# Why are some pieces more liked than others?



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

I don't subscribe to the idea that whether you like a piece or not depends on your emotional disposition or 'preferences for a particular style. Evidently there are pieces out there which are liked by the majority. Why is this so? Well I thought about why is 'La campanella', 'Fur Elise', 'Eine Kleine Nachtmusik' and others so famous when there are other equally as beautiful pieces. Well clearly these 'equally as beautiful pieces' aren't as beautiful as the most played pieces of classical music. Why? Well I think, and I could be wrong, that they're all such coherent pieces of music. By that I mean the melodies are very memorable. It's the same with anything beautiful I guess. The more 'refined' and coherent something is, the more beautiful we seem to find it. Everything that constitutes to the design of something has a purpose - it's not something extraneous. Every note has a purpose to produce something that is whole and 'perfect'. If you started removing even one note then the melody would alter dramatically to become unrecognisable. Music like this seems to be very dense and 'interconnected' in an illusive sense and I hear something that is so precise and delicate but has overwhelming meaning to exist. As if there is a three dimensional underpinning that connects the piece by pulling it together and exposing only the notes that are relevant. That's why I think other pieces aren't as popular because they are facets of these more coherent pieces.... Bach's music is so enjoyable to listen to for this reason. Every note has a purpose... It's quite difficult to explain really but imagine I wanted to extract sodium crystals from a saline solution. I'm sure you've probably done this in school. You leave it out to dry so that the liquid evaporates and you're left with the sodium crystals. In this sense, the liquid is the extraneous notes and the sodium crystal the melody. It's a refining process.

Which kind of begs the question: What do I have to do to become a good composer. You need to ensure your music is coherent, whole and interconnected with an *overwhelming reason to exist.* This is most important.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

> I think, and I could be wrong, that they're all such coherent pieces of music. By that I mean the melodies are very memorable. It's the same with anything beautiful I guess. The more 'refined' and coherent something is, the more beautiful we seem to find it. Everything that constitutes to the design of something has a purpose - it's not something extraneous.


I have to say, I don't think this at all explains what people like about these works. How do you go from "coherent" to memorable melodies? A lot of memorable melodies actually use a lot of ornamentation, which could be thought of as extraneous notes.

And is Eine Kleine Nachtsmusik really more "coherent" than, say, Webern's Symphonie? Does Webern waste more notes? I don't get that impression at all.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> I have to say, I don't think this at all explains what people like about these works. How do you go from "coherent" to memorable melodies? A lot of memorable melodies actually use a lot of ornamentation, which could be thought of as extraneous notes.
> 
> And is Eine Kleine Nachtsmusik really more "coherent" than, say, Webern's Symphonie? Does Webern waste more notes? I don't get that impression at all.


I am struggling to find words in my vocabulary to explain my point. Ornamentation and such like doesn't detract from a piece being coherent. It's a question of: Does what's written down produce on the whole something that is coherent. Do the notes compliment each other. It's very difficult to explain!


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> I have to say, I don't think this at all explains what people like about these works. How do you go from "coherent" to memorable melodies? A lot of memorable melodies actually use a lot of ornamentation, which could be thought of as extraneous notes.
> 
> And is Eine Kleine Nachtsmusik really more "coherent" than, say, Webern's Symphonie? Does Webern waste more notes? I don't get that impression at all.


I agree with this.

What makes particular works popular is universal appeal. Look at pop music today...are the top 40 the top 40 because they are musically superior to everything else out there at the moment? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say 'yes'. They're the top 40 because they appeal to the widest audience.

The same can be said of classical music, although with classical I'd say that influence and innovation also play a much larger role in popularity than in modern-day popular music. For example, Beethoven's 9th was incredibly influential to other composers, and innovative, and it is one of the most popular works out there. It's an excellent work for sure, but I doubt it would be nearly as popular if it wasn't both of those things.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Stargazer said:


> I agree with this.


None of you seem to understand my point but that is because of my poor attempt at explaining it!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Actually, I _*thought*_ I did get what you were saying - and to a certain extent I agree with it; but I can also see that it's a bit sweeping, and doesn't cover all the examples. It's a point of view, and I think an interesting one. But the fact of pieces being generally liked isn't dependent on the quality of the pieces alone - chance and especially *fashion* can have such a lot to do with it. Some of the pieces now so popular were eclipsed for 50 or 100 years, even though they had such economy of design; and now they're popular because they've been rediscovered and there happen to be artists to play the pieces, which fit in with our zeitgeist. It needs a more complex analogy than sodium crystals.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

*Why are some pieces more liked than others?*

A couple of ideas:

1. *Crowd mentality* - many are afraid to like, or openly express liking, pieces that are not liked by hordes of others, particularly in classical music, since it has an air of appealing to those in the know about such things, and liking the wrong things can be seen as a loss of face
2. *Exposure* - at least initially, people hear the most popular works, because that is what is on the radio, is performed in concerts and is most widely recorded


----------



## Mister Man (Feb 3, 2014)

There needs to be group-think and "pop" classical works. How else would the music snobs know which works to sneer and jeer at?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The 'good' ones which are also 'simple to understand,' i.e. they don't have an extended and elaborate structure, and they are usually, if single movement pieces, fairly short in duration.

Those are 'the most' readily popular.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I personally don't care. I love Ives Concord Piano Sonata. You think I care that maybe only two other TC listeners do too?


----------



## rspader (May 14, 2014)

I think PetrB's idea of "simple to understand" hits on it. Not trying to be a smart *** here but the question for me is: "Can you whistle it?" Is there a theme or melody that is simple to understand, repeats and can be heard in your head when the music is not otherwise playing? I find that the pieces that are most popular are the ones that I find myself whistling in the shower or car or anywhere else that whistling is appropriate (and some places where it is not). These tend to be shorter pieces or the opening or closing movements of the more popular symphonies and concerti.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

rspader said:


> I think PetrB's idea of "simple to understand" hits on it. Not trying to be a smart *** here but the question for me is: "Can you whistle it?" Is there a theme or melody that is simple to understand, repeats and can be heard in your head when the music is not otherwise playing? I find that the pieces that are most popular are the ones that I find myself whistling in the shower or car or anywhere else that whistling is appropriate (and some places where it is not). These tend to be shorter pieces or the opening or closing movements of the more popular symphonies and concerti.


Yes and this is what I was trying to highlight. Pieces that are memorable and simple to understand are the hardest to compose. A fresh original melody was something Mozart was good composing and hence his popularity today. Cannon in D major by Pachabel is another overplayed piece of classical music and does this mean that he is up there with the true masters? I think in Pachabel's case, he was 'lucky' to have discovered the ground bass on which he wrote the piece.(It is this same ground bass that is used in a lot of modern 'pop' music today). I think to use the word discovered is important, as opposed to invented, because it helps to see my point of view if you imagine a blank manuscript paper comprising of many, many invisible, illusive permutations of notes. From these permutations, only a few can be truly great and manifest pieces with an overwhelming reason to exist. However, it takes a great composer to discover these pieces, and evidently Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and others did, which is why they are the masters of classical music.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Actually, I _*thought*_ I did get what you were saying - and to a certain extent I agree with it; but I can also see that it's a bit sweeping, and doesn't cover all the examples. It's a point of view, and I think an interesting one. But the fact of pieces being generally liked isn't dependent on the quality of the pieces alone - chance and especially *fashion* can have such a lot to do with it. Some of the pieces now so popular were eclipsed for 50 or 100 years, even though they had such economy of design; and now they're popular because they've been rediscovered and there happen to be artists to play the pieces, which fit in with our zeitgeist. It needs a more complex analogy than sodium crystals.


I don't necessary agree that Luck determines the popularity of a piece of music simplify because of 'time'. It has been 300/400 years since Vivaldi or Bach composed their music and wouldn't we, in this great length of time, been able to separate the greater pieces from the not so great pieces? Even if one piece of music would have been popular in between 1823 and 1830 because it happened to conform to the Zeitgeist movement of that time. Now whether or not it would remain surfaced and played would in the end, depend on its 'quality' and ability to please to a wider mass of audience. This might be because the tune is simple but simple tunes are often the hardest to think of and master, as a composer. To think of a fresh and original tune was something Mozart excelled at and hence his fame


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Gondur said:


> I don't necessary agree that Luck determines the popularity of a piece of music simplify because of 'time'. It has been 300/400 years since Vivaldi or Bach composed their music and wouldn't we, in this great length of time, been able to separate the greater pieces from the not so great pieces? Even if one piece of music would have been popular in between 1823 and 1830 because it happened to conform to the Zeitgeist movement of that time. Now whether or not it would remain surfaced and played would in the end, depend on its quality.


Except, I didn't use the term 'Luck' - I used the word Chance. Things happen randomly through time, not 'because of time'. 
By Chance I meant factors such as whether a patron or a singer took up a piece and made it popular - much like the point above made by brotagonist about the exposure of pieces played on the radio.

The thing about pieces being popular 'in the end' - we don't know that we are 'at the end'. Pieces popular today may be going through a phase or fashion which may change, and the pieces become submerged again, just as Bach was regarded as dry and out of date by the end of the eighteenth century.

What if people then had talked about the vital design feature of popular pieces - they would have assumed that Bach didn't have it.

Your original argument seems to say that economy of line is the overriding feature of popular pieces. But pieces that aren't popular may have this feature too, only they haven't had the chance to become popular. For example, many pieces of early music have an economy of line, not a note wasted, etc, but it is a minority taste, because it's not fashionable, not cool, and a bit nerdish (just like me).

As I said, I thought your OP was interesting, but too sweeping.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Except, I didn't use the term 'Luck' - I used the word Chance. Things happen randomly through time, not 'because of time'.
> By Chance I meant factors such as whether a patron or a singer took up a piece and made it popular - much like the point above made by brotagonist about the exposure of pieces played on the radio.
> 
> The thing about pieces being popular 'in the end' - we don't know that we are 'at the end'. Pieces popular today may be going through a phase or fashion which may change, and the pieces become submerged again, just as Bach was regarded as dry and out of date by the end of the eighteenth century.
> ...


If a popular singer in Mozart's time would have performed one of his operas, then the people listening to it would still have recognized the quality of the piece whether a famous person sing it or not. In fact, I am sure Mozart and other composers would have hired performers - very famous ones - to perform most of their works. People have an innate quality to recognize truly beautiful pieces and through time, some of the pieces will end up being preferred and it is these pieces that we are accustomed to today. Why do you think Vivaldi's Four Seasons is his most famous work? It is because it's arguably his best work for whatever reason. Why do you think Bach's Brandenburg concertos are more popular? It's because they're better. It really is that simple I think.

Now we live in a time where the majority of music of past and present is known to us via the internet and so I think it is perfectly reasonable to go onto youtube and assume that the videos with the highest number of hits are the best of their genre.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Gondur said:


> If a popular singer in Mozart's time would have performed one of his operas, then the people listening to it would still have recognized the quality of the piece whether a famous person sing it or not. In fact, I am sure Mozart and other composers would have hired performers - very famous ones - to perform most of their works. People have an innate quality to recognize truly beautiful pieces and through time, some of the pieces will end up being preferred and it is these pieces that we are accustomed to today. Why do you think Vivaldi's Four Seasons is his most famous work? It is because it's arguably his best work for whatever reason. Why do you think Bach's Brandenburg concertos are more popular? It's because they're better. It really is that simple I think.
> 
> Now we live in a time where the majority of music of past and present is known to us via the internet and so I think it is perfectly reasonable to go onto youtube and assume that the videos with the highest number of hits are the best of their genre.


Sorry - I just don't find your arguments very convincing. If a piece isn't sung in an accessible venue by someone popular, not a lot of people will hear it, so it won't have the chance to become popular. Whether people have an innate ability to recognise beauty - whether the Four Seasons is Vivaldi's best work - ditto the Brandenberg Concertos for Bach - these are all questions for discussion because *many people will disagree with your statements*. Your points are not at all self-evident but rather simplistic, in my opinion. No offence - that's just how I view them.

But look, relax. You don't need to post a counter-argument to my every post, as if I'm going to swing round to your point of view just because you've reiterated your original premise. I'm not, *because I think history, fashion, types of music, tastes in music and so on are all much more complex *than you recognise.

And threads are more interesting when they're allowed to develop, rather than have the OP jump in on every second post. Again - only in my opinion.

I don't ask you to agree with me - just accept that I am allowed to disagree.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

These massively popular pieces are (a) simple, (b) similar in structure to what people are used to -- a melody "hook" and easy to track development, as in pop music, and (c) short in duration. A brief, cute bagatelle such as Für Elise is therefore far more popular than any big work could ever be. To most people, the very concept of an hour long work is ridiculous. They're simply used to short songs of 5 minutes max. People judge Beethoven's 5th symphony overly popular, but they're miscalculating: they know the starting motif, but little else. The last movement is completely unknown to most. 

The piece also needs to have had wide exposure through some means -- usually, nowadays, through being used in a film. This is, I agree, in part, luck.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Sorry - I just don't find your arguments very convincing. If a piece isn't sung in an accessible venue by someone popular, not a lot of people will hear it, so it won't have the chance to become popular. Whether people have an innate ability to recognise beauty - whether the Four Seasons is Vivaldi's best work - ditto the Brandenberg Concertos for Bach - these are all questions for discussion because *many people will disagree with your statements*. Your points are not at all self-evident but rather simplistic, in my opinion. No offence - that's just how I view them.
> 
> But look, relax. You don't need to post a counter-argument to my every post, as if I'm going to swing round to your point of view just because you've reiterated your argument. I'm not, because I think history, fashion, types of music, tastes in music and so on are all much more complex than you recognise. And threads are more interesting when they're allowed to develop, rather than have the OP jump in on every second post.
> 
> I don't ask you to agree with me - just accept that I am allowed to disagree.


But what is your opinion on the assumption that YouTube videos with the highest number of views are the best videos from their genre? I have listened to 99% of Bach and Vivaldi's work (1% of some lost or yet to be found works) and I see that while there are really wonderful pieces from both composers, some of them are 'better' than others for a lot of reasons. Subjectivity does play a huge part in whether you decide on liking or disliking a piece but I think that there are pieces that resonate deeply with all of us and it is these pieces that are best of the lot. I cannot imagine an obscure violin concerto by Vivaldi becoming as well recognized as his four seasons because it's just not as good! Why are some people considered attractive by most people and aren't an acquired taste by some? It's essentially the same question.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Sorry - I am not going to accept that X work by Alpha composer is better than Y work, based on your mere assertion that you've listened to a heck of a lot of pieces and that's what you like! I'm going to form my opinion based on my own listening, or my own research into trends, history and so on.

99% of Bach's works, hey? Considering how prolific he was, that would certainly be amazing, but even so, it wouldn't prove anything, except about your likes and dislikes, which maybe I wouldn't share. (It would probably show also that you must be getting on in years and pretty affluent too, to be able to acquire the experience and the boxed sets.)

As for your vague hypothesis about why some people are considered attractive - that's a huge can of worms; there are all sorts of sociological variables as well as aesthetic.

We just don't argue in the same way, Gondur, so there doesn't seem much point in engaging with you. Not a few other people have disagreed* with you too - why not give them a turn?

(*Note: though actually I *started off *by *politely* *agreeing* with part of what you said... but alas, no longer.)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Gondur said:


> But what is your opinion on the assumption that YouTube videos with the highest number of views are the best videos from their genre? I have listened to 99% of Bach and Vivaldi's work (1% of some lost or yet to be found works) and I see that while there are really wonderful pieces from both composers, some of them are 'better' than others for a lot of reasons. Subjectivity does play a huge part in whether you decide on liking or disliking a piece but I think that there are pieces that resonate deeply with all of us and it is these pieces that are best of the lot. I cannot imagine an obscure violin concerto by Vivaldi becoming as well recognized as his four seasons because it's just not as good! Why are some people considered attractive by most people and aren't an acquired taste by some? It's essentially the same question.


By talking about You Tube in such terms you are conflating several distinct things - the composer, the performers, the acoustics of the venue, the quality of the recording. One would expect Andrew Manze or Rachel Podger to score highly because they are known "good players". Their choice of repertoire may not reflect the quality of the music but rather the way that they feel it fits their playing style. So to say that these videos get high ratings says nothing about the quality of the music. There may be better performances of better music marred by poor acoustics or poor recording.

People on this site often talk about the difficulties of You Tube - poor recordings etc. They avoid it because of that. So you have no way of knowing the discernment of your listeners. Quality is not a popularity contest. You talk of Bach and Vivaldi; what of Dufay or Machaut or Josquin Des Prez? How much of that music is known or appreciated? What of the composers of the Eton choirbook? Another thread has pointed out how music develops in popularity moving from David Munrow and Christopher Hogwood through to Jordi Savall and the Sixteen and Manze and Podger.

It's not just the composer, it's also the players as well.


----------



## Gondur (May 17, 2014)

Taggart said:


> By talking about You Tube in such terms you are conflating several distinct things - the composer, the performers, the acoustics of the venue, the quality of the recording. One would expect Andrew Manze or Rachel Podger to score highly because they are known "good players". Their choice of repertoire may not reflect the quality of the music but rather the way that they feel it fits their playing style. So to say that these videos get high ratings says nothing about the quality of the music. There may be better performances of better music marred by poor acoustics or poor recording.
> 
> People on this site often talk about the difficulties of You Tube, so you have no way of knowing the discernment of your listeners. Quality is not a popularity contest. You talk of Bach and Vivaldi what of Dufay or Machaut or Josquin Des Prez? How much of that music is know or appreciated? What of the composers of the Eton choirbook? Another thread has pointed out how music develops in popularity moving from David Munrow and Christopher Hogwod through to Jordi Savall and the Sixteen and Manze and Podger.
> 
> It's not just the composer, it's also the players as well.


It is wrong that the player influences the popularity of a piece of music simply because he is famous. Yes he might be a great player but there are equally skilled players who are more than capable of playing the same piece with the same interpretation. I think it is all about the notes. I think a piece of music is like a mathematical formula and its beauty can be seen by all. A poor rendition of Handel's Dixit Dominus could be equally as satisfying as what you might deem a great rendition - the underlying beauty still exists. It is about the notes and the relationship between them and how the composer has chosen to arrange musical structures. I can appreciate music played with Synthesized Midi sounds in Sibelius as much as I can appreciate music played by 'skilled' performers. Both versions are satisfying in different ways and violins have Baroque strings and metal strings to cater for people's acquired tastes for this reason.

It is wrong that the popularity of a piece depends on the reputation of the performer because this is likely and is the case, to create elitism. Now are you going to say to me that those performers are famous because they are the best, or are you going to apply the same logic to these people's social success as you do to the success of a piece of music?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gondur said:


> It is wrong that the player influences the popularity of a piece of music simply because he is famous.


Wrong? What does "wrong" mean? There have been cases where a famous performer has restored the works of a composer to the repertoire simply by playing one or two (I'm thinking Bernstein here, or Gould). If this is wrong, then I'm on the "wrong" side for sure!

The more that famous performers make the works they play more popular, the better. We should be thanking them.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

> Now we live in a time where the majority of music of past and present is known to us via the internet and so I think it is perfectly reasonable to go onto youtube and assume that the videos with the highest number of hits are the best of their genre.


Why limit it to "of their genre"? Why not determine which genre is the best based on how many likes/hits they receive on YouTube?


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> *Why are some pieces more liked than others?*
> 
> A couple of ideas:
> 
> ...


I sincerely doubt that there are many people who are afraid to express a liking for certain pieces on the grounds that they might accidentally choose the "wrong pieces" and offend "those in the know." Perhaps I can understand such a thing happening with pop music in the school playground where kids are desperate to fit in, but to suggest that this sort of crowd mentality occurs "particularly in classical music" seems rather bizarre.

Far more common, in my opinion, is the self-congratulatory "hipster" position of deliberately avoiding expressing one's liking for the popular pieces in order that one might seem above the common masses.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Gondur said:


> But what is your opinion on the assumption that YouTube videos with the highest number of views are the best videos from their genre?...Subjectivity does play a huge part in whether you decide on liking or disliking a piece but I think that there are pieces that resonate deeply with all of us and it is these pieces that are best of the lot. I cannot imagine an obscure violin concerto by Vivaldi becoming as well recognized as his four seasons because it's just not as good! Why are some people considered attractive by most people and aren't an acquired taste by some? It's essentially the same question.


Much research has gone into understanding why there is general consensus on which people are attractive. The answer comes, surprisingly to some perhaps, from evolutionary biology. Attractive people have more symmetric faces allowing computers to do a reasonable job of determining who is attractive. Symmetric faces are correlated with fewer mutations and higher health. Those who inherited subconscious algorithms causing them to find symmetric faces more attractive produced more viable and numerous offspring. Those offspring led to the vast majority of present people who also inherited those algorithms.

That part is a bit off topic, but important to the thread because the OP states the 2 questions "Why are some people considered attractive?" and "Why are some pieces more liked?" are basically the same. I think we can interpret the OP question in one of two ways (maybe more).

1) Historically, why are some pieces liked more than others?
2) If one played a group of pieces to a large number of people, why would some works be liked more than others?

Question 1 clearly includes historical circumstances (was the work lost?, did a major figure champion the work?, do most people hear a subset of works due to reasons other than that a high percentage of people like that subset? etc.) Question 2 would eliminate historical issues. The reference to attractive people seems to suggest the question does not concern historical issues.

I have thought about this question for some time (decades), but I have thought about it from a scientific perspective. Why would human brains find some works or melodies more attractive than others? Personally I think we will eventually understand this question but not for perhaps 500-1000 years (or even more). We will need vastly more knowledge of how the brain works. There may be ways of making progress on the question using simpler psychological principles and data, but I still think we're a ways away from a convincing argument.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

rspader said:


> I think PetrB's idea of "simple to understand" hits on it. Not trying to be a smart *** here but the question for me is: "Can you whistle it?" Is there a theme or melody that is simple to understand, repeats and can be heard in your head when the music is not otherwise playing? I find that the pieces that are most popular are the ones that I find myself whistling in the shower or car or anywhere else that whistling is appropriate (and some places where it is not). These tend to be shorter pieces or the opening or closing movements of the more popular symphonies and concerti.


Exactly, one or more elements of it share the common traits and goals of folk music:

You can recall it near entire after just one hearing.
The main motif, tune, or melody is readily within everyman listener memory, and their vocal range.
The above also necessarily means 'brief,' and or brief and then repeated.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Much research has gone into understanding why there is general consensus on which people are attractive. The answer comes, surprisingly to some perhaps, from evolutionary biology. Attractive people have more symmetric faces allowing computers to do a reasonable job of determining who is attractive. Symmetric faces are correlated with fewer mutations and higher health. Those who inherited subconscious algorithms causing them to find symmetric faces more attractive produced more viable and numerous offspring. Those offspring led to the vast majority of present people who also inherited those algorithms.


We could take Brad Pitt's face-symmetry group and then make unitary representations of it in all other people's faces! The Casimir elements are nose and beard longitude! (particle physicist's jokes )


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Those saying the most popular youtube vids are of the best music _are out of their ever-lovin' minds._

Those saying the most popular classical pieces are the best classical pieces have also got more than a few bricks loose in their upper story.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Those saying the most popular youtube vids are of the best music _is out of their ever-lovin' mind._
> 
> Those saying the most popular classical pieces are the best classical pieces have also got more than a few bricks loose in their upper story.


u don't like Justin Bieber, PetrB?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> u don't like Justin Bieber, PetrB?


To no avail, I had repeatedly rejected his advances, until, sadly, I was forced to go so far as to get a restraining order.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Gondur said:


> But what is your opinion on the assumption that YouTube videos with the highest number of views are the best videos from their genre? I have listened to 99% of Bach and Vivaldi's work (1% of some lost or yet to be found works) and I see that while there are really wonderful pieces from both composers, some of them are 'better' than others for a lot of reasons. Subjectivity does play a huge part in whether you decide on liking or disliking a piece but I think that there are pieces that resonate deeply with all of us and it is these pieces that are best of the lot. I cannot imagine an obscure violin concerto by Vivaldi becoming as well recognized as his four seasons because it's just not as good! Why are some people considered attractive by most people and aren't an acquired taste by some? It's essentially the same question.


I'm sure there are no pieces of music that "resonate deeply with all of us". Seems to me that you are overly concerned with popularity and consensus. Just listen to what you like and the hell with everything else.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Just listen to what you like and the hell with everything else.


Actually, I would suggest following around a handful of the omniscients who post in "Current Listening," "The TC Project," and various other high-minded threads. Even statistics could probably be useful if you restricted the sample size at the outset, imho. In any case, I've discovered some amazing works/recordings that way.

*p.s.* Mind you, these people have cost me a fortune!


----------



## Mister Man (Feb 3, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I'm sure there are no pieces of music that "resonate deeply with all of us". Seems to me that you are overly concerned with popularity and consensus. Just listen to what you like and the hell with everything else.


According to YouTube, I should like Für Elise. But alas, I must be defective, because I find Für Elise dreadfully irritating.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mister Man said:


> According to YouTube, I should like Für Elise. But alas, I must be defective, because I find Für Elise dreadfully irritating.


Don't forget Grieg's _Morning & In the Hall of the Mountain King_ from the _Peer Gynt Suite_; clearly Grieg's very best works


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Don't forget Grieg's _Morning & In the Hall of the Mountain King_ from the _Peer Gynt Suite_; clearly Grieg's very best works


Several of the pieces from the Peer Gynt Suites are absolutely first-drawer. Including these.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Several of the pieces from the Peer Gynt Suites are absolutely first-drawer. Including these.


and they qualify with the criteria of being easily memorable upon one hearing: they have simple melody, those melodies easily sung by non-singers, and they are short, and quite repetitive.

No one said 'popular' and some of the best cannot overlap.

The most of what is popular is not necessarily the 'top drawer' works by the 'top drawer' composers, just some of it, and those are usually the shorter simpler pieces or 'bits of pieces.'


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I'm sure there are no pieces of music that "resonate deeply with all of us". Seems to me that you are overly concerned with popularity and consensus. Just listen to what you like and the hell with everything else.


I concur. Why be preoccupied with what "everyone else" thinks or does?

One of my favorite pieces is the Ives Concord Piano Sonata. Perhaps two other folks on TC like it too. I couldn't care less.


----------



## Victor (Nov 27, 2010)

Tunefulness is a vital ingredient if a piece of music is to be liked by a wide audience. I totally agree with rspader when he says "_Can you whistle it?" Is there a theme or melody that is simple to understand, repeats and can be heard in your head when the music is not otherwise playing?"_.
Of course other elements such as rhythm, harmony, tone colour, form, and expression are all important factors, but I would suggest that a memorable tune/melody/theme is the most important quality.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Being popular is helpful in getting pieces liked as the more you hear something the more it sticks but things have to have something below the initial attractive veneer to sustain likeability long-term. 

I hate superficiality or fur coat and no knickers


----------

