What makes a work great?

Beside lovin' it?

Well, loving a work can be subject to the listener. However, I believe (talking out of my donkey mode: ON!) what makes a work great is its universal appeal, in not only all the listeners liking the piece, but the feelings, emotions, ideas, and thoughts that it evokes from them. And how strongly said evocations come out.

I am sure I will get shot down for the aforementioned rabble, but hopefully someone who actually is trained in music can answer better.

What makes a work great?

Depends on the type of music you compose.

If you're writing a Postmodern piece... it's pure dumb luck.

If you're writing a Modernist piece... it's whether or not you've achieved some kind of "breakthrough" in expanding music's limits.

If you're writing a Romanticist piece... it's how well you convey/illicit an emotional response to/from your audience.

If you're writing a Classical piece... it's how well you work with melody, harmony, rhythm, and form to create a cohesion of these elements in the work.

If you're writing a Baroque piece... you know, I'm just going to stop at this point...

This is another one of those "quality of music" questions that will draw endless criticism you don't deserve for asking such an innocent question. Even though this list is pretty accurate, I expect someone will probably start a flame war just because I categorized music. Petty arguments will ensue. Your question will never actually be answered.

Good luck with your thread! Hope it'll work out for ya! :D

Luck.

Pure. Dumb. Luck. Ask SSC, he'll tell you all about it...

Come on now.

Everybody knows it's all based on how long it is and how many years you spent writing it, right? ;)

Come on now.

Everybody knows it's all based on how long it is and how many years you spent writing it, right? ;)

Depends on whether you're a Postmodernist Hippie or not...:toothygrin:

Close this thread and point the OP to the thousands of others already discussing stuff like this. He clearly is new and honestly AA has trolled this one enough as it is.

Close this thread and point the OP to the thousands of others already discussing stuff like this. He clearly is new and honestly AA has trolled this one enough as it is.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Cheers,

Saul

You have to feel it. I like music that's so moving and baeutiful that it gets into your heart and makes you feel the music. It doesn't have to be beautiful though, sad or angry music can also move you.

You have to feel it. I like music that's so moving and baeutiful that it gets into your heart and makes you feel the music. It doesn't have to be beautiful though, sad or angry music can also move you.

And sad and angry music can be very beautiful. A good example being Beethoven.

I believe it's a combination of things, like stated in the previous posts. Most of all it has an emotional appeal from which the audience can draw from; whether it creates emotions or reawakens emotional moments in ones life. For me, I always love a piece that actually brings back memory. Almost anytime I get imagery from music, it's usually a big plus for me. Though, on the bases it is great in a sense of being famous, it really depends on the notoriety of the composer. If they don't have notoriety it more or less depends on the receptiveness of the listeners and timing from which the piece was released. There are many other factors that play role.

Maybe you'd beter ask what you think makes a piece good. There is no general consensus, but rather very personal. If you make a list of all the things that appeal to you in the music you enjoy you have your answer I guess.

I think the criterion mentioned in the original post is sufficient. Greatness is really just a personal concept; I can choose not to consider Beethoven "great", if I want to, and I wouldn't be wrong.

The above is correct, and I don't think there is another answer.

Depends on the type of music you compose.

This has more merit to it than people will admit.

I think the criterion mentioned in the original post is sufficient. Greatness is really just a personal concept; I can choose not to consider Beethoven "great", if I want to, and I wouldn't be wrong.

See, I'm not sure you can. Pluralism is great and all, and a cornerstone of how art works, but it would take a long and involved argument to show to most people that Beety (or any other established great) really wasn't as "great" as he's considered.

whatever makes the sound waves align with your standards/models/patterns of sound you have already created in your mind/brain within the pass of years ..... in other words, what sounds just the way you like.

This has more merit to it than people will admit.

See, I'm not sure you can. Pluralism is great and all, and a cornerstone of how art works, but it would take a long and involved argument to show to most people that Beety (or any other established great) really wasn't as "great" as he's considered.

Yes, we have structures in our brain that tell us certain intervals are pleasing and others aren't, and we tend to like a certain amount of repetition versus variation, so you won't find many people who are downright offended by the sound of Beethoven or Mozart, but I'll bet you could find a whole bunch of people who would prefer listening to Jay Z or Christina Aguilera than Beethoven. Under what criteria would Beethoven be superior to either of those or any other pop artist? He certainly isn't on the charts these days.

whatever makes the sound waves align with your standards/models/patterns of sound you have already created in your mind/brain within the pass of years ..... in other words, what sounds just the way you like.

Well , that would mean that Rihanna's "Umbrella" is greater music than any masterpiece of classical music, since to much more people Umbrella sounds "the way they like it". And I don't think that many users here would agree with this.

I think Lady Gaga's "Love Game" is better than Rihanna's "Umbrella". It's like I just whipped out dynamite in a Paper/Rock/Scissors game!

"Let's have some fun, this beat is sick, I wanna take a ride on your disco stick"

NO BEETHOVEN FOR YOU!

yeah...

See, I'm not sure you can. Pluralism is great and all, and a cornerstone of how art works, but it would take a long and involved argument to show to most people that Beety (or any other established great) really wasn't as "great" as he's considered.

Fair enough. But say we're not talking about people of today, but instead about people 1000 years ago, or aliens that perceive sound as we do. They almost certainly wouldn't have the same criteria for greatness as us. That's why I'm arguing that there are no objective criteria for greatness. (Now, I know that you're familiar with this argument; I'm just hoping that by restating it, I can get you to clarify your position.)

And AA, I have plenty of friends who think LoveGame is great! (I don't know why they're still my friends...:P)

And AA, I have plenty of friends who think LoveGame is great! (I don't know why they're still my friends...:P)

Maybe without them, you wouldn't know good music if you heard it... j/k :P

I kid, I kid. :toothygrin:

You're welcome! Er...maybe not? :w00t:

Well, thanks anyways!!!

I like that Umbrella song. Only ever heard it at the campus cafeteria though (mmmmmm all you can eat powdered eggs... how I long for you)...

I mean, value is definitely person-to-person, but some claims might need more explanation to the general public than others....

Nuts, I was going to shock everyone by saying I kind of liked Umbrella... You beat me to it...

This is a very difficult question. It would be very convenient to say there is an objective value in "good" music, but the question is then, what is it? On the other hand, it can't be purely subjective and quantitative, 'cause then yes, we'd have to admit that Lady Gaga is better than Beethoven.

Of course, people who get more involved in music most often "learn" to appreciate Beethoven. Cynics would say this is indoctrination (you like it because you know it's supposed to be good), but I don't think it is. So then there is a certain objective quality. But then there's the problem that not all more experienced listeners like the same music. Lots of great classical musicians dislike modern music...

What about this: the quality of a piece is defined by the opinion of a person who is right.

On the other hand, it can't be purely subjective and quantitative, 'cause then yes, we'd have to admit that Lady Gaga is better than Beethoven.

I know plenty of people who would have no problem at all admitting that Lady Gaga is "better" than Beethoven. I personally enjoy Beethoven more, but who am I (or anyone else, for that matter) to say that the music I like is objectively better than the music someone else likes?

I don't think one can objectively judge the quality of a piece of music at all - it's all fine and dandy to say"this piece is better than that piece" in casual conversation, but to try and pass it off as fact is just dumb.

I'm not passing anything off as a fact. I'm also aware that many people find Lady Gaga better, and I don't judge them in any way. I'm not the kind of person who will say "I know you prefer Lady Gaga, but you have to admit that Beethoven is better music." Everyone is entitled their own personal taste.

All I'm saying is, if this is truly the only thing that matters, then on a theoretical level, everyone would have to admit that globally either A) Lady Gaga is better than Beethoven because more people think she is better, or B) no one is better, and as a result, all music is equally good, as long as there are people who like it.

And I can't reconcile myself with either of these thoughts.