Will future generations (and I mean like our great x1000 grandkids)

>>71134139
They're pop stars that will be forgotten in 30 years time

>>71134155
But the classical artist I listed were like the pop stars of the time

>>71134155
You're retarded if you really think that

>>71134193
He's wrong, but just because they're already irrelevant and forgotten now, let alone in 30 years.

Probably the Beatles and Pink Floyd will be the only two artists to reach that degree of significance (universal recognizability). All other artists will be discovered through association by future generations. By that I mean I'm sure many people will know about figures such as Bowie, but probably nowhere near in the same vein as those two bands.

And I honestly believe artists such as Rolling Stones and Nirvana will be wholly forgotten outside of top 100 charts. They're more period pieces than they are thematically ubiquitous works of art like Floyd for example.

But honestly who knows how things will go down. It's all hypothetical and we're accelerating too fast to make sense of shit.

>>71134309
Hendrix too maybe.

Prince's legacy will die out because he didn't release his shit on the Internet

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>71134277