I just wrote this in another topic :

... What concernes me more is this; Pop and rock music actually is pretty young if you come to think about it (and see it in perspective of time). 60 plus years or so.

Idols die. One day pop and rock will be just like classical music, old(er) and possibly for some sort of elite, if still around and wanted, or maybe forgotten even.

But when not forgotten, hopefully Prince's legacy will belong to that elite ...

There will always be Music. And there will always be forgotten great artists as well. That I learned

So chances are 50/50. Only Time will tell.

-

For some years now (after I inherited a colleciton of my grandparents) I got into 78 rpm shellac recordings. So many artists we even never heard of. And when you search for info on them, you will find out that some of them sold millions and millions of records (even when there was limited radio). Quite impressive.

Most of them are totally forgotten right now. Just a few people collecting stuff, and some museums or libraries completing their collection are involved and know some information about them. Very few. Not even all is to be find on the internet. That's it.

And that all happened less than 100 years ago. (Since electric recording and record-playing was invented and shared.)

Classical music is still important. Simply because it is related to the instruments being used to create it (and written down in readable notes). And those instruments are still interesting today, to learn, to play, etc. Maybe one day that will end as well. Nothing is forever. There's also the techonological development in front of us. Maybe one day we can lsiten to music while just thinking of it, without having to use our ears !

Or to speak in terms of a 100 or 2OO years from now, and if Prince's music will still be there, I am pretty sure the chances that it will dissapear is pretty real. But we just can't tell do we.

-

From what we learned so far, it's quite possible Prince will be forgotten. And so be it - if so.

Do some of you know who Maria Callas is ? Know some music she did ? Or perhaps Tino Rossi ? Or Enrico Caruso ?

My nephews are 30 and they have no idea who Tina Turner is, let alone ever heard about Dire Straits, Yes, Earth Wind & Fire, Talk Talk, Japan, Rod Stewart, Robert Palmer, etc. I did the test.

[Edited 3/7/18 0:22am]

Fronk said:

Yes and no depending on the album or song. At the end of the day good songs are good songs even if they sound ‘of a time’. Picking one song of the top of my head, When Doves Cry - it may sound 80s but it’s utter genius and that won’t change.

Certainly so.

NorthC said:

jaawwnn said:

Highly unlikely, doesn't matter how good he is he'll be forgotten before Elvis, Dylan, Bob Marley, The Beatles, Chuck Berry, James Brown and Michael Jackson are. He's probably around the same level as Queen and the Rolling Stones based on my completely unscientific analysis of "do they have 3 or 4 big songs that transcend them as artists and a visual gimmick that sticks in your mind".

[Edited 3/6/18 7:47am]

Wow. You name so many acts that it's hard to know why you think some will last longer than others. How many people know more than 3-4 famous James Brown songs? Sexmachine, I Feel Good, It's a Man's World... There's many more famous Rolling Stones songs and they have a pretty big following in South America... I remember talking to some people before a Bob Dylan concert and somebody said, "my kids like The Stones, The Beatles not so much." Bob Marley is famous throughout the world, you hear him everywhere in a way Dylan or The Beatles aren't. (I never heard them in Africa, but you will surely hear Bob Marley there.) So how exactly did you come to your conclusion (which is as unscientific as mine)? [Edited 3/6/18 10:03am]

You only need 3 or 4 songs, your average punter on the street would be lucky if they could name 3 or 4 Mozart or Beethoven pieces.

In regards the Rolling Stones, I just think that they suffer from their closeness to the Beatles. It's nothing to do with talent or quality but you could go your whole life and only know Satisfaction while there's a good pile of Beatles songs everyone knows whether they like them or not.

I wonder if Michael Jackson's songs will last, i'm not sure his music has entered world culture in the same way Bob Marleys has and I think it might fade.

As for Dylan, Blowing in the Wind is probably his biggest, but it might be enough on its own. Plus people who write history books tend to like Dylan.

Worth a read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html

I don't agree with everything in it but it's a decent piece.

[Edited 3/7/18 1:07am]

Of course! Perhaps not his entire catalog but true genius always stands the test of time, so there will be Prince songs that endure as well.

I personally don't agree thath much on naming 3 or 4 songs by anyone, and making that as a starting point to opinionize on someone importance in history.

But I do agree on how people will actually be remembered.

See it like this : from the movie business, everyone knows Marylin Monroe, or James Dean, but basically no one of the people younger than let's say 35yo that I know even can name one movie they're in. This also starts with for instance with Al Pacino and Marlon Brando, Bob De Niro...

And for instance an Elvis Presley song to be named by the younger ones... forget it.

-

But you would be surprised how many young people (that I know) are able to name more then 3 or 4 pieces of music or operas by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Verdi, Wagner, etc... I had a discussion some time ago about this issue. And I seriously was surprised they were able to name all these classical pieces by name.

Pop or Rock music from 60's up to 80's is not popular amongst them in names and titles either. The genre, yes, the like as they put it themselves, the 80's sound and 70's style, etc.

Quite interesting.

Beatles and Stones are being used as it being one group. But songstitles ? Not really.

mynameisnotsusan said:

StrangeButTrue said:

Hey ya can't win 'em all. Elvis had a huge career but all I really think of is Hound Dog. [Edited 3/6/18 15:12pm]

Elvis had a number 1 hit 25 years after he died. I don't see that happening for Prince.

.

R u clairvoyant? In the UK? Totally possible. I can see shitty remix sparking nostalgia at Purple Rain 50, for instance.

jdcxc said:

mynameisnotsusan said:

NorthC said:

jaawwnn said:

Highly unlikely, doesn't matter how good he is he'll be forgotten before Elvis, Dylan, Bob Marley, The Beatles, Chuck Berry, James Brown and Michael Jackson are. He's probably around the same level as Queen and the Rolling Stones based on my completely unscientific analysis of "do they have 3 or 4 big songs that transcend them as artists and a visual gimmick that sticks in your mind".

[Edited 3/6/18 7:47am]

I respectfully disagree. Musicians that write their music transcend time. See classic composers as an example. Even Cole Porter. Historically, great singers, athletes are generally forgotten.

It's up to us to keep it going

jaawwnn said:

You only need 3 or 4 songs, your average punter on the street would be lucky if they could name 3 or 4 Mozart or Beethoven pieces.

[Edited 3/7/18 1:07am]

I dont think it matters if you can name a classical piece there hardly catcherly named with the exception of moonlight sonata mozart and beethoven are still massively listened to I wouldnt have a clue what half of them are called but if I heard them I'd know them.

lonelyalien said:

Do you think prince's music will be listened to in a couple of hundred years like beethoven and mozart do you think his music has that lasting appeal? Was just wondering how history will look back on prince and his musical output.

i think we've only scratched the surface, no one knows what's in the vault. hard to compare across genres, but duke ellington will be listened to for hundreds of years, so will elvis and the early rockers, so will Prince. That is if the human race can stop itself from killing everyone.

elvis wrongly thought he'd be forgotten, he never thought much of his early music, he knew he'd never gotten far in hollywood and he knew the later years of the 70's wouldn't be thought of so highly. He was wrong, very wrong.

lonelyalien said:

jaawwnn said:

You only need 3 or 4 songs, your average punter on the street would be lucky if they could name 3 or 4 Mozart or Beethoven pieces.

[Edited 3/7/18 1:07am]

I dont think it matters if you can name a classical piece there hardly catcherly named with the exception of moonlight sonata mozart and beethoven are still massively listened to I wouldnt have a clue what half of them are called but if I heard them I'd know them.

mozart and beethoven have reps that reach further than their work, as good or not good as the majority of it may be, most americans wouldn't know but a few of their tunes.

jdcxc said:

Of course Yes. His music will be around forever. We are already at the 40 year mark and I just heard I Want To Be Your Lover in Mexico. Think of all the mediocre 1950-1970 music that you still hear in pop culture. When the Estate ages out of the marketing equation, there will be another rebirth of properly executed Prince masterpieces.

Are you in Mexico, and where did you hear it?

I think in hundreds of years time, the 20th century will be looked on as a golden age in music - but except for historians, nerds and connoisseurs it will all be lumped in together as one period. We really zone in on the differences between decades and eras because we're living it, but in general I don't think there will be as much of a distinction made - much like a casual listener to classical music might not examine the differences between the 1760s and the 1790s for example.

.

How this fairs for Prince? The volume of his archive of work is vast, and is still being discovered by people now and will continue to be after most of us here are gone. So in my opinion, I think Prince's stock will only rise. Whereas some other artists now who are considered higher in the pantheon might fall to the category of hidden gem or also-ran. So Prince could end up being a Shakespeare type figure, and other bigger names at the time could end up being a Christopher Marlowe or Ben Jonson for example.

.

Just a thought. I think this is why curation of his archives and legacy is so important, so that his star continues to rise and the full breadth of his talent is more widely known.

NouveauDance said:

I think in hundreds of years time, the 20th century will be looked on as a golden age in music - but except for historians, nerds and connoisseurs it will all be lumped in together as one period. We really zone in on the differences between decades and eras because we're living it, but in general I don't think there will be as much of a distinction made - much like a casual listener to classical music might not examine the differences between the 1760s and the 1790s for example.

.

How this fairs for Prince? The volume of his archive of work is vast, and is still being discovered by people now and will continue to be after most of us here are gone. So in my opinion, I think Prince's stock will only rise. Whereas some other artists now who are considered higher in the pantheon might fall to the category of hidden gem or also-ran. So Prince could end up being a Shakespeare type figure, and other bigger names at the time could end up being a Christopher Marlowe or Ben Jonson for example.

.

Just a thought. I think this is why curation of his archives and legacy is so important, so that his star continues to rise and the full breadth of his talent is more widely known.

It will happen anyway.


His idiosyncracies are too thought-provoking, funny, dangerously sexy,
all 6th and 9ths and some kind of strange dorian-mixolydian shit going all over the eighties,
with the gift of sparseness, the way he tries to imagine what silence sounds like.
Going from the Honerz to the Blue Angel in less than a decade,
waking Clapton from the dead, Ron Wood too, having Miles all intrigued,
the respect of Springsteen, Michael all scared of you.


"Oh-oh by the way I play bass guitar".
Then he goes into berserk mode, Marshall on 11, Victor and Sacrifice, the Symbol Guitar,
my-only-competition-is-myself, and it's all of sudden Chaos and Disorder in this joint where the Chef's Special is
Good Ol' Minnesota Raunchy Rock riffs drowned in Funkadelia sauce.
Rock'n'Roll is alive, and it lives in Minneapolis until Dawn.

Then the personal drama, the empty canvases, the Chantilly all over the place, doves, rainbow, my Little Pony
but always a miracle per album, and slowly, steadily, more miracles than pleas for inspiration per album.
The muse never left the building, he just tried to not repeat himself.
And miracles kept happening.

I remember ditching "Baltimore" back in the days,
ranting that it wasn't as Run-The-Jewelssishy as it could have been.
I didn't get the hippie vibe. And yet it's vengeful, there's a Peace and Love fierceness,
and now I remember ranting on the fisrt version that came out.

The album version still is a shock to me, and the best way to start the day,
along with Black Muse. Those major chords, covered by a lot of small details,
short overdubs like strokes of color. The 5th effect on full mode,
with country strings sliding and yippie-kay-hey,
said the skinny motherfucker with a high voice.

Yeah, this is maybe punchier than Run the jewels in the long run, who knows.
But you gotta have a soft spot for Cat Steven's "Peace Train", you know,
the Summer of Love thing. "Baltimore" is pretty "Woodstock".
And all Christian Country Rock, about blacks getting killed.

I don't mind the big bucks and the Vegas shows.
Take it all SKipper, if your money laundry does yeswecode and all the bucks
that went in help.



One heck of a career if you ask me, and when the dusk will settle,
he'll still be a polyrythmic phenomenon, a musician with a theatrical, cinematographical sense of timing,
a sonic palette so vast it goes from Garage Punk to Cold Wave somber strings landscapes,
sped-up trumpets, fiddles, accordéon musette, fingacymbalz and axes.


We ain't even started on how Prince impacted the Gay intelligentsia in major cities around the world,
back when they were all occupying top spots in advertising, fashion and medias.
There is a very clear shift in pop music after Prince.
Suddenly the hits must go back to rhythmic sessions live takes,
or master the drum machine like no other.

Or on how women went calmly crazy and silently nuts about The Man.

SOTT is responsible for Massive Attack, along with Public Enemy
and a lot of artists that took the sound mixing board upside down.
Prince was one of them.

Someone who gets the sound of "Hello"
out of his mind and onto the soundboard and onto tape is a very scary talent to me.
Play "Hello" and pay attention: he's beatboxlng all along.
Do you hear him going "uh-uh, (whisper) uh" behind the synth lead line?
Tell me I ain't the only one, please.

"Shockadelica" doesn't age. It's still the funniest vurtuoso shit
there can be, the self-sampling as if Housequake 45 RPM was played at 33,
the TWAAAANNNNGGG!!!! of the Tele, I mean it's hilarious from the beginning.
Camille is somewhat cat-figthing with the other Girl, which she has
a lesbian relationship with, over the guitar. She's laying on it, the Nasty Bitch (uh-oh, where did Irresistible go?).
Prince sounds like a possessed minnesotan pilgrim's witch straight from Funk Hell.
The smell of doom, Babe. What better ode to sex wars?
I swear she made me do it, your honor, I know I should not have.
Prince confessing while having a laugh, it's rare and fascinating.
It really is art, with masks, roles, foreplays, dum-de-dum-de-dums.
Before the Batmobile, there was the Shockadelicar™.

Because he gets it out as, he once said, no other could.
'lectric Man 4 shure®. When will your lyrics B paid?

Some say all good things they say they never last.
To which my future self rude boy responds:
"Yippie-kay-hey, Motherfucker.
SKipper's the Lone Ranger.
He'll be remembered 'round this parts.
Na That's 4 Shows."


Hey, Linda "H" ("she skipped the G!"), how's it going?
How have you been?

[Edited 3/8/18 5:01am]

[Edited 3/8/18 5:10am]

[Edited 3/9/18 3:36am]

[Edited 3/9/18 3:37am]

Like a few fellow orgers above noted, the real question isn't whether Prince will be more or less remembered than James Brown or the Beatles but whether and by whom 20th century and contemporary pop music will still be listened to.

.

The comparison to classical composers seems somewhat inappropriate to me for several reasons:

.

- We do not possess any contemporary recordings from those composers: all that's survived from their work is music sheets that are to be recreated over and over and recorded by other musicians, born long after the composer and the original players have died. The way we appreciate and evaluate music has to be different somehow because when you hear a recording by a musician todazy (even if he's only a score composer who conducts an orchestra and doesn't play himself), you hear the music exactly as the composer intended it to be heard. It's even of course, stronger in the case of pop music when the composer actually plays and sings themselves on the record. No matter how many times Kate Bush will be covered, there will never be any contemporary rendition of her music by anyone else that will surpass her original records as the "ultimate and definitive version", and the same could be said of a Danny Elfman score recorded in his lifetime.

.

- Classical music was (and still remains to some extent) an elitist type of music that, at the time, was mostly directed at a small privileged and educated crowd of listeners. This very specific audience, made of influent tastemakers, has also ensured (for political reasons) that certain composers would remain in history as major forces even though the average man had never heard of Mozart or Beethoven in their lifetime. This is different from pop stars who reached millions of people in their lifetime but on the other hand do not necessarily benefit from an elite maintaining their legacy as a social marker for the next few centuries.

.

- The amount of music composed and produced every year for the last few decades surpasses in number the whole of what's been composed in, say, the whole 17th Century. There is a great amount of classical (by that I mean everything from Renaissance to Romantic eras) who have been more or less forgotten and whose music is hardly ever played anymore and basically about only a dozen names or so are well known by educated people who are not classical music lovers (say, what: Mozart, Wagner, Handel, Bach, Ravel, Debussy, Satie, Beethoven, Puccini, Chopin, Schubert, Vivaldi, Bizet, Strauss, Berlioz... I dare you to name many more if you're not into classical). That's very few people by comparison to how many composers left music sheets behind them, many of which are still being played today to some extent, and probably many more who aren't being played at all anymore, and we're talking a several centuries timespan. On one hand, 20th century composers will have left proper recording that'll be more easily available for anyone to hear but how many huge stars from the 1960's could a 20 year old still name today? I mean I'm into funk for example, and after 30 years listening to funk I could still probably listen to a new funk record every day until I die without having heard every funk record ever released. Now with easy recording techniques and the internet more records are being released every day than ever. What are people going to do with those billions of recordings in 2 century? How are poeple gonna even know where to begin? OK, there will always be music critics and tastemakers in the media to ensure some names are being remembered but yet, as generations are going to die, there will be fewer and fewer people to defend any such generation's heroes, and there is little political reason to keep the Beatles' legacy alive.

.

- It's really hard to imagine the future of music. Virtually every possible sonic experimentation has been made over the course of the last century, and the progress brought by technology to music has reached a peak nearly 2 decades ago (there is little one can do today that one couldn't do in 2001). Not to say nothing new will ever occur ever, of course there will be new genres and new trends, and maybe AI will eventually create music we couldn't even think of, but given that we can't even imagine what being human will mean in 300 hundred years, it's pretty hard to imagine what people will like to listen to, let alone what music from the past they will like.

.

In conclusion, it's extremely difficult to know whether Prince's music will still be listened to by more people than a few musicologists in a few centuries, but I'm pretty sure few, if any, of his contemporaries will do much better that him in that regard. Certainly, Prince will be remembered as one of the late 20th century's most influential composers, but I wouldn't bet too much on the average person having ever heard of him, or Elvis Presley, or The Beatles, or Bob Marley in the year 2318.

like i said before, how do we even know if we'll survive? and if we do, will we be back in a state of the stone age or will we be further advanced? no way of knowing. I could see a society where they think us making heroes out of musicians/athletes/artists as silly, i think some societies of the past were pretty disrespectful to their top artists. I hear that the classical composers were thought of as servants to a lord and not really that respected, some societies like the chinese i think, used to have no respect for actors and here we are making gods out of them. One thing I'll say as far as a lot of the hero worship and what's going on today with all the me too shit is that it's good, we really do need to get rid of our need for people like cosby, for heroes, for gods. The cult of celebrity needs to go. True greatness however should be celebrated and remembered and I think Prince was truly great.

NorthC said:

Human beings will always have the need to worship heroes. In ancient Egypt, is was the Pharaos, in ancient Rome, it was the Emperor and the gladiators, in our day and age, it was rock stars and movie stars... For the kids today, it's YouTube vloggers... I don't know what's better... From God-kings to folks taling blabla on a screen... Are we going forward or backward?

alot of the time the heroes were myths, not real people. I do think that with maturity, at least in my case, i often say I've outgrown heroes. Can't speak for anyone else but I know my heroes, at least i know everything there is to know that is public and there are always glaring flaws and inconsistencies that tell me maybe I don't need heroes as such. I learn what I can from the men I studied and I use it for me, because all of them have some vile qualities that come with just being men.

databank said:

Like a few fellow orgers above noted, the real question isn't whether Prince will be more or less remembered than James Brown or the Beatles but whether and by whom 20th century and contemporary pop music will still be listened to.

.

The comparison to classical composers seems somewhat inappropriate to me for several reasons:

.

- We do not possess any contemporary recordings from those composers: all that's survived from their work is music sheets that are to be recreated over and over and recorded by other musicians, born long after the composer and the original players have died. The way we appreciate and evaluate music has to be different somehow because when you hear a recording by a musician todazy (even if he's only a score composer who conducts an orchestra and doesn't play himself), you hear the music exactly as the composer intended it to be heard. It's even of course, stronger in the case of pop music when the composer actually plays and sings themselves on the record. No matter how many times Kate Bush will be covered, there will never be any contemporary rendition of her music by anyone else that will surpass her original records as the "ultimate and definitive version", and the same could be said of a Danny Elfman score recorded in his lifetime.

.

- Classical music was (and still remains to some extent) an elitist type of music that, at the time, was mostly directed at a small privileged and educated crowd of listeners. This very specific audience, made of influent tastemakers, has also ensured (for political reasons) that certain composers would remain in history as major forces even though the average man had never heard of Mozart or Beethoven in their lifetime. This is different from pop stars who reached millions of people in their lifetime but on the other hand do not necessarily benefit from an elite maintaining their legacy as a social marker for the next few centuries.

.

- The amount of music composed and produced every year for the last few decades surpasses in number the whole of what's been composed in, say, the whole 17th Century. There is a great amount of classical (by that I mean everything from Renaissance to Romantic eras) who have been more or less forgotten and whose music is hardly ever played anymore and basically about only a dozen names or so are well known by educated people who are not classical music lovers (say, what: Mozart, Wagner, Handel, Bach, Ravel, Debussy, Satie, Beethoven, Puccini, Chopin, Schubert, Vivaldi, Bizet, Strauss, Berlioz... I dare you to name many more if you're not into classical). That's very few people by comparison to how many composers left music sheets behind them, many of which are still being played today to some extent, and probably many more who aren't being played at all anymore, and we're talking a several centuries timespan. On one hand, 20th century composers will have left proper recording that'll be more easily available for anyone to hear but how many huge stars from the 1960's could a 20 year old still name today? I mean I'm into funk for example, and after 30 years listening to funk I could still probably listen to a new funk record every day until I die without having heard every funk record ever released. Now with easy recording techniques and the internet more records are being released every day than ever. What are people going to do with those billions of recordings in 2 century? How are poeple gonna even know where to begin? OK, there will always be music critics and tastemakers in the media to ensure some names are being remembered but yet, as generations are going to die, there will be fewer and fewer people to defend any such generation's heroes, and there is little political reason to keep the Beatles' legacy alive.

.

- It's really hard to imagine the future of music. Virtually every possible sonic experimentation has been made over the course of the last century, and the progress brought by technology to music has reached a peak nearly 2 decades ago (there is little one can do today that one couldn't do in 2001). Not to say nothing new will ever occur ever, of course there will be new genres and new trends, and maybe AI will eventually create music we couldn't even think of, but given that we can't even imagine what being human will mean in 300 hundred years, it's pretty hard to imagine what people will like to listen to, let alone what music from the past they will like.

.

In conclusion, it's extremely difficult to know whether Prince's music will still be listened to by more people than a few musicologists in a few centuries, but I'm pretty sure few, if any, of his contemporaries will do much better that him in that regard. Certainly, Prince will be remembered as one of the late 20th century's most influential composers, but I wouldn't bet too much on the average person having ever heard of him, or Elvis Presley, or The Beatles, or Bob Marley in the year 2318.

I never said Prince's renditions of his music will continue to be mainstream 100 years from now. But because he is an author of music he will be remembered like classic composers. Even Cole Porter fits that description.

Vannormal said:

I just wrote this in another topic :

... What concernes me more is this; Pop and rock music actually is pretty young if you come to think about it (and see it in perspective of time). 60 plus years or so.

Idols die. One day pop and rock will be just like classical music, old(er) and possibly for some sort of elite, if still around and wanted, or maybe forgotten even.

But when not forgotten, hopefully Prince's legacy will belong to that elite ...

There will always be Music. And there will always be forgotten great artists as well. That I learned

So chances are 50/50. Only Time will tell.

-

For some years now (after I inherited a colleciton of my grandparents) I got into 78 rpm shellac recordings. So many artists we even never heard of. And when you search for info on them, you will find out that some of them sold millions and millions of records (even when there was limited radio). Quite impressive.

Most of them are totally forgotten right now. Just a few people collecting stuff, and some museums or libraries completing their collection are involved and know some information about them. Very few. Not even all is to be find on the internet. That's it.

And that all happened less than 100 years ago. (Since electric recording and record-playing was invented and shared.)

Classical music is still important. Simply because it is related to the instruments being used to create it (and written down in readable notes). And those instruments are still interesting today, to learn, to play, etc. Maybe one day that will end as well. Nothing is forever. There's also the techonological development in front of us. Maybe one day we can lsiten to music while just thinking of it, without having to use our ears !

Or to speak in terms of a 100 or 2OO years from now, and if Prince's music will still be there, I am pretty sure the chances that it will dissapear is pretty real. But we just can't tell do we.

-

From what we learned so far, it's quite possible Prince will be forgotten. And so be it - if so.

Do some of you know who Maria Callas is ? Know some music she did ? Or perhaps Tino Rossi ? Or Enrico Caruso ?

My nephews are 30 and they have no idea who Tina Turner is, let alone ever heard about Dire Straits, Yes, Earth Wind & Fire, Talk Talk, Japan, Rod Stewart, Robert Palmer, etc. I did the test.

[Edited 3/7/18 0:22am]

That is up to the parents (or some influential caretaker) to introduce the younger generation to the concept of music. I have faith that there are millenials whose ears long for something more than top 40 pablum spewed by the music business of today. The fun part is being able to introduce them to patterns of how one generation of music is carried on into another. My 22 year old has a wide range of musical taste from classical, opera, gospel, funk, rock to heavy metal vomit rock!

Bonatoc,

I've always admired your prose. It is a feast for the mind.