coolbeans, Habermas

Habermas says that the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has lost its historical reference. Because we consider what was once modern to become outmoded and then to become a classic we create a scenario in which something must either be modern or classic and making it difficult for something to be both. Something that has survived time will always be considered a classic but what about those things that were once modern but have not survived time? For example, let’s take a look at music. We consider pieces written by Chopin, Strauss, or Vivaldi to be classics because they have stood the test of time. We even put bands such as The Beatles, The Who, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the Rolling Stones in the classic rock category. We consider recent Grammy winners such as Coldplay and Lil’ Wayne to be modern. But what about those bands who are neither considered neither modern nor classic? How do we classify this type of music? We forget the context of these works because we do not quite know where to place them. The problem with thinking of things as modern and classical is that we lose track of the many notable things that come in between. Also, a disparity between modern and classical is created in which modern seems less prestigious than classical. By stating that something must stand the test of time to become classical it seems that we are saying that in order for something modern to reach the same level of prestige or achievement as something classical it must not lose popularity over time. While it is true that it is impressive how things we have classified as classical have been able to remain popular for many generations, it is not to say that something modern does not require the same level of skill that is required to produce a classic.