Has there been a musician of the 20th century that even approaches the significance of Mozart?
>>65827011
What are you trying to imply here, Willis?
It's objectively impossible to tell due to a lack of the passage of time. Mozart has had over 200 years to be influential.
However, it is clear that there are a multitude of artists that were more influential in their lifetime than Mozart was in his.
Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk
>implying that the 21st century isn't the best of all time
>implying that Mozart is dead
>>65827011
gucci mane
>>65827011
Liszt is the reason the entire physical design of a piano had to be remade. Nigga was that good at playing it.
>>65827050
I'm pretty sure Mozart popularized the concept of a public concert, so he has that.
They're different eras and not really comparable. Music was constructed differently and pieces had different reasons for being composed. It's like comparing Chopin to Mozart.
>>65827062
>implying 21st century is good at all
>>65827172
What an awfully bleak look on modern music.
I, for one, can't wait for the sonic soundscapes of the future.
Strauss, Mahler, Sibelius, Schoenberg, Webern, Bartok, Ferneyhough, Ligeti, Schnittke, Arvo Part, Lera Auerbach, John Tavener, Rautavaara.
You have to realize that 20th century music is a different beast to the classical period. There are still very significant composers, but not many people outside the classical world know about them
>>65827050
Also the type of Mozarts influence.
That shit was harmonic, melodic, structural, etc. Base compositional stuff.
The only influence you could have now is "dude check out this new synth sound I made" or "I mixed these two old subgenres together, how original is that? lmao"
>>65827210
suck my DICK
>>65827245
>The only influence you could have now is "dude check out this new synth sound I made" or "I mixed these two old subgenres together
kek. top kek. Please refrain from ever thinking you know anything about music lol
>>65827245
>The only influence you could have now is "dude check out this new synth sound I made" or "I mixed these two old subgenres together, how original is that? lmao"
Isn't this incredibly simplifying
>>65827251
Name one truly original thing in music in the last 50 years that isn't technology or mixing sounds together.
>>65827318
Non-Pythagorean scale
>>65827347
Nigga thats been going on since the beginning of time.
>>65827365
DON'T YOU SEE IM TRYING!!!!!!!!!
Aphex Twin kek
>>65827318
>technology or mixing sounds together.
Isn't that pretty much all of music?
>>65827318
>>65827318
>Name one truly original thing in music in the last 50 years that isn't a truly original thing in music in the last 50 years
lmao
>>65827318
>Name one truly original thing in music in the last 50 years
What happened to us then? Did we become stupid? Slow? Does all art have some kind of golden-age peak that we will never reach again? Are we really are that hopeless?
>>65827318
Name one truly original thing in music in the last 50 years that isn't just audio frequencies
>>65827011
lls ! who tf is this ? my homeqirls got more justin bieber than mozzart songs on ipod .
>>65827233
Fuck off poly.
That depends. Is this for overall music or for certain genres? Obviously there are genres now that didn't exist in the 1700s, but there are musicians that are extremely influential in popularizing the genre.
Gangster rap, for example, wouldn't have been as popular as it was if it wasn't for NWA. After NWA came solo musicians like Dre, then came the titans of the industry like Wu-Tang Clan, Tupac, and Notorious BIG. And then gangster rap sort of died/transformed into other hip hop genres, and now you got stuff like Kendrick Lamar.
I have no idea what I'm talking about though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
>>65827318
New complexity, Spectralism, Minimalism, Taking advantage of spatial elements (Stockhausen for example)
The point is that there's always something new to make, its just that only a select few will have the skills and inspiration to make it.
Those who believe that its not possible to ever make anything new will live by that rule, and never make anything new.
Those who dont will create new things and be heralded as Innovative
Maybe Debussy.
>>65827011
mozart liked shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk
>>65827318
There is one thing.
mark my works, richard d. james will be seen as mozart tier in the next century
>>65827676
autechre will be bach
>>65827738
Stockhausen did what autechre did in the late 50s though. They wont even register. They're 60 years late to the party and not even getting close to Stockhausen's Kontakte
![ferr[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ayqzPRW.jpg "ferr[1].jpg")
>>65827011
>>65827057
>Louis Armstrong
this.
>>65827072
The truth is we'll probably treat Gucci Mane and Future and other trappers in a hundred years how we treat Robbie Johnson and Leadbelly now
Seriously tell me this isn't the second coming of the blues:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qFbLuePDo6o
In any case I'd say Mahler was a better artist than Mozart
>>65830152
>In any case I'd say Mahler was a better artist than Mozart
