# What makes music “better”?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I found myself mulling a troublesome thought – that the only measure of music might be its popularity. After all, music is only heard when people want to hear it. The more who want to hear it, the more it is heard. And what is the classical “canon” except the results of an ongoing popularity contest?

Well, this is obviously impossible because we’d have to compare, say, rap music with classical and maybe even give it a higher level of esteem. That would be painful!

So, if not popularity, then what? What makes music “better,” and better for whom? Is music “better” if its popularity lasts a long time? Are there other attributes of music, beyond our personal prejudices, that make music “better”? What do you think?


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Well, let's see- I can pretty much safely assume that Pachelbel's Canon in D is played more times a year than Bach's Mass in B Minor. Does that make it more popular? Yes, obviously. But does that make it better? No, not at all. As for your question, what makes music "better," and better for whom, it is a question I could not answer. It is almost a paradox of nature, yet with music. I really can't wrap my mind around it, sorry...


----------



## T Son of Ander (Aug 25, 2015)

I've often thought of this, Ken, and I admit to being completely stumped. For me, personally, I tend to like more complex music, that is in regard to harmonic complexity, polyphony, things like that. But then, there is plenty of music I would consider to be rather simple that I love dearly. And there is plenty of CM I do not like, or at least not enough to listen to over and over. At the end of the day, music has to hit me in the "feels." How it may or may not do the same to someone else, I have no idea.

Why are some composers popular during their lifetime, then fall into obscurity? Why are some not too well known during their lifetime, then rise to prominence that has gone on for centuries now? I can tell you that there's no way I can answer that. 

What it means as for being better or not, I don't think anyone can answer that.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I found myself mulling a troublesome thought - that the only measure of music might be its popularity. After all, music is only heard when people want to hear it. The more who want to hear it, the more it is heard. And what is the classical "canon" except the results of an ongoing popularity contest?
> 
> Well, this is obviously impossible because we'd have to compare, say, rap music with classical and maybe even give it a higher level of esteem. That would be painful!
> 
> So, if not popularity, then what? What makes music "better," and better for whom? Is music "better" if its popularity lasts a long time? Are there other attributes of music, beyond our personal prejudices, that make music "better"? What do you think?


I presume that you are seeking an _objective_ definition of "better." Good luck with that. (You might even have trouble getting many meaningful personal, utterly subjective, criteria for "better.") Popularity works to some degree as an objective criteria, but only because the subjective opinion of other people is not my own (even if they might essentially agree).

I do think you have to factor in longer time frames, and some degree of influence.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"Why, then, 'tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison. Well, then it isn't one to you, since nothing is really good or bad in itself-it's all what a person thinks about it."

_Hamlet_


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

As I keep saying, musical greatness ultimately boils down to popularity _among the right people_. There has to be a general agreement about what the "better" music should sound like; that agreement changes over time because it's affected by individual preferences, and individual preferences are in turn affected by the collective culture.

People are different enough from each other that there can't be a "gold standard" that _everyone_ believes in. Hence the "among the right people". Among people whose music preferences are classical, the popularity of rap music among _other_ people is irrelevant. Among the "upper crust" of classical fans, the popularity of, say, Pachelbel's Canon among _other_ classical fans is irrelevant.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Doesn't that become a self fulfilling prophecy though? Keep eliminating the groups of people who disagree with what is supposedly best until the remainder agrees that this is indeed the best?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Doesn't that become a self fulfilling prophecy though? Keep eliminating the groups of people who disagree with what is supposedly best until the remainder agrees that this is indeed the best?


It's not so much eliminating groups of people who disagree, as finding the core group of people whose opinion is most significant - the tastemakers (in as much as such a group of people exists). In classical music that's going to be some nebulous balance of academics, professional musicians and "serious" listeners; the collective, general opinion of these people is what matters, and the opinions of, say, casual listeners to Classic FM are irrelevant (but in theory, such opinions might gradually move in by osmosis, because tastes change).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well, let's see- I can pretty much safely assume that Pachelbel's Canon in D is played more times a year than Bach's Mass in B Minor. Does that make it more popular? Yes, obviously. But does that make it better? No, not at all....


I could easily trot out some reasons that seem good to me why the Pachelbel Canon is, indeed, "better" than the dreary, overlong Mass in B minor. And of course you can trot out your reasons why the opposite is true. Which of us is right? Which is wrong?

A rap fan might say, "It's living music, made by the living for the living. With classical music, I'm not sure whether the composer or the listener is deader, but the music itself is certainly deceased." How can you answer this? Is he wrong?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A rap fan might say, "It's living music, made by the living for the living. With classical music, I'm not sure whether the composer or the listener is deader, but the music itself is certainly deceased." How can you answer this? Is he wrong?


I would be inclined to say that that fan is half right, and half wrong . . . and utterly off point. The idea of "living music" versus "deceased music" ignores the fact that classical music was also made by the living, at the time, for the living, at the time and in most cases for the future as well. It also ignores the fact that every performance is, in essence, a new lease on life. Does that person only listen to rap performed live? (A recording, once made, is also a fixed artifact.) Does that person suddenly stop listening to a favorite rap composer if he/she (the rap composer) unexpectedly gets killed by a car?

There is also the underlying assumption that people of the past are completely unlike people of today. Every student of history knows that such a claim is far from true.

I might also add that I think one of the qualities I would suggest for "better" would be music that does not aim primarily to embody only its own moment in time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well, let's see- I can pretty much safely assume that Pachelbel's Canon in D is played more times a year than Bach's Mass in B Minor. Does that make it more popular? Yes, obviously.


No, it's just a lot shorter.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> It's not so much eliminating groups of people who disagree, as finding the core group of people whose opinion is most significant - the tastemakers (in as much as such a group of people exists). In classical music that's going to be some nebulous balance of academics, professional musicians and "serious" listeners; the collective, general opinion of these people is what matters, and the opinions of, say, casual listeners to Classic FM are irrelevant (but in theory, such opinions might gradually move in by osmosis, because tastes change).


Suppose this can be done, and that in this way we can "objectively" determine that, say, Bach is the "best composer", Beethoven's 9th "the best composition", and so on. Stretching it even further, maybe this elusive group of people could distribute say one hundred famous composers over ten tiers from top to bottom, and the same with compositions. Now what? What is an individual listener going to do with this? For guidance, a beginner can already look at oodles of lists generated at TC alone, and these lists will most likely not differ substantially from the ultimate experts list. An experienced listener who does not like composer A or composition B after many tries will not magically start liking them because of "the list".


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

What makes it better is very nebulous. It's a combination of several factors -

**Liked by people *at the time, including '*the cognoscent*i' - academics, musicians, other composers, people with a lot of listening experience.
* stands *the test of tim*e - liked by people a hundred and more years later, including the cognoscenti, and as a result - 
* the music becomes part of *the canon* or a valued repertoire at concerts and
* is given to new composers and musicians *to study* as a fine example, because
* it has enough there to study - there are *demonstrably good features*, such as fine orchestration, great structure, fab themes or melodies and
* an *originality* about it somehow.
*And/or a marked character or *individuality*.

And even if it has *all* these features - people will still argue the toss.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

JAS said:


> Does that person only listen to rap performed live? (A recording, once made, is also a fixed artifact.) Does that person suddenly stop listening to a favorite rap composer if he/she (the rap composer) unexpectedly gets killed by a car?


I would take that person to mean a member of a living, vital culture, not literally "alive" in a biological sense. The opposing idea would be a person partaking of the values and styles of a culture largely vanished and of no interest to most people today.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I found myself mulling a troublesome thought - that the only measure of music might be its popularity. After all, music is only heard when people want to hear it. The more who want to hear it, the more it is heard. And what is the classical "canon" except the results of an ongoing popularity contest?
> 
> Well, this is obviously impossible because we'd have to compare, say, rap music with classical and maybe even give it a higher level of esteem. That would be painful!
> 
> So, if not popularity, then what? What makes music "better," and better for whom? Is music "better" if its popularity lasts a long time? Are there other attributes of music, beyond our personal prejudices, that make music "better"? What do you think?


In a way rap music IS better then classical because it reaches a lot more people and causes a lot more joy with a lot more people then classical.

of course we lovers of classical music THINK classical music is better because we think we are experiencing something very special with all these masterpieces, composed by people who excel in skill, originality and melodic genius. But I'm sure the hip-hop fan spitting out his rhymes feels very special too.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The only thing that makes one piece of music "better" than another is a higher degree of goodness.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I would take that person to mean a member of a living, vital culture, not literally "alive" in a biological sense. The opposing idea would be a person partaking of the values and styles of a culture largely vanished and of no interest to most people today.


The present is mostly an echo of the past. To see importance _only_ in the "now" is to endure an ominous lack of perspective. It is also part of why we keep making so many of the same mistakes over and over again.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

That two people could have distinct opposite reactions to the same music is a fact of life. One man's noise could be another man's music.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Practice, practice, practice.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

But seriously though, I find the expression "better" quite ridiculous when it comes to music. I love discussion about comparing this or that composer or piece of music and even use the odd ranking now and then but that's all for fun and to know the view of other music lovers. But a statement like "this piece of music is better then that piece of music and that's a fact" is totally ridiculous.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> But seriously though, I find the expression "better" quite ridiculous when it comes to music. I love discussion about comparing this or that composer or piece of music and even use the odd ranking now and then but that's all for fun and to know the view of other music lovers. But a statement like "this piece of music is better then that piece of music and that's a fact" is totally ridiculous.


Yup. If I like chocolate and you prefer vanilla, we can appreciate and respect the other's choice and thereby add to the harmony in the universe. If, however, we feel compelled to denigrate and argue about the other's choice, we'd be fools and knaves, n'est ce pas?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

What makes music better? I'd say profound nuances, contrasting shadings, and endless subtleties -- a reflection of the entire range of human experience.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MarkW said:


> The only thing that makes one piece of music "better" than another is a higher degree of goodness.


That's a route to the same problem. Now you have to define 'goodness'. Any reading of Plato's four dialogues (five including _Meno_) on the Trial and Death of Socrates will show you this problem is both old and not easily solved.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> I presume that you are seeking an _objective_ definition of "better." Good luck with that. (You might even have trouble getting many meaningful personal, utterly subjective, criteria for "better.") Popularity works to some degree as an objective criteria, but only because the subjective opinion of other people is not my own (even if they might essentially agree).


It's only a problem word when attached to ethics or aesthetics. It loses its meaning somewhat. In a practical sense, such as: "this table is _better_ than that one at supporting the weight of the sewing machine" the word is perfectly serviceable and has a clear meaning.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

There is no objective better or worse. There are objective facts about pieces/songs however than can be broken apart and discussed, however.

What someone enjoys about a particular work may be exactly what you dislike about it and you can come to an understanding between those in discussion and move along and perhaps each person in the discussion will see something they didn't see in a music they were against.

It is personal opinion, there is no objective better or worse, art is all about connection and what you relate to is very personal and subjective.

I'd be more concerned with determining what is important to you in music, and finding your objective definition for yourself.

I take pride, great pride in my preferences in art because it is a reflection of me, but I don't going around parading, anymore, that I have the right opinion on what music is good and bad.

Society, with competitions for art, makes us think there is such thing as good and bad art. There isn't, it's all about what you relate to on a personal level.

Some people pretend to be into something for whatever reason, but that's not what art is about and those people are sad and empty on the inside imo.

End Rant.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm also not saying you can't have competitions in art, you can declare a particular set of objective measures by which to rate a work and declare a winner based on that objective criteria, but that criteria isn't the only "right" criteria, it's just what that one particular competition was looking for.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Music is better if it lasts over time with different listeners irrespective of background and artistic awareness, that it has intrinsic and powerful communication. This is simply a historical proven point. If pieces don't do that, or do so to a limited audience, then those pieces have limited value and are not better than ones that make masses of listeners culturally sensitive to fine music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> Music is better if it lasts over time with different listeners irrespective of background and artistic awareness, that it has intrinsic and powerful communication. This is simply a historical proven point. If pieces don't do that, or do so to a limited audience, then those pieces have limited value and are not better than ones that make masses of listeners culturally sensitive to fine music.


Timelessness & ability to reach a wide audience is what you are saying can be broken down to. I disagree, there are several other factors such as excellent marketing, good looks, and etc that can make music connect with a wide audience and be timeless.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Scope of the writing, and what goes into it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Timelessness & ability to reach a wide audience is what you are saying can be broken down to. I disagree, there are several other factors such as excellent marketing, good looks, and etc that can make music connect with a wide audience and be timeless.


Fair point, except that the marketing, good looks etc that you mention are very much something for the last few decades. Who knows what commercialism might be like five hundred years from now, except that the music of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven will still be around irrespective of the long, long forgotten marketing managers and maybe even singers.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm starting to discover more and more, it's music that I find to be highly unique and interesting that I love the most. Music that I feel to be eccentric is what I like the most; highly imaginative and colorful. As far as Classical goes, the likes of Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Mahler, & Sibelius come to mind.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I do really enjoy Beethoven's late SQ a lot as well.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> Fair point, except that the marketing, good looks etc that you mention are very much something for the last few decades. Who knows what commercialism might be like five hundred years from now, except that the music of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven will still be around irrespective of the long, long forgotten marketing managers and maybe even singers.


There is a "stigma" that surrounds Classical music that classifies it as being intellectually superior and for intelligent people. Typically upperclass society favors these arts, and it may be sticking around just because there is an audience for it, rather than the music being so great that it is timeless.

If there is a market for it, if there can be profit made, it will stay around.

Let's face it, the majority of those who go to Classical concerts are simply trying to fit into a culture, just like the majority of any fanbase.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I usually don't believe in objective standards for music, but in this case there is a very clear, objective answer - more cowbell.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let's face it, the majority of those who go to Classical concerts are simply trying to fit into a culture, just like the majority of any fanbase.


This would be terribly depressing if true, but I don't believe it's true, neither with respect to classical concertgoers nor to fans of most things. Few adults will for long subject themselves to experiences they don't enjoy, whether or not there is the additional motive of social acceptance, and young people who do tend to crave that acceptance don't go to classical concerts.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> This would be terribly depressing if true, but I don't believe it's true, neither with respect to classical concertgoers nor to fans of most things. Few adults will for long subject themselves to experiences they don't enjoy, whether or not there is the additional motive of social acceptance, and young people who do tend to crave that acceptance don't go to classical concerts.


There is at least truth in the statement, lets get funding for research! :lol:


----------



## Daybloom (Mar 4, 2017)

I think you just need to put the word "at" after the word "better". Basically you just need criteria. What's better, a table or a chair? Some music is better at giving pleasure to the largest number of people. Some music is better at pleasing you. Some music is better at standing the test of time and some is better at speaking to people during a specific time.

The word better alone is useless without criteria.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

*What makes music "better"?*

A good stereo system
A female companion to pass the time with
A foot massage
A back massage
Turning the music off to make the experience better


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Be honest, music isn't really that great, it's something that helps you to pass the time and put your intellectual specs on about but ultimately it doesn't matter what music it is, you're only filling your brain with what you choose, which has no merits outside of how you personally see it. Music is only notes.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

As usual, this will be more mystical that clear, but it's how what has to be said, has to be said:

It is said that legendary American Delta Blues legend Robert Johnson, at a lonely crossroads in Mississippi at midnight, sold his soul to the devil for the power to really sing and play the blues.

When composers, songwriters, performers, and audiences are willing to give their souls for the music, and believe that they have made a profit on the deal - that is when you have better music.


----------



## Daybloom (Mar 4, 2017)

ST4 said:


> Be honest, music isn't really that great, it's something that helps you to pass the time and put your intellectual specs on about but ultimately it doesn't matter what music it is, you're only filling your brain with what you choose, which has no merits outside of how you personally see it. Music is only notes.


Well when you look at it that way nothing is really that great


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

Daybloom said:


> Well when you look at it that way nothing is really that great


Well I've had my time being in awe of different composers and works, getting obsessed, passionately promoting and feeling so overwhelmingly dedicated to music that has done massive things for me. Once you spend a little time outside of your own head, you realize that there are large groups of people that absolutely hate the music that you are so passionate about and you realize that many of these people let this also let their personal thoughts of you be defined by this difference in opinion. 
After a while your musical likes starts changing and you feel different towards that music. You go through this whole cycle begins once again with this new style and/or genre and feel on top of the world with it. Then you discover a new group that hates that music and hates you for liking it. Then the whole cycle begins once again.

Chances are that something you despise and would want to rid the world of, has changed someone's life for the better and chances are it may mean a lot to them. But who cares about that right? some music is just objectively better than other music right? and people shouldn't listen to that other music because that music is just outright terrible, how could anybody love that?? I wouldn't want to associate with anyone that listens to that!


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Of course popularity counts, but doesn't really measure. I mean, _any_ CM worth recording must in a way already be hugely popular. So maybe we need to ask: is it possible that there are hidden masterpieces around? Works that has never been recorded?

So I don't believe sales can be a measure of quality, but there must be some sort of critical mass. The work must have some quality in order to raise up from obscurity to public awareness.


----------



## Daybloom (Mar 4, 2017)

Lenny said:


> Of course popularity counts, but doesn't really measure. I mean, _any_ CM worth recording must in a way already be hugely popular. So maybe we need to ask: is it possible that there are hidden masterpieces around? Works that has never been recorded?
> 
> So I don't believe sales can be a measure of quality, but there must be some sort of critical mass. The work must have some quality in order to raise up from obscurity to public awareness.


Don't sales measure the quality of marketability? This may not be a quality you're interested in, but something that sells more is better at selling than something that sells less. Things like avertising, public awareness of the product and availability have a lot to do with what sells but it's certain that some music just sells better than other music all else being equal. Some music is better at making money.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Daybloom said:


> I think you just need to put the word "at" after the word "better". Basically you just need criteria. What's better, a table or a chair? Some music is better at giving pleasure to the largest number of people. Some music is better at pleasing you. Some music is better at standing the test of time and some is better at speaking to people during a specific time.
> 
> The word better alone is useless without criteria.


Yep, I 100% agree.

And the criteria I'm looking for in my personal taste, is music that moves me emotionally, and that I find to be interesting and unique.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Also, welcome to the boards Daybloom!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> That's a route to the same problem. Now you have to define 'goodness'. Any reading of Plato's four dialogues (five including _Meno_) on the Trial and Death of Socrates will show you this problem is both old and not easily solved.


That was my point.


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

Counterpoint. and Counterpoint.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Find with pieces of music, the more I listen to the same piece, the better it becomes, especially the ones not so familiar with.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Suppose this can be done, and that in this way we can "objectively" determine that, say, Bach is the "best composer", Beethoven's 9th "the best composition", and so on. Stretching it even further, maybe this elusive group of people could distribute say one hundred famous composers over ten tiers from top to bottom, and the same with compositions. Now what? What is an individual listener going to do with this? For guidance, a beginner can already look at oodles of lists generated at TC alone, and these lists will most likely not differ substantially from the ultimate experts list. An experienced listener who does not like composer A or composition B after many tries will not magically start liking them because of "the list".


I never said (and didn't think I implied) that I support any of the above.

I don't think anyone should bow down to the consensus, because ultimately I think it's all down to subjective perception, but the fact is that a consensus exists. But *it's not rigidly defined!* We can all accept there's a "canon" but to actually pin down what that canon is is impossible. And even if we _could_, you're right, that doesn't affect how you or I will react to any given composition.

I see the TC lists, my composer polls and so on, as more like an actuarial table: if Beethoven tops the list, then this means that for a _random_ listener he has the highest probability of being enjoyable.

And realistically there isn't _one_ impossible-to-define canon; there are multiple impossible-to-define canons! There's the vague canon accepted by "experienced listeners" (which itself is a vague group!), a vague canon accepted by "Classic FM listeners", a vague canon accepted by people whose preferences tend toward modern music, and we all individually have our own vague canon in our heads...

tl;dr: My basic point of this and the previous post is simply that it _is_ all subjective and down to personal taste, but there's enough overlap in our personal tastes that we end up with some sort of generalised consensus about what's "better".


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2017)

In an old thread, the concept of 'greatness' prompted me to offer a rudimentary set of criteria. Arguably, these could be used to consider whether one piece is 'better' than another:


Form follows function - complexity or simplicity, whichever is appropriate. 
It has a demonstrable capacity to carry meaning _to _the listener - and carry meaning _for _the listener. 
Such meaning and appeal that it has is carried beyond the age in which it was produced. 
It contains an element of innovation, or at least reinvention 
 http://www.talkclassical.com/showthread.php?t=21728&p=365627&viewfull=1#post365627

Each of these requires further explanation - and exemplification would help - but we'd all recognise that _if _Beethoven and Mozart are deemed 'better' than Czerny and Hummel (and AFAIK, they are) then these criteria might help the critical analysis.


----------



## Kajmanen (Jun 30, 2017)

Someone sets the standard and from there on it is. Today melodies are boring. Majority of the greats has good melody.



> The true goal of music-its proper enterprise-is melody. All the parts of harmony have as their ultimate purpose only beautiful melody. Therefore, the question of which is the more significant, melody or harmony, is futile. Beyond doubt, the means is subordinate to the end.
> - Johann Philipp Kirnberger (1771)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Kajmanen said:


> Someone sets the standard and from there on it is. Today melodies are boring. Majority of the greats has good melody.


But "the standard" is always changing. Otherwise we'd all still be listening to plainchant (or whatever came before _that_).


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2017)

> The true goal of music-its proper enterprise-is melody


True music may have many goals.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> but we'd all recognise that _if _Beethoven and Mozart are deemed 'better' than Czerny and Hummel (and AFAIK, they are) then these criteria might help the critical analysis.


But if the conclusion is already in place, surely the analysis becomes a tautology? If, as stated above, we already believe that Beethoven and Mozart and better than Czerny and Hummel, will there be any doubt what the analysis will reveal? I've told this story before, but many years ago I attended a talk by a music theorist who purported to demonstrate--with a Schenker graph, no less--that some Brahms melody was aesthetically superior to a similar one by Josef Rheinberger. I couldn't help but think that the "conclusion" of this demonstration was in fact a premise, and sure enough during the Q&A someone in the audience expressed her suspicion that had the authorship of the two melodies been reversed, the conclusion would not have changed. Amazingly, the theorist unabashedly conceded that this was probably true.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2017)

Eschbeg said:


> But if the conclusion is already in place, surely the analysis becomes a tautology? If, as stated above, we already believe that Beethoven and Mozart and better than Czerny and Hummel, will there be any doubt what the analysis will reveal? .


Well, yes, if...but I italicized my 'if' to stress that this was a hypothesis and here were some possible criteria with which to test it. Do not be distracted by my aside that was merely meant to show that my hypothesis was likely to be a reasonable one.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> As I keep saying, musical greatness ultimately boils down to popularity _*among the right people*_.


Now that's a slippery slope...


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Kajmanen said:


> Someone sets the standard and from there on it is. Today melodies are boring. Majority of the greats has good melody.


In my opinion the greatest melodists were without doubt Dvorak and Tchaikovsky. Yet they pale before Beethoven (who in comparison is a poor melodist), Mahler and Shostakovich whose music is largely unwhistleable.


----------



## Kajmanen (Jun 30, 2017)

Tallisman said:


> In my opinion the greatest melodists were without doubt Dvorak and Tchaikovsky. Yet they pale before Beethoven (who in comparison is a poor melodist), Mahler and Shostakovich whose music is largely unwhistleable.


Beethoven is about melody anyways and mahler is overrated. They dont pale, they are different.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Tallisman said:


> In my opinion the greatest melodists were without doubt Dvorak and Tchaikovsky. Yet they pale before Beethoven (who in comparison is a poor melodist), Mahler and Shostakovich whose music is largely unwhistleable.


Where does Schubert fit in there? Great melodist, doesn't pale before any composer.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

We have been down this path many times and my answer is still the same.

I am the a member of the if you like it listen to it; if you do not, don't, crowd. From looking at the above posts it appears most of us feel this way.

If you like it whether or not it is great is irrelevant.

Members should not have to answer this question. This music is not great. Why are you listening to it?

I do not like Xenakis. Members who like Xenakis do not owe me an explanation why.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

What makes music "better".

Its really simple. Better people like better music. 

Didn't know it was that simple, didja.


----------



## Kajmanen (Jun 30, 2017)

arpeggio said:


> We have been down this path many times and my answer is still the same.
> 
> I am the a member of the if you like it listen to it; if you do not, don't, crowd. From looking at the above posts it appears most of us feel this way.
> 
> ...


Listening to alot of music makes you immune against certain things. And everybody knows theres a difference between naturally _feeling_ music vs intellectually evaluate it. People who are proposing they're lovers of music isnt always that, they're addicts. Seeking something different all the time. Ive been through this myself. So listening to whats "better" according to "serious" music listeners is sort of deluded as they always evalute everything intellectually. Sort of hipster.

So its all about being a balanced listener.

A good melody lasts forever. Who cares if its overplayed or boring for you.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Kajmanen said:


> Listening to alot of music makes you immune against certain things. And everybody knows theres a difference between naturally _feeling_ music vs intellectually evaluate it. People who are proposing they're lovers of music isnt always that, they're addicts. Seeking something different all the time. Ive been through this myself. So listening to whats "better" according to "serious" music listeners is sort of deluded as they always evalute everything intellectually. Sort of hipster.
> 
> So its all about being a balanced listener.
> 
> A good melody lasts forever. Who cares if its overplayed or boring for you.


I don't really recognise this. I've heard a ton of jazz from the '50s, to the point where it ought now to be boring to me and not enough to feed my 'addiction', according to your thesis. That's not what happens though. I just like jazz from the '50s and I'm not constantly intellectually evaluating it as I listen either. Though I may be paying attention to harmonies and noticing interpretations, which is part of the normal listening process. Hipster? That word is meaningless with regard to this.

I don't know what you mean by a 'balanced listener'. Is a person with eclectic tastes not balanced? Is a person who always goes back to evergreens balanced?

Good melodies go in and out of consciousness. Vivaldi's melodies disappeared for a while and would have been lost to time if they hadn't been written down. The suggestion that a good melody alone is a guarantee of quality or longevity is patently false.


----------



## Kajmanen (Jun 30, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> But "the standard" is always changing. Otherwise we'd all still be listening to plainchant (or whatever came before _that_).


Is it always changing?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Kajmanen said:


> Is it always changing?


What makes you think it isn't?

To my ears, Pérotin, Josquin, Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky and Reich (to pick some examples of composers whose music has set a standard) sound quite dissimilar to each other. But perhaps you hear differently.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> It's only a problem word when attached to ethics or aesthetics. It loses its meaning somewhat. In a practical sense, such as: "this table is _better_ than that one at *supporting the weight of the sewing machine*" the word is perfectly serviceable and has a clear meaning.


But still, if one table is clearly more stable and the other wil fall apart in 5 days but the more stable table has no character at all, has a sterile feel and makes the sewer feel uncomfortable and unhappy.

THEN WHAT?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Razumovskymas said:


> But still, if one table is clearly more stable and the other wil fall apart in 5 days but the more stable table has no character at all, has a sterile feel and makes the sewer feel uncomfortable and unhappy.
> 
> THEN WHAT?


Then one fails at being sturdy and reliable and the other fails at being aesthetically pleasing. You can buy neither and look for a different option, purchase the less sturdy one as a showcase piece and never use it as a table, or buy the sturdy one and use it for the purpose of being a table.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Then one fails at being sturdy and reliable and the other fails at being aesthetically pleasing. You can buy neither and look for a different option, purchase the less sturdy one as a showcase piece and never use it as a table, or buy the sturdy one and use it for the purpose of being a table.


I'll try to follow that advice when listening to music 

What I was saying is that "better" is actually always personal preference, even when it comes to tables.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Razumovskymas said:


> But still, if one table is clearly more stable and the other wil fall apart in 5 days but the more stable table has no character at all, has a sterile feel and makes the sewer feel uncomfortable and unhappy.
> 
> THEN WHAT?


You are mixing the two ideas together. The latter is the example of the word used and having meaning in a practical way. Once aesthetics is brought into it, that is where the problem starts.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Kajmanen said:


> Listening to alot of music makes you immune against certain things. And everybody knows theres a difference between naturally _feeling_ music vs intellectually evaluate it. People who are proposing they're lovers of music isnt always that, they're addicts. Seeking something different all the time. Ive been through this myself. So listening to whats "better" according to "serious" music listeners is sort of deluded as they always evalute everything intellectually. Sort of hipster.


Problem with this is that you are here making very strong statement about what's happening inside someone's head. And you are making "hipster" even more confusing 

I oppose a definition of "music lover" you present here.

For me personally, music is very similar to books. I don't stick with the Bible only - I read lots of things, always seeking new knowledge. It's the same with music. I also (very proudly!) admit there's a component of addiction in this. Power of addiction is so underestimated.

I don't even pretend to claim this is a definition of true music lover. I have no idea what's going in your heads. I don't even know myself.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2017)

KenOC said:


> I found myself mulling a troublesome thought - that the only measure of music might be its popularity.


Why 'troublesome'? What's wrong with 'popularity'? Nereffid talks about 'the right people' and he risks the ire of those who think he argues for elitism or exclusivity. I think what he means is that among those for whom such things matter, Mozart is popular because over time, those people for whom such things matter have recognised in his music what they regard as excellence. Precisely the same thing can be said about others who are popular in their field of endeavour.

The problem comes when those for whom such things matter enter the fray and try to insist on cross-genre and objective excellence, weighing the implied excellence of Mozart (implied because he's popular) against the implied excellence of The Beatles (popular among those for whom pop music matters) and Schoenberg (popular among those for whom 12-tone music matters).


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Kajmanen said:


> Beethoven is about melody anyways and mahler is overrated. They dont pale, they are different.


Please tell me the New World Symphony is just 'different but equal' to Das Lied von der Erde.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> The suggestion that a good melody alone is a guarantee of quality or longevity is patently false.


Amen............


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

What makes music better?

1) Watching / Listening to it live
2) Being able to turn up the volume to 'feel' it
3) Having a sound system that sounds great when you turn it up
4) Not having an **** of a neighbour who bangs on the wall if the volume on the stereo goes past 3.
5) Constantly finding new recordings / artists
6) Having sex at the same time
7) Drugs
8) Gin / Cider


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Why 'troublesome'? What's wrong with 'popularity'? Nereffid talks about 'the right people' and he risks the ire of those who think he argues for elitism or exclusivity. I think what he means is that among those for whom such things matter, Mozart is popular because over time, those people for whom such things matter have recognised in his music what they regard as excellence. Precisely the same thing can be said about others who are popular in their field of endeavour.


Just to clarify: you're right, my "the right people" isn't intended as an argument for elitism. But I do occasionally use the term sarcastically to refer to self-appointed elites (of whatever stripe they may be).

ETA: Such self-appointed elites may be, for example, those who dismiss an Einaudi because he is liked only by "the masses", or those who dismiss a Cage because he is disliked by "audiences".


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Merl said:


> What makes music better?
> 
> 1) Watching / Listening to it live
> 2) Being able to turn up the volume to 'feel' it
> ...


I like this. Yes.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

What makes a piece better, for me, is when there are more than a few ways to appreciate it. So a piece of music of the better sort could at different times:

be playful, by say establishing expectations and then resolving things in a different way. 

be interestingly constructed, say taking advantage of various ambiguities to move in surprising but logical directions.

tell a story, have a compelling musical narrative.

be beautiful, capable of being appreciated just on that surface aesthetic level.

be moving, capable of being followed and appreciated emotionally.


The point is that the better music is able to do many or all of these things. The lesser music (IMO) can only be appreciated in one way. It might be great in that way - emotional, or beautiful, but that's it. Nothing more to it. Its too simple. It only appeals on one level.

That is my take anyway.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

In other words, a piece of music has to do more than set a mood or take me on an emotional journey. That's nice and all, and even if its done well. But it has to have some of these other compelling aspects.

If every time I listen to it, it puts me in that mood, and that's all it does, well I might like it, but I would not consider great.

As an example, Satie's Gymnopedia No. 1 is really amazing at evoking that lonely guy looking out the window at the rain type feeling, the mood that requires a brandy. But so far that is all it does for me, that is the only way it engages me.

I need more, for music to be of sustaining interest to me.

But boy, when I need to put on some lonely guy brandy music, that is my go to piece.

(I am open to the possibility that there is more to hear in this piece than I am hearing, and those of you who know, please let me know.)

Compare for example to Beethoven Piano Sonata 14, which to me can never be over played. It sets a mood sure, a similar mood maybe to the Satie, but more complex. And there is an emotional journey, an emotional story. It takes you from here to there. Then on the level of the music itself, the way it is constructed, the chord families it moves through is its own kind of narrative. And then there is the rhythm contrasts, the firm arpeggios marching along and the main theme, that so powerfully starts on an up pulse. And how the main theme is so damned simple, but takes on many different feelings, depending on what Mr. Arpeggio does. And towards the end, where the Mr. Arpeggio can no longer remain in the background and wrests control from Mr. Main Theme. But then gives it back and does arpeggios again. So cool.

Just a lot whole lot going on. Rewards me anew with every listening.

My goal is to get enough musical understanding to really be able to knowledgeably talk about what is going on. But I know its there. Its so much more than merely lovely music.

That to me is what "better" means.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Music is better when it speaks to you more directly and causes you to take attention and listen repeatedly. If you hear it once and never care to hear it again, how good can it be?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Personal perceptions on the quality of the music make or break it, that is all.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

What makes better music? Better conductors, musicians and soloists. They need to be slimmer, stronger, sexier, smarter, better trained, better dressed, better fed, better conditioned, prettier, more handsome and attractive. Everybody should either look like Ryan Gosling or Emma Stone to put the music over. It's the only way... or all is lost.

New motto: "It's not over until the slim lady sings."
:tiphat:


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

A glass of an Islay single malt

The time to listen.

No music is "better" than any other.
It is your personal perception.

It is not an objective measure

Now where did I put my copy of "Ernie the fastest milkman in the west"


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

The question to think about - 

Is there any music that you simultaneously -

1 do not think is very good
2 enjoy listening to

or v.v. better music that you do not enjoy listening to.

I have many. I cannot say that if I enjoy it, its better. I know this isn't true. I have simple tastes sometimes, and finite patience sometimes.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Of course some music is richer and has more potential to convey different emotions, aesthetic effects and ideas than other music. One could perhaps say that popularity minus accessibility equals quality.


----------



## georgedelorean (Aug 18, 2017)

Interesting question. As far as the creative arts are concerned, I find music to be more lofty because of how abstract it is. The fact that music makes the intangible almost tangible without actually reaching tangibility is a fine line that no other art form seems to be able to tread so finely as music can and does. This is not to demean or diminish other art forms or artists as they too contribute to society and mankind. However music is an art which, sheet music aside, completely lacks anything concrete. It also takes time to experience in full. A person can only look at a painting before moving on. One has to wait for music to finish before a piece can actually be experienced, even then, often with repeated listening for things which were missed initially. A sculpture, much like a painting, is just there and is otherwise static. Music on the other hand pulses, beats, morphs, engages, and in my view is the most complex art form in existence. In that vein, I'd find that's what makes it above any other type of art.


----------

