What is your criteria of a good piece?

[Nicole]

Since its storming and I cant go down to our inlet down the street:
This has run across my mind several times as I have browsed different forums and this one. Though I only have GPO(and proud of that fact) im interested in what others write with the other things available.

I have run across many arguments regarding what is good and what is not. Some like the movie sound, some like atonal, some like to mix it with popular music, ect.
Personally, I dont like to judge music by "training" or non "trained". In fact I do not really like to judge at all now. People with musical training backrounds(myself included) tend to over analyze everything. Its like we forgot how to just simply listen and let the sound flow thru you. Im guilty of having done this, but I realised how much music became more like "math" and the listening experience diminished. I realise there is a time for study and "now" I realise there is just a time to "listen" without that analytical aspect of me being released. This has made the listening experience joyous again for me.

Its funny how this never changes, people throughout the ages have always been critical of others works. Anton Rubenstien always criticised Tchaikovsky, Tchaikovksy in turn had criticised Wagner(atleast until he heard a live rendition). The circle of critisism especially from trained musicians is an ever un-killable beast. Its funny because it essentially boils down to personal opinion. Either you like it or you do not. I tend to find something interesting in everything I hear. But thats me. I always like to compare it with nature because everything is just simply a vibration. Nature is music to my ears:)

Whats your opinion(note opinion!) of what is good? Well after my book above lol, mine is anything. There is always something inside of any piece of music that I tend to like. Even rap, the backbone is the beat but if you just sit down and not analyse it, that repititious beat is almost hypnotic. My two cents:)

[Jerry W.]

Hi Nicole,
That is a very introspective query. It's a hard one to answer. Personally, (and this is just me talking), I feel that "good" music has two basic functions.
1. It is a way for the composer (or musician interpreting) to communicate the verbally unexpressable. Doing so has certain theraputic value, at least for me, I know I probably save thousands in therapy bills through writing music!! :)
And any time you can express what is inside, whether it be emotionally or cereberally, then I think that it is good, no matter if it never gets heard by anyone else. It doesn't matter what "genre" your expression falls under, as long as you have expressed what you feel needed to be expressed.
2. If what you create can "strike a chord" (pun intended) with your listener, then you have not only blessed yourself for being able to express what is inside, but you have blessed the listener by helping tap into that emotion that you felt when expressing it.
Most people like music for the way it makes them FEEL, not the way it makes them think. Even cereberally created music (like Twelve-Tone, for example) still can affect the listener emotionally.
Now, being trained, I too have had to "relearn" how to just listen without analizing. I try to let my emotions take the reins and that makes it much more enjoyable.

Sorry to make such a long reply, but it is not a question that yeilds a quick and easy answer.

BTW- thanks for all your wonderful music. I'm a fan! :)

Jerry

[dancase]

What is a "good" piece of music? To paraphrase the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I hear it." While there are those who define "good" music based on mathematical criteria, there are also those who consider architecture as a collection of geometrical shapes and interlocking boxes. Both analyses are valid, but incomplete -- the best music appeals to something internal that can't be analyzed in such finite terms.

About 25 years or so back I was working for a Public Radio station that hit a financial pothole and cut the staff drastically trying to survive the storm. I was one of the fortunate ones that survived the cut. Suddenly, I was turned from lead Maintenance Engineer to nighttime board operator (button pusher). Our nighttime programming was almost all pre-recorded classical music -- good 'ol 10 1/2" reels of 1/4" tape -- push the button, cue up the next reel, and wait 90 minutes. I've never been one for pretentious, stuffy people with fake english accents, so I burned out on the usual fare. I used to entertain myself in the record library. I loved music, and although my greatest musical love up to that point had been Big Band Jazz, I had a lot of fun wandering through the thousands of recordings in the library. I didn't know much about the theory and mathematics behind the music, I just knew what I liked and what I didn't. When our schedule changed and we needed an extra hour or so of locally-produced music programming, I talked the manager into letting me do a live program instead. He liked it because he didn't have to pay anything extra for it. :)

I did an hour of classical music every weeknight. A dear friend of mine who hosted some of the station's other classical music programs gave me some counsel, and gave me the benefit of her knowledge and experience -- but the music was all chosen by me, based on what I liked in the library. It was a very honest program -- I was very transparent about my lack of knowledge of classical music, and equally transparent about why I liked -- or didn't like -- a particular piece of music. The response to this late-night hour that was intended to be cheap filler material was amazing. I received letters from a veritable "who's who" of classical music in that market, and most of them had the same theme -- thanking me for being real, and for sharing my journey so openly with my listeners. Many said that listening to my simple, uncomplicated passion for the music that they loved so much revived their passion for it as well, reminding them why they got into music in the first place. One letter from a prominent listener, addressed to the station's management, said "Yes, Mr. Case doesn't know a great deal about some aspects of the music, he reads a lot of liner notes, and occasionally butchers the pronunciation of a title or composer. The difference is that, unlike most classical program hosts, Mr. Case is honest about it. His passion for the music is the same stuff that drove many of the great composers to greatness. "

So, what makes a piece of music "good"? Do you like it? If you do, then it's good! :D

D.

[Houston Haynes]

There are two judgements I make: 1) is the piece a full expression of the form, and 2) does it represent the full intent of the author?

In rock and roll, it's easy to tell if someone is "phoning it in", as the energy (or lack thereof) it immediately translated and abundantly clear. It's also to "get" that from some film score music. It truly is a sliding scale - where chopsticks from an 8-year-old at the piano is more impressive than a full orchestration at the hands of a "professional" in this forum.

I like your comments on peer criticism. Anyone interested in the subject should read "The Lexicon of Musical Invective" by Nicolas Slonimsky.

[Cerrabore]

I like thematic movie scores (well, usually movies). To hear a theme played consistently throughout a score...and then when it disappears, you think, Eh, where'd it go? This is getting tense... Then the theme reappears in full glory, and you think, Ahhhhh, it's back!

(I had the Fellowship Theme from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy in mind when typing that.)

[CString]

Its funny because it essentially boils down to personal opinion. Either you like it or you do not.

Nicole,

I both agree and disagree on some of your points. As far as creative content goes, you are right, it is ultimately subjective. What some people find moving others find totally boring. That is a good thing! The world would be a very boring place otherwise.

However, and maybe this is because I'm one of those "trained" types :), I do believe very firmly that a work can indeed be judged on some points. I can still listen to something just for it's beauty without analysis intruding in on it. Though, I certainly agree that some people cannot. "Does it make sense?" is usually what I'm asking myself. Is it producing a thought that is cohesive? Things like harmony, voicing, pacing, rhythm, and any number of other elements that make up a work can generally be pinned down in some manner concerning the quality and sense of use. Without a doubt there are often many workable approaches to those elements. And, it is at that point that things become subjective again.

For instance, you could write the greatest melody ever and if you accompany it with bad voicings or bad voice leading - well, let's face it, it's just bad. I think the best analogy is prose. If an author writes with bad technique it's usually pretty obvious. The creative elements could be outstanding, but if the work is put together without thought it will never come across. The author's technique is incapable of communicating the idea. This is very clearly not good.

Then there are those works that fall into what I call the "I meant to do that" catagory. By that, I mean works that do something we generally consider a "bad move," but that bad move is there to make a point or be exploited in some way. The question of cohesion still works, though.

I don't mean to say that criticism exists simply for somebody to sort works into piles of good and bad. Anyone who does that is missing the point of criticism. Only to say that the process of criticism, to have some criteria for determining quality (even if many things are subjective) is necessary to drive us forward.

There is good "art music" and bad. Good Rap and bad. Good (insert style here) and bad. There is no getting around it. I think that in this day and age we are so bloody afraid of offending somebody that we try not to be critical. The problem is even the contructive sort often gets held back for fear of offence. That weakens our art form!

I thank the good Lord above every day that I had comp teachers that were not afraid to say to me or the other students, "Why did you do that? It makes no sense whatsoever! Here, look..." And you know, 90% of the time they were right and I'm better for it. Now, my ego doesn't get in the way and I'm able to examine my work in the light of my own brutal self-honesty, and take the criticism of others without flinching. The result is that my work will continue to improve until the day they nail my coffin shut.

-Chad

[RobbinsEgg]

After reading these insightful threads I'd like to share an article I wrote for iClassics a while back, as this subject is near and dear to my heart. Having always been around music, but never having been classically trained, I nevertheless find myself making music for a living and really enjoy the process. I trust my ears and my heart, and I am as blissfully unaware as possible of the way it's "supposed" to be done.
Hope you enjoy.
http://www.iclassics.com/iclassics/feature.jsp?featureId=720

[Hardy Heern]

Nicole,

It really depends what you want. We all know which are the most popular pieces of film and classical music...... just purchase the 'best of' albums. If you want to compose music which appeals to the masses (that includes me as I pride myself in my common or popular taste) then compose in the style of music which is known to be palatable to the majority.
If you want to appeal to then minority then compose in a style which appeals to minorities....discord, randomness, improvisation, experimentation.

What will always sell and appeal is beauty in any form. In music that means melody, harmony, sounds, rythym, sweetness but with enough sourness to give it a bite, a little bit of the unexpected but with form and structure to satisfy the mathematical side of the mind.

Others may just want to impress the musical establishment and not care less about the business side. I'll never forget, when I used to go to electronic music shows, that the demonstrators were so bored with 'normal' music and chordings that everything had 9ths and 13ths in it.....they seemed to be quite incapable of playing with anything like what I would call popular voicings.

It's like any endeavour....if you want to make money....then do popular.
If you want to impress the establishment do the musical equivalent of an unmade bed or half a cow in preservative.....

If you want to be remembered for a few decades then either will work but you have to produce either stunning beauty or a stunning shock.

I think you've already done the first. ;)

Frank

[Karl Garrett]

Hi Nicole,

There are so many factors that make up what each of us thinks is good music. When I was your daughterÕs age, I used to think my mother singing, ÒGo Tell Aunt Brody the Old Gray Goose is DeadÓ was the coolest thing. It was my number one tune on her hit parade of childrenÕs favorites. ÒHit parade,Ó where did I come up with that one? IÕm really showing my age. But it wasnÕt long that I realized my mom, who is almost ninety now, really couldnÕt sing on pitch if there was a gun aimed at her temple.

Sometimes our taste is in part formed by what people we respect listen to. When I was in high school I took a course in woodshop. The teacher could do such marvelous things with a board. It was just amazing. To me at that time he was a genius. We used very little power equipment for that course, and he played classical music in the background every week. From 1 to 4:30 every Friday afternoon for a whole year we listened to so much beautiful music. The desk that I made and still use was created with the spirit of Brahms watching over me. Brahms remains one of my favorite composers.

What seizes our heart at a particular moment often relates to events in our lives. I have never given country music much praise until after our little schnauzer died several years ago. I was not sleeping well one night and was roaming around on the am dial of my bedside radio. I came upon a station in Wheeling West Virginia. One singer, one guitar, playing and singing the simplest song about his friend that he had to put down. ÒOld ShepÓ (donÕt know how to spell it) was his dogÕs name. This was one of the most poignant pieces of music IÕve ever heard.

Why are these paragraphs only about me? Because each one of us being the complex creature that we are, we can only truly know our own experience with this marvelous art form. As has been said so many times, that is what makes the human creature and music so personal and so extraordinary.

I often think of music as kind of like architecture. One moment we can be stirred by a majestic cathedral in Europe and the next our heart may be warmed by a cozy cabin nestled in the woods. Who knows why? Only our soul, and itÕs not telling.

Karl

[Nicole]

Hi Nicole,

Why are these paragraphs only about me? Because each one of us being the complex creature that we are, we can only truly know our own experience with this marvelous art form. As has been said so many times, that is what makes the human creature and music so personal and so extraordinary.



Karl
I think you hit a very true button there =) Everyone of us is different and complex in our own ways as you said, thus "trained" or not we think differently on what is good or bad. Some like the desert best, some like the ocean best, and some like the mountains best. Whats enjoyable to one may not be to another. I think ill just erase my original post lol:) You said it much better.

[Tom Hopkins]

This is probably going to come across as tangential to Nicole's original post but Frank's reply broaches a subject that is important to consider. Should a composer consciously affect decisions based on the real (or imagined) expectations of "the audience?" If the composer does allow the anticipated audience expectations to enter into decision-making is the compositional process compromised by doing so? In other words, when a composer is deciding what to write should he/she say to him/herself "Is this something that my wife's cousin Ernie (who sells shoes) would be able to appreciate? If not, I think maybe I should do something else." So as not to disparage Ernie, let me state for the record that they are really GOOD shoes, and, although he doesn't know anything about music, he knows what he likes!

I ask these questions because this can become a real dilemma for a working composer whose instincts run counter to common taste. What to do? You could get the gigs by writing simple, lowest-common-denominator music that goes against your musical instincts or: Rely upon your intuition, write the best music you can, and risk going over poor Ernie's head, not to mention the Producer, whose name, astonishingly, is also "Ernie!" Probably a lost gig.

Frank's post underlined this conundrum for me because, based on his post, we couldn't be more polar opposites when it comes to our reactions and preferences. He states that 9th and 13th chords, improvisation, experimentation, and such are not among his favorite techniques. I find 9th and 13th chords tame and lovely, I enjoy improvisation more than almost any other musical endeavor, couldn't live as a creative musician without experimentation (that's where many of my favorite ideas came from, after all), and absolutely despise the simple harmonies of popular music. My list of musical joys would be a virtual compendium of the things Frank probably dislikes: Complex chord structures, clusters, atonality, etc. The point of all of this is not to criticize Frank or his preferences, but rather, to emphasize that any two people's perceptions can vary enormously in comparison. There is no right or wrong here - just different brain wiring. And that difference can have a huge impact on how difficult it is to function as a working composer. I suspect that Frank would find it considerably easier to please Ernie (both of them) than I would! Money in the bank for Frank.

For myself, I dealt with this dilemma by separating Art from Craft. Whenever I was hired to write music that had restrictions imposed by others (real or imagined) I considered it to be Craft. It was usually very good Craft, the best I could make it, but Craft nevertheless. Once in a great while I got to call all of the shots and then some Art slipped through. This always came as a surprise to me. I did this for many years and found it fundamentally unsatisfying so, when I turned age 50 I made the decision to remove commerce from the equation, stop composing for others, and make my living by exercising the many other related skills I had acquired over my career. Since then I've reserved all my compositional efforts for my own projects and, from my perspective, it has been a huge improvement. While in the throes of composition I never consider for the slightest moment whether Ernie (either of them) likes polytonally stacked triads or not. Only one listener is of any importance: Me. If I like them - they're in.

Why did I make this decision at age 50? I came to the realization that if I didn't start writing for myself REAL SOON (independent of common taste) I would be two things: 1. Dead; and 2. Without a body (if you'll pardon the expression) of work representing the best music I was capable of writing - thanks to all those externally-influenced, detoured decisions that compromised my intentions. It was the best move I ever made. I now have many compositions under my belt of which I'm reasonably pleased.

Tom

P.S. The two Ernies can't stand any of them. I wear that as a Badge of Courage. Wouldn't have it any other way.

P.P.S. As to the original question: What makes a good piece of music: I’m not sure, but I know what I like!

[KevinKauai]

This is a fascinating thread!

It got me thinking of looking at twentieth-century music and what of the vast output of world composers has entered the “standard repertoire” – especially now that we are in the twenty-first century.

I think that there is a common thread of those pieces from various composers (Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, Bernstein, Copland, Harris, Prokofiev , Ives, John Adams, Roger Sessions , Samuel Barber, Britten, Block, John Corigliano, Philip Glass, Elgar, Gershwin, Sondheim, Villa-Lobos, Shostakovich , Gorecki, Vaughan Williams , Arvo Part, Lou Harrison, Howard Hanson, Hindemith, Honnegger, Hovhaness, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Messiaen, Piston, Poulenc, to name just a few). For me, each of their pieces which have been “successful” have somehow delighted their audience and/or seduced them into moving forward “just a little”. At other times, their “freshness” has overcome the inherent challenges of pushing the listener into new territory and with that freshness, they have diluted or subdued the resistance to “things new”.

Through it all is the undeniable emotional power of the successful works. Some composers have had to “sell” their work through intellectual approaches (tone rows and other devices) while the most successful – in my view – have just put their stuff “out there” and let the “musical market” decide. Of course, there have always been well-appreciated commissions from major orchestras, composer-in-residence programs and the like, to pump the creative fountain.

Today’s composer looks to film, television and, yes, commercials (not to mention “industrials”) for sustenance. Years ago Hollywood lured the likes of Stravinsky, Copland, Gershwin and Bernstein to add “class” to their product (with varying degrees of success) and that practice continues with Glass (“Kundun”), Corigliano (“The Red Violin”), Sondheim (“Stavisky”, “Reds”) and many others (some of whom participate in this forum).

What price immortality? Write something that grabs the mind AND the heart of “your audience”. It’s the common thread of composers from Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Mahler (to name just a few high points). As the fictional character “Dot” (lover of the painter Georges Seurat) says in one of the songs of “Sunday in the Park with George”) “you want a poet, painter, sculptor preferably – something nice with swans, durable!”. Music isn’t solid, but it continues in performances captured in media of man’s invention. Perhaps Sondheim was talking about his own immortality.

imho ... KevinKauai

[Hardy Heern]

Hi Tom,

Interesting post.

Now tell me this.....why did you contribute 'Easy Winners' in the initial GPO demos and not a piece of music reflecting your own preferences?

Frank

PS Glad to see that you have the time to post more.....that must mean that GPO v2 is close......:)

[CString]

It's like any endeavour....if you want to make money....then do popular.
If you want to impress the establishment do the musical equivalent of an unmade bed or half a cow in preservative.....




Frank,

Do you truly believe that? I don't believe it has to be one way or the other. Beethoven (and a whole slew of others) were able to make music that did both of the things you mentioned in the quote. It almost seems as if we have an Apollo/Dionysus thing going on now. Heart or mind. It's just not necessary - both are possible at the same time. Both are necessary at the same time in my belief.

I don't know about the UK but in the US, there is this strange divide between academic composers and composers working in the real world. Most of academics feel the need, for some reason, to say "to he*l with the audience." It also seems like they think moving forward in the art requires that cow that you mentioned. :) Though I never thought about it much until now, it might be one of the reasons why I quit my doctoral program after putting so much time in.

On the other hand, most of the good "real world" folks still manage to move the art forward and are approachable at the same time - in that long standing tradition of the masters. Seems to me as if they understand that heart and mind must go together.

I don't know. I think you must make what you must. I think there is room for all of it. Anything less is being dishonest with oneself. But I also think that many of us forget that we have an obligation to the art of music - to move it forward. If we don't it will cease to evolve. It the evolution stops it won't be long before it all becomes worthless.

-Chad

[Shazbot]

What is my criteria for a good piece of what... pizza?? That's easy... Light crust, thick cheese and sauce and moderate toppings (pepperoni, peppers, onions, etc.), and absolutely no mushrooms!

Oh, you mean piece of music... Of course... :p

Basically, if it sounds good (to me), it's good (to me). I guess the main thing is whether or not it's memorable in some way. The Beatles music endures so well because so many things in each song are memorable - the verses, pre-chorus, chorus, musical interludes, guitar riffs, outros... there are as many hooks in each song as your average tackle box. Good music of any style has memorable things about it.

But not that music necessarily has to be memorable to be good. Film music often isn't memorable when it is creating a mood, and certainly some great classical or jazz pieces are just meant to capture a mood or paint a picture of sound, without necessarily being memorable.

Sondheim is a good example of where the context matters. His songs are very rarely memorable ("Send in the Clowns" one of the few exceptions), and I often don't really think they're good "songs" when I hear them, however, when seen in the context of their shows they often do capture the feeling and the moment that the play is trying to convey quite well, so to me they're good in that sense.

[Alan Lastufka]

I like weird music - so that's to say that most of the music posted here isn't "my style"... but I can appretiate good writing, even in genres other than what I usually like.

When I listen to a new GPO piece, I take into account what the person posting asked for... that is important as to whether I consider it "good" or not.

If they ask about their mock-up skills, then the comp could be anything... if it's comp, well then, it could have been done with a Casio and still be "good"... etc.

[Karl Garrett]

I think that Tom likes all those 9th and 13th chords because he is a trumpet player and gets to play all those wonderful tensionsÉ oh what fun. Or maybe heÕs a trumpet player because he likes all those 9th and 13th chords and stacked triads. Which came first? :D

I have a photographer friend who worked like a dog when she was young doing weddings and portraits. She would have so wanted to go into the wilderness and shoot, but when I asked her why she spent so much time just making money with her craft she told me Òbecause when I reach 45, I want to retire and live in the Black Hills and live my dream.Ó She started making enough money to hire another photographer, then another. Meanwhile she was really starting to hone her craft, taking longer and longer vacations, only accepting the best jobs for herself, while pawning the lesser ones off to others. This summer she turned 45. Guess where she is right now and what sheÕs doing.

Sometimes we can do both what others demand from us and what we really want to do. And once in a while if weÕre really lucky we can achieve both in the same gig. It takes being the best you can be at your craft, careful planning, of your goals and a lot of luck. But it can be done. BTW, These rules apply to everyone but me. :D

[dewdman42]

Great question Nicole...

My take on it is this. If you like rock/pop music, let's compare, say..... the band "Rush" to "Tom Petty". Totally different sounds. One is progressive and complex and oozing with musical genius. The other is simple and catchy....and also oozing with musical genius...though in the 2nd....music education probably had little or nothing to do with it. They are both equally respectable composers/performers in my opinion...in their own right. Naturally, some people are going to appreciate a simple hooky line they can sing along to more than virtuosity and perhaps more than complex music they don't understand. And likewise some people will appreciate complex music more than the beauty and genius of someone like Tom Petty.

All the same applies equally to orchestra, classical, chamber, filmscores, etc.. its all the same concept. There is beauty in all of it. I personally hold a great deal of respect for the type of composer that has that natural gift to compose music that just seems to move me..regardless of how complex or un-complex it is. To me its a wonderment, and an expression of the human spirit to the nth degree.

I also hold high regard for masters of the craft.

I think its important not to lose site of either side of the equation... To hone your craft while also always searching for that inner expression of beauty that sometimes I feel is missed by the academics and people that become obsessed with the craft. Its a balancing act. Ultimately, I think the expression of beauty is more important than the craft, but I know too many musicans that took that same argument as an excuse not to study music theory..and I think that's a cop out. But I'm equally unimpressed by the academics and musical snobs that think nothing less than complex avante garde is even worth listening to, for the sake of its craftmanship.

[Shazbot]

Speaking of genius, there's a very fine line between someone being considered a respectable musical genius and someone being considered a laughable oddball...

Take someone who plays guitar, sings and plays the harmonica strapped onto the guitar... Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc. Highly regarded musicians, right?

Now simply add cymbals between the knees...

:p

[Tom Hopkins]

Frank,

"Now tell me this.....why did you contribute 'Easy Winners' in the initial GPO demos and not a piece of music reflecting your own preferences?"

"Easy Winners" is a Scott Joplin piece that came under the heading of "exercising the many other related skills I had acquired over my career." The piece was turned over to me by Gary after he and Frank Spitznagel had done some initial work on it. I made changes to the arrangement, played in a couple of additions, edited each of the parts, and mixed the final version. I thought both Gary's and Frank's names should also be on the piece but Gary chose to put just my name on it since I had contributed the most time to its realization. It's a fun piece and is a great example of how GPO can handle small ensembles, which, of course, was its purpose. The piece is also an example of a precursor to Jazz and that is of special historical interest to me since I have been a gigging Jazz musician for over 40 years. This, even though my stylistic interests are primarily Bebop, Post Bop, and Fusion - you know the type: The more complex the chord changes, the better; never met a complicated chord substitution I didn't like; etc.

Why didn't I contribute something that more closely reflected my own preferences? Because my preferences were, and are, irrelevant. The purpose was to show off a particular capability of GPO and the Joplin did that nicely.

A clarification: When I said that I "absolutely despise the simple harmonies of popular music" I should have clarified what I meant. The short answer is: I detest any and every 3 chord rock tune ever written using the triadic I, IV, and V chord within a standard 12 bar form. No exceptions. Absolutely nothing else in the music can make up for my dislike for those three triads in that application. I will not even listen beyond the intro of a song that starts by arpeggiating a major triad – that’s a disqualifier. I’ve got the fastest mute button finger in the business when I encounter an intro like that. Anyway, that eliminates 95% of the popular music written in the last 50 years (he said with a demonic smile on his face)!

If we expand the popular music category (and we should) to include the classic works of Jerome Kern, Cole Porter, Vernon Duke, the Gershwins, Martin and Blane, Harry Warren, etc. written between approximately 1920 and 1955 then I'm a big fan and promoter. There's nothing simple about the harmonic language of these masters; they took the cycle of 5ths and turned it inside out looking for new things to do with a song. These songs also lend themselves to the application of the even more sophisticated chord substitutions of which I'm so enamored as a Jazz musician.

There I've done it again - too much bandwidth and far off the original intent of this thread. Sorry, Nicole. Here’s a relevant contribution to the thread: Two great pieces of music – Ives’ Three Places in New England and Thelonious Monk’s Trinkle Tinkle. Now, carefully analyze those and you still won’t have your answer!

Tom

[Alan Lastufka]

...I detest any and every 3 chord rock tune ever written using the triadic I, IV, and V chord within a standard 12 bar form. No exceptions. Absolutely nothing else in the music can make up for my dislike for those three triads in that application. I will not even listen beyond the intro of a song that starts by arpeggiating a major triad – that’s a disqualifier. I’ve got the fastest mute button finger in the business when I encounter an intro like that. Anyway, that eliminates 95% of the popular music written in the last 50 years (he said with a demonic smile on his face)!
Beautiful Tom!

On that note, did you decide if you wanted to join me at the Green Day, New Found Glory and Hoobastank concert I asked you about earlier... I said with a demonic smile on my face.... hehehe

[dewdman42]

Heh heh.. Well, this question was sure to bring out opinions from all sides... I hear what you're saying Tom. Different strokes for different folks. I know lots of people that hit the mute button when they hear a lot of the stuff you like....(not me by the way)...so it gets back to what Nicole said earlier...its all relative... Sharing music is all about one human being reaching out and touching another human being through the music they make. For some people such as Tom, there is no way that 90% of Pop music is going to reach his soul. And there is nothing wrong with that.... country music, by and large, doesn't reach my soul either. The only time it did was when I was in love with this girl that loved country music and it was always playing....and well....a few songs from that little slice of time in my life.....they got through to me. But other than that..........................gag...not for me. But at the same time, I have to respect that there are SOOOO many people that really love it. It reaches their soul.

[jmc]

This is a great thread. Forgive me in advance, because I ramble and digress. For me, I like music that is honest, that has been created with conviction. It is such a great world because people can have differing taste in music, and there is a style for everyone.

Some music is better than others though, and understanding why it is better is the key. For me, formal training was invaluable because I learned why the music the of the masters was great. And it has since helped me discern good music from what is not so good, and understand why.

But that says nothing to what I like. Because I like some music that is probably total crap, but I still like it.

As Kevin said, "Write something that grabs the mind AND heart of 'your audience'." True that balance is tough to find, but if it were easy, this discussion wouldn't even exist. I often feel that if I could only get my mind to interpret what my heart is saying...well, that's kind of the whole thing, right there. That's the battle.

But that's the writers' battle. If you are a listener, which is a separate thing altogether, you have a different approach. Years ago I sat with a friend of mine (not a musician) and played him some Schoenberg and he was absolutely revolted, and said to me flat out, "This is NOT music." And I had to explain to him that, Yes, it is. And I opened up a music history book and made him sit there and listen to me read to him about Schoenberg and the schools of thought developing at that time, and attitudes toward music. I don't think he ever came around, but I felt I did my part to help foster an academic's point of view toward something challenging and strange.

I felt like "in the Hamptons" should have appeared somewhere in that last paragraph...anyhoo...

[dewdman42]

Some music is better than others though, and understanding why it is better is the key. For me, formal training was invaluable because I learned why the music the of the masters was great. And it has since helped me discern good music from what is not so good, and understand why.

But that says nothing to what I like. Because I like some music that is probably total crap, but I still like it.
...
So if you like it... how can you call it "total crap" or say that something else that someone else doesn't like is "better"? What makes it better? What makes the other simple stuff "crap"?

I think perhaps there are better words to describe these two different types of music than "better" or "total crap". "Simple" and "complex" perhaps? Perhaps even more specific than that. But the main point I'm getting to is not to presume that one can be considered superior to the other. Why exactly is it superior? The only objective criteria for possibly arguing that one kind is superior to the other is by saying that one way requires a lifetime of study to be able to do it to begin with, while the other can be done rather easily. Does that make it better music though? Certainly its more accomplished and certainly it demands a certain level of respect, if for no other reason than the amount of work and effort it requires a master of the craft to learn how to do it and then to do it.

However, its a slippery slope to call it "better".

[jmc]

I think its important not to lose site of either side of the equation... To hone your craft while also always searching for that inner expression of beauty that sometimes I feel is missed by the academics and people that become obsessed with the craft. Its a balancing act.
I have met a few who exhibited such lopsided results. I remember going to a composer's master class (can't remember his name, though Byron or Brian something) and his music was so cerebral. It was just dead. There was no heart to it whatsoever. Like the guy didn't believe in what he was doing; every gesture felt arbitrary. Everything was all based on these complex numbers and formulae, and all this serialism, and clusters, and it was...just a horrible experience. It wasn't wacko enough to like for weird's sake. I just hated it... at the time, anyway.

I would be curious to see if I have the same reaction today as I did then. I'll see if I can find any recordings.

That's not to say I don't like serial or avant garde music, or anything 20th Century, I do, in fact. And what I don't like, I at least try to understand and respect it. This seemed to be one instance where the composer was so obsessed with the construction that he left out any human element.

[dewdman42]

This seemed to be one instance where the composer was so obsessed with the construction that he left out any human element.
Does that qualify as "total crap"?

Just kidding... sorta...

Bottom line is that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. As I sit here and think about it though, there is no question that there is a certain "AWE" factor when a piece of music is both beautiful, soulful and a manifestation of the human spirit...and at the same time exhibits complexity and depth which require years of training to attain and years of hard work to manifest itself in the form of resulting works.

Kinda like when you go to europe and take a walk through one of the massive cathedrals that took 40 years to build. The sheer mangnitude of human accomplishment is awe-inspiring.

[jmc]

So if you like it... how can you call it "total crap" or say that something else that someone else doesn't like is "better"? What makes it better? What makes the other simple stuff "crap"?
I was like, Should put 'crap?' Should I change it? Will they get the funny? Will it be too...eh whatever, leave it in.'

Apparently I should have changed it. But FWIW, I said "probably total crap." I can't be right all the time.


I think perhaps there are better words to describe these two different types of music than "better" or "total crap". "Simple" and "complex" perhaps? Perhaps even more specific than that. But the main point I'm getting to is not to presume that one can be considered superior to the other.
You are right. Simple vs. complex. My bad. I'm not very PC.


Why exactly is it superior? The only objective criteria for possibly arguing that one kind is superior to the other is by saying that one way requires a lifetime of study to be able to do it to begin with, while the other can be done rather easily. Does that make it better music though?
Good point. I guess it would depend on the kinds of music and the point of view you are coming from. But I have to say 'yes.' In my opinion, however flawed, that a person who has studied and understands theory, form, harmony et al., and applies those techniques to express their truest sincere emotions through performing or writing, will probably make better quality music than someone who doesn't share that same basic building-block knowledge.


Certainly its more accomplished and certainly it demands a certain level of respect, if for no other reason than the amount of work and effort it requires a master of the craft to learn how to do it and then to do it.
Exactly.


However, its a slippery slope to call it "better".
I guess I'm feeling lucky today.

[jmc]

Does that qualify as "total crap"?

Just kidding... sorta...
As I said, I might feel completely different about his music now, and I'm intrigued to listen to it again. Who knows, I may love it now. I used to hate broccoli. I tried reading Dracula in high school and hated it, and just read it two years ago and loved it. People grow and change. One day out of the blue, for seemingly no reason at all, you suddenly look at something differently.

The "probably total crap" to which I was referring is actually more popular genres of music, (see Tom Hopkins #20 re: I, IV, V). There are some old crappy bands I still really like although none of my friends do anymore. I mention it and they are like, dude, I've so out-grown that.

[dewdman42]

I hear what you're saying. Except while in one week I listen to some new wagner and am floored by how cool it is...I could hear the next week AC/DC Back in Black and something deep down inside me will have me nodding my head, tapping my foot, humming along (actually more like making grunting sounds), playing air guitar and generally thinking to myself "what a timeless freakin' song"....all 3 chords of it (might be 4).

[Karl Garrett]

Nicole, I believe you really started something with your question. On reflection of what is good and not so good, I think that there are two things to consider.

Is it a piece that grabs one for the moment or can it stand the test of repeated listening. If I had to choose the latter, and I had only one composer that I could listen to for the next 5 years or so, excluding you, Nicole,:) I would probably choose Charles Ives. Every time I hear something of his I hear something different. Now here is someone who wrote for no one but himself and perhaps a few others. For me, his music strikes a balance between the tonal (often very simple and familiar melodies) and the complex (harmonies textures and just plain extraordinary challenges for the musicians).

When I think of someone who tried to really analyze what is good and what is bad in music my thoughts run to Joseph Schillinger. He wrote a large compendium of twenty-some volumes trying to analyze the arts from a mathematical perspective. The music part, for which I believe he is most famous, is definitely meat and potatoes theory. Nothing esoteric here, just such things like mathematically, what makes a good melody etc. Lawrence Berk, who started Berklee School (later College) of Music Drew much of the so called Berklee approach from SchillingerÕs work. It is an approach that the composer can use to grab something quickly and run with it. You can be someone who may not be the most talented person, yet using his or the more refined Berklee approach, write something that may not be earth shaking, but will at least be listenable. Are his findings valid? I donÕt know, but they are fun to consider. Here are a couple of sites that might interest some of you.

http://www.geodyne.com/schillinger/

http://archivesofamericanart.si.edu/exhibits/piano/schillinger.htm

Karl

[DPDAN]

Karl, notes being referenced to hours on a clock was interesting

[Styxx]

What music?

[dewdman42]

I did not know Berklee approaches were based on Schillinger. Fascinating. You just added several years of music study to my long list.

[Hardy Heern]

What is your criteria of a good piece?' ....Something that Tom doesn't like!! :D :)

Sorry Tom.....I will respond soon....a bit busy at the moment.]

Brilliant thread...really brought out people's true colours!!

Isn't it interesting Tom......I'm a HUGE (that's really big) Cole Porter fan! So we still have some common ground. I thought his music would have gone right over your head! (touche!)

Frank


PS...Gee Whizz, what HAVE I done?? I'll never get support now!!:)

[Tom Hopkins]

Frank,

"I thought his music would have gone right over your head! (touche!)"

Ah yes, a common misconception which I'm pleased to take this opportunity to dispel. The truth is: Absolutely NOTHING goes over my head, while many things go under it. I should mention, in fairness, that one of the leading proponents of your theory is my wife. But, of course, she's also mistaken.

As to future tech support for you personally, I maintain a list of everyone who disagrees with me on any subject whatsoever and I refuse to communicate with any of them. Again, my wife is on that list. So is Gary. At last check, my neighbor's dog is the only name not included and if he doesn't stop barking here real soon the list will be complete.

"What is your criteria of a good piece?' ....Something that Tom doesn't like!!"


Finally my opinion has some value. It's about time. I think I may need to turn over a new leaf concerning my "disagreement policy." In the interest of taking advantage of my new-found sway, here's what I'll do: If you like, for your convenience, I could maintain a list of music that I think is beneath contempt so that you'll know what to buy without having to do any research!:) Let's see . . . I'll start the list off with anything and everything by Andrew Lloyd Webber. There's a considerable body of work out there so that should keep you busy for quite a while. Fortunately, this "new leaf" idea doesn't apply to everybody. I'm still not going to talk to Gary or my wife.

By the way, my true color is chartreuse.

Tom

[DarwinKopp]

“What are your criteria of a good piece of music?”

I usually don’t consciously separate music into good or bad, per se. Rather, I tend to think along functional lines: “what is the music supposed to be doing in a particular setting?” From there, it either serves its function with varying degrees of success or misses the mark.

For example, good film music underscores a given scene, making it better than it would be without the music, yet without the music itself attracting too much attention in the process.

The various pop musics (rock, metal, oldies, country, hip-hop, etc.) are intended to create a sort of addictive, commercial interest…the audio version of nicotinated, caffeinated candy (with the balance of nicotine, caffeine and sugar varying widely). An “addiction” to this concoction will lead the listener to purchase audio tracks and/or listen to commercial radio stations that host the music.

What is today “classical” music in specific cases often had highly functional origins. Many pieces currently considered classics were written for church services, to underscore an opera, to set the scene into motion for a ballet, as ceremony or dedication fanfare, or as royal court entertainment, etc. Orchestral music for the pure “art” of it is a relatively late development.

Good music of any type very often transcends its original function. In short, the music is often of much higher quality than it really needed to be for the purpose it was first written.

What is the nature of this “higher quality”? In my mind, there are at least three common elements:

1) the music is very original for its time
2) the music is highly expressive of something, be it a mood or emotion, an absolute concept, or a programmatic subject
3) the music is in some way coherent, it has structure, and it goes somewhere

Not all elements are always present in all good music, but one or two routinely are.

[IGOR]

Very interesting!!!!

Of course I am more on Toms line in this thread.

Music reflects a society and we are definitely living in a world where music has become an industry and business. This industry is dictated by the media which has to level everything on the average. The "norm" is the sacred word to evaluate everything, because the norm represents the biggest number of buyers. That the level of this norm is not very high, should be quite obvious.

More complex music demands an effort to the listener, it will normally not speak right away to the audience, but needs reflections. You will not only have to listen with you ears and emotions, but also with your intellect. This is called active listening. Of course this kind of music is not really suited as background in a supermarket.....

Looking for a thru answer in this question “What are your criteria of a good piece of music?” is an illusion and the answer would be irrelevant. Because there are no criteria for this. There are only different visions and opinions. In a democratic society every opinion has the same value..... so the average will have the truth......

I would agree with Tom on the basic fact that there are two different trends in music: musicians who want to make money, become famous, please others and looking for petting there ego This is mostly a craft and not art as I conceived (this is not to be considered as a negative evaluation.......) On the other hand there are others who do not want (or can not...) participate at this, but are looking for creating and expressing something that that sings in there mind and soul, in order to transmit a message. Believe it or not, but nowadays they will use dissonances, because we live in a world where this kind of people do not want to follow the average trend of boom, boom, boom 1,4,5....(again no negative evaluation........)

It would be possible to write much more on this subject, especially on major/minor tonality, which some of you are defending so hard, and actually exists only since about 350 years or so, which is peanuts in the history of mankind.
Surprisingly, after all this time, the system is nowadays used in is most primitive, simplistic form ever.


Iwan

[Brian2112]

And likewise some people will appreciate complex music (of Rush) more than the beauty and genius of someone like Tom Petty.
Being the fanatic Rush fan...that would be me...LOL:p
If it doesn't have a bar of 7, it sucks!:D

And now I must return to working on my musical gift to the world that I call “A Symphony of Tri-tones for Bagpipes (in Bb)”.:D

Seriously, every peice of music ever written is an expression of a soul, and therefore, not unlike a human life. We like some people more than others, some people have more integrity than others, and yet all life has value. One can only argue to what degree...and that is being judgemental. The people we fall in love with are the ones that show us something new or profound in the world, and help us to better understand ourselves, and life itself. This is what we all strive for.. a masterpiece.

2112

[Styxx]

Ya know what? I never think about it per say. Seems to come to me when whatever mode I am in that dictates what style I may write. Sometimes like this past week a person mentioned how he loves to watch the leafs on a Poplar Tree shimmer during a warm summer breeze. That played on my mind and I wrote a short piece trying to capture the feel of his words. I also decided to experience this sort of "dance" of nature myself and this helped me to bring forth the expressions within my music. The piece is called "The Poplar Tree Dance" and NO you can't hear it! Cause I don't think I want to post it for some very good reasons.:eek:
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!:p
Yadda Yadda Yadda!
Waatt did he Say!!! Wott Garrilla?

[Joseph Burrell]

A good piece of music is the one you make yourself. Nothing feels better or sounds better than the songs you've made.

Nuff said.

[dewdman42]

Looking for a thru answer in this question “What are your criteria of a good piece of music?” is an illusion and the answer would be irrelevant. Because there are no criteria for this. There are only different visions and opinions. In a democratic society every opinion has the same value..... so the average will have the truth......

I would agree with Tom on the basic fact that there are two different trends in music: musicians who want to make money, become famous, please others and looking for petting there ego This is mostly a craft and not art as I conceived (this is not to be considered as a negative evaluation.......) On the other hand there are others who do not want (or can not...) participate at this, but are looking for creating and expressing something that that sings in there mind and soul, in order to transmit a message. Believe it or not, but nowadays they will use dissonances, because we live in a world where this kind of people do not want to follow the average trend of boom, boom, boom 1,4,5....(again no negative evaluation........)Iwan
I think you're hitting the nail on the head, except for one flaw in your reasoning, which is to presume that simpleton music is not art and not from the heart. I think you're right on in terms of seperating art from craft. There are musicians at all levels of sophistication that compose from their heart....and others who compose rather mechanically. The complexity of the music has nothing to do with it. By the same token, this isn't to say that micro-tuned wild stuff that most westerners could never comprehend couldn't also be composed from the heart....or equally mechanically from the craft. The complexity is irrelevent.

[trentpmcd]

Very interesting thread.

I’ll try to answer the original question and then maybe make a comment or two on other issues.

First, “good music” = “music I like/music I think is good”.

For the most part “good music” touches me in some way. Different music effects me in different ways – Bach touches me in a very different way than Bartok which touches me in a very different way than the Beatles which is different from Berg which is different from the B-52s. If I’m going to be having a beach party I most likely won’t play Bartok and if I want to brainlessly hum along to a song while driving I most likely won’t put on Berg. If I want music to listen to, music to think about or music I can “sink my teeth into” it won’t be the Beatles or the B-52s.

The next level down is technical merit. By “technical merit” I usually mean within that specific genre. If I absolutely love something on an emotional level it’s lack of technical merit will not deter me from calling it “good”. On the other hand, there is a lot of music that I really don’t care for that I know is great technically and I won’t hesitate calling it “good” as long as I can see there is some "soul" in it and it isn't just technical wizardry for it's own sake. Sometimes, for instance with the aforementioned Berg, the two cross – I appreciate and like the music on an intellectual level more than an emotional one.

Originality is also important, however I don’t like things that are different just for the sake of being different. Maybe a better term would be “innovative”. This of course also depends on time and style. The B-52s were innovative in that they took all midrange out of their instruments, which left a large amount of space for their voices, very unusual for pop at that time. They also used a lot of harmonies that most pop bands avoid, and they used Yoko Ono style singing that most sane people avoid. For pop music they were (up until the 90s) very innovative – compare their first album with any other pop or rock album put out in the late 70s – it is shockingly different. And yet compared to jazz they were pretty tame and behind the times. Wagner used wilder harmonies. Creating a “sonic hole” for a soloist or for voices goes back to the beginnings of music. I would never compare them to Stravinsky or Miles Davis, yet in their own genre they were very innovative.

There is also influence. A funny story – I took a 20 th Century music class in collage. The professor often judged composers by how influential he thought they were. He said that despite how innovative Ives was he could be nothing more than a footnote in the history of music because by the time his music was released it was too late to influence anybody. Every time I read the name “Ives” in a list of favorite composers or biggest influences I have to snicker. I don’t put influence at the top of my list of what makes a piece of music good, but I do recognize it’s importance.

I like and listen to a huge range of music. I enjoy atonal music and yet I also like music based on I IV V. I scratched my head when ninth and thirteenth chords were brought up as examples of chords used to be different for the sake of being different because I consider those as “safe” chords and used them when I wrote (or tried to write) pop music.

People who stretch the boundaries are not doing so just to be different. The same people we call the “Masters” today were often on the bleeding edge in their day. Sometimes they are exploring for the same reasons people explore in any field. Others can’t write any other way (I remember reading Bernstein lamenting how he couldn’t write a good pop song to save his life). Most are writing the music they love.

On the other hand, people who write music in a more popular style are not always doing it just for the money. Often they are also writing the music they love. There are rock acts that play very simple I IV V music and yet talk about their musical integrity and not selling out. These people mean it – within their narrow frame they might be radical even if they are using harmonies that were considered safe and dull back when Vivaldi was writing. I have more respect for, say, the Clash, who meant every note of the simple songs they wrote, than for Andrew Lloyd Webber who seems to write schlock aimed at the lowest common denominator. (BTW, I don’t consider all pop and rock as brainless or simple – just listen to a lot the music Robert Fripp put out.)

As everyone else has said, it is all a matter of perspective and opinion.

To make this even longer I need to go back to the original statement and Nicole’s thoughts about analyzing music.

I often analyze music as I’m listening, however I try not to let it get in the way of my enjoyment. Have you ever listen to something you’ve heard a million times before and suddenly had it laid at like a map? It’s like looking into the mind of the composer. I find that almost as exciting as the emotional aspect of music. I hung out at a photography forum for a while and found a handful of people who only cared about exposure info etc. on the pictures they looked at. Yes, it can be interesting to find out how they achieved the effect, but the whole point is the picture, which these people seemed to miss, often getting angry if anybody said anything “non-technical” about a picture. It’s the same in music – it’s nice to know how an effect was achieved, but it is the impact on the listener that is the whole point. I’m not discounting knowledge – my musical knowledge is very limited compared to most here and yet I know I could not achieve a tenth of my limited accomplishments without the many hours of studying harmony, counterpoint, etc. that I’ve done. And yet, I often write what I feel and analyze it later. Occasionally I will go back and “fix” something after analyzing it, but usually “first instincts” are correct. Or I should say “first instincts based on knowledge”. I very rarely call a piece “good” or “bad” only because of my analysis, I usual call it “good” or “bad” because of how it makes me feel.

[dewdman42]

amen brother

[IGOR]

I think you're hitting the nail on the head, except for one flaw in your reasoning, which is to presume that simpleton music is not art and not from the heart.

I agree with your writing, at least to a certain point. There is some simple music which I personally do consider as great works of art, I would like to citate here Bartok "Mikrokosmos" and Ligeti's : "Musica Ricercata" (the first piece consist only of one note.....) Folksmusic is often of very good level, but is normally not considered as "art" And the whole other bunch of tonal music which is composed today, repeating and imitating the great masters of the past, but never reaching their level of geniality, does not interest me personally at all.

I mean, do you think that the mean theme of Evita by Andrew Lloyd Webber, which is a note by note copy of Sibelius "Finlandia" is art? Then I can not agree with you.

On the other hand, I would call the music of some minimalists such as Philipp Glass, Steve Reich (extremely simple....) as works of art. Unfortunately when you compose music in a traditional tonal style, you can only be second category, or worst, to the masters of the past. Same thing if you try to play in the style of Miles Davis or Charlie Parker. And, as we know, in Western culture only the "originals" have the label "art". So the only way is to be happy by making a living by writing this second hand music, or trying to invent your one, with the risk that nobody want listen to it and you will be a poor man, at music teacher, a computer programer...or an insurance agent, like Charles Ives was.....

Iwan