? Yes, the teenagers of today will listen to the music of their youth, just like every other generation has done.

This is possibly what Vermillion was trying to say, but he didn't present his argument very well.

It depends on the impact of the artist and how recent they were.

If you showed a picture of Elvis to today's teens would they likely recognise him over some one hit 90s wonder like Natalie Imbruglia?

I'd say Yes, but given the choice what song would they prefer to have on their playlist; Jailhouse Rock or Torn?

The Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson will be remembered long after Ke$ha's rotting in the ground.

NickSCFC wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:But none of that answers the question of the thread. Will people be listening to today’s music in 20 years time? Yes, the teenagers of today will listen to the music of their youth, just like every other generation has done.

This is possibly what Vermillion was trying to say, but he didn't present his argument very well.

It depends on the impact of the artist and how recent they were.

If you showed a picture of Elvis to today's teens would they likely recognise him over some one hit 90s wonder like Natalie Imbruglia?

I'd say Yes, but given the choice what song would they prefer to have on their playlist; Jailhouse Rock or Torn?

The Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson will be remembered long after Ke$ha's rotting in the ground.

You are not comparing like with like though.

Show a teenager a picture of Barry Maguire and they’ll have no idea who it is. Does that mean nobody listens to 1960s music?

And Natalie Imbrulglia is still being played over 20 years after her big hit.

I'm sure that actually a large amount of 13 year olds wouldn't be able to recognise Elvis, a member of the Beatles, or Freddy Mercury unless they had a keen musical interest or education from their parents, which leads to point of how this is a generational thing. They may have heard of these bands but they wouldn't recognise the face. Kids grow up listening to records their parents play, but they have no exposure to the contemporary media I.e. news, televised, live performances etc about them. In that way they are not the pop figures you think they still are.

Muse I think will be remembered a few decades from now by the people that still go and see them. For example my girlfriend's dad still sees them live along with her and has done for about 15 years. He likes them because he thinks they're very heavy. They have a surprisingly intergenerational appeal specifically because some of the comparisons I've made, ie mixing heavy metal with the likes of queen but employing some pop and electronica elements that appeal to younger people.

I think your reverence of very few bands is very typical of someone in the situation you find yourself asking this question, essentially, "I don't get current music, will it be remembered in 20 years?"

Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

I don't think anyone with a reasonable grasp of patterns in history or understanding how culture works is going to say no music will be remembered in 20 years that was recorded yesterday.

So again, you're old, sorry. It's not what you wanted to hear but you can contrive a different argument if you want to not engage with someone else's. That's pretty much how you discuss stuff to be brutally honest.

Sex on fire is a good song

Ad7 wrote:Sex on fire is a good song

It’s no South Dakota by the Stereophones.

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

KK wrote:Music from the 70s, 80s & 90s are still regularly listened to today, but do you think music of the last 10 years will also hold the test of time - the Lady Gaga's & Cascada's of this world? Or will Michael Jackson & the Stones still be filling the airwaves? It seems a lot more music from recent time has been forgotten about, whereas music, particularly on television - highlight reels & VTs ect - is still accompanied with tracks from 20/30 years ago.

Were Cascada big when this thread was made back in 2011?

If so, maybe we have a (partial) answer.

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

How are you judging “big”?

Rihanna has outsold everyone except the Beatles.

Is that big enough?

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?
I
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

And that's totally fine, I just feel you're being contrarian. You can do the maths because I find the question too boring, sorry. Probably no-one.

You necro'd the thread because you're thinking about this in another topic recently. Here you go, it's now your thread.

btw I like Primus, I only found them recently but had heard the name. I don't know anything about them, where they were formed, who they are, what they look like, what genre they are or whether they're still performing or recording. And I don't care. I found them via asking Google Home what was playing while listening to some other playlist.

So from a technocratic point of view, I'd say this question is further nullified by those developments in technology.