Neapolitan

That is true about anything in music, you can even say that in regards to The Beatles. What they meant in their own time and what they mean now are entirely different. Even the art music that has survived and is played today has changed its audience over the course of the few hundred years since it first was created.

You are totally missing the point, of course it's not a apples to apples comparison that is clear, saying that about The Beatles was to draw a conclusion for the purpose of showing their importance - when considering both creativity and popularity.

__________________

starrynight

I think there is a big difference between something written 40 years ago and something wrote 300 years ago, the whole world has changed in the way music is produced and consumed.

'Importance' is a very subjective term, popularity rises and falls with fashion. Mozart for example wasn't so popular in the second half of the 19th century. So I'd rather just base it on how much good music I think someone has done irrespective of fashion or anything else.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Howard the Duck

you have to remember most classical works have gone through a lot of permutations to make it more accessible, certainly Mozart didn't write his pieces for a "modern" orchestra, it would've probably been more raucous back then

and Stravinsky's Rite of Spring even incited a riot at its premiere, now that's rock n roll

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.