Who Will Stand the Test of Time?


This morning I was listening to a wonderful record - Quartetto Italiano plays Early Italian Music - Cambini, Galuppi and Boccherini, all from the mid 1700s or so. Do you think there are any 20th century artists people will be listening to in the year 2300? For purposes of this thread, let's be optomistic and presume that society is not going to devolve into "Escape from New York", which it definitely will. But let's put that aside for now. BTW - If you like string quartets, Quartetto Italiano is really good.
chayro
Brownsfan wrote: "...I don't recall the last time I heard Way down upon the Swanee River on the radio. My guess is that Heinrich Schutz gets more playing time than Steven Foster. There is a reason for that..."

Really?

You should talk to a Musicologist at an American University.

Like it or not, Foster is considered the "Premier American Song Composer" of the 19th Century. Further, "Old Folks At Home" is considered within American Academe the "Premier Example" of 19th Century American Song.

Also, if you want to hear Foster on the radio, tune in to the Kentucky Derby on ESPN Radio. Churchill Downs plays "My Old Kentucky Home" immediately before the race. It's worth noting that Foster has been getting state sanctioned play in both FL and KY for some time, as both state legislatures have selected Foster compositions as their Official State Songs.

At the same time, comparing a 17th Century German "composer" to a 19th Century American "songwriter" is GOOFY. Please keep in mind that Foster worked without a patron, and on the open market before the protections of modern copyright law.

Granted, some of what you say about "Pop" is correct. For example, the biggest author of Victorian England wasn't Dickens; it was Doyle. Today, we read Doyle but "revere" Dickens.

Shutze is very likely a "better" composer, but Foster will remain VERY IMPORTANT in the US, again because his songs are,like it or not, the premier historical examples of popular American Music of the 19th Century.
Courant, I think you may have missed my point. There are aspects of the human experience that don't change. There are far more aspects of the human experience that do change. Popular music tends to focus on the ephemeral. I'm not sure what Steven Foster, for instance, may have to say to a 24th century man growing up in Scotland, who has never been to either Kentucky or Florida. I'm not sure what he has to say to a 21st century kid growning up in NYC. Schutz on the other hand, offers plenty for those who will listen. The quality of Foster's work is very high. I did not mean to demean his music in any way.
If you prefer, contrast "Rowan and Martins Laugh in" to "the Honeymooners." Laugh-In was of the highest quality, but the subject matter is severely dated. The subject matter of the Honeymooners, on the other hand, is not.
Many people think much of what I say is odd. Nothing new here.
Courant,nothing wrong with Foster and yes he does occupy a significant place in music as it relates to American cultural history.
However, comparing him to H. Schutz, perhaps second only to Bach as a composer of religious music, is like comparing a K-mart bike to a Mercedes S-500 .
Schubert wrote:

"...comparing him to H. Schutz, perhaps second only to Bach as a composer of religious music, is like comparing a K-mart bike to a Mercedes S-500"

No argument, and I agree completely. It appears I need to clarify...

I wasn't trying to defend Foster as much as criticize Brownsfan's using him as a counter-example choice to Schutz.

Essentially, my thought was that using Foster as a counter example was dicey in that, whether you like or can relate to his material, Foster is simply too important, even though he is a much weaker composer compared to Schutz. Foster will stand the test of time simply because of his place in musicology from a strictly historical perspective.

By analogy, F. Scott Fitzgerald during his lifetime earned just under $450,000 (about 10 Million adjusted for inflation). Source: http://theamericanscholar.org/living-on-500000-a-year/#.UWEqHldFIvo . In contrast Stephen King has sold 350 Million books and is worth $400 Million. Source: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/stephen-king-net-worth/

My thought was that Brownsfan needed to use a counter example who was more of a musical equivalent of Stephen King who, if he's lucky, will be a curiosity in 400 years. Possibly someone like Elton John or Barry Manilow would have been better choices.

In contrast to "Barry Manilow", Foster was more the "Irving Berlin" or "John Lennon" of his day, and will be remembered.
Courant,
It does not appear that my statement and yours with respect to Foster's music are all that far apart.

"Most popular music describes a window in time. Once that time is past, the music becomes a relic that is at best a curiosity."

"Foster will stand the test of time simply because of his place in musicology from a strictly historical perspective. "

My perception is that the OP was not asking about music that would survive to be of historical or academic interest.