# What determines the music you like best?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Obviously there are a lot of attributes music can have. But what are the MAIN things that seem to determine the music you prefer? And (by the way) who seems to deliver those things?


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

I enjoy a variety of music, so I suppose it's just how the particular music mixes the elements of the art. Who delivers? - melody and tone quality such as Custer Larue, Bix Biederbecke - powerful feelings from the music of Bruckner - aw, forget it, this will take forever


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I do not know..........


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

If it moves me or interests me somehow I guess.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Shouldn't you have made this a poll, so we could see what the 'attributes' you are thinking of are? :lol:

Melody, probably. But seriously, could you tell us what you were thinking of?


----------



## Mister Man (Feb 3, 2014)

For me, it usually comes down to the rendition. I can be made to enjoy any piece with the right rendition. However, I generally tend to like things that are highly melodic or bombastic.

That's probably not the kind of answer you're looking for, I lack the experience to really answer your question.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

In a random order: complexity, orchestration, vision, originality, excitement, balance. 

I'm probably forgetting a few things.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

..it's good! ut:

/ptr


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

One for sure is counterpoint. In particular fugues, or fugal sections. 
When I listen to a new piece and I recognize a fugue or a fugal section, my attention grows at once.

I also like when a melodic cell is worked out and I am able to follow all developments.
Examples could be variation-based compositions (passacaglia, chaconne, theme with variations, etc.) or the use of leitmotif/idee fixe.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

My receptivity.


----------



## revdrdave (Jan 8, 2014)

I think this is a great question but a terribly difficult one to answer because so often my reaction to a piece of music is emotional (visceral?) and tough to articulate. I do know that classical music speaks to me for different reasons now than it did 45 years ago when I started listening to it. Then, it was all about melody and big orchestral gestures, which probably explains why for a long time Tchaikovsky was my favorite composer. A lot of music I listened to because I thought I had to--if you're going to listen to classical music, you listen to Beethoven who, for much of my listening life I just couldn't get into. I also went through a phase where music appealed to me as a consequence of the socio-historical mileu of which it was part--I was fascinated, for example, by music/composers/musicians impacted by the rise of Nazi Germany. Today, I have much broader tastes in classical music (though I still probably listen to orchestral music more than any other genre), choosing most often to listen to something based on the mood I'm in and the fact the piece somehow "speaks" to me. That's not a particularly insightful answer to your question, I know, but it's the only way I know how to respond.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Right. How I react to a piece emotionally. When I hear a new piece of music, delight, rather than boredom, is always a good sign.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

Engaging. (Not boring)


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

First and foremost, I have to like it. I prefer orchestral, chamber and, to a marginally lesser extent, (solo) instrumental music. I'm less into strangeness than I was in my 20s, but I do like music that is somehow different. If I could say exactly what it is that would appeal to me, then I would almost certainly not like it when it came along. It has to hit me right between the ears... just right, and when I'm not expecting it! It is almost always delivered by a well established composer of note, although it could be one I have not yet actively followed.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I don't like music that batters me over the head, then tries to choke me while I'm writhing on the floor holding my head. Great music is like a great companion, subtle but constantly deepening at every listen, showing brilliance and wit, as well as depth and moodiness. Difficult to explain what all that means though! :lol:


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Good melody and harmonies are important obviously but the rest is kind of a mystery. After I listen to a piece, I can single out aspects. That's the magic of music though.


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

I always enjoy well-weaved counterpoint. When different themes combine into a satisfying whole it sends a shiver down my spine. I'm thinking of Bach's "St. Anne's" Fugue, Wagner's _Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg_ Overture, and the finale of Mozart's Symphony No. 41, but there are many more pieces that so move me. I also like rich harmony and a memorable melody. Beyond that, it may be a matter of what mood I'm in at the moment.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Obviously there are a lot of attributes music can have. But what are the MAIN things that seem to determine the music you prefer? And (by the way) who seems to deliver those things?


It appears on this forum that members have clearly defined groups of music they most prefer whether it be baroque, modern or the romantic era. I think to answer the question: it depends where you started out on your classical journey. For myself I began by exploring Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, and these composers attributes have determined the music I prefer. I have gone each side of them and count music of the baroque as a very large chunk of my listening time likewise with the romantic composers, especially Chopin and Schumann. As for the second half of the twentieth century I can only think of one or two pieces I could honestly say are in my top fifty or so favourites, but for another person they may have begun with in this era and worked back to the classical period composers.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think there are several attributes for me and most other listeners, and when the ingredients are mixed in the right proportions and allowed to simmer you have a savory unforgettable experience.

It must include a moving or memorable melody, theme, phrase, motif or even what the non-classical folks would call a riff or a hook, even if it's not common practice composing. Then the composer runs it through the meat grinder and it comes out as nearly unrecognizable, and he combines it with other heavily varied elements. It's when I suddenly recognize these mangled elements, usually in a development section but not always, that I get a big thrill. It's a bigger thrill when there is emotional weight or meaning behind the musical theme cooking too.

Another similar cool stunt is to take two seemingly unrelated themes (or motifs or riffs) and cleverly combine them, the listener not being aware up until then that they would even remotely work together. These forehead slapping mash up moments are _the reason I listen to music._ Perhaps not the only reason, but very nearly so.

Who delivers? Nearly all composers do in one way or another -- if I like them, that is. Beethoven of course is a prime example of all of the above. Certainly Dvorak's thematic acrobatics are easy to detect. Barber, Shostakovich, Prokofiev. They all do it. The more subtle ones are a great joy too, but sometimes I need a little help from annotations to catch the events if they are too subtle or too well disguised -- which is fine as well. I would have picked up on them eventually given enough listens and memoraization.

Even some of my beloved prog rock acts perform these musical acrobatics. Gentle Giant in particular are monsters of the mangled or imploded phrase or riff, taking a theme and turning it upside down or backward or merely altering the rhythm so radically as to be so well disguised it may take years of listening before it suddenly smacks the listener in the face, "Oh! This is the same melody as in that song at the beginning of this record, only in 11/8 time this time!" Jethro Tull, ELP, Yes -- many acts perform similar antics.

Regardless of genre it's this plastic malleable yet interlocking M. C. Escher quality of music that boosts my endorphins.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

If I can listen to it over and over and over and over..... and not get tired of it. That is what I like. Messiah, Beethoven's Ninth and Third among others do that for me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Still, one can reach a saturation point some 200 listenings in.....


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

For me, the music I like best is like this:

- I enjoy listening to it
- It keeps my interest
- I haven't over-listened it yet.

I think that's why we geezers gravitate to Bach -- can't be over-listened!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Still, one can reach a saturation point some 200 listenings in.....


Yes I think I did that with the Ninth and lost interest in it while I was listening to nearly nothing but vocal works, but then I caught Eroica fever and now the Ninth stands out again and I am enjoying even more because it is like an old friend. Think how saturated a conductor would get with a work yet continue to praise it, but then a conductor has a special intimacy with a work that someone like me would never experience.


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> For me, the music I like best is like this:
> 
> - I enjoy listening to it
> - It keeps my interest
> ...


You can't ever over listen your favorite music...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Oh yes you can!!!


----------



## Rocco (Nov 25, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Oh yes you can!!!


Not me!! I can listen to my favorite works over and over again and never tire of hearing them.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

All of the above, but more specifically I love the sound of strings. Somehow, music sounds incomplete without the sound of the strings. I have attended numerous high school band concerts, and a few other wind band concerts, and to me, the music just sounds incomplete. I know this is completely unfair to all of the fantastic woodwind and brass musicians. 

In my humble collection of CDs I own far more violin concertos than piano concertos, and I own no band music. 

That's me. I have a tremendous respect for all musicians but I'm a string player.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rocco said:


> Not me!! I can listen to my favorite works over and over again and never tire of hearing them.


For me, there are some pieces that need to be "rested" for a while. But it's all good. Several months down the road, we will become friends again!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Good point. I tend to rotate some music, even leaving classical for a while, then coming back. When you get your fill of a piece you move to something else and if that piece is good enough, you'll come back to it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Beethoven's 9th is for special occasions only as far as I am concerned. I played it too often, so that's what I have to do.


----------



## lupinix (Jan 9, 2014)

how much I feel when listening to it, how much I connect to it emotionally. Also it matters if it has something really personal and original.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. That's what it's all about. I don't analyze it. Feelings are everything.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The kind of harmonies used make a big difference to me. Certain music I just find really colorful harmonically, yet it must simultaneously be the right combination of colors - its in the way they compliment each other. I like music that seems to have a good sense of direction and refinement, that is why I generally prefer Ravel to Debussy. Ravel seems to know exactly where he is going in a piece and everything has its proper place and seems incredibly well placed. Debussy (who I also love just not as much as Ravel) has stunning harmonic language but often comes across to me as though he is just 'making it up as he goes along'. 

The right amount of tension makes a big difference. Music needs to have moments of tension, but too much dissonance turns me off. 

I love when composers strike me as just being themselves - bold creatively, but at the same time they must really have something to say - like Charles Ives. 

Finally, I really love when a composition seems to take me to another world, a place far beyond the mundane. Some composers may be very skilled but in their compositional style just come across to me as too down to earth. I feel this way about Beethoven and Shostakovich. These two composers usually strike me as metaphorically struggling in the everyday world, where composers like Bach or Bartok in their own unique ways seem to somehow transcend the ordinary world.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2014)

Energy and conviction - Beethoven. Wit and simplicity - Haydn. Humanity (yeah, I know, what does that mean) - Debussy. Relentlessness and humour (well, he makes _me _laugh) - Shostakovich


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I love music that says as much as needed in only as much time as is necessary, that does not indulge in loud displays simply for the sake of noise, that speaks with brilliance and lucidity, with clarity, rigor, and passion, music that seems new and fresh even a century or centuries later.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> *I love music that says as much as needed in only as much time as is necessary,* that does not indulge in loud displays simply for the sake of noise, that speaks with brilliance and lucidity, with clarity, rigor, and passion, music that seems new and fresh even a century or centuries later.


I know you will strongly disagree, but I feel (all though still considering him among the great composers) the part in bold was Mahler's biggest flaw. I do think Mahler certainly did have all the other attributes you listed, but his lack of concision I find a stumbling block in appreciating some of his works.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

tdc said:


> I know you will strongly disagree, but I feel (all though still considering him among the great composers) the part in bold was Mahler's biggest flaw. I do think Mahler certainly did have all the other attributes you listed, but his lack of concision I find a stumbling block in appreciating some of his works.


I do disagree indeed. I once thought that there were places where Mahler went on longer than necessary, but in every case it was because I didn't understand him fully.

On the other hand, I will acknowledge that there are weaker spots in some of his works, like the second theme in the finale of the First or parts of the development of the first movement of the Third, though I don't think that they destroy the works or even those movements by any means.

(Also, remember that the description was meant to describe my tastes in general as much as anything.)


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

Music as mysterious as having been immaculately conceived in heaven determines for me what I like best. That's why I hugely prefer Mozart's music to Beethoven's *no* mystery & *nothing* immaculate) and yes: Vivaldi's music to that of Johann Sebastian Bach. Of course I listen to all of them, but what I like best is heaven on earth without effort becoming real.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Still, one can reach a saturation point some 200 listenings in.....


You know, there's music I must have listened to 200 times more than 200 times - and never once got bored with it. I listened to _Figaro _(parts or whole) every single day for about 2 years. My missus asked, why do you listen to the same music every day, and I looked at her and she laughed and said, yeah, I know!

It's just seamlessly singable and listenable...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Kieran said:


> *I don't like music that batters me over the head, then tries to choke me while I'm writhing on the floor holding my head.* Great music is like a great companion, subtle but constantly deepening at every listen, showing brilliance and wit, as well as depth and moodiness. Difficult to explain what all that means though! :lol:


The doctor has ordered bed-rest for you, and no Nono.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

These days, a piece doesn't have to go anywhere, for me to enjoy it. By that, I don't mean Minimalist. I do mean a heaping helping of dynamics and unpredictability. Solo piano is my favorite genre.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't know about you guys, but if you found yourself crying to a single composer over 20 times, wouldn't you want to ask _why???_ I'm too curious to let that observation slide. Over time, I've picked up certain things that please me more than others, but it certainly wasn't _discovering _what it was that made me like or cease to like it. I already liked it _before _I knew what it was.

The more I've been able to identify what I like in music has actually helped me find _more _music to like by knowing where else to find those same features. So I like Russian music? I also like all sorts of other composers that influenced them and also were influenced by them.

I think the number one things I like in a piece of music is _tone-color_ and _melody_. Those 2 features I can pick up in only a matter of seconds, which will determine if I'm going to like the rest of the piece. How would I describe a tone-color that I like, or a melodic contour I like? I'd only be able to give examples, chord progressions, etc. if I wanted to be technical, but beyond that gets intangible. Maybe I like escape tones, free-neighbors and appoggiatura more than other kinds of melodic contours?


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

Vaneyes said:


> These days, a piece doesn't have to go anywhere, for me to enjoy it. By that, I don't mean Minimalist. I do mean a heaping helping of dynamics and unpredictability. Solo piano is my favorite genre.


I thought that about you . Best to you, Good Man.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Rocco said:


> Not me!! I can listen to my favorite works over and over again and never tire of hearing them.


One day you may reach a point....


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I don't know, but I think counterpoint has a role to play in it!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Kieran said:


> You know, there's music I must have listened to 200 times more than 200 times - and never once got bored with it. I listened to _Figaro _(parts or whole) every single day for about 2 years. My missus asked, why do you listen to the same music every day, and I looked at her and she laughed and said, yeah, I know!
> 
> It's just seamlessly singable and listenable...


Perhaps after the 300th time.....


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

You could spend a lifetime doing research on this and never get a good answer, but I think it can be roughly summed up in one sentence: 

Something unpredictable enough to be interesting, but predictable enough to be coherent.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

To put it in Hegelian terms, like I usually do, I prefer music that aspires to a higher place in the order of the absolute spirit and thus reaches towards the higher echelons occupied by religion and philosophy!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> To put it in Hegelian terms, like I usually do, I prefer music that aspires to a higher place in the order of the absolute spirit and thus reaches towards the higher echelons occupied by religion and philosophy!


Beethoven placed music even higher than that! It stood alone at the very summit!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

hpowders said:


> Beethoven placed music even higher than that! It stood alone at the very summit!


I won't argue with Beethoven! Also, some other very worthwhile guys have postulated similar thoughts, like Schelling, if my memory serves me correctly.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> To put it in Hegelian terms, like I usually do, I prefer music that aspires to a higher place in the order of the absolute spirit and thus reaches towards the higher echelons occupied by religion and philosophy!


In Hegelian terms, the place of music and the arts in the life of spirit is fixed by it's particular content. A symphony by it's nature is incapable of explicating Logic or Phenomenology, for example.



hpowders said:


> Beethoven placed music even higher than that! It stood alone at the very summit!


There does seem to be a tendency for people to overestimate the value of their own fields of endeavour. Especially fields which were historically maligned as useless to society. The other extreme isn't particularly helpful to anyone either though.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

> thus reaches towards the higher echelons occupied by religion and philosophy!


Philosophy?! 


> "philosophers have said before that one of the fundamental requisites of science is that whenever you set up the same conditions, the same thing must happen. This is simply not true,"
> 
> "Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."


Both Feynman quotes. Basically the point is, philosophy once had its use and now it does not. Some universities are now seriously considering dropping the subject because it is as Sheldon might say 'hokum'.

Or long story short... I think it's really an insult to music to say it approaches the higher echelons of philosophy...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> I won't argue with Beethoven! Also, some other very worthwhile guys have postulated similar thoughts, like Schelling, if my memory serves me correctly.


Yes. It would be a rather one-sided argument at this point in time.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yardrax said:


> In Hegelian terms, the place of music and the arts in the life of spirit is fixed by it's particular content. A symphony by it's nature is incapable of explicating Logic or Phenomenology, for example.
> 
> There does seem to be a tendency for people to overestimate the value of their own fields of endeavour. Especially fields which were historically maligned as useless to society. The other extreme isn't particularly helpful to anyone either though.


True, but in this case I agree with Beethoven. Great music takes me to a state of mind I don't get elsewhere.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

_Firstly_, its honesty (genuine reflection/expression of the composer),
_Secondly_, its sense of color, inventiveness, ingenuity, warmth, balance, innovation,
_Thirdly_, it fits whatever mood I am in.

And the third criteria is especially broad yet important, because there are days when I will go for works that excite or captivate me (Atterberg, Massenet, Tchaikovsky, Alfven, Wagner); or works that move me due to its reflectiveness and sublimity (Bruckner, Bax, Myaskovsky); or works that have that abundance of lyrical warmth (Glazunov, Rebikov, Ireland); or works that are just plain fun and flamboyant (or bouncy) (Offenbach, Creston); or works that does not fit conventions, like those of avant-garde and modernist composers of, say, Russia or France (Roslavets, Mossolov, Pettersson, etc.); or whatever.

Amazing how transcendental music remains.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Yardrax said:


> In Hegelian terms, the place of music and the arts in the life of spirit is fixed by it's particular content. A symphony by it's nature is incapable of explicating Logic or Phenomenology, for example.


But isn't his notion of "romantic art" the kind of art that tries to depict content that is too much to its form? While it may fail to succeed in its aim, I am a sucker for that kind of art!


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Matsps said:


> Philosophy?!
> 
> Both Feynman quotes. Basically the point is, philosophy once had its use and now it does not. Some universities are now seriously considering dropping the subject because it is as Sheldon might say 'hokum'.
> 
> Or long story short... I think it's really an insult to music to say it approaches the higher echelons of philosophy...


Sometimes philosophy indeed tries to overstep its boundaries and cross into science; then it's so much bull****. But the same happens, and more often, I think, the other way around, and with similar results.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> But isn't his notion of "romantic art" the kind of art that tries to depict content that is too much to its form? While it may fail to succeed in its aim, I am a sucker for that kind of art!


Hegel's ideas of what constituted classical and romantic art are based on the more traditional use of 'classical' to refer to the art of Ancient Greece, with romantic being used as a general designation for Art produced after the rise of Christianity. Hegel regarded music in general as the most characteristic romantic art, and Bach and Mozart would have been for him equally romantic in disposition. This was before it became common currency to limit the romantic period in music to the 19th century. He didn't have the bombast of a Bruckner or a Tchaikovsky in mind if that's what you're thinking.

If you are so inclined the entirety of his Lectures on Fine Art can be found online.



Matsps said:


> Both Feynman quotes. Basically the point is, philosophy once had its use and now it does not.


Philosophy is a wide discipline which covers the fields of Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics and Value theory and Epistemology. The Philosophy of science is a very narrow field within that and the fact that statements by it's practitioners (Which are only generally stated with no sources quoted, by the way) might be wrong doesn't discredit the value of philosophy as a whole. It is a much more rigorous discipline than the vague popular notions of 'philosophy', and anyone who would claim that the study of ethics, for example, is a bunch of hokum without use, needs to re-evaluate their priorities in my eyes.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Yardrax said:


> Philosophy is a wide discipline which covers the fields of Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics and Value theory and Epistemology.


It seems to me that all of the above, except logic. Philosophy uses the field of logic, more than it is about the field of logic. Obviously logic is useful, but the rest is IMO not of much value. But then I have a book that contains the truth, so what need have I of philosophy? (But that is another story for another forum.)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Florestan said:


> It seems to me that all of the above, except logic. Philosophy uses the field of logic, more than it is about the field of logic. Obviously logic is useful, but the rest is IMO not of much value. But then I have a book that contains the truth, so what need have I of philosophy? (But that is another story for another forum.)


Philosophy is a history of human thought about the nature of the world. You can try to believe that your worldview isn't related to and shaped by philosophy, but it affects our patterns of thought nonetheless.


----------



## Queequeg (Feb 12, 2014)

If I'm in the right mood, some pieces are so beautiful that they can move me to tears or close, some examples being Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Bach), Air on the G String (Bach), Canon in D (Pachelbel) and Gymnopédie No.1 (Satie). Not that I prefer such pieces all the time, but they provide an excellent contrast to faster, powerful pieces.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Based on other replies, it's very hard to pin down what determines music we love. One problem is that many of us love music that appears to be so very diverse. I love some Medieval masses, Renaissance madrigals, Baroque counterpoint, Classical Sturm und Drang, Romantic harmonies, Modern works (12 tone, serial, symbolist, minimalist, etc.). I like instrumental, chamber, symphonic, opera, and vocal music. I don't like all music, but the variety of classical music I enjoy is remarkably varied. So what is the common denominator? I know it has to do with rhythm, tones, timbre, but I don't know what about those qualities makes me like specific music.

Even more interesting, although I can definitively say I know what music I like, I don't know what music I will _eventually_ like. There have been plenty of works and styles that I disliked only to eventually enjoy. So I'm enormously ignorant about why I like the music I like.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Obviously there are a lot of attributes music can have. But what are the MAIN things that seem to determine the music you prefer? And (by the way) who seems to deliver those things?


I suppose any generalisation I make about my musical taste has its limitations, and its also coloured by things like what is my "flavour of the month" type focus or obsession in the endless universe of classical music.

Having said that I will make some generalisations, no harm in doing so.

1. Strong preference for instrumental musics.

2. Chamber music would be my favourite form of instrumental music, and I often go to a composer's chamber music when making my first forays into their music.

3. Works with some deal of unity, whether in terms of themes, textures, form/structure.

4. Some deal of originality of vision or musical voice.

5. A good mix of predictability and unpredictability, control and freedom, convention and imagination, tradition and innovation.

In terms of your second question as to who delivers these things to me, that's harder especially post 1800 which is where most of my experience in music lies. I like at least something of all major composers since then (and what I know before then, I am increasingly getting back into Baroque now), what I like more and what I like less can be relative and 'shades of grey' type differences (or in relation to the generalisations I made above - eg. if Wagner had composed more things like _Siegfried Idyll_, I would like more things by him, but given he is an operatic composer, my preferences dictate against me liking him best, or liking him more than I do).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*"The four C's":
Cut 
Color 
Clarity 
Carat*


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I have different criteria for different genres; that being said, there are some 'universal constants' which determine my likes, and these are more general, and deal more with 'art' in general.

Is the artist or composer sincere? I.e., is it possible to detect this from the music in an objective, formal way?

If the work is delivered by an artist as a solo performance, such as Bob Dylan singing _Blowing in the Wind,_ then you are _'judging the man'_ as much as you are judging the music; you can't really separate the two, or objectify the music; you are encountering a human soul, or not, as the case may be. This comes from bluegrass music, in which backwoods fiddlers, sometimes technically crude, are judged 'as men,' not solely for their technical prowess. This no doubt involves 'sincerity' and 'soul', or ineffable spiritual qualities which transcend the mechanics of wire and pipes, age and identity, and become artifacts in the realm of human expression as 'art.'


----------

