What is the test of time?


The followint quote is from an interesting post in another thread:
I don't think it will stand the test of time. Most music doesn't.
What exactly is the proverbial test of time though? Critics spout that phrase all the time. But what exactly qualifies something to have stood the test of time? Critics said that rap wouldn't last over twenty years ago. Critics said that pop wouldn't last over forty years ago. Critics said that r&b wouldn't last over fifty years ago. Critics said that swing wouldn’t last over seventy years ago...

Interesting subject. Since the dawn of recording technology and especially now, people everywhere are scrambling to archive recordings of the past into whatever is the latest, greatest medium and format. In light of this, just about everything ever recorded will survive time. But still the question remains, what is the "test" of time. If anyone on earth listens to something long forgotten, does that mean it has stood the test of time?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on the topic. What is the “test of time” to you?
creeper
Test 1: Is the music seen as having made a lasting contribution to the art form? Is it something that others copied or built on?

Test 2: Do people still actively listen to it N years later?

Test 3: N years later, is the band / album / song "remembered" in any way beyond an exhaustive record of all music? Would the band make a list of the top bands in it's genre in its era? Are they historically relevant?

These are probably in priority order for me.
Kthomas, I agree with Creeper. That's a fine test. I would add that "N" needs to span generations. For example, "Do other generations still actively listen to it"
Is it something you have owned an played in different formats from LP to tape to cd to sacd/dvd-a and still enjoy. Bob james, Steely Dan, Chicago, Jackson Browne.