The Smiley Smile Message Board

I would like to discuss what makes great music in a conversation that does not introduce indefinite ideas like magic. Rather, I want to see people introduce and defend characteristics in a real-world way, and as much as possible by discussing music across genres as much as possible. Is there a single set of criteria / characteristics that can be used to explain a great country song, a great sonata, a great big band song? What does the audience have to contribute to make music great?

This is the kind of thread that could easily just sink like a stone because it might just be really stupid, or really obvious to you all, or just not something anyone else is interested in. But who knows.

I'll list some criteria that come to my mind at this moment as characteristics of great music, though I don't purport this to be THE LIST. Some of these apply only to some musics, some might be weak-ass points. I hope the discussion grows and is respectful. This kind of thing interests me. (I ask that if you think this is stupid, rather than post that opinion, just move on.)

- Great music has at least some parts of it that are simple enough to be remembered with few listenings.
- Great music sounds familiar enough to its audience provide an easy access point for them.
- Great music sounds different enough from that familiar access point to stand out as unique.
- Great music evokes an emotion--this is one I have to think through, because it is weak and almost is the forbidden "magic." What about music evokes emotion? Minor chord = sad or scary, but why? Major 7th chord is happy, but why? Driving beat is sex, and that one is easy enough to figure out. But otherwise, what makes the musical shorthand work?
- Great music has some social value, not in terms of making the world a better place, but meaning more in terms of a social experience: making individual listeners feel like part of a whole, either by literally sharing the music or by listening alone, but feeling there is a community of "shared loneliness" (think BW sad songs and indie boys with big glasses and tight pants). This is also very weak, because I haven't quantified what makes that happen. To what extent is this on the listener, the musician, and the marketer?

This will work better if someone else says something now. Anybody into this?

Fascinating topic.  I don't really know how to apply criteria to any wide genre of music, though. Could I offer one example?

"Good Vibrations" is not my favorite Beach Boys song, but the bridge might be one of my absolute favorite segments of music, and I think I know exactly why. For me, the juxtaposition of that fast, quirky, bouncy backing track with those very pure, delicate vocals perfectly conveys what it feels like to be smitten -- not in love, but just that raw excitement (track) tempered with very sweet, pure affection (vocals). The chord progression (I-IV-I? Something like that) is extremely familiar, something I've been exposed to thousands of times, and has been used in many other songs I love. The actual sonic qualities of the record remind me of the mid-60's, a time period I associate with great musical innovation and social change, which makes it feel more important. And all of that is colored by my love for the group, and validated by the fact that I know many, many people feel the same.

This is just one example, but I believe this meets all of the criteria you listed. Or am I way off-base?

What you're trying to do is very hard, because in order to accomplish what you're trying to accomplish, you'd have to fully understand the human condition.  You can't fully understand the human condition without eventually getting to words like "Soul", "Heart", and "God".  All three of those are very hard to explain, understand, or even believe in. 

So imho, you'll never fully understand great music and why it's all similar, if you did you'd be a millionaire :)

So, with that said, I think someone like Brian Wilson, who's had tons of great music, success, and is a legend could best explain it.  When he does, he usually talks about soul, heart, and God. 

This is a great idea for a thread. I wonder if there's anything I can add, although I have had a beer or two so this might seem a little incoherent.

I think these two,

- Great music sounds familiar enough to its audience provide an easy access point for them.
- Great music sounds different enough from that familiar access point to stand out as unique.

definitely come into the fore. It's how you can list several fantastic doo-wop songs that all classify as 'great songs' despite them not deviating very far from a set of common elements. Or the same with country songs, or the records of certain producers. It's the twists and combinations on defined sounds that makes, for instance, Ca Plane Pour Moi by Plastic Bertrand a great song despite it not really having any 'unique' elements - a blues progression played with powerchords and a pretty standard falsetto break for a chorus. It's greater than the sum of it's parts. Maybe great songs are, but I feel the urge to blame that on magic and that wouldn't get us anywhere.

May I ask why did you didn't address the lyric in your list? I reckon that's a huge, huge part of how music connects with people in a way that isn't classed as supernatural. Social value figures into it, I suppose - something to relate to, although that would not help to define why impenetrable Bob Dylan lyrics help them to be great songs despite not obviously corresponding to a reality or human experience.

Hope that makes sense. But I'm into this, as hard to quantify as it can be.

I have to disagree because i think that in order to fully understand the human condition, one has to either explain "soul," "heart," and "god," or stop talking about them. Otherwise it's a get-out-of-jail-free card.

That's why they are forbidden from this thread. Otherwise it's easy. You throw in something that can't be quantified, proved, disproved, and the topic has to end.

Well, good luck with that Plato :)  When you figure it out, would you mind cluing the rest of us in?

I hope you're joking and not being a dick. Otherwise that's rude. I'm just trying to have a discussion.

I didn't mean to exclude lyrics, but I definitely didn't focus on them, either. (For example, when I was talking about emotion, there is the obvious way to go for it, which is through lyrics; then there is the more indirect route, which is musical convention that for some reason is identified with emotion, such as the minor chord thing, the major sevenths, sixths, etc.) Absolutely, include lyrics in discussion if it makes better discussion.

I'm going to stay out of your discussion, my point was just that if you ask ANY competent song writer, they all use 'magic' to describe what makes their music good.  There's no formula that you can discern, because there are intangibles like "heart" "soul" and "God" that are involved. 

I appreciate that you're going to stay out of it, considering you obviously don't have any interest in participating in it (but rather denying the premise). So, as I didn't bother responding to your assertion of Reagan being the best president ever, it seems fitting that you won't respond to this thread (anymore).

And it is impressive that you have interviewed every competent songwriter and are able to speak for them.

The funny thing is, Ron, a lot of great songs don't come about through the intangible - the sheer inspiration of a song is often changed, for the better in some cases. Two examples - Dylan's initial, muse inspired Like A Rolling Stone was a waltz, whereupon he hacked through with session musicians and his better judgement until it changed into it's usual form. And 'Yesterday' was changed into something beautiful by constant study and revision, rather than being called 'Scrambled Eggs'. Good songwriters work at their material.

Luther, I'll post something competent on this tomorrow when it's been stewing around my head all day. Skirting dangerously close to terms of magic is also the issue of performance, and by proxy improvisation depending on the song. Like I said, I'll let this stew.  :)

That wasn't nice of me. Rather, let me just explain why I don't want to use that kind of language in this thread.

If we explain great music by using terms that are inherently impossible to quantify, to count on, to control, to explain, then it seems to me that there are a couple of possibilities.

1. Music is great because a deity makes it great. If that's the case, nothing that goes into its creation seems especially important. Someone can spend a year on a symphony, someone can write a 2-chord folk song, someone can craft a prog metal masterpiece, and someone can fart onto tape. Zeus will decide which is great. Whether Zeus's decision is made on the piece of music, or onto the ears and minds of the listeners, the one in control of the quality of music is a deity. Talking about what we like, then, or why, is a waste. Because we like what Zeus said because he said so. I don't believe in gods, and so I was hoping to avoid that in this thread.

2. Music is great but we don't know why, and rather than think about it, every time it gets difficult, we'll just fall back on cliches. Grandma died? It was god's will (as opposed to yeah, that blood clot traveled through a vein up into her heart). If there is some higher power in great music, fine: then explain why we think so, to what degree, how. Otherwise, rather than credit the magic, we ought to just say the truth, which is "I don't know (and probably I'm either too lazy or not interested enough to think much about it)." And that truth is a legit answer: it just is something I was hoping to avoid in this thread.

So that was my point. I don't care what anyone believes makes music good, to be honest. But if a person wants to have some discussion about it without taking easy ways out in terms of logic, I am interested in that person's contributions to the conversation. If a person thinks the premise is faulty to begin with, I would just ask that he avoid the conversation.

A lot of Bob Dylan's 1960s music is great because you can hear the sneering sarcasm in his voice as he sings the lyrics, which hooks the listener because Bob is totally believing what he is saying..

I've been thinking this a lot actually. I think the familiarity point was defintely spot on. Every pop song needs to have something that is already established or that has at least been done. Because people really do want a specific sound i think. But I also think great needs to be defined. Does it mean that it appeals to a lot of people, or that it stands the test of time, or that its obscure, or that it reaches people in different situations? Idk. But I do know that when I am thinking of buying music and I listen to the samples, if it sounds so off from anything i've ever heard, I'm not likely to buy it. Cuz there isn't really a sing a long element. Or anything to help my mind take it in like its supposed to be. But this is just me.  Great is a matter of opinion. 

To back that out to a "greater truth" (for lack of a better term), then, are you saying that a possible criterion is the artist being honest--or, rather, convincing the listener that s/he is being honest?

Yes because in "like a rolling stone" you could just tell by Bob's snearing singing that he truly hated the person called "at napolean in rags and the language that he used"

I guess that's it - I mentioned performance earlier, and that tunes in to a lot of other points you've highlighted. An artist like Daniel Johnston is obviously not a great musician or singer, and yet technically 'better' covers of his own material lack something. Or why Prince's own version of Nothing Compares 2 U is poor compared to Sinead O'Connor's.

The main point that sprang to mind today whilst milling over this was in terms of the listener - beauty in the eye of the beholder. This isn't helpful to the discussion, in some ways. I guess a metalhead has their own definitions of 'the perfect song' than a Miles fanatic. 

I don't think I can type what I'm getting at #cheersbeer.  But there is something to be said for technically great performance lacking emotion, and vice versa - You've said that Harry Nilsson would not be considered a 'great' singer on a strictly technical basis, and yet he can wrench more emotion into Without You than Mariah Carey.

I think I'm going to leave it there.  :lol

I hate to say this, but I agree with what Ron said.

I knew you would. Was hoping you'd avoid saying so while we fleshed it out. Damnit.

There is still that question of whether the "it" from above is a definable set of criteria, in which case this is worthwhile, or whether the thing itself, regardless of what it is, is just touched with the "it" of greatness.

Two things.

One, is the emotion in an emotionally great performance real, or is acting sufficient? Does an "emotional" performance have to be emotional, or just projected sufficiently as such?

Second, did I call Harry Nilsson not a great singer, technically? Really? I mean, maybe. I drink a lot. But in his pre-Lennon-hangout years, that f*cker could really sing (technically).

Well, yeah, that's why you posted it here instead of The Record Room!
I personally think that the unquantifiable (how music is produced from thin air, the emotional effect of music itself) works hand in hand with the quantifiable (skill, professionalism, etc).
But, I know there are/were many folks, Zappa among them, that would offer very credible, entirely scientific/logic-based arguments regarding the process and effect of music.

That is why actually.

The eventual point of this for me isn't to actually find the answer of what makes music great, so much as is there a thing or collection of things that make it great. Is the "unquantifiable thing" the great thing itself, or is the "unquantifiable thing" the gracing of (presumably temporary, considering the transitory nature of greatness even among the most consistent great artists) quantifiable great things onto otherwise passable / workmanlike / craftsman efforts? Are the best artists really just craftsmen putting out thing after thing hoping that the greatness question takes care of itself, in the way that Dylan and Reed seem to have said? Or are they feeling touched by the greatness-entity, talking of inspiration, believing in magic? Or is it a complex but entirely natural combination of factors that click, e.g. high-enough quality competence meets cultural relevance meets image meets familiarity-uniqueness combo.

My brain won't leave it alone.