This is something I've been thinking about for almost seven minutes now. I think that truly good music has to have one of a few qualities to it in order to really, really be good. Sure, there's songs out there that get your foot tapping, but they aren't necessarily "good" songs. They are the musical equivalent of Nomar's characterization of the Matrix movies. Anyway, so far this is what I've got. For a song to be good, it has to either: Rock I'm not sure what defines it, but certain songs rock, and certain ones do not, and you can just tell. Most Queens of the Stone Age and Foo Fighters stuff, for example, rocks. Led Zeppelin rocks. Creed does not. I haven't been able to pin down any unique element that determines whether or not a song rocks aside from an underlying energy, a "just-you-wait-'cause-this-song-is-gonna-rip-your-balls-off" quality that pervades the music. Whether or not a song rocks is often the element you can use to determine if a band will really "make it"; you can base it entirely off of their first single and you won't often be wrong. Groove For example, Sublime grooves. Much Carlos Santana stuff grooves. Some good jazz would fall into this category too. This is the **** that makes you want to make sweet love to your significant other, or a random stranger off the street, and then just lie in bed with no greater concern than how many Cheez-Its you have left before you have to get up and get another box. It's also great driving music. As-yet-unnamed, rap-specific category I am not particularly well-versed in rap, but it seems to me that in order for it to be good, it has to have an element of "rock" energy in addition to a flow that does not need to be present for a song to rock. I don't necessarily mean flow in the word-spitting sense that it's often used; rather, it should connote a continuity to the song, a steadiness that does not let up until well after you thought it was going to. Like the action sequences in Blade II. Just keeps going, and going, and holy **** that's awesome type of thing. But like I said, I don't know rap particularly well, so please do correct me if I'm wrong. The problem with only having these three categories of good music is that it leaves out a whole lot of good stuff. I am not a big country music fan, but I'm positive that there's good country out there; however, I doubt that it rocks, grooves, or flows. So what category should that be in? How about folk-type stuff like Jim Croce, Joan Baez, clearly good music that as clearly does not rock? Even Coldplay and their ilk might have a difficult time fitting in one of these categories. So I need y'all's help here. What do you think? Manny, I'm expecting a 3,000 word essay from you.
Wow, Zac. You have started 2 threads in the hangout in less than 24 hours. I just have one question to ask: What have you done with the real Zac?? Interesting question...I'll have to think about it. I will say that for me to enjoy something, I have to listen to it several times. It is because of that, that I probably should not be buying so many CDs, as there are plenty of CDs that I have only listened to a handful of times (read - "Slanted and Enchanted" by Pavement). But I do try with anything new that I buy to listen all the way through at least 2, sometimes up to 4 times before really making a call on it. The key is to experience stuff that you didn't realize was there before. That is what makes a CD/album great. Bands like Creed and Nickelback are generic and derivative, IMO, of other bands like Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, etc. You hear one Creed song and you have heard them all.
It is completely subjective and impossible for "good" to be defined. If there were certain empirical standards for something to be "good," wouldn't those simply be copied to the point of being completely formulaic and cliche? Then, would it somehow cease to be "good?" IMHO, you either like it or you don't, and shouldn't feel obligated to adhere to anyone else's completely subjective opinion.
Isn't there a difference between "good" and "enjoyable"? I would rather stare at a panel of FoxTrot than a Van Gogh painting, but I wouldn't argue that Bill Amend is the better artist. Likewise, there are plenty of moviegoers who would rather see Scary Movie 3 than Requiem for a Dream, but that doesn't make it a better movie. And there are people who would rather listen to *N Sync than Dylan, but that doesn't make them better musicians. If there's no such thing as higher quality, then the entire profession of being a critic shouldn't exist... but it has, since practically forever. I'm not at all saying that no one should listen to Creed or that they truly suck - I'm just saying they lack something that would make them an artistically great band in their genre. There are bands I like that don't rock. I don't think you should be obligated to adhere to someone else's opinion, either, but Shakespeare is better than Danielle Steele, right? As for the formulaic and cliché thing... I think that if the guidelines are general enough, then that doesn't have to be true. Old stuff rocks, and new stuff rocks, and they don't sound the same. That doesn't mean they can't have some elements in common.
Quality is an indefinable characteristic, not explained by the rational methods of thought prevailing in modern systems of learning. The things we love and appreciate most in life are infused with Quality, which we can’t define; you just know it when you see it. See Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig
Why not? Litchenstein painted similar images. Does that make him less of an artist than Van Gogh? Is Picasso a lesser artist than Edward Hopper? How on Earth can you justify Mondrian being "better" than any paperback sci-fi painter? I really don't see how any "standards" could be consistently applied across mediums, styles, etc. Apples and oranges... Jeff had an awesome post that dealt with this kind of stuff a while back, wish I could find it.
Something else that I wanted to add to this... Back a long time ago , I used to have some "bubblegum pop" CDs in Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, N Sync, etc. One day I am listening to a Spears song and I hear some keyboard riff and I think to myself, "Hey, that is the same riff that is in such and such song by the Backstreet Boys." Well, I looked to see who wrote that song for Britney and wouldn't you know it was Andreas Carlson, Lundin, Max Martin, etc, who also wrote the song for the Backstreet Boys that had the same riff! The point is that stuff, although catchy, is not original. It is formulaic and based on the artists' outside appearance and image; not if they are a really good musician or singer-songwriter. Anyone who is tired of pop radio and wants to expand their horizons, I will give you a tip: Go out and buy at least 2 CDs by these artists: Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, John Coltrane, and The Cure (early stuff is more preferred). I won't guarantee you that you will never need pop radio again, but it will show you that there is a vast world out there waiting to be explored that is so unknown to most people. It USED to be unknown to me, but is not anymore.
There is no universal "good music". It can't be defined. It's too subjective. I love all kinds of music. I like a lot of Creed's stuff. I like a lot of DMB's stuff. I think Tupac's lyrics were some of the best ever written in hip-hop. I recently listened to a commercial for a new CD where Bette Midler sings Rosemary Clooney songs and it blew me away. She worked with Barry Manilow on the song "A Slow Boat to China" and I thought it sounded awesome to the point I may actually buy my first CD in years. I think Bill Withers had one of the most awesome male voices ever. I thought George Michaels had one of the most underrated voices ever. I think the Bee Gees were one of the most underrated groups ever. I think the Backstreet Boys were great entertainers. Hell, I even think Hanson had talent for kids that young. So sue me. Hardly any of these groups/artists had anything in common (other than most people think many of them suck!). I loved a lot of their stuff. Once you attempt to define why music sounds good, you take the individual interpretation out of it. Why does a particular dessert taste good? Do you want to break it down to the molecular level? Hell no... the thing just tastes damn good.
With this you loose all hope for what is good and bad. There are standards that have to be there to make music better than others...like a repeating note, simple element of classical music... Otherwise we couldn't say Hendrix was any better than Hanson.
I could write for months on this subject, but lucky for you I don't have months. One thing; A hypothetical CD: If millions of people like it, and millions of people buy it/download it/whatever, chances are pretty good that it's crap. Not always, but usually.
Sure you can. And that's why so-called "crappy" pop music still sells... nobody cares about the definition, just what it sounds like to them. Your definition of what "good music" may mean nothing to someone else. And that's the way it should be... the individual should decide, not a bunch of people that want to define what "good music" is. Good music is what I enjoy listening to and what I think sounds good, not what you do. Simple as that.
It's all about the groove. I don't care what kind of music it is, if it doesn't groove, I don't like it. Manny, you know it's the same "songwriters" that write the "songs" for all those teeny bopper TRL "artists", don't you? It's textbook formula music. It all sounds the same because it's the same middle-aged songwriters that write it all.
Why then are there several bands that 'rock' that have never 'made it'... The Strokes are just as derivative as Creed, btw.
That kind of logic is annoying. There's been a thread before about your type...only the unknown, underground bands that nobody has heard of before are cool, right?
Not at all. Most unknown, underground bands are bad as well. The point is that music which appeals to the lowest common denominator usually does so by eradicating anything that might possibly put people off, and therefore rarely takes risks with being creative in (or venturing beyond) an established format. Of course, as I stated, there are exceptions to this; Radiohead, Outkast, etc.,. But, for the most part - crap. I'm not stating that ALL this music is intentionally engineered to appeal to the lowest common denominator (though most of it is), but that a common characteristic of music with widespread appeal is that, to a more discriminating listener, it's often quite bland and uninteresting. Sometimes it's music that, at one point, was creative and inspired but has now, through repetition and replication, become the flavor of the day. By the way - what exactly is my type? Before you answer, I'd like to point out that I'm not wearing horn-rimmed glasses or a ringer t-shirt with some obscure logo on it, and I don't think "The Darkness" is a good band. I tend to listen to more jazz and symphonic music than anything else, and I actually play a couple of instruments. I know the hipster formula is typically obscure=good, which is just as silly as saying platinum=good, but there are many non-hipsters who have critical views of popular media, and many music listeners (who are often also musicians) who listen critically to music because of love for music as an art form, and not because of a desire to make a fashion statement, or a need to be the first monkey on the next-big-thing bandwagon.
