Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People tend to widely enjoy movies, music, books, art that are produced for mass consumption when it is done in modern times. However, as things become more and more dated, the vast majority of all those things are forgotten and only those things that are exemplary, of high esthetic value or are highly intellectual survive.
Why do you think this is the case? Why is low brow culture from the present highly popular, but low brow culture from 300 years ago essentially forgotten?
I guess that's what stands the test of time; they deal with universal truths instead of current events or a single character's personality.
Which do you think will last longer, Family Ties or Game of Thrones?
I'm not familiar with Game of Thrones, but it seems to be an interesting series which could last a long time.
When we think of some the most famous people from different periods in the past, names like Plato, William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Johann Sebastian Bach or Thomas Jefferson come to mind. Contrast those with household names today like Oprah Winfrey, Will Smith, Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian.
It is fascinating to me how wildly different the popular figures of the past are compared to the popular figures of the present. You would think that the intellectual standards which are applied to the past would serve as a model for the present. But, strangely, that is not the case.
I'm not familiar with Game of Thrones, but it seems to be an interesting series which could last a long time.
When we think of some the most famous people from different periods in the past, names like Plato, William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Johann Sebastian Bach or Thomas Jefferson come to mind. Contrast those with household names today like Oprah Winfrey, Will Smith, Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian.
It is fascinating to me how wildly different the popular figures of the past are compared to the popular figures of the present. You would think that the intellectual standards which are applied to the past would serve as a model for the present. But, strangely, that is not the case.
You don't have to go that far back.
Do you remember the show What's My Line? When they had a celebrity guest everyone in America from 8 to 80 knew who they were. Now look at the City Data celebrity sub forum. How many names listed have you heard of?
There are many more outlets for 'fame". Use TV for an example. When I was a kid most of us watched the same shows because there were only 3 choices at 8pm. How many now? The best sellers were written by people known over the years like Capote and Wouk. How about today when the most famous writers seem to be romance novelists. There are so many sports the average person doesn't know who the heavyweight champion is or who won the decathlon at the last Olympics.
We are spread so thin today. Doesn't take much to be famous.
You don't seem to understand that the past's pop culture is today's high culture that merely stood the test of time. After all, the plays of Shakespeare were attended by people of all classes.
Go back and look at the past winners of the Pulitzer for fiction. How many winners have stood the test of time? Some have. Some have been forgotten.
This is an interesting question OP and I'll attempt to give some insight regarding it to the best of my ability as possible .
In my opinion certain aspects of the pop culture of the past are still valued by certain segments of present day society , especially in the form of fandom .
For instance quite a few people still value the works of weird fiction writers who very much fit into the category of pop culture in their era , as evidenced by the existence of conventions such as this one : NecronomiCon Providence - The Stars are Right, Again!
In fact some would argue that the popularity of writers such as Lovecraft increased greatly after their time , an assertion which while certainly debatable , would be hard to dispute in terms of the similar claim which states that such writers have a devoted fan base to this very day .
To sum things up I think that the pop culture of the past is still valued by many humans to this day , just perhaps not to the extent that could be described as mainstream .
You don't seem to understand that the past's pop culture is today's high culture that merely stood the test of time. After all, the plays of Shakespeare were attended by people of all classes.
Go back and look at the past winners of the Pulitzer for fiction. How many winners have stood the test of time? Some have. Some have been forgotten.
Another thing to consider is that many of today’s classics are from artists who did not have critical success while they were alive. Other artists might have had success, but some of the most famous pieces were not actually successful when they were alive. For example, many women who are famous now weren’t famous during their time. In fact, some of their works were given terrible reviews at the time.
Bach actually wrote his Brandenburg concertos to land a job, but he was rejected for that job. Those concertos are now some of his most famous works. I think Vivaldi was wildly famous when he was alive, lost popularity after he died, and then had a revival in popularity. I think Swan Lake was initially a total failure, but one of the few ballets with which a lot of people are familiar.
I think it's a matter of the volume of production.
Sure, Shakespeare's plays were the "pop culture" of his day, but Shakespeare himself wrote fewer than 40 plays, and his contemporaries didn't write many more. But his plays would have been performed for years before being superseded by another "hit." Rod Serling, in comparison, wrote over a hundred television scripts that were actually aired. Other series writers may write hundreds over their careers.
Beethoven wrote only nine symphonies. A "hit" symphony by Beethoven may have been "on the charts" for a decade before being superseded by his next work.
Mozart wrote 50 symphonies, a whopping number in his day, but that's only the equivalent of five albums by a contemporary pop artist.
The Beatle's "Yesterday" is a sadly beautiful lament of a foolishly lost love, a story of universal and timeless relevance. In its time, it was translated to over 150 languages and sung by artists around the world. Fifty years ago, I would have asserted that "Yesterday" would be tomorrow's classic. Yet, how many Millennials and Z-Genners have ever heard it, or would recognize it?
There is just too much stuff produced today.
I think there are certainly modern works of equal value, probably even more. But the public is inundated by so much entertainment, and such a greater percentage of that entertainment is dreck, that the true gems have little chance to last in the mind of the public long enough to attain the status they deserve.
As a result, I think very little, if anything, produced today will achieve such a status that it will continue to be revered 200 years from now.
I think it's a matter of the volume of production.
Sure, Shakespeare's plays were the "pop culture" of his day, but Shakespeare himself wrote fewer than 40 plays, and his contemporaries didn't write many more. But his plays would have been performed for years before being superseded by another "hit." Rod Serling, in comparison, wrote over a hundred television scripts that were actually aired. Other series writers may write hundreds over their careers.
Beethoven wrote only nine symphonies. A "hit" symphony by Beethoven may have been "on the charts" for a decade before being superseded by his next work.
Mozart wrote 50 symphonies, a whopping number in his day, but that's only the equivalent of five albums by a contemporary pop artist.
The Beatle's "Yesterday" is a sadly beautiful lament of a foolishly lost love, a story of universal and timeless relevance. In its time, it was translated to over 150 languages and sung by artists around the world. Fifty years ago, I would have asserted that "Yesterday" would be tomorrow's classic. Yet, how many Millennials and Z-Genners have ever heard it, or would recognize it?
There is just too much stuff produced today.
I think there are certainly modern works of equal value, probably even more. But the public is inundated by so much entertainment, and such a greater percentage of that entertainment is dreck, that the true gems have little chance to last in the mind of the public long enough to attain the status they deserve.
As a result, I think very little, if anything, produced today will achieve such a status that it will continue to be revered 200 years from now.
Mozart and Beethoven were prolific. They both wrote more than 500 pieces, with only a small portion of them being symphonies. Shakespeare is also known because he’s a poet and wrote sonnets. I think part of what makes these artists so famous is not just because they were good at what they did, but because they had broader talent.
Within the classical realm, I would say that John Williams is a modern composer/artist who is comparable. He’s extremely prolific and I think you’d be hard pressed to find people with access to music/film who are not familiar with his work from Star Wars, Harry Potter, or one of many other films he’s done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
