Unheard works by Erik Satie to premiere 100 years after his death

Ian Penman wrote a fantastic biography of Satie, published earlier this year. Worth a read! He was a profoundly strange and fascinating person: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9781635902532/erik-satie-three-piec...

Is he remembered for his personality or his music? I'm asking because I find it fascinating how some music from 100 years ago still holds value today.

>Is he remembered for his personality or his music?

Both, but mostly for his music. Listen to Gymnopédie No. 1 and Gnossienne No. 1 for good beginner pieces.

Certainly both, but in your question, I'm suspecting your unaware of how much of this music you're familiar with it since it lives rent-free in the general zeitgeist. For example, I suspect you'd recognize Satie's work Gymnopedie no. 1[1] and perhaps putting a name to it will give you some appreciation for why his work is valued

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Xm7s9eGxU

He is primarily remembered for his music. Most people know some of his compositions but don't even know who wrote it. Gymnopédie is still used all over the place today in ads, remixes, and everywhere else - but few know who composed it, and even fewer know about his eccentric personality.

But apparently hackernews loves to point out how "weird" he was.

> I find it fascinating how some music from 100 years ago still holds value today.

Some of the world's most cherished music is much older than that. Is it your general expectation that musical compositions, regardless of merit, will inevitably lose their appeal over time?

I think if you explore the “classical” genre of music you’ll quickly find many works of merit by composers which date back over 100 years

Talk about living rent free…the number of modern songs which are (generally obliviously) derivative of Pachelbel's Canon in D is mind boggling, which itself was surely built upon even earlier, similar chord progressions.

Right, and that's kind of the point. A small group still finds immense value in it, but for the majority, the appeal has faded or been replaced by other forms of music. It doesn't mean the compositions aren't brilliant, it just shows how cultural relevance shifts over time (regardless of quality).

I see. Thanks for the info.

Various musicien like to play his music. Here's Gnossienne N°1 in a Gipsy Jazz style, by the Beltuner group in 2005 https://beltuner.bandcamp.com/track/gnossienne-n-1

Obligatory comedy sketch: https://youtu.be/JdxkVQy7QLM

Music has an interesting relationship with time and human appreciation. At any particular time, there's a lot of music being produced. It's filtered at the source by things like the Billboard 100 and DJ preference, but a lot of music survives the immediate filter.

Older music is filtered by the brains of the people who experienced it when it was new. A consensus forms on what music was good and should be remembered. There's a nostalgia bump in popularity that lags about 20-30 years behind as middle-aged folk (the people with money and influence) replay the songs from their younger days. That's where "classic rock" and the like come from.

After that, the music is filtered again by people who encounter the previously filtered music for the first time. Music that survives this filter becomes essentially a permanent part of the culture. Here you find pieces like Scott Joplin's The Entertainer and Benny Goodman's version of Sing, Sing, Sing.

So if you're encountering century-plus old music, it's generally the stuff the stuff that our culture has flagged as being the best of its time (by one of several measures, not necessarily the most enjoyable) and still worthy of appreciation. Or it's music nerds doing their thing.