Bach, Beethoven, Brahms...................and Elvis????

Well, I will start. Of all the popular singers in the last number of decades, I think that Frank Sinatra will stand the test of time. Even though he has been deceased for many years, you still hear his music played. In fact, XM radio has an entire channel devoted to his music.

I think that the songs that he sang are timeless, and his pacing and inflections of the words of the songs are out of the ordinary. A word about the timelessness. There were many fine singers who were of their times, and the concerns of their particular era. When you hear them now they seem anachronistic.

I think that Sinatra speaks to us using the basic themes in humanity.............love, loss, longing, that will never change.

Beatles and Bob Dylan should make any contemporary list I'm involved in.

It should be BB King.

We're talking popular music here, right? So I won't mention such 20th century greats as George Gershwin or Aaron Copeland. They're sort of neo-classical, I suppose. But when we think of timeless s0ngs of the last century and their composers and lyricists, Cole Porter stands out for me, even though he was a teeny bit before my time. His songs are truly timeless and will provide repertoire of singers for a long, long time to come. As for performers, I agree with Phoenix re: Frank Sinatra, but I don't think we can ignore his predecessor, Bing Crosby, or his contemporary Nat "King" Cole. These voices, too, are timeless.

What I saw were B...B....B....and....BB

Actually Gershwin -- along with Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, etc -- WERE popular music, and I think they'll easily stand the test of time.

I mean, one issue you haven't addressed is that music from before the 20th century was difficult to preserve. There were no recordings. It was hard for composers to get noticed outside of cultural events and royal functions (depending on the location). Music was written down, but paper corrodes. It was difficult for people to spread the word about musicians. The composers you note have survived largely due to groups of people who were staunchly committed to preserving their works. If a composer wasn't lucky enough to get one, that was it.

Now, we have recordings, and excellent methods of preservation, not to mention communication. Someone in China can record, upload, and send me a concert they heard minutes ago. And though hard drives die and computers are hardly immortal, I think all these changes will allow even marginal bands to stand the test of time. I mean, thanks to the internet bands from the 20's and on who practically no one had ever heard of are now being rediscovered and developing cult followings. How cool is that? I think if anything, we're going to expose ourselves to even more old music as time goes on -- not less.

M.A. Not necessarily. My interest was in ANY music that a member believes will be heard in 100-200 years. As far as concert (classical) music goes, when it was written, years ago, much of it was a popular entertainment, especially after the Baroque era. Before then, most of the music written was weither geared to the nobility, or as religious expression.

M.A. Even now, except for "White Christmas", how much Crosby do you ever hear? The same for Nat "King" Cole. Cole's voice was wonderful, but I would suspect that most of the younger folks have never heard of him, except as Natalie's dad. On the other hand, Sinatra is still quite visible.

Etan- I absolutely agree. I think that technology has allowed us to preserve so much more music than in the past.

Robert- I concur about Dylan. His stuff is timeless.