Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Will contemporary pop culture still be known and enjoyed in coming centuries?


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21
funkervogt

funkervogt

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts

 

Will contemporary pop culture still be known and enjoyed in coming centuries?

Yes, AGIs and posthumans will remember contemporary pop culture with perfect accuracy and clarity, just as they will the culture of every other era. 



#22
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands


The fact that you don't know either Pelé or Tupac means I will assume you live under a rock in Siberia and will exclude you from this discussion on pop culture.


Under my rock, I'm happy with our own pop culture. Even though I'm well aware this all will be completely forgotten within just 20-50 years.

This is like talking to a westerner about Tolstoy or Ovechkin and them saying that they're not part of pop culture because they never heard of them.
Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/QAlMaVYIzqw

IMPERATOR!

#23
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 963 posts

I haven't heard much Russian pop, but do like Pavel Karmanov's (contemporary classical.composer who also is a rock musician) work.  I found out about it one day while listening to WQXR radio online.  I heard his piece Different Rains, and immediately wondered, "Who's that?!  That's amazing!".



#24
Maximus

Maximus

    Spaceman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,796 posts
  • LocationCanada

But Shakespeare, Mozart, Claude Monet, Da Vinci, Charles Dickens, all lived long enough to witness veneration and financial support for their own work. It's just that before, there wasn't the framework for a wide distribution of their work that would bring them a wide level of fame & fortune like artists have now, and relied on patronage and finance from the nobility to reach a high level of status (with exception of Dickens). If you guys want to speak on people who were internationally famous for their time and famous now, they were politicians. People whose names that were naturally widely distributed to the plebs, the plebs that cared more about their own condition than the contemporary arts.


As for examples on modern cultural icons; Kanye West (love him or hate him, you know him and his musical influence isn't light), soccer icons like Christiano Ronaldo and Messi will be remembered beside greats, Usain Bolt has cemented his name in pop culture forever, Stephen Hawking as well and most likely JK Rowling.

It's just not easy to see yet because we look at them in the now and think their impact or fame is little because to us it may seem little in comparison to what were supposed to be the magnificent greats, but in reality the people who were also exposed to their fame at that time probably cared as little for them as we do now to our own celebrities.

Sure cultural shift feels like they're moving fast, but it's moreso I believe because we have more information spreading than the fact that we're actually moving at an insane speed. Just look at the difference between the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and the large amount of turnover there. The cultural shift between the 2000s and 2010s then pales in comparison.

 

Good point on politicians traditionally being the ones who are known in their time and centuries later. However, it's interesting what you say about people rarely achieving fame in the past, because there wasn't a framework of distribution, such as the internet. This disadvantage to artists and writers probably resulted in some amazing works of art not only being lost, but never even noticed. Who knows how many Shakespeares and Mozarts went unnoticed. In this case, I would say this is one of the benefits of the internet; it allows artists to reach a much wider audience.

 

At the same time, this also allows fame to be diluted. If you told someone from 1990 that Taylor Swift's song gained 1 billion views, they would think she achieved some kind of religious icon status. Surely that work of art must be something to treasure, and the artist will shine on forever. Of course, this isn't the case. One billion views is still impressive, but it's not memorable. It's something that happens regularly. So just because you're reaching a lot more people, doesn't guarantee any lasting impact in people's memories. 

 

As for modern day cultural icons, I can see Ronaldo being remembered as long as soccer remains a popular sport, which I don't think will be very long. I'm sure it will be forgotten; people will watch robot fighting, or some other sport we can't conceive of today. Usain Bolt will be forgotten if his speed record is broken by another human; he might be remembered though if it takes cyborgs to beat him. Kanye...I won't say anything. I don't share your opinion on his impact or long-term potential, but who knows, the future could make me eat my words. I could much sooner see Tupac being remembered over Kanye. I can't provide any names of my own, because I can't think of anyone in pop culture right now who will go down in history (talking centuries on here). I would sooner bet my money on a relatively obscure writer. Maybe it's because that's just the nature of pop culture; what's popular changes so fast, and the rest tends to be forgotten.


  • Outlook likes this

#25
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,481 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

The internet means we will never forget contemporary pop culture, and that's one reason why so many have felt as if there's been a pop cultural stasis over the past 20 years. In fact, even before the rise of the internet, the rise of pop culture-centric news also helped to solidify what's contemporary. For example: MTV News, Entertainment Tonight, and entertainment sections of 24-hour news channels really got their start in the '80s and '90s, which had the effect of keeping certain trends on people's mouths as well as catching up with old trends and stars whenever enough time had elapsed.

 

Before roughly the '90s, if you wanted an aspect of historical pop culture to re-enter contemporary imagination, you largely had to wait until the inevitable biopic or docudrama as well as nostalgia exploiting. For example: the Doors were once a well-known '60s rock group that influenced many groups that followed, ranging from rock and pop to soul and even R&B, and they remained this band from yesteryear up until around the early '90s when the Jim Morrison biopic came around and had an effect similar to the Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocket Man biopics that just happened— all of a sudden, everyone wanted to be Jim Morrison (even inspiring a Radiohead lyric), several bands were compared to the Doors (like Pearl Jam), and they started getting consistently ranked as one of the greatest groups of all time, one of the first alternative (or at least alternative-approved) bands alongside Velvet Underground. And they were going on 25 years old by that point. They weren't as big as the Beatles or Rolling Stones at any point in their history, and were only really vindicated later on. 

 

In the 1980s, when a teenager's funds were limited, they weren't going to spend $20 on a cassette, record, or CD for dad rock if there was something new and exciting going on, not to mention most songs on these records were probably rubbish with only one or two good ones. What's more, cliques formed based on similar interests and it wasn't really cool to go out of that group except in private. 

 

Nowadays, a teenager in the same situation could pirate or stream music in any quantity they please, choosing only the songs they want. Since you can find any song you want on YouTube, pop culture osmosis kicks in since now everyone will be able to know and reference a particular track within a few minutes. 

 

You can find people listening to 30s and 40s music nowadays. There's probably more youths listening to Bing Crosby in the 2010s than any decade between the 1970s through 2000s combined. And that's still not a large number, but it's representative of how times are changing. 

There are indie bands from the '90s and 2000s that should have faded away, if historical trends are to be believed, but they're still regularly followed or talked about.

 

It used to be that trends came and went with the decade; certain styles of music, movies, and fashion were in; certain celebrities were talked about; certain pop stars came and went with the seasons.  Now we're still talking about pop acts that were big twenty years ago. The internet kept them alive long past their expiration date. Memes perpetuate this as well— without warning, you could find an old movie or song suddenly become popular via a meme (e.g. Darude - Sandstorm,  Simon and Garfunkle - Sound of Silence). Listicles and clickbait do their part as well. Just go on YouTube and search "Nirvana", ignore their actual songs, and see how many "Did you knows" about, interviews from, and legacy discussions on Nirvana you can find within five minutes— as well as how many were made in the past two or three years. 

 

Hey, what about the Shaggs? The "worst band ever"? They were never a thing except in the pretentious artsy alternative circles, but now a growing number of people are becoming aware of them and The Philosophy of the World. They're probably going to become a meme sometime in the future. And they're from 1969. 

 

You missed Gangnam Style when it was most popular? That's alright; it's still one of the top videos on YouTube and isn't going away anytime soon. It'll still be there in 2029, still with billions of views.

 

You didn't attend a classic concert from 1969, perhaps because you weren't born yet? Here's video of it. And you can watch it endlessly. People can get inspired by trends from 1969, even incorporating them into their personal fashion. If not 1969, then 1989— because mullets are coming back in style, and there's nothing we can do.

 

Everything is rapidly becoming "contemporary". There are still new trends being made and more to come, but they will be right alongside what has already happened. Because when young people are actively listening to 50+ year old music unironically, you can't really claim anything else. 

 

It used to be a wonky mistake in sci-fi that you'd have people from the future listening to bands, watching TV shows, or reading comics from the 1950s, '60s, '70s, and so on. But that's just what we do and it no longer feels anachronistic. If anything, it now shows those critics' ages whenever they point out it's supposed to be weird.

 

Imagine a sci-fi movie from 1969 that involves people on a space station and working with aliens & robots while "Here Comes the Sun" by the Beatles plays on the station's speakers. Audiences then would've thought, "How stupid! Why aren't they listening to a sci-fi band like 'The Clones'?" 

 

In 2019, that's just what they do on the ISS. They might listen to '60s music or 2010s music or classical music, if there's any music playing at the moment at all.

 

TLDR: Pop culture has become more spontaneous & memetic in the short term and more static & common in the long term.


  • Outlook likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#26
Nick1984

Nick1984

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • LocationUK
Here's an interesting piece on today's music

Apparently young people recognise more easily music from the 60s/70s/80s/90s than they do modern pop music.

https://metro.co.uk/...reveals-8462993

#27
CyberMisterBeauty

CyberMisterBeauty

    The most beautiful male in the universe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts
  • LocationThe largest city of the year 2192,celebrating my 200th birthday

Ask yourself: how many hits and bestsellers of XVII - XVIII centuries you remember?

 

This is the answer to your question.

 

So you mean that by 2300 the culture and brands we have nowadays will no longer exist by then?



#28
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 450 posts

 

Ask yourself: how many hits and bestsellers of XVII - XVIII centuries you remember?

 

This is the answer to your question.

 

So you mean that by 2300 the culture and brands we have nowadays will no longer exist by then?

 

Depends of what you mean by "no longer exist". Of course, as Yuli Ban said, the very existence of computers and internet means everything modern wlll be stored forever. But this is not what topic starter asked. He asked about "still be known and enjoyed" by future people?

 

The answer - no, they will have their own mass culture as well as their own high culture, reflecting their own life with their own (still unknown to us) issues... Of course, someone browsing the endless terabytes of ancient archives may rediscover for himself the great Tupac and Kanye West...

 

One Soviet poet got it righ long before internet:

 

Уважаемые товарищи потомки!
Роясь в сегодняшнем окаменевшем говне,
Наших дней изучая потемки,
Вы, возможно, спросите и обо мне.

 

Dear comrades descendants!
Digging in today's fossilized shit,
Studying the darkness of our epoch,
You will, perhaps, recall me.

 

And this is the only kind of "immortality" that today's "superstars" can hope for.



#29
tomasth

tomasth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts

Its a  business , those superstars only care about profit from the work ; and the part of being known and enjoyed , lasting throughout their lifetime

Copyright holders might care a bit longer , and that is it



#30
ralfy

ralfy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 117 posts

It will probably end up like the pop culture of the beginning of the twentieth century.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users