Leaderboard

Generally the answer is good combination of cultural significance and universal appeal. Some of the most critically acclaimed music becomes engrained in history not just because their material is particularly good, but because it best represents the attitudes and values of the era it was written. If you look back at any jazz standard, the 60s counter-culture era, or any classical period, you'll find music that resonates with people from those times - and that's significant because it tells us of the hopes/dreams/values/aspirations of the period. That's why we value and remember it.

Sometimes in order to become a better composer, you have to spend more time listening to good music than you do composing - just so long as you're "listening" to the music, absorbing what you're hearing, and applying it, and not just enjoying the music. For this reason, I don't think you can seperate the process of listening to music to the process of writing it too much. Some songs do have a mind of their own. They don't always want to be finished right away. I've revisited material that I originally wrote nearly half a decade ago before. Its only when you try to force it does bad material happen, and it's not worth writing bad material just so you can get pieces done sooner.

I caught part of it on TV and didn't get at all what the craze is about. I think it might be a reflection of the general decline in the appreciation of high art (such as classical music) in these times of short and superficial attention thanks to the internet and the digital revolution and the possibility of the instant spread of fads through YouTube etc.