# What makes a Composition qualify as Good?



## Daryl (Jun 5, 2011)

Hey!

I've just finished a Degree in Music (Performance) and I'm becoming more and more keen on composition. I want to dabble in some Orchestration but there's always this one question that bugs me... It's not limited to Classical music but I choose to put it on this forum because I know listeners of classical music tend to be more open minded about their views and more intellectual than your average... I don't know, Rap fan is.

My question is, _What makes a Composition qualify as good?_

Basically, I was doing some small browsing on Mozart when I found this forum and a poll asking people whether they thought Mozart was either a "God" or just "Garbage". It was interesting to me because I envy the fact that Mozart was composing at such a young age however, it sparked up this question I used to think of a long time ago...

Sure, Mozart wrote 600+ pieces in his lifetime but, apart from his early up-bringing and the sheer quantity of his work, what qualifies his music to be labelled as positively as it has been?

It's hard to explain. What I mean is, what makes you think a particular composition is good? And, in the sake of Mozart, what was it that labelled him (and others) as Musical geniuses as opposed to someone who just sat down and wrote a lot of music?!

I guess what I'm asking is for someone to explode with a massive explanation of their passion for their favourite pieces, I don't know.

Forgive my ignorance and please don't attack me with "MOZART IS A GENIUS HOW DAAAAAARE YOU!" because I'm not saying he is and I'm not saying he isn't. I'm looking for unbiased views and I'm only using Mozart as an example to get my point across!

Cheers guys! I really look forward to reading your replies!

Daryl


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

You know, I've pondered over this many times...especially because I should be a songwriter but I mostly compose piano music...the lyrics just get jumbled up and I find it hard to sing my thoughts so I always work with a lyricist...anyway, back to the point...I'm not gonna get into any composer or anything like that...the question was about what makes a composition 'good' and really, I think we all know that inside...it's very difficult to write down something that is more of a feeling...there are great symphonies as there are catchy jingles for a commercial; both of which can be great compositions, simply for different reasons...in the end, perhaps the best thing you can ever want of a composition...despite all technique and difficulty and style...the most you can really want for it is for it to be remembered and hummed or sung by people you do not know at all...those, I feel are the best compositions but all the millions that go unheard are likewise good or great, they just sadly go unnoticed...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I believe that a composition can be defined as good if it is written by me. 

I'm not so sure that it's good to get bogged down in technicalities when it comes to assessing whether or not a piece of music is good. Is it not sufficient to say that a composition is good if it achieves what its writer wished for it to achieve? That could be to conjure certain emotions; to evoke an atmosphere or story; or even just to bend established forms in an interesting way.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Deems Taylor said something like that when he wrote about listening to Modern music, but I thought it will fit here:
Before you disqualify a piece when listening to it, see if there's anything that you can spot as a unique saying for that specific composer that anyone other said before, and if so, listen to it a couple of more times, and see if you're getting along with it.

So I think that an important parameter is the uniqueness of the music (it doesnt have to be avant garde to be different than anyone else, Bach wrote like anyone other, for example).


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2011)

Since "good" is not a description but a value judgement, what it takes is someone liking it. That's all.

I would think that a composer would be less interested in whether something was deemed good or not than in whether the the thing sounded as cool in reality as it did when the idea was being worked out on paper (or in the studio).

"Is it good?" is a consumer kind of question, I'm thinking. Composers are asking other questions. "Can it be played?" "Do these two (or three or two hundred) instruments sound good playing together?" "Will the tuba part be audible over all the other brass playing triple forte?" Stuff like that.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 5, 2011)

Thanks for the replies.

What I mean by "Good" is what makes people decide that one thing can be rated higher than another. What determines that one piece is a Composer's "Best Work" over his/her rest?

I agree with what Polednice says:

_ Is it not sufficient to say that a composition is good if it achieves what its writer wished for it to achieve? That could be to conjure certain emotions; to evoke an atmosphere or story; or even just to bend established forms in an interesting way._

However, at the same time, it frustrates me because this way of thinking basically makes it sound like composers, such as Mozart, weren't Geniuses (ignoring his early start) but merely lucky that they were in a situation to have their music heard.

I don't know if that makes sense.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

some guy said:


> Since "good" is not a description but a value judgement, what it takes is someone liking it. That's all.
> 
> I would think that a composer would be less interested in whether something was deemed good or not than in whether the the thing sounded as cool in reality as it did when the idea was being worked out on paper (or in the studio). [...]


Yep, 'good' is a value _judgment_. Also, the judgment isn't 'engraved in stone'. For an example that isn't Beethoven's 'Eroica' - look at Cesar Franck's symphony. After its premiere, the composer's contemporaries in the trade panned it severely (Franck was quoted re the performance that it sounded just as he hoped it would). My personal enthusiasm aside, the work has been performed - and recorded - pretty damn frequently over the years.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 5, 2011)

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Good" lol. I don't mean "What makes a piece positively accepted" because that's just down to preference. What I mean, is what makes one, or multiple people declare a piece as exceptional.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Daryl said:


> Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "Good" lol. I don't mean "What makes a piece positively accepted" because that's just down to preference. What I mean, is what makes one, or multiple people declare a piece as exceptional.


_Exceptional?_ Nah, that isn't what you mean.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

One of my music history professors talked about some guy (sorry, I can't remember any more about his identity than that, and it's going to frustrate me) who was influential because he set forth a method for judging the quality of a piece of music based on three criteria--cohesion, variety and intensity (these may not have been the exact words, but they are at least synonyms, because I remember that these were the three concepts). She thought that judging works this way was a ridiculous idea because all these criteria are subjective. For my part, I would not venture to assign absolute value to music by these (or any other) standards, but I think they do reveal something about what music gets held up as particularly special. The composers who regularly top "greatest" lists are often ones whose works are viewed by many people as expertly combining cohesion, variety, and intensity. But these values should be viewed in historical context. What's "good" varies across time and space. In the Classical period, for example, cohesion was of greater importance than intensity; emotional expression was not to come at the expense of clear form.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

I think the concept of objective and quantifiable artistic quality is a load, but hierarchizing, analyzing and detecting patterns are basic human impulses. As long as we exist we'll engage in these little pissing contests of "greatness", unknowingly or not.

So not much, really, but we try our damnedest to believe otherwise.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

And we also have to remember that the classical music "canon" is a 19th century invention and it was during the 19th century that people were deciding what works from earlier eras should be performed by contemporary orchestras. Much of the "standard rep" became standard during this time, and I think as a result, many of the most frequently cited ideas about what makes music good owe a lot to 19th century artistic ideals.


----------



## beethovenian (May 2, 2011)

The topic of music preference is highly subjective, There is no absolute value in art. It all depends on the individual and how his/her mind is 'wired' to like or dislike a thing. For Mozart, music came to him effortlessly because that particular 'musical' faculty of his mind is so well refined. But I doubt Mozart himself(no offense to the man) can answer your question in a convincing manner regarding how this very mysterious faculty of his mind functions. How the mind appreciate Art is still widely debated, but is universally true that our mind has ability to process and respond to Art. How does it do it, no idea, but i remain optimistic that we shall discover it someday.

I think such a question should be left to the musicologist, philosopher and psychologist. The areas of aesthetics and value in philosophy should provide insights as to what make a particular work of art appeals to the brain.


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

My friend, in the sweet time of youth,
when from mighty impulse
to blissful first love
the breast swells high and free,
to sing a beautiful song
many have succeeded:
the spring sang for them.
But when summer, autumn and winter come,
much hardship and care in life,
much married joy as well,
baptism, business, discord and strife:
whoever then can still succeeded
in singing a beautiful song:
Behold! He is called Master!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Daryl said:


> Hey!
> 
> My question is, _What makes a Composition qualify as good?_


Easy. Very often but not always, a piece is damn good if it consistently transcends time and all cultures. Haydn's oratorio _The Creation_ can safely be considered "good" by almost anyone who seem to spend some time listening to it find it satisfying on many levels (as fellow members Aramis, Andre have recently experienced). On the other hand, John Cage's _4'33"_ is extremely unlikely to pass this criteria, as many deem it "not good" given it's fairly short history.

This works. Call me a simpleton.


----------



## petrarch (Apr 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> This works. Call me a simpleton.


It is also a fallacy (argument of authority). I don't care what "many" think; if that was the case then Justin Bieber would be the next Beethoven.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

petrarch said:


> It is also a fallacy (argument of authority). I don't care what "many" think; if that was the case then Justin Bieber would be the next Beethoven.


I've mentioned the point before. You forgot the time criteria. Although we won't be around to tell, I can say Justin Bieber is unlikely to reach the level of relevance two hundred years from now, while LvB will probably still remain.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Then considering the time criteria, by this logic Ayn Rand would be serious philosophy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Then considering the time criteria, by this logic Ayn Rand would be serious philosophy.


You think Ms. Rand wasn't serious?


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2011)

That whole "time" thing is not what it's cracked up to be.* 

Sure, as time passes, we get more and more used to what used to bewilder us. But so what? Seems to me that the "time" argument is simply a way to categorically reject the present in favor of an illusory past that never existed and that now exists only by virtue of nostalgic people looking back in time and seeing something far better than what they see in the present. One might call this the Norman Rockwell theory of quality!!

And that idea lumps everyone together in a group. We and us. For individuals, it's different. Or it can be different.

Time (!) to play the Robert Frost card, again:

"It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."

Y'all can make the transition from "poem" to "piece of music" all right, can't you? And from "reader" to "listener." (Ya never know. There could be some people struggiing with that. I don't want to leave them out!)

*And look how HC can equivocate it: "Although we won't be around to tell, I can say Justin Bieber is unlikely to reach the level of relevance two hundred years from now, while LvB will probably still remain." No, you can't say that. At least not as an illustration of the "time criteria," because that's not what you're using in this case. You're predicting a future you will never be able to experience yourself on the basis of what you know--what you believe--right now. You're using some other criteria but attributing your conclusion to the time criteria.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You think Ms. Rand wasn't serious?


You misunderstand me. "Serious" as in logically sound and not batshit insane.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Original, unpredictable, and not too many auditory challenges.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

*(with the Italian significance)*



some guy said:


> [...]
> Y'all can make the transition from "poem" to "piece of music" all right, can't you? And from "reader" to "listener." (Ya never know. There could be some people struggiing with that. I don't want to leave them out!)
> [...]


The emoticon in the title isn't available for the body of the post; too bad.

:devil:


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

some guy said:


> "It is absurd to think that the only way to tell if a poem is lasting is to wait and see if it lasts. The right reader of a good poem can tell the moment it strikes him that he has taken an immortal wound, that he will never get over it. That is to say, permanence in poetry as in love is perceived instantly. It has not to wait the test of time. The proof of a poem is not that we have never forgotten it, but that we knew at sight that we never could forget it. There was a barb to it and a toxin that we owned to at once."


I like that Robert Frost quote (which seems to crop up in all sorts of places) very much, even though it's not always true. Not every work of art, or even every person, I've come to love gave me an "immortal wound" on the first blow. Lasting art (whether poetry or music) often does not reveal all its secrets on first acquaintance.

Which makes me think of another item with which to answer the OP--most of the compositions I love best (whether or not popular opinion considers them "good") are ones that continue to be new with repeated listening. There isn't really a way for me to describe this objectively so a composer could imitate it, but I like music that means something different to me now than it did a couple years ago, or that I didn't really like the first time I heard it, but it interested me in some way and after listening some more I realized I loved it. I was creeped out the first time I listened to George Crumb's _Ancient Voices of Children_, but also intrigued, and now I consider it beautiful, and probably will for a long time, thanks in part to the attention and _care_ I put into getting to know it. Pieces I like on first hearing, by contrast, tend to tire themselves out for me very quickly.

So I think the "test of time" is a useful measure for the value of a piece _to an individual_. At least for me. And I am not talking about historical time. I'm not talking about whether people remember a piece many years after it was first composed. If a person remembers a piece many years after they first heard it, it's a good piece for them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2011)

Meaghan, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Frost would not have any quarrel with this*:



Meaghan said:


> I think the 'test of time' is a useful measure for the value of a piece _to an individual_. At least for me. And I am not talking about historical time. I'm not talking about whether people remember a piece many years after it was first composed. If a person remembers a piece many years after they first heard it, it's a good piece for them.


I know that I do not. I think that this is spot on.

*I don't think Mr. Frost was trying to substitute his scenario for the "test of time" criterion. (Yes, -on is the singular, not -a. HC may have an excuse for using the plural ending while intending a singular meaning. I do not. And I'm filled with shame!) Mr. Frost isn't around to elucidate, but it seems to me that his qualifiers, "right" and "good" and his use of "can" (which indicates possibility only) instead of "will" (which indicates certainty), suggest that he's simply undermining time as a criterion, not providing a substitute for it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> And look how HC can equivocate it: "Although we won't be around to tell, I can say Justin Bieber is unlikely to reach the level of relevance two hundred years from now, while LvB will probably still remain." No, you can't say that. At least not as an illustration of the "time criteria," because that's not what you're using in this case. You're predicting a future you will never be able to experience yourself on the basis of what you know--what you believe--right now. You're using some other criteria but attributing your conclusion to the time criteria.


I'm not going into a semantics and philosophical argument again. I think my point is pretty clear to a casual reader. Referring to Justin Bieber with Beethoven is an amateur analogy. An astute readers knows exactly what I'm referring to and the Haydn example I gave.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Meaghan said:


> So I think the "test of time" is a useful measure for the value of a piece _to an individual_. At least for me. And I am not talking about historical time. I'm not talking about whether people remember a piece many years after it was first composed. If a person remembers a piece many years after they first heard it, it's a good piece for them.


Agree.

Test of time is useful, I agree. As I wrote above, it often *but not always *works. Classical music heritage almost by definition pretty much proves the usefulness of the time criteria.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Interesting discussion...



some guy said:


> Since "good" is not a description but a value judgement, what it takes is someone liking it. That's all.


This is correct.



some guy said:


> I would think that a composer would be less interested in whether something was deemed good or not than in whether the the thing sounded as cool in reality as it did when the idea was being worked out on paper (or in the studio).


So... You're saying that composers aren't concerned with creating a 'good' composition? That they don't really ever care if people like it? Really? That is false. The entire reason most composers try to work within accepted conventions (to one extent or another) is so that they can reasonably expect that a certain audience will react favorably to it. I am aware of several successful 20th century composers who are exceptions to the rule, but they tend to be few and far between.



some guy said:


> Sure, as time passes, we get more and more used to what used to bewilder us. But so what? Seems to me that the "time" argument is simply a way to categorically reject the present in favor of an illusory past that never existed and that now exists only by virtue of nostalgic people looking back in time and seeing something far better than what they see in the present. One might call this the Norman Rockwell theory of quality!!


No. Again, it all comes down to whether people enjoy it or not, whether it's the day of the premiere or 400 years after. This is where the 'new' factor comes in: sometimes certain types of music gain an additional bonus of popularity simply because they are 'new' and because it is socially trendy to like new things. This especially applies to pop music, but also to any newly premiered piece of art music. When something is new, it will almost always be more popular than something written several years beforehand.

When a piece is looked upon favorably many years after its composition, the 'new' factor no longer applies, so all that remains is the music itself. If a piece is still enjoyed and loved by many hundreds of years after its composition, like _The Creation_, it is safe to say that it is a very good piece indeed. Somehow I doubt that people will be enjoying Justin Bieber very much in 100 years.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> So... You're saying that composers aren't concerned with creating a 'good' composition? That they don't really ever care if people like it?


No, I am not saying that. Composers want to do good work, like any other artist. And they like being liked, like any other person. What I said was that they are probably less interested in whether something is "good" than if it sounds like they want it to sound. (Or sounds cool in spite of their wants, as it may be.) Less interested does not mean not interested.



Ravellian said:


> _t all comes down to whether people enjoy it or not, whether it's the day of the premiere or 400 years after._


_Yes, but it's easier to enjoy something, for most people, if it's familiar than if it's not. That's my only point.



Ravellian said:



This is where the 'new' factor comes in: sometimes certain types of music gain an additional bonus of popularity simply because they are 'new' and because it is socially trendy to like new things.

Click to expand...

I hear this argument a lot. I don't believe it. Or I believe that it may happen this way, but much less frequently than is ever claimed for it. So infrequently as to practically not exist. At least not for art music. For pop, may be. There, this probably does happen more often.

As for Mr. Harpsichord, your evasions are getting less and less convincing. Maybe I'm just more on to you than at first. Maybe you're just not trying any more. Whatever the case, your point IS a philosophical point. And you made it with words. So I don't know how you can avoid semantics and philosophy in any discussion of your point. You tried to apply the test of time to the future. I say it can't be done. So explain, please, how your Bieber/Beethoven analogy is anything but another evasion?

I agree, by the way, that Bieber is unlikely to ever last as long as Beethoven has. But that's only a guess. And, what's more, it's a guess based on other criteria than the time criterion. Which, since we won't be around for two hundred years (or even Ravellian's one hundred), we cannot apply the time criterion to Bieber. It must be some other criterion, which was my only point about HC's original evasion. Why, that wasn't philosophical at all, just logical!!

Anyway, just generally, Ravellian is quite correct that it all comes down to enjoyment now, whatever the date of the piece being enjoyed._


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> As for Mr. Harpsichord, your evasions are getting less and less convincing. Maybe I'm just more on to you than at first. Maybe you're just not trying any more. Whatever the case, your point IS a philosophical point. And you made it with words. So I don't know how you can avoid semantics and philosophy in any discussion of your point. You tried to apply the test of time to the future. I say it can't be done. So explain, please, how your Bieber/Beethoven analogy is anything but another evasion?


I'll respond to your quote by quoting member Ravellian's quote below. Member Ravellian was perfectly clear on what I was on about. Not sure why you appear evasive in your comprehension. (Actually, I do know why but I won't spell it out in public). Enjoy your words and poking fun at my comments. Look forward to the next thread when "good", and especially the ultra modern genre, are once again brought up. Meanwhile, I'm off to a dose of good music by Haydn.



Ravellian said:


> When a piece is looked upon favorably many years after its composition, the 'new' factor no longer applies, so all that remains is the music itself. If a piece is still enjoyed and loved by many hundreds of years after its composition, like _The Creation_, it is safe to say that it is a very good piece indeed. Somehow I doubt that people will be enjoying Justin Bieber very much in 100 years.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

*Here's an answer.*

Go here http://www.john-winsor.com/

Click on 'Read my book'

I have no connection with the book other than I read it cover to cover and found it to be brilliant. ( I actually bought it as I prefer a hard copy) It makes the case that it _is_ possible to achieve an objective view on music as good or bad.

It is really talking about 'classical' music which he defines as 'mainstream literary music'.

he also defines music itself as ' the use of sound to represent biological rhythm' which is the best definition I've come across. Again, don't pooh pooh it until you have read and understood what he means.

It has some challenging ideas that at first seem easy to reject out of hand but please don't dismiss them until you have digested and _thought_ about them.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> [...] he also defines music itself as ' the use of sound to represent biological rhythm'[...]


But then, John Cage's 4'33" would be representing the biological rhythm… of the dead? Well, makes perfect sense!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

To me, waiting to see if people are still talking about a piece years later to decide that it's great is just as bad as listening to what everyone else is listening to because it is the cool thing to do. 

For example, I know a really great composer who is a teacher at Juliard named Daniel Ott. He wrote a piece that I really like called Camera Obscura for oboe quartet. So do I think this piece will be popular or well known 200 years later? No, unfortunately probably not. Do I think it is a great piece? Ya! I do. 

On the reversal, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik I would say has definitely stood some sort of test of time and is one of the most popular pieces of classical music. However, at least to my ears, despite its popularity status the piece is on a level far below some of Mozart's other (sometimes lesser known) masterpieces.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2011)

Well, it's certainly a bad sign if you start off by evaluating your own argument before you have even presented it. (Probably not an altogether good thing to evaluate it at all, yourself.) I read Winsor saying that his argument is "sturdy," and I immediately think, "it's probably pretty rickety."

Otherwise, it's a useful exercise to examine a conclusion's premises, of course. But it's also useful, sometimes even more useful, to examine the unspoken (and perhaps unconscious) assumptions that precede even the premises. In Winsor's case, the most obvious is that "objective" is good and "subjective" is bad. Perhaps that oversimplifies things. Say then that for Winsor, as for many people writing and thinking in a post-empirical world, "objective" is a positive thing and much to be coveted, while "subjective" is at best a weak and fuzzy kind of thing, certainly not "sturdy"!!

And so, this:

"Part of the problem in dealing with musical aesthetics is that it is generally approached from a subjective standpoint; aestheticians and critics simply tell us how particular pieces of music make them feel. The proper answer lies, however, in music as object — independent of any particular individual's response to it, so much of this book will be devoted to the process of weighing and measuring the efficacy of different musical techniques relative to certain universal features of human cognition. If a particular piece of music can objectively be called superior, then the factors that make it superior must be inherent in the piece itself — regardless of a specific listener's response. That is, a composer can objectively apply certain universal principles of craft with the expectation of eliciting fairly specific subjective responses among unimpaired listeners."

Now, if you take "subjective" and "objective" to be descriptors (rather than identifiers of quality, as Winsor does--there's irony for ya!!), then of course "aesthetics" is exactly the kind of place where the subjective is appropriate. Objective, um, not so much. Because aesthetics is about individuals' responses. Music "independent of any particular individual's response to it" is not the purview of aesthetics. Aesthetics is about the relationship, about what happens when these vibrations strike these eardrums (making them vibrate in turn) that are connected to this brain. This mind, I suppose I should say. Everything that goes into making up the particular person doing the listening.

I'm pretty sure, just by the way, that "music independent of any particular individual's response to it" is not even possible. Music is what happens when a person listens to sounds. It's not the sounds alone. It's not the person alone. It's both of them together, in a relationship. So, in a way, I am saying that "aestheticians and critics simply tell us how particular pieces of music make them feel" is exactly what should happen. In a way, for Winsor is dismissing the relationship here, and I find the relationship fundamental, essential. So the dismissive word "simply" simply has got to go!! And the equally dismissive "make them feel" would be replaced with something more appropriate, "what happens when this mind with its experiences and prejudices encounters this piece of music?"

Another thing to be aware of is contradiction. Especially tricky is contradiction that's been cleverly disguised, as it is here: "The proper answer lies, however, in music as object — independent of any particular individual's response to it, so much of this book will be devoted to the process of weighing and measuring the efficacy of different musical techniques relative to certain universal features of human cognition."

Hmmm. Music independent of any particular individual's response to it, but relative to certain universal features of human cognition. In the world of physical objects, once one has eaten one's cake, the cake is gone. In the world of argument, the same principle applies, but since there are no tangible, physical objects, one finds people attempting, as here, to have their cake and eat it too.

Nope!

And finally, for this short extract, arguing in circles: "If a particular piece of music can objectively be called superior, then the factors that make it superior must be inherent in the piece itself — regardless of a specific listener's response." Indeed. If a piece is objectively superior, then it's objectively superior. Premises, howsumever, should really be different from the conclusion, not simply (!) a rephrasing of it. Really they should be.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> What makes a Composition qualify as good?


Amount of tears that people did shed while listening of it:

Less than 10 liters in year after first CD release/performance = crap
10-50 liters = decent work
Over 100 liters = notable piece of music
Over 500 liters = remarkable artistic achievement
More liters than there is water in Volga = everlasting masterpiece
More liters than there is water in Atlantic Ocean = Puccini


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I suspect you haven't read the whole book.


some guy said:


> Well, it's certainly a bad sign if you start off by evaluating your own argument before you have even presented it. (Probably not an altogether good thing to evaluate it at all, yourself.) I read Winsor saying that his argument is "sturdy," and I immediately think, "it's probably pretty rickety."
> 
> Otherwise, it's a useful exercise to examine a conclusion's premises, of course. But it's also useful, sometimes even more useful, to examine the unspoken (and perhaps unconscious) assumptions that precede even the premises. In Winsor's case, the most obvious is that "objective" is good and "subjective" is bad. Perhaps that oversimplifies things. Say then that for Winsor, as for many people writing and thinking in a post-empirical world, "objective" is a positive thing and much to be coveted, while "subjective" is at best a weak and fuzzy kind of thing, certainly not "sturdy"!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

You seem to be advocating self-flagellation. The practice has its place, but not in my place.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2011)

Maybe I am into that, though.

(Just kidding. I'm not. And I'm not likely to read the whole book, either. I've certainly read enough for several red flags to have been raised. Will reading the whole book fold those flags neatly away into their little drawer? Possibly, but it's not likely.

I've read enough to conclude that his whole premise is flawed. Once that's established, reading any more would be just self-flagellation, for sure. I'm sorry if this gives Petwhac cause to dismiss my concerns, but there it is. I doubt reading the whole book would solve that, either. There'd just be some other reason for dismissal. 

Not a very engaging way to carry on a discussion, but what're ya gonna do?)


----------



## Suwannee Tim (Jun 6, 2010)

A consensus of sophisticated and knowledgeable people that the music is good?


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2011)

As violadude has already intimated, who needs the consensus?

Seems to me like all this desire, this rage, for objectivity and consensus betrays a profound insecurity.

Each of us is responsible for our own listening, how's that? Too scary? Too bad. Let's be brave, why not?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> As violadude has already intimated, who needs the consensus?
> 
> Seems to me like all this desire, this rage, for objectivity and consensus betrays a profound insecurity.
> 
> Each of us is responsible for our own listening, how's that? Too scary? Too bad. Let's be brave, why not?


I don't think it has anything to do with insecurity as you assumed. Let me assure you wholeheartedly that when it comes to listening to any type of music, I am "brave". In fact, it never tires me to want to explore new pieces of music, whatever the genre and whatever the time period the piece came from. As you know, I have listened to modern pieces, bought some CDs of them (as encouraged by member Andre, for example); many pieces good, and many other pieces largely crap.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

some guy said:


> And finally, for this short extract, arguing in circles: "If a particular piece of music can objectively be called superior, then the factors that make it superior must be inherent in the piece itself - regardless of a specific listener's response." Indeed. If a piece is objectively superior, then it's objectively superior. Premises, howsumever, should really be different from the conclusion, not simply (!) a rephrasing of it. Really they should be.


There is absolutely no circular logic in that statement. (And it's a conditional statement to begin with.)

I think what he is saying here, is that to take some listener's perceived value of the piece over the objective value of that piece (if such a thing exists) is like putting the carriage before the horse. Makes sense to me. But then again, I am probably not quite as known for respecting a listener's opinion as you are.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Perhaps rather than trying to argue a larger philosophical basis, it would be more enlightening to take an extreme example, and discuss it so that we end up thinking of more ideas.

----------

Having just said that, and attempting an example, I think that would actually be quite useless  I haven't even _nearly_ made up my mind on this issue though. I agree that objectivity isn't a goal that we feel we ought to achieve (though it may be possible); I agree that consensus doesn't count for much, and nor does the time factor.

It also seems reasonable (at first) to take some guy's approach of empowering our own listening, but doesn't this equate to: "This piece is good because I like it" ? (I'm not trying to be facetious; correct me if I'm wrong). How would that be any better than "This piece is good because of time/consensus/because I say so."

Of course it makes be a smug prat, but something within me genuinely tells me that I am right to think that Brahms's _Deutsches Requiem_ is better than something by Bieber, but, _more importantly_ that Bieber's fans are _wrong_ to think his music is better. It's simply not satisfying enough to inhabit PoledniceLand, and for all of you to inhabit YourselfLand, and be the arbiter of all that's good depending on what I like - for one thing, our tastes change over time, but the qualities and attributes of a piece of music do not!

*still thinking...*


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2011)

Polednice said:


> [D]oesn't [empowering our own listening] equate to: "This piece is good because I like it" ?


No, it doesn't. Taking responsibility for your own listening means, among other things, not trying to judge the value of a piece outside of your own experience of it. Saying, in effect, that this piece is valuable to you right now (and accepting that that's enough).

Of course, we seem (all of us, including me) to have this very powerful urge to make our perceptions into something larger, something universal, something valid beyond our individual experience. (I think, pace my earlier remark about fear, that this may basically be the urge to break out of our selves, to socialize. That is, maybe fear is only one possibility. The fundamental urge is to commune.)



Polednice said:


> omething within me genuinely tells me that I am right to think that Brahms's _Deutsches Requiem_ is better than something by Bieber, but, _more importantly_ that Bieber's fans are _wrong_ to think his music is better.


And something within me says you are genuinely correct. But so what? What does it matter if Bieber's fans are "wrong," that their enjoyment of Justin's music is not as good as our enjoyment of Brahms' _Requiem_? Just a practical question here: does it increase our enjoyment, does it increase the _quality_ of our enjoyment, of Brahms to conclude that his music is superior to Bieber's? Considerations of Bieber make up exactly none of my experience listening to Brahms.

Or maybe it's that we need, like missionaries, to convince Bieber fans that they're wrong. Think of what that convincing would entail. Probably going to fail, eh? (And do we need to convince ourselves? But we're already convinced!)



Polednice said:


> It's simply not satisfying enough to inhabit PoledniceLand, and for all of you to inhabit YourselfLand, and be the arbiter of all that's good depending on what I like - for one thing, our tastes change over time, but the qualities and attributes of a piece of music do not!


One, you don't have much choice. You're in PoledniceLand, and no one else is. But we do have language (which can be a means to sympathize and to share, too, not just to squabble--no really, it's true!!). We are permanently locked inside ourselves. We have a powerful urge to socialize. We have similarities to everyone else which we can discover, and develop, by talking to each other. Two, as per what I said earlier, you're not the arbiter of anything except what you like. Whatever the objective qualities of a piece are, your experience of it will change from one listen to the next, sometimes radically. Nothing the matter with that. It's only when some aspect of that experience solidifies and turns into something normative for others (or even for yourself, I suppose!) that you run into trouble.

In short, we're all isolated. We all have a powerful urge to socialize (escape the isolation). Some of the things we do to escape are futile (anything categorical), some are less so (conversation, going to concerts, sex).


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Amount of tears that people did shed while listening of it:
> More liters than there is water in Volga = everlasting masterpiece


Ahhhh, very nice analogy...


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

some guy said:


> As violadude has already intimated, who needs the consensus?
> 
> Seems to me like all this desire, this rage, for objectivity and consensus betrays a profound insecurity.
> 
> Each of us is responsible for our own listening, how's that? Too scary? Too bad. Let's be brave, why not?


Yes, we are responsible. In an ideal world, everyone would listen to music without considering what other people think of it. And then it seems, according to you, we would have a more accurate account of what is 'good' music (?)

Then, in that ideal world, it follows that if we measured how many people responded favorably to the music (given a sample of, say, 1,000 listeners), we would be able to *objectively* rank certain compositions higher than others.

Now, in the real world, many of us are social beings. We are also time-constrained. We can't listen to every piece of music out there, so very often we listen to what is most popular or considered the 'best.' That is why that ideal world can't exist. As for myself, I try to listen to pieces that are considered 'masterpieces' while taking an independent view, focusing on my reaction to the music. And generally, I find that I do enjoy these masterpieces very much. Of course, I also have a collection of lesser-known pieces I've stumbled across that I am also very attracted to.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> And something within me says you are genuinely correct. But so what? What does it matter if Bieber's fans are "wrong," that their enjoyment of Justin's music is not as good as our enjoyment of Brahms' _Requiem_? Just a practical question here: does it increase our enjoyment, does it increase the _quality_ of our enjoyment, of Brahms to conclude that his music is superior to Bieber's? Considerations of Bieber make up exactly none of my experience listening to Brahms.
> 
> Or maybe it's that we need, like missionaries, to convince Bieber fans that they're wrong. Think of what that convincing would entail. Probably going to fail, eh? (And do we need to convince ourselves? But we're already convinced!)


I don't know about the thoughts of others, but I you think you do me a bit of a disservice with this description. I honestly could not care less about the opinions of Bieber fans: I don't want to win them over; I don't want to evangelise; and knowing his music sucks doesn't make me think Brahms is any better. I was making the implicit point that _*if*_ I am right in saying that Brahms's Requiem is genuinely better than Bieber's music, _*despite*_ Bieber fans thinking the opposite, _*then*_ there _*must*_ be some objectively quantifiable attributes in Brahms's music external to individual experience and value that makes his music better.

This would contradict your first point about individual experience and value being all that matters in assessing music. Unless, of course, that by telling me you thought I was genuinely correct, you were not agreeing that Brahms's music is Absolutely better, but rather just saying: "Yeah, I prefer Brahms too" in a rather obtuse manner, which is not at all uncharacteristic


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2011)

Polednice,

I was not trying to describe you. So "whew."

Otherwise, I am not a proponent of assessing. That's my point. I don't experience music in order to assess it. I am not, to address Ravellian's point, trying to make an accurate account of what makes it good.

I'm saying that the experience is the point. Period. If there's to be any "goodness" then it will be something like this, anything that makes the experience better (fuller, richer, more satisfying) is good. Anything that doesn't, well, not so good.

And I am, I think, not being idealist but practical. It's the assessors, the seekers after objective goodnessess, the rankers, the test of timers, who are being idealistic. Practically speaking, what else matters than the pleasure you get listening to whatever you're listening to?

Even if it were true that there are "objectively quantifiable attributes in Brahms's music external to individual experience and value that makes his music better," I would say that they don't matter. There would still be people who simply do not like Brahms. Not only people in the group called Bieber fans, but classical listeners. And even if Brahms music were objectively found to be inferior, there would still be people who love his music.

I don't think it is true, however. I think that the words "attributes in ... music external to human experience" simply create a chimera. Whatever one may say about the physical sound waves, _music_ is distinctly and definitely a matter of individual experience. Of course, people can have similar experiences. And we like to hang out with people who have had similar experiences to ours. And that's a good thing.

That only goes wrong if you're seduced, as Mr. Winsor was, into trying to treat subjective things as if they were objective, creating a formula for artistic success that will work for everyone. Not gonna happen!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I take your points with regards to the (lack of) _importance_ of assessing a piece of music in this way, but I took the question to be a more detached: "whether or not they matter, are there any objective goodnesses in music?", so we're slightly, but not completely, at odds.

So, while they do not inform my experiences (at least not consciously), and while I never register them in my mind, I do believe that there are objective goodnesses in music - I'm just nowhere near qualified to actually know what they are!  Bear in mind though, that I mean this in the more technical sense of "this is good because he had the ingenious thought of using a Cmaj chord here rather than Gmaj!" (but obviously something _much_ more complex), rather than attributes external even to the piece, such as longevity _etc._.

I got to thinking earlier about whether or not the question is essentially upside down. For example, it may seem to make sense to ask the question: "Why is sugar so sweet?", but that gets the issue all wrong. There is _nothing_ in the structure or form of sugar that makes it intrinsically sweet; rather, our bodies reward us with a pleasurable taste when we eat a highly sought-after foodstuff for the sake of survival. As such, we can say, instead of: "I like sugar because it is sweet," that "sugar is sweet because my body likes it."

So, applying this approach to this discussion, we can reverse the assumption of the question (that one can say: "I like this music because it is good", and then try to define the parameters of 'good'), and instead actually say - admittedly in a completely different context - what I said earlier: "this music is good because I/my body likes it." There are _some_ objective goodnesses in music, even if they are so universal that they are barely identifiable as technical structures - the fact is that the brain is not a blank slate, and so we are all wired with the same fundamental sound preferences, malleable as they are.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Yes, we are responsible. In an ideal world, everyone would listen to music without considering what other people think of it. And then it seems, according to you, we would have a more accurate account of what is 'good' music (?)
> 
> Then, in that ideal world, it follows that if we measured how many people responded favorably to the music (given a sample of, say, 1,000 listeners), we would be able to *objectively* rank certain compositions higher than others.
> 
> Now, in the real world, many of us are social beings. We are also time-constrained. We can't listen to every piece of music out there, so very often we listen to what is most popular or considered the 'best.' That is why that ideal world can't exist. As for myself, I try to listen to pieces that are considered 'masterpieces' while taking an independent view, focusing on my reaction to the music. And generally, I find that I do enjoy these masterpieces very much. Of course, I also have a collection of lesser-known pieces I've stumbled across that I am also very attracted to.


Nicely put.

Why do some folks buy $5 modern love novels off supermarket shelves and read almost nothing else, have no experience of Shakespeare? We can be objective about aspects of art, music included, no different to other artistic creations that bring us enjoyment. (I'm not talking about inferring anything about the folks who enjoy reading the $5 supermarket novels).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I think you have fallen into your own trap and are showing a lack of bravery in refusing to read a book which may challenge your own cherished views on subjectivity/objectivity. 
Winsor states that the argument he is putting forward requires careful exposition of certain concepts and background analyses to lay the foundations on which his argument is built. These he lays out lucidly and with great insight.

If you wish to remain in your comfort zone, that's fine. Dismiss the book without reading it.



some guy said:


> Maybe I am into that, though.
> 
> (Just kidding. I'm not. And I'm not likely to read the whole book, either. I've certainly read enough for several red flags to have been raised. Will reading the whole book fold those flags neatly away into their little drawer? Possibly, but it's not likely.
> 
> ...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The OP question is both fascinating and likely well beyond our present ability to answer well. Like Polednice I have not made up my mind on this issue in large part because I think we know way to little about the brain.

First, aesthetics can most certainly be objective. Computers can do a very good job in determining which people will be considered attractive by measuring the symmetry of the face. People with greater facial symmetry in general have fewer mutations and are healthier. Evolution has selected those who respond favorably to facial symmetry (i.e. find people with symmetric faces to be desirable), and now almost all of us have this ability to discern healthier people through facial appearance (not consciously of course). 

I don't think music appreciation is as simple as facial beauty, but I strongly suspect that there are some aspects of music that our brains respond favorably to in an objective way. I also believe our individual experiences affect our preferences. The combination of these factors along with our lack of understanding of brain processes make determining the objectivity of music appreciation extremely difficult to assess. 

I have long been struck by the apparent consensus in which works are considered great (beautiful, important, etc.). Without much music knowledge, I often found that the works I really liked when exploring a new composer were the same ones "experts" acknowledged as better. Obviously there is not perfect agreement. Also I understand that this agreement could be largely a product of shared experiences; nevertheless, additional musical knowledge and years of listening does not seem to have a strong effect (the exception seems to be with modern music). 

Finally, and this is a rather technical point, the fact that individual experiences affect our preferences does not necessarily mean that music appreciation is not completely objective.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Good? Good = timeless popularity.
Bad? Bad = time-dependent popularity.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Good? Good = timeless popularity.
> Bad? Bad = time-dependent popularity.


Ah, does this mean it is impossible to judge any music written in say, the last 50 years, as good or bad?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Easy. Very often but not always, a piece is damn good if it consistently transcends time and all cultures. Haydn's oratorio _The Creation_ can safely be considered "good" by almost anyone who seem to spend some time listening to it find it satisfying on many levels (as fellow members Aramis, Andre have recently experienced). On the other hand, John Cage's _4'33"_ is extremely unlikely to pass this criteria, as many deem it "not good" given it's fairly short history.
> 
> This works. Call me a simpleton.


I hear the 1912 Ford Model T is an alright car, if you're looking to purchase a vehicle.

That 'Test of Time' crap needs to be buried in about as deep a gravefull of manure as is readily available. It is the God-awful saw hauled out by every retro-reactionary conservative, passive and or lazy defective whose ears often cannot accommodate 'music' past 1900, as well of being OF ABSOLUTELY NO USE TO ANYONE ALIVE WHO IS TRYING TO ASSESS MORE CURRENT MUSIC.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I love music past 1900... Just not a lot of classical music. There's good classical to be sure, but Jazz, Country Western, Pop Vocals, Rock n Roll, Rock... all of these genres are much more interesting in the 20th century than most contemporary classical music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I love music past 1900... Just not a lot of classical music. There's good classical to be sure, but Jazz, Country Western, Pop Vocals, Rock n Roll, Rock... all of these genres are much more interesting in the 20th century than most contemporary classical music.


I wonder how much you would love of the non-classical music pre-1900: see the little flip-flop going on there? Do you really think it is because classical music all went bad, or is it, 
"Old classical music + contemporary pop music = a sentimental listener vs. an adventurous listener."

That's all right, but knowing which it is, well, that's not a bad thing, either.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I wonder how much you would love of the non-classical music pre-1900: see the little flip-flop going on there? Do you really think it is because classical music all went bad, or is it,
> "Old classical music + contemporary pop music = a sentimental listener vs. an adventurous listener."


I don't understand the quote. Do you mean:

"Old classical music + contemporary pop music = a sentimental listener; New classical music + old pop music = an adventurous listener"?

Or do you mean something else?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

It first has to meet your own requirements, is it what you had hoped to hear as you wished it?

This means you have to determine, for yourself, some _criteria_. You then hold that measuring stick to your own work as you proceed. The criteria can change from piece to piece. Part of the puzzle, initially, is_ 'what is the nature of what I'm working with / what kind of piece is it?'_ That will help you determine the criteria most pertinent to keeping you in alignment with that piece so it comes out well.

There are also all the criteria one can accumulate about other music you love, admire, and which 'works for you.'

Armed with those, and a mentality, it is to be hoped, far beyond 'good enough,' you will make the best you can.

*It is more than past the due date to throw out that 'Test of time' saw - utterly useless in a contemporary world and in assessing contemporary work, let alone what anyone is currently working upon* - beyond fatuous to even bring it up in the context of your question! We are all on our own there, and again, all the GENERAL criteria accumulated about what makes 'quality', lesser quality, or lack thereof can be at least based upon those criteria with newer aspects included when making something new. (I do not advocate throwing out the fabulous and great past.)

There is a lot about music, any genre, which is easy enough upon some listening and with a bit of thought, to then extract for yourself the notions of why it works. _Even those making the newest and most novel of the avant garde are truly working with some basis which is possible because they have formulated ideas of what has worked from the past,_ and that makes it more possible to make the new, and have sense enough to know if 'it is working.'

Do you value 'expressiveness,' or like the group Kraftwerk, is your aesthetic one of something more remote, but engaging to listen to nonetheless?

_Aesthetics, a sloppy and subjective area, are a necessary consideration as well._ Some feel music has a sociological significance, some of those in the more avant-garde and politic thinking, more so, popular music, being 'of the people' often carries some sociological significance, no matter how slight. [I disregard 'sociological significance' when I write,, having more an interest in 'just music,' and the interaction of notes as seeming to have a meaning all their own.] What you think there will not only determine, likely, the very nature of your musical ideas, but affect form, and how you proceed altogether.

Whatever your stance, just as _there is nothing much worse than a performer who 'just plays' but has no real point of view of their own about the piece performed, the same goes for a composer who 'just writes,' without having a strong point of view._

Some work from the near terminally young just throws out a bunch of notes, one clump of gestures after the other, not at all cohesive, not having any real idea, it seems, of the piece as a piece. This is to be avoided, or 'works' like that best kept in a sketchbook.

Next, _does it communicate anything at all to others_, and regardless of its genre and whether more or less 'of a type' or in an original vocabulary, _does it sound 'fresh?_' Not 'novel,' not 'cutting edge radical new' - but, _fresh... this is very important._

How to know all that and 'get it into your piece' is something even the most experienced of composers would struggle to tell you, their personal angle on all the above elements being quite varied, as individually suited to 'how they think,' and the words or analogies they would come up with to express it.

Theory, already existing works reveal a lot - by listening to and looking at what does 'seem to work,' they tell us at least 'how someone else did it.' A common mistake is to assume the theory and the past works are a 'how to' manual for later musicians to follow, 'by the book.' Theory is just a mass of examples of 'how someone else made their music work.' _If you take it rightly, you will extract from it 'working principles' and 'tools.' With those, you can better develop modes of thought to work your own craft apart from theirs.
_
Without knowing anything further of what kind of music you are writing, there is little more specific that can be said.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The 'test of time' is not such a bad statistical indication of the quality of a piece of music.
But it is far from an absolute measure. The advent of recording meant that music would be preserved without the need for performers to revisit it afresh. 
Leaving aside folk music, part of the reason Mozart's music may be regarded as good is this: He would have to have had the support of patrons who valued what he did and after he died, publishers, audiences and performers anew would had to have seen the merit in his music in order to stage his works with all the associated expenses. This may not be said of all the other court composers around Europe at the time, of which there must have been hundreds.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

PetrB said:


> *It is more than past the due date to throw out that 'Test of time' saw - utterly useless in a contemporary world and in assessing contemporary work, let alone what anyone is currently working upon* - beyond fatuous to even bring it up in the context of your question! We are all on our own there, and again, all the GENERAL criteria accumulated about what makes 'quality', lesser quality, or lack thereof can be at least based upon those criteria with newer aspects included when making something new. (I do not advocate throwing out the fabulous and great past.)
> .


Test of time obviously will not work for new/contemporary music. Agree, but that does not mean test of time criteria cannot be used as something *on older music*. That's where your argument does not fit. test of time is a reasonable crtieria on older music I think. For new music, you need something else.

Ask Boulez!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Surely the test of time is only an indicator of a piece's _perceived_ quality, rather than actual, not that the two are never aligned...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Surely the test of time is only an indicator of a piece's _perceived_ quality, rather than actual, not that the two are never aligned...


Again, what is "actual quality"?

What is "actual"?


----------

