How easily can cultural tidbit attain 'immortality'? - Page 3

Al B. Sure! · August 11, 2003, 00:47

notyoueither:

nah i doubt it now... though he's shown amazing resilency since his death, a mere 5 years of music recording from 91 to 96 is hardly enough to base fame in future centuries on... had he more time on this earth, things might have turned out different...

notyoueither · August 11, 2003, 00:52

They are certainly not anonymous. Many of their words remain. They are not up to the cut however. That is why Will's plays are still produced, and theirs are not.

There is so much recorded, back to Cicero and beyond him. Being recorded is no assurance of immortality as an icon. Being especially good is.

st_swithin · August 11, 2003, 00:55

bards - Scottish for those feathered things what flaye en the aier.

Al B. Sure! · August 11, 2003, 00:58

notyoueither:

which goes back to my point if Imran is still around and not understanding... there was nothing about Shakespeare in his time that made people know that he would be famous in the future... if anything, many of the critics doubted his future fame... and yet, for whatever reason he is now seen as the greatest playwrite ever.

similiarily, for all we know, Kevin Costner will be seen as the greatest actor/director of the 20th century to the people of 2350.

Al B. Sure! · August 11, 2003, 00:58

swithin:

don't you mean barbs?

st_swithin · August 11, 2003, 01:01

?

Al B. Sure! · August 11, 2003, 01:03

oh nevermind... you meant birds but with a scottish accent... when you said feathered things that fly in the air i thought you meant arrows ie- barbs (which looks and sounds like bards)

st_swithin · August 11, 2003, 02:00

Ah, I see. That would be:

faythad arras.

notyoueither · August 11, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
notyoueither:

which goes back to my point if Imran is still around and not understanding... there was nothing about Shakespeare in his time that made people know that he would be famous in the future... if anything, many of the critics doubted his future fame... and yet, for whatever reason he is now seen as the greatest playwrite ever.

similiarily, for all we know, Kevin Costner will be seen as the greatest actor/director of the 20th century to the people of 2350.

Agreed for the most part, however this proves that critics really don't know their butts from a plate of beans.

FrustratedPoet · August 11, 2003, 05:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
if anything, many of the critics doubted his future fame...

Cite?

mindseye · August 11, 2003, 07:35

I wouldn't be surprised if jazz has the staying power of classical music.

Rufus T. Firefly · August 11, 2003, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye
I wouldn't be surprised if jazz has the staying power of classical music.

I almost said that, but it seems a tricky choice for this thread. Why? because the essence of jazz is sponteneity and improvisation, which militates against any particular jazz work being enshrined/ossified for all time. 200 years from now, people will be playing jazz, absolutely. But they may not be reverently recording and re-recording, say "Blue Train," the way we now record and re-record Beethoven's 5th.

Immortal Wombat · August 11, 2003, 09:08

What a pointless stupid threadjack.

"All your base are belong to us"

:) Smiley · August 11, 2003, 09:25

If that is still around in A.D. 2101 I'm gonna puke.

Imran Siddiqui · August 11, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

similiarly, shakespeare was popular among englishmen of all walks of life but at the same time many critics and those who thought they had great standards (like some of the people in this thread) believed him stupid and would not be known in the future... they would never have imagined him being the greatest playwrite of all time...

I'll back FP's point and say 'cite'?

Albert, you are famous for making these absurd generalizations with nothing to back them up. Everything I've read about the 'critics' of Shakesphere, believed him to be a very good playwright, and had some minor quibbles (such as the role of women, etc.). You keep saying critics put him down... who and when?

Or is this simply another case of you making a BAM statement and then saying no one is listening to you?

Quote:

the background music has changed from old disco music to rock to soul samples to jazz, etc. but the actually rapper's art has remained the same

Your biases are showing again. The background music has changed, but rapper's art is the same? Please. The background music has changed from blues to rap as well. The art of singing a song to music has remained the same

.

Al B. Sure! · August 11, 2003, 11:26

sigh... i was taught this by one of my english teachers... i don't have any websites or nothing to cite. i can try to look it up though but you know how it is searching on google for something as vague as this...

Imran, and yet the name rap still remains to describe this genre after over 20 years... disco is no longer in the mainstream and its successors are not called disco... (and don't go and claim it was called hip hop back in the day cause that's actually not true... that Sugar Hill Gang song that 'started' rap was called RAPper's Delight)

mindseye · August 11, 2003, 11:54

Quote:

But they may not be reverently recording and re-recording, say "Blue Train," the way we now record and re-record Beethoven's 5th.

Well, in Bach's time, at least, people were not interested in hearing the same pieces performed and re-performed as they do now. They were much more interested in the novelty of new pieces. Also, some elements of baroque (bass lines, ornamentation) were performed spontaneously. Go back a step further to Renaissance music, and improvisation was central to performance. Spontaneity may not be a limiting factor in cultural staying power.

On the other hand, both Renaissance and Baroque fell all but completely out of favor until they were "revived" in the 1900s. Who can predict the fluctuations of taste?

Boris Godunov · August 11, 2003, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Speer
why mozart still is known i dont know...

Gee...it could be because he wrote some of the most spectacularly brilliant music ever conceived...

Quote:

but i'm sure 75% of his contemporaries (such as Salerie) never achieved any fame beyond their generation...

Salieri was more famous and well-respected in his lifetime than Mozart was. Despite the dramatic license of "Amadeus," Salieri was not insanely jealous of Mozart--indeed, Salieri had no reason to be jealous of anyone, since he was one of the most popular musicians of his day.

Times change, however, and fame is fleeting. It wasn't until well after Mozart's death that most of his works became known again, mostly through the championship of musical giants like Beethoven. The same is true for Bach, who was never well-regarded during his life as a composer, but rather was famous for being a church organist. It was Mozart who actually brought Bach's music back into the limelight, ironically enough.

The reason the music of Bach and Mozart endured is because it is timelessly great music. Recording technology has indeed helped make more musicians longer lasting in our memories. The fact that the great classical masterpieces are remembered in spite of their not having been recorded until decades or perhaps centuries after their composition is simply testament to how great this music is.

As for music in 1904: The delineation between classical and popular music did not really exist as it does today. People certainly had access to music in 1904, in the form of live performances. Every town, even most of those in the U.S., had live music venues, and musicians toured the country giving concerts. Opera companies enjoyed immense popularity. There was also, of course, vaudeville and other music hall-type stuff.

Most music, though, was heard in the sitting rooms and salons of middle- and upper-class homes. Private recitals were quite common, either performed by local hired musicians, guests or the homeowners themselves. Music was a far more interactive affair then than it was 50 years later, and only now with the advent of computerized help is it starting to become so again.

MrFun · August 11, 2003, 21:30

How about Mario?

st_swithin · August 11, 2003, 21:38

Amadeus was AMAZING - the first time I actually sat through an entire movie without getting up at least once.

F. Murray Abraham is a GOD.

Odin · August 11, 2003, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
How about Mario?

He'll be around as long as Nintendo is.

Boris Godunov · August 11, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
How about Mario?

Which one?

MrFun · August 11, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Which one?

Well, duh -- the guy in the trousers that stomps on Koopas.

Odin · August 11, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Well, duh -- the guy in the trousers that stomps on Koopas.

st_swithin · August 11, 2003, 23:01

And Goombas.

MrFun · August 11, 2003, 23:02

and Bob-Ombs

Odin · August 11, 2003, 23:03

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
and Bob-Ombs

BOOM

MrFun · August 11, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Odin

BOOM

ok -- not those guys then

st_swithin · August 11, 2003, 23:05

Anyone else remember the jumpy sock level of Super Mario III?

I musta played that level a thousand times - I'd play all the way through the entire game to get the infinite lives, then play through to that level. I'd kill Mario before completing the level, so I could start the jumpy sock level again.

Odin · August 11, 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
Anyone else remember the jumpy sock level of Super Mario III?

I musta played that level a thousand times - I'd play all the way through the entire game to get the infinite lives, then play through to that level. I'd kill Mario before completing the level, so I could start the jumpy sock level again.

Jumpy Sock level? which world is that in (i haven't SMB3 for a while)?