What makes good music good? What makes music better than other music? Is there a criteria we can use?
Please don’t just voice your opinion unless you have done some research on the subject.
Well Bill, I have done some research on the subject, and I conclude that a number of things contribute to whether or not a particular piece of music is viewed as “good.” Of course, this is extremely subjective, and I think that any attempts to discern a methodology for making more objective judgments will likely fail. Some basic ideas to start with:
a) dynamics-- music that incorporates a wide dynamic range is generally considered better than that which is more static. It holds our attention and provides more stimulus.
b) predictability-- some people like music to surprise them, and others like it to be predictable… I suspect that this particular part of the judgment is very difficult to pin down to specifics, though the fundamentals of sound work to produce a degree of predictability that the ear tends to find pleasing. The relationship between pitch and mathematics cannot be ignored when considering how humans tend to find comfort in things that are orderly and that follow clearly defined rules.
c) tension and resolution-- chord progressions and melodic lines that create a lot of tension and then resolve tend to appeal to the ear. For example the IV-V-I progression common in most all forms of Western music is very obvious and resolves quite nicely. Blues, on the other hand, creates cycles of tension and resolution. We are able to recognize that certain musical progressions want to move in a certain direction, and it is pleasing to us when they do because it creates the sense of resolution and of order. Less structured movements, or those that do not resolve in the traditional sense, such as the atonality of Schoenberg, tend to have less appeal because there is no clear progression-- all notes have equal value, and thus the music can seem somewhat ambiguous. If you like things to resolve nicely and cleanly, then you might find that you like traditional classical music better than, say, atonal music, the chaos of bebop or a lot of modern rock.
d) repetition-- music that employs a lot of basic repetition may become boring to some listeners because it ceases to challenge them… on the other hand, music that incorporates a lot of subtle changes along with repeated phrases may be more appealing because it combines the illusion of familiarity with the excitement of something new. Depending on what role music plays for the listener, nuance may be essential or it may be overlooked. Club music, for example, tends to be very repetitive, but that is because it is meant for dancing, and the listener tends to pick up on basic rhythmic cycles more easily than complex ones. Certain types of jazz, however, may be almost completely linear, because they are only meant for listening and thus the repetitive rhythmic element is less important. This distinction is also noticeable in classical music, when comparing disparate forms such as symphonies and waltzes.
e) harmonics-- the ear tends to prefer even order harmonics as opposed to odd-order harmonics, which it finds more abrasive. This difference is very noticeable in music that utilizes electric guitar; a nice, “warm” tube saturation will produce more 2nd order harmonics, while 3rd-order harmonics will give the sound more of an edge.
There is a lot more to it, of course. Whether music is “good” ultimately depends on who you ask. Some music that I do not like to listen to I can admit is "good’ in the sense that I could see how others would like it… As to whether it is possible to come up with a text-book method for determing the “goodness” of any given piece of music, who knows?
Oh please. You’ve written a text book on the elements of style in mainstream music, but your answer to the question was a non-answer. The answer is that there is no absolute good and bad. And with music, you have to state the objectives prior to judging the music, and whether the music succeeds in its implied objectives. An egg is BAD when it’s rotten, if your objective is to eat it, but good if it’s rotten if your objective is to use it as fertilizer or poison someone. Same thing with music, and same thing with anything – it’s about context. Most of us share tastes and similar context, so good and bad are generally useful terms in most dialogues, but if you’re asking for an exact science of good and bad music, forget it.
Is this a veiled attempt to argue for the existence of God?
He/she admitted it right there, Gamer, and you missed it completely.
If you want to deconstruct the universe and paint it black, fine. Hell, I’ll even join you. But please, let us at least have our music.
mmkay?
“no colors anymore, I want them to turn black…”
great tune…
-Imp
two words describe good music, and the first one is “Led”
Of course not. As someone else pointed out, I stated very clearly that I think it’s entirely subjective. I was merely attempting to address the question that BillWaltonSexUniversity posted, which I have put some thought into, because I am a musician and it fascinates me why some people are so enthralled by things that I find unlistenable and vice-versa. I definitely don’t think there can be a text-book approach to determining whether anyone will “like” a piece of music or not… but I do believe, as I attempted to illustrate, that there are certain components that contribute to expanded acceptance. The reason that most of us tend to agree on certain things is because there are underlying reasons that go beyond context. You can listen to a piece of music and find that it rubs you completely the wrong way, but you can also appreciate certain things about it that might make it appealing to someone else. That is a form of recognition of objective quality. That’s all I was saying… There’s no end-all-be-all in this discussion, by any means.
BTW, I think you summed it up quite well: “And with music, you have to state the objectives prior to judging the music, and whether the music succeeds in its implied objectives.” I agree with that, and I thought I had gotten that across the first time.
…Poisoning? What kind of a name is Led Poisoning? Doesn’t sound very good to me.
I do not believe that music is completely subjective nor do I believe this to be the case with any art.
To be able to have a vote for the Academy Awards one must know a lot about movies and have seen a lot movies, also have appreciation of how the movies are made etc. This is the same with music. A 10 year old with Down Syndrome should not have an equal opinion of what is good music as someone who conducts symphonies.
I do not believe that people really in the know about music listen to Lindsey Lohan or Slipknot. Therefore, I am going to say that Beethoven, Zappa, Prince , Zeppelin Are objectively better than Ashleigh Simpson.
Disagree?
Rob Easterway who is a Math wizz wrote a book called “How longs a piece of string?” which explains “what makes good music” and if i can remember it said some interesting stuff about the origin of good music.
Anyway saying that “good music” is subjective is true to an extent. What makes popular music would be easyier to argue for. Use of scales is the key to the argument (excuse the pun) Assuming everyone here is from a western background we all follow and are used to litening to that of which Aristotle discovered (i think). He descovered that shorter bars make a higher pitch sound then longer bars after listening to a blacksmith hammer away at a piece of metal. This then shaped the western style of music into what it is today. Easten scales follow a different pattern altogether (Pygerian scale?).
In conclustion i do agree that music is very much subjective and influennced heavily by sex, culture, fasion etc. but it is important to recognise that popular music obey formula
Lemmy is God
period.
-Imp
Yes, I do, in that the statement you’ve just made is extremely subjective. However, aesthetically, I agree. I don’t think it is entirey subjective nor do I think it is entirely objective. [b]Dave Chivers’[/i] post is on target: popular music is formulaic, no matter what era or genre you look at. There are criteria for what makes good popular music that definitely stand out above others. This, however, ties into what Gamer said, in that there are objectives and the quality is judged in part on how well the objectives are met. I know a great many people who don’t consider Frank Zappa music at all… They’re obviously only thinking about it subjectively, but then you’ve lumped the 9th Symphony in with “Why Does It Hurt When I Pee?” Is there really a text-book approach to deciphering something like that?
whatever happened to making entirely new sounds? i just started listening to talking heads and they arent afraid to sound like a nintendo, and its great. that ‘wa-wa-wuh-wawow’ synthesizer in Burning down the house, what an awesome noise. i wish people vocalized with that sound instead of our boring old voices.
what makes a sound attractive? because im sure the TH keyboarder played many different noises that the band decided against playing. why are some NOISES, and not just their combinations, better than others? and why did music stop making them from scratch?
Sorry about that. You did say it was subjective. I’m not a very careful reader. But you also said a lot about music theory which I thought was besides the point.
In my opinion, good music is something that brings you into the world of the real. As a failed musician, I can say that my attempt to be perceived as clever, to demonstrate the raw ability to think of word combinations no one else could think of, sabotaged my music early on. I erred on the side of TMBG mensa music, eminem minus the message. I could rhyme amazon with pajamas on but (sob) nobody cared. My chord progressions were prolix without resorting to soupy jazz chords. Lots of II, III, and flat IIIs in lieu of the more expected V7, that sort of Beatlesesquery. My songs had a way of making a person feel empty, mainly cause they only existed to demonstrate prowess. I think a good song needs to say it like it is without being flat and clichéd. Hard thing to do. Elliot Smith’s new album is good.
I can definitely sympathize with you. I learned the hard way that trying to make it difficult for difficult’s sake is not the way to create something that speaks to people… maybe a few other composition fanatics will appreciate it, but that’s it.
Figuring out how to say it like it is can be difficult. Does one linger on every note, playing nothing that has no specific purpose, carving out every second with a surgeon’s patience? Or does one simply let come what will, relax, let it flow… I think it depends on what type of music you’re creating and what the objectives are as to how best you should approach the material. “Good” music is that which moves the listener, regardless of what any critic says. Frank Zappa once said to his band, essentially, “It doesn’t matter how cool you think it is-- if I can’t tap my foot to it, it’s crap.”
I also agree with Future Man. Too much is done with too little these days. I tend to like a lot of electronic music because it is so easy and so natural for it to incorporate new instrument sounds and new textures. I also think too little attention is given to the unorthodox-- running a stick across a grill, coffee cans, pickle jars, flex tubing, power tools, etc… Music should be exciting and adventurous, in my opinion. That others might disagree is a perfect example of how subjective it is.
That type of music, like its instruments, is trash.
tminion i dont think youve listened to the talking heads very much. i think their problem is that the whole decade tried to rip them off and they all looked retarded when they did it. back when i was all about steely dan, the talking heads is what i really wished they sounded like. TH is simpler and not at all relaxing like SD, but i rarely tap my feet, and i rarely dont when listening to TH.
Hey, if you like Talking Heads so much, check out Metric sometime…
I doubt you have a good concept for what I’m talking about. Jimmy Page was fond of doing all sorts of things to get novel sounds. Just because one isn’t using a guitar doesn’t mean one can’t be musical.
Of what type of music do you speak of?
WARNING: Your answer is liable to get you defaced.