How will the 20th century be remembered by historians?

The 1700s is basically defined by Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (really a crossover composer). The 1800s, due to sociopolitical changes in Europe, has a more expansive list of geniuses including such greats as Schubert, Chopin, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Verdi, Berlioz, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Debussy (another crossover). The early 20th century has some classical music giants, especially from Russia, but the rest of the century is basically shit in terms of academic music. The talent went to pop, film and showtunes.

Paul McCartney: "I know, looking at the 20th century, that I must be considered amongst the artists of the 20th century. I must be in the top 20."

In your opinion, what is that list?

Attached: HW7LP14.gif (355x531, 3.91M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=DXLv4Rtw7zU
twitter.com/AnonBabble

John Zorn, Philip Glass, Brian Wilson, Beefheart, the list could go on..

stockhausen, boulez, webern, boulez, ivers, and stravinsky for modern classical

beefheart, zappa, mingus, coltrane, and davis for rock and jazz oriented music

>Paul McCartney: "I know, looking at the 20th century, that I must be considered amongst the artists of the 20th century. I must be in the top 20."
Frankly, I would disagree. The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved. In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

yes

Attached: giphy.gif (300x326, 3.49M)

art is dead. we're at the end of history for art

1. Duke Ellington
2. who fucking cares you stupid faggot

in pop, mostly dylan and the beatles
in jazz, mostly miles and trane
idk about classical

You’re gonna chalk it all to duke and trane? As though Parker and Davis didn’t do more than 2/3 the work?

The hottest in the office was actually Erin (Ellie Kemper) but Jenna Fischer... wow, she's really something too, please post moar.