Would you rather... (tough question)

Man Overboard wrote:

http://www.greglake.com/newsite/html/discpops/14AllWnt.mp3

A) is a very good option, you already have plenty unbelievable music to hear.

but I would choose B), why ?

- You still have a chance old groups reunite (It would be odd but it's possible)

- Every time more and more music is made, not all of it reaches us. If I would live 100 years, I would take the time to search for the good music there is in the underground scene. Instead of listening to the sh*tty pop that is and will be dominating the world wide scene.

- You said that artists will be influenced by the past music, then they coud be inspierd to do their music as an analogy of the old one. I'm sure something interesting would come out. Something worthy to listen to. Or simply do covers. jejeje. Do covers count as old music ??

- Besides, I'm hopeful that music of the next hundrer years (because I'm relatively young) will be as marvelous as it was in the last 100 years

- Who could predict that prog rock was going to appear !? did any of you old men !? or that any of what happened was going to happen ! We are children of our time ! none of un can think of anything different of what we have lived.

- We are to make the music that's going to be heard in the next hundred years !!! If I'm to hear what's going to be maide, then I'll make my own music !!ç

(This sounded very Thick as a Brick to me. jejeje)

So you ride yourselves over the fields
and you make all your animal deals
and your wise men don't know how it feels
to be thick as a brick.

Man Overboard wrote: greenback wrote: choice B is for teenagers choose Jethro Tull "A" 1969:  Prog rock is for teenagers!

Precisely

i choose the option A, i couldn't still alive without yes, crimson, tull, focus, VDGG, GG, genesis, etc...

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"

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"