Would you rather... (tough question)

Man Overboard wrote: b)  Listen ONLY to music made from now until 100 years in the future.  The start date is TODAY.  You will have no memory of previous music, only the music that exists from today, onward. These choices only impact you.  Forthcoming artists will still be influenced by past artists and put out the music they'd put out anyway, should you choose the latter. Can you decide?

Definitely b, because I'll get the past 100 years through their influence on the artists. I'm currently in a similar state as far as some 70s prog bands are concerned. I only listen to Yes, Genesis or Gentle Giant through bands like Spock's Beard, because I never find the time to listen to the classics.

It's a nice question, well done!

P.S.: Please don't use my Spock's Beard comment to start a 70s/90s war here, there's a whole Spock's Beard thread "next door".

BaldJean wrote: Man Overboard wrote: After much debate, and it absolutely kills me to do this... I'm going to have to choose B.  Our progressive pioneers certainly "chose B" in their own way. Now don't get me wrong, I love the early progressive rock more than anything else, but... The music that interests me the most comes from the past 40 years.  The previous 60 gave me little to love, except jazz.  However, I'm willing to risk it all to see what's coming in the next 100.  Considering even the "new" prog bands are either peaked or close to peaking, I'd be losing that just as much as I'd be losing King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, and other favorites.  But..  who knows what's to come?  There is a logical mistake in your argument which I'd like to point out. Without any prior knowledge of earlier music it is higly unlikely you would love the music of the future. A musical taste is acquired over the years. You just don't get thrown into the world and say: "Ok, I like neo-prog". It is simply impossible.

There is a logical mistake in your argument there baldJean

You would have 100 years to acquire a taste in music

choice B is for teenagers

choose Jethro Tull "A"

tuxon wrote: But I don't want to live for another 100 years, oh the agony of having to deal with this earthly hell for another 100 years   But if the choise have to be made I'd choose the latter. All new music, I also like to live dangerously

Hey Tuxon.. its only an earthly hell because you live in an overpopulated little country, where there are no hills, all the cheese is tasteless and you allow your kids to put little chocolate 'hundreds and thousands' on their bread at breakfast time.

Escape now while you are still young and emigrate to Belgium!!

If I live for one hundred years more there's a chance I'll be the last man on earth. And how would I get electricity to play my music ?

My answer will be A for sure. For me most of interesting music including classic (Stravinsky, Bartok, deBussy, Rimsky-Korsakov and a lot more), Jazz and ECM (Jan Garbarek, Zakir Husain, Stefan Mikus, Paul Winter and more) and prog (King crimson at first & many others) occured in the last 100 years. I agree with Nacho that giving up Bach is terrible but it happens in both choices.

I do'nt think the next 100 years will get even close to the last ones since the media and popularity (what they call - the global village) pushes everything to a low quality (Britny Spears for example).

In Bowie's words : "So much has gone and little is new"

Man Overboard wrote: Now this is a tough one. Okay, you have a choice with two options. You are guaranteed to live for 100 more years, in good health, without aging. You can: a)  Listen ONLY to music written/recorded in the past 100 years.  The cutoff date is TODAY.  You will never hear anything outside of that period, nor will you hear about it or read about it.  Basically, music ceases to exist with the exception of the past 100 years. b)  Listen ONLY to music made from now until 100 years in the future.  The start date is TODAY.  You will have no memory of previous music, only the music that exists from today, onward. These choices only impact you.  Forthcoming artists will still be influenced by past artists and put out the music they'd put out anyway, should you choose the latter. Can you decide?

I go for A. The music that is now is mostly crap IMO, so this is a easy choice for me. I just can't live without "Foxtrot" or "Octopus"