What is (Good) Music?

(I'm hypothesizing that an understanding of (or faith of) music theories/mysteries should help my technique)

A) Ok; What is music anyway?
B) Or better yet, what is 'good' music to you? Give a reason or 10 why?

If possible, please try to avoid circular reasoning, oxymorons, etc. ... while substantiating this mystery/theory, and/or your own musical 'mystery'.

I'll begin: It seems (IMHO):
1) a metaphysical phenomenon (to be sure); another black-box?
2) like a higher communication?
3) outwardly observable communication: person-to-person, self-to-higher-self, self-to-God, church-to-God?
4) very beautiful (containing much harmony, symmetry, proportion) and excellent?
5) spiritual, sensual, soulish, and yet pertaining to excellence?
6) 'good music' (IMHO) is honest, virtuous, etc., but 'keeps me awake"?
7) to deeply worship and praise another being?

Music can lead you to or away from someone/something - and usually at a high rate of speed.

A) Melody of harmony; the science of harmonious sounds; the written or printed score of a composition
B) That is in the ears of the beholder.

But then again I've had verbal suggestions that was "music" to my ears.

Well I tried Philip.

(IMO) good music is about being able to state in musical terms an idea that you want to convey more clearly than anyone else has previously done it, for that is the way impressions are left on the mind, and that's the memory that people keep.

people don't remember the type of chord progression you use, they remember why you were using it.

ORIGINAL: Philip

(not to deride the bird)

I was wondering what was going on with that bird...

ORIGINAL: jamesg1213

Philip, to paraphrase Elvis Costello....

''Writing about music is like dancing about architecture''

I thought that quote was from Zappa?
Anyway, what is good music?... How about "I can't explain it, but I know it when I hear it"

Good music communicates a psychic/mental/emotional/spiritual experience directly from the composer/performer's psyche to that of the listener, without the need for considered translation.

From the film "Immortal Beloved":

Ludwig van Beethoven: [in reference to "Violin Sonata in A Major, Op. 47" - "Kreutzer"... ] Do you like it?

Anton Felix Schindler: Shh!

Ludwig van Beethoven: I cannot hear them, but I know they are making a hash of it. What do you think? Music is... a dreadful thing. What is it? I don't understand it. What does it mean?

Anton Felix Schindler: It - it exalts the soul.

Ludwig van Beethoven: Utter nonsense. If you hear a marching band, is your soul exalted? No, you march. If you hear a waltz, you dance. If you hear a mass, you take communion. It is the power of music to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer. The listener has no choice. It is like hypnotism...

Cheers.

From the film "Immortal Beloved":

Gag! That film had as much to do with Beethoven as "Troy" had to do with the Iliad.

You'd think for the money Hollywood spends making movies they could afford a few grand to consult with someone who knows a minimal amount about the subject matter of their movies . . .

All good music starts with the same thing, a good melody. The great ones have a great melody. The rhythm, harmony, arrangements, mix, presentation, genre are the spices added. But the melody is the part you can hum, whistle, play on a ukulele or on a cheap casio keyboard and everyone recognizes it.

This also isn't fully true. I've heard pure percussion pieces that were really great. I was exchanging some CDs with an Indian guy where I worked back before going out on my own. He gave me a CD of Indian musicians just playing drums. They were (ragas?) for the morning. It was just a tingling musical experience without a melody or harmony anywhere in sight.

To me, great music is anything that gives me the chills. It usually does have a good melody. But mainly it's the ability to project the emotions of the performer through the speakers. If it does that, it's done its job. I get the chills from many types of music from Mozart to Motown to Eminem to My Chemical Romance and everything in between pretty much.

I think it was Perry what's his name from Jane's Addiction who said that the best music results from simplicity and truth, and there's a lot to be said for that. In my regular listening session the other day I listened to Sweet Honey in the Rock (an acapella woman's group) doing an old spiritual (Silvie), and I just got the chills like crazy. But, in the same session, I got the same result from a completely frenetic and complex piece from Tool, so there are no rules.

ORIGINAL: jamesg1213

You might be right Roger, I've seen it attributed to Laurie Anderson as well!

"I can't explain it, but I know it when I hear it"

Nail hit on head really...I think trying to analyze what makes music appealing is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Just play it, and enjoy listening to it.

OK; I knew that answer was coming around. I disagree for several reasons:

The same hyper-existential logic may hold for other metaphysicals: what is light?, what is time?, etc? You 'detect' it, only, then to handwave any 'good' existence(s) as, unidentifiable, pointless, incidental, accidental, freak-beauty, or whatever.

But, If you provide music theories, music hypotheses, reasons, etiologies, etc. of 'good' music (to your ears) ... you might at least identify real dynamic genre information: harmonies, patterns, and other 'excellencies' ... that are beneficial for your technique, scientifically or artistically. Music cladistics, taxonomies, types, kinds, genres, etc. have elements about them worthy of analysis. Else, I'd speak with prejudice against Rap, Christian, Country, and other 'good' music genres by not analyzing the good portions.

For such 'raw' genres (if you will), behold these other posts: Daniel's, Dean's, Yep's, Josh's, Scott's ... IMHO, they seem armed with 'good information', style, coherence, etc. that inevitably must expand my technique(s).

I believe you can do much better than this. At least do one of the following (depending on time-constraints):
1) state your opinion of 'utterances' that 'might' predictably sound 'good to your ears'.
2) Tear apart one of your songs and analyse what 'elements' please you about your song.
3) Give reasons why certain genres are 'good' to your ears.

In reply to the original question, a classically standard definition of music is "organized sound," which John Cage amended to "sound." Either definition is OK with me.

"Good music to me" is easy to define: music I like. The harder thing is to define "good" music in a way that others would agree with. This amounts to the philosophical question whether there are objective criteria of aesthetic value. Many thousands of mostly impenetrable prose have been written on that subject! Some of that can make good reading -- for suggestions check out the reading list of any college aethetics class. I think the only certain thing that can be said about what makes good music is that Creative Labs cards don't.

handwave any 'good' existence(s) as, unidentifiable, pointless, incidental, accidental, freak-beauty, or whatever.

Your words Philip, certainly not mine, inferred or otherwise.

I say, to analyze the 'goodness' of something as esoteric as music, is to push it further away. It's either 'good' for you, or...

I believe you can do much better than this

Nope!

ORIGINAL: droddey
I think it was Perry what's his name from Jane's Addiction who said that the best music results from simplicity and truth, and there's a lot to be said for that.

Perry Ferrell. Excellent music.

In reply to the original question, a classically standard definition of music is "organized sound," which John Cage amended to "sound." Either definition is OK with me.

I have never like the definition "Organized sound", that was created by mid twentieth centruy composers who needed an all inclusive description to make their music legit. I know that sounds harsh but I think music has to be something more than sound. I am not deliberatelly bashing John Cage just because he was admittedly tone deaf, or someone like Murray Shaffer who thinks spouting meaningless phrases in a whooping voice qualifies as music. (oh wait, maybe I am ). If you compare those two to another avant garde composer like George Crumb, whose music is unusual but well thought out and has real meaning and emotion, you'll see what I mean. That is where I start drawing the line between Sound and Music. Sound can be profound, though I think music needs to have a purpose other than to create noise.

.