Which Rock Star Will Historians of the Future Remember?

[BravadoNJ]

Jimi Hendrix

[Jerjo]

Here's what I put on the blog last night:

In the year 2316, the question will be asked in Last University. After much debate and little agreement, the Grand Chancellor makes a decision. A band of scholars are sent out. They cross the wasteland that was once a great continent, brave storms of biblical proportions and combat feral packs of roving bandits. Less than half survive but they endure, climbing the Holy Mountain, where within the Sacred Bunker he resides. There the fierce Brotherhood of the Stone protect the Ancient One but even they acknowledge the validity of the quest, the need to answer the question. The scholars are allowed inside.

The Sacred Bunker is choked with a strange smoke and its twisted halls filled with both temptations of the flesh and of mind-altering substances. But the scholars were warned and they march to the deep heart of the mountain, unwavering in their pursuit. Finally they reach the mighty domed chamber the Ancient One resides in. He is in the center of the room, lounging on a filthy couch, a squarish bottle of some vile nectar near him. The ancient one strums an ancient device and unclothed sycophants dance around him. One of the scholars clears her throat and the Ancient One lifts his head.

“Master, we are a band of historians who have journeyed from the Last University. We come to you seeking your knowledge, your expertise. Can you please tell us, what was the defining image of rock music?”

The old man laughs, a hoarse and almost hideous sound. With a snap of his gnarled fingers an enormous image appears in the center of the room, reaching almost to the great ceiling. “Lemme tell ya about Chuck Berry,” Keith Richards says.

[Yodelgoat]

Rock music may not even be remembered at all in 100 years. It only had a brief 40 year run. and the people who loved it enough to remember it will be gone. My Kids have no interest in "Rock" although they love music - Will they share their fathers music with their Grandchildren? I seriously doubt it. There will be a brief moment, in 100 years, when someone pulls Iron Man (the movie) out and watches the opening scene and hearing Back in Black will say "Man, soldiers back then listened to crappy rap music" and they'll shut it off of their personal reality device, pull up the most recent digital game, and totally forget that there ever was such a thing as Rock Music. The Rock and roll Hall of Fame will be bulldozed and replaced with a Whataburger serving vegan carrot sticks.

A blip on the radar. Thats all it was/is

[mozo-pg]

It will be remembered - however funny your post is (and it is). Look at one example, Woodstock gathered 500,000 or more people for 3 days. Rock has changed the world and will continue to - prog, I'm not so sure.

[Nijinsky Hind]

Unfortunately most historians drink beer out of cans...image.jpg

[Jerjo]

I think that at least the concept of rock n roll will be remembered because it set off such a wave of cultural change in the West and such an adamant resistance to its "decadent" influence in the USSR and Communist China.

[ronmac]

I'm not even convinced the electric guitar will be remembered.

If it is, I wouldn't be surprised if future scholars considered it another toy that helped destroy the elder race of man.

[Yodelgoat]

yeah, but has that culture survived? The Drug, Sex and Rock and Roll concept is mostly sniggered at these days, considered at best charming, and at worst... Considered the very downfall of Western Civilization. I happen to think it was something in the middle, but even so, The goals and ambitions of that movement have mostly been smothered by fat, balding adults living in their mothers basements, with absolutely no ambition but to download the latest video game and be the first to master its deepest mysteries.


OK so thats a pretty over simplified view of things, but I do think that alter-reality simulation will one day replace love, family, happiness, religion Philosophy... It all can all be simulated, and that may be our final state. Real life zombies, capable of singlehandedly saving a non-existent world from absolute and certain obliteration, but unable to dress themselves, or to maintain what is now considered normal relationships.

I'm only partly kidding.

[progeezer]

Dylan
The Beatles
Elvis

Many others worthy, but imo that's the big 3 (& I've always preferred The Who to JPGR).

[PeterG]

Johnny Horton
Johnny Kidd
Johnny Cash
John Lennon
Johnny Rotten

[Svetonio]

By those bigs who aren't mentioned in this thread already - Pete Townshend.

[saucyjackstl]

So far it looks like a toss up...

I would list MJ, Stevie wonder, and James brown. But they are not really rock.

What is Rock?

[saucyjackstl]

I'm not even convinced the electric guitar will be remembered.

If it is, I wouldn't be surprised if future scholars considered it another toy that helped destroy the elder race of man.

Are you saying we were Amused to Death?

[ronmac]

Johnny Horton
Johnny Kidd
Johnny Cash
John Lennon
Johnny Rotten

Don't forget Johnny Allen Hendrix.

[PeterG]

Don't forget Johnny Allen Hendrix.

That's just being silly. Because that ceased to be his name when he was 4 years old. His legal name is James Marshall Hendrix, his parents changed it when he was 4.

[ronmac]

That's just being silly. Because that ceased to be his name when he was 4 years old. His legal name is James Marshall Hendrix, his parents changed it when he was 4.

Joke noun \ˈjōk\

a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist
b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : kidding <can't take a joke>

[Supersonic Scientist]

Dylan
The Beatles
Elvis

Many others worthy, but imo that's the big 3 (& I've always preferred The Who to JPGR).

No disrespect Progeezer but I'll have to disagree (or at least open up this view-point for discussion)

My assessment:
In our daily work-a-day lives (now 35-45 years after the heyday of these mentioned Artists) the only ones you regularly hear (or even semi-regularly hear) are The Beatles. When was the last time you heard an Elvis song on the radio or used in a commercial (same question for Dylan) The Beatles are a lasting/ubiquitous part of our culture (as least so far, 50 years out) Dylan and Elvis although strong and ground-breaking in their time, have not really stood the test-of-time....IMHO of course...YMMV.

Elvis, I can see "possibly" having some lasting presence because of his erroneously crowned "King of R&R" moniker.

[progeezer]

Level of exposure & long-term societal impact aren't the same thing. I completely agree with your "level of exposure" assessment, but that's not the same as historical significance imo.

[ronmac]

Appearing in commercials is no barometer to anything, IMO.

Some of Dylan's best albums have been in the last 10-15 years.

If there was a barometer, it would be how they helped shape society and/or the industry. Chuck Berry, Elvis, Dylan, The Beatles and Hendrix top that list. And, I'm not really an Elvis fan, but nobody can deny his timing. I think Buddy Holly would have over-shadowed him, by far, if it weren't for his premature demise.

[Supersonic Scientist]

Level of exposure & long-term societal impact aren't the same thing. I completely agree with your "level of exposure" assessment, but that's not the same as historical significance imo.

I would argue that "The historical significance" is directly related (in the long term) to exposure. The analogy would be this:

Today: young kids do not hear much Dylan or Elvis....it is equivalent to our ancient forefathers handing down stories via oral story-telling....if you don't keep telling the story, it is lost to history and, as we all know, history is often "rewritten" to fit the present. Old stories (or in this case, Artists) are lost and ergo deemed historically insignificant EVEN IF, in the distant past, they were significant.....it that making sense?...It's a difficult point to articulate.

[Zonefish]

So why all of a sudden does history develop amnesia? Historically we still remember Handel and Bach who composed 300 years ago. In fact Bach was not recognized on the proverbial Mt Rushmore of Classical Composers until 75 years after he died. I think from a history laymans perspective, the 50-60 years of this particular era will be summed up by those impacted culture the greatest...Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson. There will be those that dive deeper who will be know and be familiar with the Rolling Stones and The Who

[ronmac]

I would argue that "The historical significance" is directly related (in the long term) to exposure. The analogy would be this:

Today: young kids do not hear much Dylan or Elvis....it is equivalent to our ancient forefathers handing down stories via oral story-telling....if you don't keep telling the story, it is lost to history and, as we all know, history is often "rewritten" to fit the present. Old stories (or in this case, Artists) are lost and ergo deemed historically insignificant EVEN IF, in the distant past, they were significant.....it that making sense?...It's a difficult point to articulate.

Have you been to a recent Dylan concert? I'd say, half the crowd is college-age, which is quite inspiring. (I haven't been to any recent Elvis shows, so I can't speak to those.)

Beyond that, you have to consider how artists like Dylan are still influencing later generations. So, to restrict the lasting impact to things with the Dylan name attached to it, misses a big part of the picture, IMO.

[Facelift]

So why all of a sudden does history develop amnesia? Historically we still remember Handel and Bach who composed 300 years ago. In fact Bach was not recognized on the proverbial Mt Rushmore of Classical Composers until 75 years after he died. I think from a history laymans perspective, the 50-60 years of this particular era will be summed up by those impacted culture the greatest...Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson. There will be those that dive deeper who will be know and be familiar with the Rolling Stones and The Who

Well, Bach's music isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. We would have to look at the popular/folk music of the time for that. And history is fairly replete with popular music being forgotten as times move on. What is different about most 20th century music is the aspects of it being recorded, and the power of mass media marketing. There's plenty of pre rock-and-roll recorded music that has been forgotten, but not so much from the era of 1955 to the present. Rock and roll and, subsequently, "rock" have been treated with greater significance and given longer staying power than pre-rock and roll popular music (to say nothing of pre 1920 popular music).

Because rock and roll and, subsequently, "rock" coincided with so many technological and marketing innovations, there probably is no apples-to-apples comparison that it can have. My guess is that the "rock music era" which I think can be treated as 1955 through anywhere from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s (depending on one's perspective) will not disappear quietly, but will be remembered as a very fertile time for popular music. My guess is that it will eventually sound old, quaint and irrelevant to future generations, as nearly all pop-culture ultimately does. But, you never know. The industry is going to promote the hell out of those old recordings for as long as they are able to exert control over them. So I'd say we have at least 50-60 more years of entertainment conglomerates squeezing every last cent out the rock era's music.

[Rarebird]

So why all of a sudden does history develop amnesia? Historically we still remember Handel and Bach who composed 300 years ago. In fact Bach was not recognized on the proverbial Mt Rushmore of Classical Composers until 75 years after he died. I think from a history laymans perspective, the 50-60 years of this particular era will be summed up by those impacted culture the greatest...Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson. There will be those that dive deeper who will be know and be familiar with the Rolling Stones and The Who

Most composers were more or less forgotten after they died because there were new composers, which were more in fashion. They were often rediscovered much later, sometimes to be forgotten again and be rediscovered again. And some composers are hold in much higher regard, than their contemporaries, who were rated higher when they were still composing.

[Supersonic Scientist]

Have you been to a recent Dylan concert? I'd say, half the crowd is college-age, which is quite inspiring. (I haven't been to any recent Elvis shows, so I can't speak to those.)

Beyond that, you have to consider how artists like Dylan are still influencing later generations. So, to restrict the lasting impact to things with the Dylan name attached to it, misses a big part of the picture, IMO.

Admittedly, I have not been to a recent Dylan concert so I may be missing some 1st hand evidence to his possible current influence.