WHat makes music good?

[I.J. Reilly]

These are interestgin responses and conisitent wiht what most people would say. Some fo you posters are much more opinionated about music, however, nad I am curious if you can articualte what you look for to qualify somethign as good or if it is, in then end, just a subjective and visceral response based on what you like the most.

IOW, if you become educated about more complex music, you tend ot like more complex music. The possibility is that your educated preference doesnt mean the music is better, it just changes what you like, while the purpose of the music, its raison d'etre, is still satisfied as much by MMmmm Bop as it is by Beethoven's ninth. The only real difference is the reaction of the listener.

Interesting that you would bring up Beethoven as an example of loftier interests in music. In Beethoven's time, he was Hansen making MMMmmm Bop. The Romantic Period saw the democratization of the music listening experience. Beethoven appealed to the masses. He, for the most part, did not rely on patronage, but would instead stage concerts and charge admittance fees. His music was very much tied to the emotion of the listeners, the uneducated public. Prior to his time, music was often evaluated and appreciated on its technical merits and abilities and how perfectly it fit certain forms.

Of course, now it has been shoved into the "classical" mode and people ignore it for this, among other, reasons. It is no mistake, however, that children's and other musically uneducated people's first introduction and taking to "classical" music is through Romantic composers, esp. Beethoven.

[Babs]

where is that post of his? I can't remember why he admitting to tapping his toes while listening to Dire Straits.

It was when he was explaining that he was "down with the 80s."
http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showpo...5&postcount=20

SU posted that "money for nothing" was one of the greatest toe-tappers of all time, then mused that we needed a thread dedicated to the topic. Later he obliged with his list of hits most likely to get your feet a'moving.

May I present, without further ado, SeattleUte's top ten:

Money for Nothin'
Radar Love
Could it be I'm Fallin in Love?
Theme Song from Grease
Satisfaction (can't get no)
Sweet Home Alabama
I went to a Garden Party
Lotta Love
Day Dream Believer
Take it Easy

The thought of SU cruising around Seattle, grooving to Ricky Nelson and the Eagles, still cracks me up.

[creekster]

Interesting that you would bring up Beethoven as an example of loftier interests in music. In Beethoven's time, he was Hansen making MMMmmm Bop. The Romantic Period saw the democratization of the music listening experience. Beethoven appealed to the masses. He, for the most part, did not rely on patronage, but would instead stage concerts and charge admittance fees. His music was very much tied to the emotion of the listeners, the uneducated public. Prior to his time, music was often evaluated and appreciated on its technical merits and abilities and how perfectly it fit certain forms.

Of course, now it has been shoved into the "classical" mode and people ignore it for this, among other, reasons. It is no mistake, however, that children's and other musically uneducated people's first introduction and taking to "classical" music is through Romantic composers, esp. Beethoven.

SO does this historical example mean that in fact the quality of music is a purely subjective thing? or does it mean that the trend has been towards lower quality over time?

In the thread on what you are listening to now comments are made abotu some song or another being good versus being bad. WHat is the basis for such commetns? how do you tell? how do you teach someone what to look for?

[I.J. Reilly]

SO does this historical example mean that in fact the quality of music is a purely subjective thing? or does it mean that the trend has been towards lower quality over time?

In the thread on what you are listening to now comments are made abotu some song or another being good versus being bad. WHat is the basis for such commetns? how do you tell? how do you teach someone what to look for?

Imo, Beethoven's time was the end of music being systematically evaluated subjectively, at least wide-scale. His advent brought the democratization of music, and the uneducated. Without the training, the uneducated could never point to a "reason" why they liked the music, instead responding viscerally to what they heard. It's amazing to hear about some of the accounts of concert goers to Beethoven's shows and how they would react to some of his music. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

As you probably also know, most popular music you hear today is structurally simple, so form is pretty much out the window as a way to evaluate music.

Sometimes artists are judged by their ability to take technical perfection to a higher level. Many instrumentalists and vocalists are praised for this ability across genres. Their technical ability does not necessarily make a song "good" however, although I think it can enhance enjoyment.

Other artists receive praise based on the experimental factors of their music. Cross-genre work, messing a bit with the structure, incorporation of new sounds, etc. all get this type of praise. Again, not an automatic "good", but can enhance, although this often can detract from music too.

There are other ways, also, to evaluate music, but I don't think there is any one that a person or subset of people in this day and age use to make an absolute judgement of "good". Even measuring all of the parts won't give you a satisfactory answer. This seems to be a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Some people place more weight on different aspects and there is no general consensus.

The subjective way in which most evaluate their music means we most often place a high value on recommendations from those we know that have similar interests and tastes. I don't think you could write a code in a computer that would consistently be able to label a song as "good", just way too subjective.

[YOhio]

It has to:
1- Be a trip
2- Got a funky beat
3- Allow me to bug out to it

[Surfah]

I don't know what makes pop music good. Some of it I hate. Some of it I love. I have been listening to Katy Perry (I'd rather be watching) and I like her album. It's fun. Good beats. Catchy tunes. Fun lyrics that get stuck in my head. I actually really like this album. I don't know if I should be embarrassed or not.

[creekster]

I don't know what makes pop music good. Some of it I hate. Some of it I love. I have been listening to Katy Perry (I'd rather be watching) and I like her album. It's fun. Good beats. Catchy tunes. Fun lyrics that get stuck in my head. I actually really like this album. I don't know if I should be embarrassed or not.

Based on the standards being described here there would be no reason for you tobe embarrassaed. In fact, the standards here suggest that the best music is hte most popular music. ANybody disagree with that?

[MartyFunkhouser]

What makes music good to me is soloing ability, ability of the other musicians to give the soloist space to work with but still give him something to play off, and experimenting and pushing the boundaries of the form.

[Surfah]

What makes music good to me is soloing ability, ability of the other musicians to give the soloist space to work with but still give him something to play off, and experimenting and pushing the boundaries of the form.

That's not pop music.

[creekster]

What makes music good to me is soloing ability, ability of the other musicians to give the soloist space to work with but still give him something to play off, and experimenting and pushing the boundaries of the form.

Is this only appicabel to jazz or would you apply this to any category of music? And lest one be too hasty and assume it doesnt apply to classical music such as Bach, for example, it is true that many of Bach's notations assume improvisation while played. In our day this improvisation has itself become formulaic so that it is no longer what we might call a true improvisation, but in Bach's day I think it was much more what you are talking about.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Is this only appicabel to jazz or would you apply this to any category of music? And lest one be too hasty and assume it doesnt apply to classical music such as Bach, for example, it is true that many of Bach's notations assume improvisation while played. In our day this improvisation has itself become formulaic so that it is no longer what we might call a true improvisation, but in Bach's day I think it was much more what you are talking about.

I would apply it to jazz only or music heavily influenced by jazz. I primarily listen to jazz so this is what I typically am looking for.

[creekster]

I would apply it to jazz only or music heavily influenced by jazz. I primarily listen to jazz so this is what I typically am looking for.

So you tihk the best jazz is fond by looking for the best soloists at the edge of the form? When you say boundaries of the form what do you mean? the form of the typical jazz progression? the form of 12 tone music? Which form provides the boundaries that you prefer to see pushed?

[Babs]

What makes music good?

"If it sounds good, it is good."

-Duke Ellington

[MartyFunkhouser]

So you tihk the best jazz is fond by looking for the best soloists at the edge of the form? When you say boundaries of the form what do you mean? the form of the typical jazz progression? the form of 12 tone music? Which form provides the boundaries that you prefer to see pushed?

I guess this is really about my favorite jazz. I do acknowledge and enjoy a lot of jazz that doesn't really push into the free jazz area.

My favorite jazz is jazz that isn't constrained to any form and allows the musicians just complete creative control. You don't need a certain chord progression or a specified progression of soloing. I think you get the most interesting improvisation this way.

This isn't to say that I don't love non-free jazz styles of music. I still listen to a lot of bebop because while the composition and soloing have structure, it is still damn good. Anything pre-bop is pretty boring to me.

[venkman]

Depends on the genre. For example, I'm a hard rock/metal guy: I like something with a killer riff, first and foremost. Then a good beat. If it's got both, great: I'm bobbing the head, playing air or steering wheel drums, throwing the devil horns, etc.

But I'm also a country music fan. Musically, I tend to like the less is more type of country song. But country isn't so much about the steel guitar or fiddle (though I like both), it's the lyrics and the vocals that make a good country song. First, do the lyrics tell a story that interests me, that I can relate to, or that can reach me emotionally in an authentic way? And just as importantly, can that artist sell that song; do I believe him or her?