What makes a work great?

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.

Guys, guys... you don't have to "reconcile" with Lady Gaga being better than Beethoven, or that they're on the same level or why Beethoven isn't listened to by most people today...

Can't we just throw out the concept of music having an objective quality?

Some people hate Beethoven. Some people regard him as the pinnacle of classical music.

Some people love modern "art music". Some people think it's noisy nonsense.

Some people like songs. Others like instrumentals.

What do we have to say any of these is the right or wrong viewpoint? Would Beethoven be better than Lady Gaga, Stravinsky better than Soulja Boy, Bruckner better than the Jonas Brothers (I really hate them so I'm trying hard to be impartial here) to an animal, or an alien from another planet, or a deaf person turning hearing who's never heard music before, or what have you?

We all have tastes. There isn't some ethereal quality we have to decide what's better. No music is any "good". We like it or not and that's all we got.

Can't we just throw out the concept of music having an objective quality?

Some people hate Beethoven. Some people regard him as the pinnacle of classical music.

Some people love modern "art music". Some people think it's noisy nonsense.

Some people like songs. Others like instrumentals.

What do we have to say any of these is the right or wrong viewpoint? Would Beethoven be better than Lady Gaga, Stravinsky better than Soulja Boy, Bruckner better than the Jonas Brothers (I really hate them so I'm trying hard to be impartial here) to an animal, or an alien from another planet, or a deaf person turning hearing who's never heard music before, or what have you?

We all have tastes. There isn't some ethereal quality we have to decide what's better. No music is any "good". We like it or not and that's all we got.

Yeah. But some people really want to believe that what they like is "superior" to other things, cuz it makes them feel better about themselves. The psychological drive to label stuff one likes as "better" than what one dislikes is natural, even if technically erroneous on stuff like this.

Can't we just throw out the concept of music having an objective quality?

That's what I advocate. :)

I'll try to explain better what I said:

When you're a child, your entire body and mind are still "under construction" and what arrives to the brain first, wins an special position for ever....

Have you noted that when you listen several recordings of a work or several version of a song, very often happens that you prefer or like more the first one, ... That's because the first one came before the others, and what you do with the others is just to "compare" ....

This has something very important to do with the age.... here a more clear example:

Adult people very often consider the new music as bad and the old as good, .... "they don't make good music anymore" or "that was the truly good music, not like today"

Persons had 15-25 y/o when "AC/DC" or "Village People" (or older music) appeared, still like that music in the present, but they don't like the actual styles (Pop, Dance etc) Their parents that had 50-70 y/o at that time used to consider that music as a scandal, ... but was "cool" for their sons ..... now that sons consider the new music as the true scandal and the old as good. And so and so with new generations.

For people older than 45 the old music is always better and the new is bad or "not as good as"

For people with 7-35 y/o the new music is always better or cool and the old is boring or bad.

What comes to your brain first, create patterns, models of creativity and favoritismes, and that is not with music only but with all, tendences and ideas of any kind, .... art, moral conduct, ideas and behaviors.

that's why I said this:

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.

But I wasn't talking about music itself, harmony or such a things that is "what makes a work great"

See, as much as that kind of pluralism is true...

You can't deny that one composition within a subset of styles can be "better" than another, according to a set of (admittedly) arbitrary criteria. AA had something of this in his post.

Within that arbitrary criteria, you can make an argument: Ludacris is better than Beety because x,y,z... (Beety's use of rhythm is simpler, less current cultural connection, whatever.) That's the thing -- the underlying preferences are arbitrary and meaningless on their own -- however, once you start looking at the whys and wherefores, you can make a meaningful argument about who is "better."

Guys, guys... you don't have to "reconcile" with Lady Gaga being better than Beethoven, or that they're on the same level or why Beethoven isn't listened to by most people today...

Can't we just throw out the concept of music having an objective quality?

Some people hate Beethoven. Some people regard him as the pinnacle of classical music.

Some people love modern "art music". Some people think it's noisy nonsense.

Some people like songs. Others like instrumentals.

What do we have to say any of these is the right or wrong viewpoint? Would Beethoven be better than Lady Gaga, Stravinsky better than Soulja Boy, Bruckner better than the Jonas Brothers (I really hate them so I'm trying hard to be impartial here) to an animal, or an alien from another planet, or a deaf person turning hearing who's never heard music before, or what have you?

We all have tastes. There isn't some ethereal quality we have to decide what's better. No music is any "good". We like it or not and that's all we got.

This is exactly what I meant with "B".

Once again, I don't want to say anything bad about anyone's taste, and I certainly don't mean to imply that some people are "right" and others are "wrong". But to use your own example: "Some people hate Beethoven. Some people regard him as the pinnacle of classical music." The same might be true for Lady Gaga (if you replace the word "classical"). This puts them essentially on the same level, in your reasoning, unless I'm misunderstanding you. In spite of that, I'm willing to make an educated guess whose music of the two will be remembered and continued to be appreciated in 100 years. So then can't we consider Beethoven "greater" than Gaga? Like I said, it's difficult.

As for the animal/alien argument, I think this is kind of irrelevant. I'm talking about music as human beings experience (as great as are differences are, I think we have enough in common to isolate us as a species). I can agree with you that to a rock, Beethoven is no greater or less great than Lady Gaga. It's just that I don't find that quite so interesting to talk about.

SYS65, what you're saying is very true, but I think it's possible to transcend this instinctive, animal-like mindset, if you involve yourself in music so much that you start listening to it in a different way. Though I can't provide any kind of rational or scientific argument for this. But in this sense, I value the opinion of a musicologist or open-minded experienced musician more than that of a teenager who only listens to the radio as background noise and likes the new greenday singe (which I find sucks, though this doesn't have anything to do with anything).

Yes, Of course it can "transcend" ... mainly "if you involve yourself in music" ... of course, that can change a lot of things... that was just the normal behavior, or like you describe it well, "animal" mindset ....

But throught the years becomes more and more difficult to "modificate" those models created before .... that's why a baby learns the first language very easily and a 60 y/o person may find very difficult to learn one more ....

But I realize I'm a little aside the topic am I ? ... this is more about what the music itself contents to be "great" .... that's a very difficult thing to describe .... a challenge too.

Yes, Of course it can "transcend" ... mainly "if you involve yourself in music" ... of course, that can change a lot of things... that was just the normal behavior, or like you describe it well, "animal" mindset ....

But throught the years becomes more and more difficult to "modificate" those models created before .... that's why a baby learns the first language very easily and a 60 y/o person may find very difficult to learn one more ....

But I realize I'm a little aside the topic am I ? ... this is more about what the music itself contents to be "great" .... that's a very difficult thing to describe .... a challenge too.

I understand completely what you mean. And I agree completely. And I also think you understand me when I say that what you're saying is so factual, it doesn't need discussion :-) And you also seem to realize there is more to it than instinctive brain models, even if that's where it ends for 90% of all people. I think we're on the same page here :-)

I posted the explanation because DAI quoted me (page 2) and It seems to me that he didn't understand completely .... that's why ....

And I'm sure this matter is very complex to describe entirely well ... but is complex and fascinating too ....

There is also the "Nature" aspects like why certain intervals or chords sounds better than others (overtones alignement) and a very large list of things that impact and control the facet of "what makes a work great" .... like I said .... is fascinating.

I think SSC made a point that people who look at 'value' in music, or even look at one piece being 'better than' the other, do so to make themselves appear 'superior' to others. I just wanted to touch on that point, because I think it's an assumption that a LOT of people here just adopt without trying to understand the positions of others.

Here's the post I'm replying to:

Yeah. But some people really want to believe that what they like is "superior" to other things, cuz it makes them feel better about themselves. The psychological drive to label stuff one likes as "better" than what one dislikes is natural, even if technically erroneous on stuff like this.

First, this is not my mentality or the mentality of others like me who try to discuss and discover value in music. It would be nice if I could say to someone, for any piece I hear, "This is what makes this piece GREAT! In spite of my tastes in music, this is a work I think you have to listen to because [and fill in the blank]..." For all works of music out there, it would be nice that everyone educated in music could do this... unfortunately, even those who consider themselves "more open-minded" about music often don't do this... so this is more often where discussions like this come up.

Moving on... the general question is, "I've got all this music to listen to/study and only this much time to listen to/study it... I can't listen to all of it, so what do you recommend I listen to or study first?" And then a series of pieces are listed within the genre(s) that might be worth listening to before others... which then brings about the argument for why one piece or the other is better to listen to/study first. Because then it comes down to which piece should we listen to at all, which one is worth studying in the time allotted?

This is where value-based arguments appear, because it's about making the best use of your time and getting the most out of what you hear/study in that time. And if it comes down to Mozart or Salieri as being the best to study within the Classical context and you only get one to pick, many people go with Mozart for a reason. What is that reason? I'm not going there, but I know people have their reasons that transcend taste and that's the point.

These are the discussions over curriculum and information offerings in music that become so frustrating, because eventually only so many works out of many thousands of GREAT works are actually discussed 'in detail'. Some works that are not studied are probably 'better' in many respects than works that are covered in more detail... but how is the decision really made? Is it taste?

Generally, no. Most works that are covered in more detail in theory and seminar courses are given more attention because they either have more educational or more curriculum value. What I mean by this is either the piece has more musical 'examples' of a concept or are better suited to make the 'curriculum' more fluid... so as not to cause or add to confusion. This happens at EVERY university... it's often a committee that votes on a curriculum they all agree is the best to offer... and many professors will alter their curriculum each time they teach a course to lecture more or less on different works. There's just so much music to cover in the allotted amount of time.

I completely disagree with how this works. In my opinion, music education in America would be so much better if the degree path started at the high school level. There's just SO MUCH MORE students could learn at that level that would then transition so well into a university environment, and almost anything could be covered along the way. My pre-college music education was playing in a high school band and enrolling in the only semester of music appreciation offered at the school. I actually considered transferring to another school that offered two semesters, but in hindsight, I think that would have only barely helped.

But the value argument, more or less for me, is a forced 'scarcity' generated by the incongruity between high school and college, and to some extent the undergrad to post-grad, too. In no way is this "value" argument a means to imply that the music I like is superior to yours, and therefore I'm better than you because my music is better. It's simply a result of not having enough time to cover all of it, so the overwhelming task of deciding which literature to include in music education, at least in concept, is an attempt at objectivity in a subjective field.

That, I think, is more often the reason these discussions come about... so much music, so little time.

A work that people like is probably really better than a work they don't like so much, but only in their own ear / mind (that of the listener). I don't like speaking of good music and bad music objectively, for music composition is art, expression. It is bad if it doesn't satisfy the composer's intention. If it does, then it's good. The composer knows this best. Of course, the listener may associate differently, may be uninterested and so on... But if one insists that a work is objectively better than another work, one sees oneself as the first instance through the deceptive eyes of one's ego, allowing it to take the throne. And, IMO, ego is a growth anti-catalyser.

What makes a work great is not just the composer, but the listener. So the listener is in a kind of silent, hidden, but powerful cooperation with the composer.

And if it comes down to Mozart or Salieri as being the best to study within the Classical context and you only get one to pick, many people go with Mozart for a reason. What is that reason? I'm not going there, but I know people have their reasons that transcend taste and that's the point.

Taste in this case maybe is secondary to tradition/canon and there are other factors as well to consider: Mozart is more well known, there's more material on him than on Salieri, and his works are easy to obtain. There are lots of reasons why picking Mozart here would be a better choice, none of which have anything to do with the music itself.

See, as much as that kind of pluralism is true...

You can't deny that one composition within a subset of styles can be "better" than another, according to a set of (admittedly) arbitrary criteria. AA had something of this in his post.

Within that arbitrary criteria, you can make an argument: Ludacris is better than Beety because x,y,z... (Beety's use of rhythm is simpler, less current cultural connection, whatever.) That's the thing -- the underlying preferences are arbitrary and meaningless on their own -- however, once you start looking at the whys and wherefores, you can make a meaningful argument about who is "better."

Durr, this only works if there's criteria agreed on and those are entirely arbitrary. "The piece with more notes is better!" and you compare Bach to 50 cent. Great. It means absolutely nothing in the end even if you CAN Somehow measure things, it's all subjective in any case and whatever conclusions are nothing but dependent on whoever is deciding the judging factors.

Taste in this case maybe is secondary to tradition/canon and there are other factors as well to consider: Mozart is more well known, there's more material on him than on Salieri, and his works are easy to obtain. There are lots of reasons why picking Mozart here would be a better choice, none of which have anything to do with the music itself.

I hardly think the reasons for picking Mozart have nothing to do with the music. Sure, availability makes it more convenient, but in today's technological environment, it's not a very important reason. More material? Yeah, but that's music material, and music is a consideration. Mozart is more familiar? Of course, but that's more due to how much study of his music is actually performed, which is quite extensive and takes us back to the whole 'so much music' : 'so little time' ratio that I'm discussing.

Let's not split hairs here, but let's not sidestep the point either. The availability (or lack thereof) hasn't stopped educators from including these works in their selection of works to study. The popularity generally has very little to do with it as well... the theoretical concepts and historical significance have more to do with these selections than anything else.

But let's keep it real. This doesn't make these works 'better' than others, it just means that as they relate to the curricula, these works are more significant in conveying some form of knowledge - whether the work is 'a standard representation of the time period', 'an exception to a principle', or 'an extraordinary advance in music of the period' - and that's why they're incorporated.

Now, does this criterion for education imply a valuation of the works? I would say that there is no such implication. People often make the mistake that relevance or significance TO a particular theoretical/historical piece of knowledge = musical value. It doesn't. It is only valuable where it concerns education, which invariably brings problems of its own. But that's the confusion, I think, a lot of people on my end of the spectrum (willingness to acknowledge musical value within a context) often make - that curricular significance = musical value.

Those who are unwilling to acknowledge such value judgments of music (like you, SSC) too often confuse the application of value to music within a context as a global, general principle (or assume as much). No such principles have ever really existed for over a hundred years, but then you assume that such "posturing" is based solely on personal judgments instead of understanding the context of these judgments. This is an error.

How is any of that any different than what I posted? And, huh, yeah music has nothing to do with it. You can take examples from all sorts of composers, including Mozart, but often Mozart is there because he's an important historical figure, regardless of how his music sounds. This is what I meant with canon and tradition.

In either case, in function of education there's a lot of stuff that have to be assessed, but that's not the point of this thread anyway.

How is any of that any different than what I posted?

Because your position is that music has nothing to do with it when music has everything to do with it, even if just within the context of a curriculum. That's the point. The 'canon and tradition' is not necessarily the same thing. A musical work can be 'traditionally' taught AND have musical examples that are relevant to theoretical concepts. Canon and tradition are mutually exclusive from the fact that within the music there exists some kind of knowledge to take from studying the work.

That's the difference. Your assumption of people who perform some kind of 'valuation' of musical works is not accurate. My explanation is that people will equivocate conceptual relevance within a curriculum to musical value, which is an error. But that is nothing close to someone stating a work is better simply to posture up as some kind of elitist. You're making a generalization of people who 'judge music' that is not accurate most cases at all. The error is in the interpretation of musical value, not taking some high road of superiority.

I think what makes a good work is when the listener identifies with it by remembering or imagining an important experience in his or her life.

What makes music good is ugly dissonance resolving to EMOTIONAL consonance. If a work does not resolve to a major or minor chord then it is objectively terrible.

Success depends on:

- How "catchy" your melody is (remember that melody is master).

- How interesting your piece in general is.

- IF the emotions qualify with the piece.

Success depends on:

- How "catchy" your melody is (remember that melody is master).

- How interesting your piece in general is.

- IF the emotions qualify with the piece.

Finally someone who gets it.

I'll try to explain better what I said:

When you're a child, your entire body and mind are still "under construction" and what arrives to the brain first, wins an special position for ever....

Have you noted that when you listen several recordings of a work or several version of a song, very often happens that you prefer or like more the first one, ... That's because the first one came before the others, and what you do with the others is just to "compare" ....

This has something very important to do with the age.... here a more clear example:

Adult people very often consider the new music as bad and the old as good, .... "they don't make good music anymore" or "that was the truly good music, not like today"

Persons had 15-25 y/o when "AC/DC" or "Village People" (or older music) appeared, still like that music in the present, but they don't like the actual styles (Pop, Dance etc) Their parents that had 50-70 y/o at that time used to consider that music as a scandal, ... but was "cool" for their sons ..... now that sons consider the new music as the true scandal and the old as good. And so and so with new generations.

For people older than 45 the old music is always better and the new is bad or "not as good as"

For people with 7-35 y/o the new music is always better or cool and the old is boring or bad.

What comes to your brain first, create patterns, models of creativity and favoritismes, and that is not with music only but with all, tendences and ideas of any kind, .... art, moral conduct, ideas and behaviors.

that's why I said this:

But I wasn't talking about music itself, harmony or such a things that is "what makes a work great"

I have done and will continue to evade, and completely naturally (not with effort) this quasi rule.

It's because I have the philosophy of a Homo Superion...

What makes music good is ugly dissonance resolving to EMOTIONAL consonance. If a work does not resolve to a major or minor chord then it is objectively terrible.

Success depends on:

- How "catchy" your melody is (remember that melody is master).

- How interesting your piece in general is.

- IF the emotions qualify with the piece.

Finally someone who gets it.

Trolling?

No poop.

What's wrong with good music having catchy melodies?

I don't think anybody said (or implied) that there was anything wrong with it.

What's wrong with good music having catchy melodies?

Nothing, but it doesn't necessarily make music good, since good is in the eye of the beholder.

If you (in general) are looking for a guid of good music, so you can follow these goals for you development, I suggest you ask yourself what you think is good and that will be sufficient.