What makes music good or bad?

A coworker asked me what kind of music I like, and I didn’t have an answer for her. I said “I don’t really like any kind of music. Most of it is garbage.”

I surprised myself, and probably her too, with that response. It caused me to spend the rest of my day thinking “WHY do I like the music I like? Why do I dislike everything else?” The result of this pondering is the following criteria for Music Mosier Likes.

I like deliberate, complex instrumentals. Eddie Van Halen is famous for complex and outrageously complicated guitar solos, but I can’t think of worse torture than having to sit through an entire performance of “Eruption”. Sure, all of that noise might be deliberate, but even seasoned guitar players can’t figure out just what the fuck is going on there. It’s chaos, and music is supposed to be order. Every now and then the blaring noise is pierced by a few seconds of something that actually sounds pleasant, but then its back to the whooshy whammy “look how fast i can move my fingers” style that engulfs the entire solo.

For an example of the opposite of that, check out Tommy Emmanuel. Every second of that performance is deliberate, every note is crisp, and the overall structure of the song is technically perfect. An example of a band displaying this quality is Tool. The instrumentals aren’t particularly complicated taken singularly, but as the song progresses the way the instruments weave together becomes more and more complex and intriguing, especially the drums. Especially at the end of the song, even professional musicians would (and do) have serious difficulty matching this timing and rhythm. I challenge you to even tap your foot along with the song. It’s hard to keep up with, but not even at one point in the song is Eruption-esque noise.

Another way a song can get a positive response from me is to touch on powerful emotions. Eminem did this pretty well a few times. Whether you think he’s any good or not, nobody can deny that his rage shows through every once in awhile. A good example of the opposite of this is Souljaboy. Another good example of the opposite of this is the whole genre of what I like to call “Vomit Rock”. Whatever drops of emotion screamo rockers are trying to convey is lost in an ocean of ridiculousness.

Also, I like songs that are not necessarily instrumentally complicated or lyrically deep, but touch something fundamentally human about us. Songs like Time After Time (I prefer Rob Thomas’ cover) artfully state what we’re already feeling but just haven’t found the words to say. Elvis did this pretty well a few times too (modernized for your convenience).

The final criteria for a song I’ll probably enjoy can completely ignore all of the above, as long as it’s a new and fresh style that is still pleasant to hear. The version of Man of Constant Sorrow they used for the movie O Brother Where Art Thou is outstanding. It differs enough from its bluegrass roots to pull it out of the genre and leave it pretty much undefined. Another song like this is Puscifer’s Rev 22:20. It’s not quite jazz. It’s not quite rock. It’s not quite goth. It’s not quite metal. It’s not quite blues. It’s something like all of those, but something different too.

What I’m listening to now is straight hard rock, simple and powerful and honest. The latest Disturbed album was released a few months ago, called Indestructible. It’s extremely popular, and I’m glad to see it so successful. My favorite song on the album is called The Night. I’ve watched a barely-even-amateur, adolescent pile of crap band that released nonsense like “Down With the Sickness” become a group of guys who can release what is in my opinion the greatest album of the year. I saw a lot of promise in the previous album, 10,000 fists, but I was too cynical to believe they’d continue the trend of improvement in their style. Too many artists have made albums long after they burned out. It’s rare to see the opposite, where a band or artist starts out weak and lousy, and only becomes better with time.

This might be s good a place as any to share my own crackpot theory of music appreciation:

Good music appeals to one or more of the following: The head, the ears, the feet, or the heart.

Music that appeals to the head is music that you can sit and listen to and think about, and it rewards close attention. You can appreciate what the composer or performer is doing, and the musical intelligence it took to do it.

Music that appeals to the ears is music that’s fun to listen to—ear candy. It has hooks and catchy tunes and interesting sounds and tone colors and harmonies.

Music that appeals to the feet is music that “has a good beat and you can dance to it.” It evokes a physical response; you’re compelled to get up and dance, or at least tap your toes or snap your fingers.

Music that appeals to the heart is music that evokes an emotional response. Listening to it makes you feel something: joyful or melancholy or aggressive or amorous.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t think your theory is crackpot at all.

If the band has a number in the name, the music is bad.

Cite?

I like your analysis Thudlow Boink.

Dave Clark Five?

well technically you are correct…90% of everything is crud.

while its one of those rules like murphy’s law Sturgeon’s Law is so very very close to perfectly trues its kinda scary.

I hate techno that constant one single stupid beat used in 99.9999999% of songs because the dj needs to mix the songs together drives me nuts. on the other hand there really is some amazing techno out there, great stuff that breaks the mold.

you could write a similar review of pretty much every genre out there and it would be true. most of the music made is total crap for a variety of reasons.

stuff I like

breaking the mold…with talent. I am not interested in something different because its different. Melt Banana is a fucking amazing band, seeing them live simply blew me away, and their music…well its not exactly easy to listen to. Handsome Boy Modeling School, genre bending and blending funky grooves, jazzy vocals, hip hop and rock beats all blended up in ways you just dont hear.

someone recommended Remy Shand here on the boards and I have been giving him a listen. hes not really new, nothing ground breaking going on here. the guy is practically possessed by Marvin Gaye but the guy has definite talent. I dont know if I will end up buying his stuff but hes certainly worth a listen for the simple reason that hes good.

chill, acid jazz, its electronica influenced by jazz (or the other way around depending on who you are listening to) like all other genres there is a ton of cookie cutter crap in here, but the gems you can find are just amazing, Kruder & Dorfmeister, dZihan and Kamien, Thievery Corp. some of the guys doing this stuff really know how to reach out and grab you.

I dont know if its really describable, you know it when you hear it though. its like comparing Beyonce to Aretha, Aretha does what she does with no technical tricks no magic boxes to alter her voice or anything like that. put the 2 side by side right now and even at her age Aretha will blow you away. Beyonce with probably make you flinch hearing her sing straight into a mike with no help and no lip syncing. you can make the same comparison all over the place and you will find the same kind of thing.

Counter-examples (just from my iTunes library):

Four Tet
M83
Zero 7
Ursula 1000

…OK, some of the above are just one guy and therefore not a band. And a lot falls under just good, not great. But none of the above are bad.

… 10 CC, 10000 Maniacs…

I like **Thudlow’s **breakdown as well - 'cept maybe I would change “feet” to “hips” because there is a both a dance and a more primal, sexual connotation - we can’t leave out that! :wink:

Beyond that, music has some sort of ability to fire neurons in our brain that can evoke certain emotional, psychological, spiritual and cognitive responses. Good music, to me, is music that is effective at hitting those triggers. A piece of music can either hit one small set of triggers really hard, or hit and manipulate a complex wave of triggers that all make sense within that piece of music. That’s why there’s room in music for aggressive punk and metal, and long, complex progressive, jazz and classical pieces - they all have the potential to be good, i.e., hit interesting triggers (even while the vast majority is, as has been noted, dreck).

But clearly, how music fires neurons is unique to the individual - a neurological way of saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” - you are welcome to not love EVH’s Eruption, for the reasons you describe. I happen to love it - okay, so I don’t ever really need to listen to it again because it was imprinted on my DNA by the 10,000th listen when I was 17 years old - but I could offer counter arguments galore to your critiques.

I agree, Tommy Emmanuel is great and technically wonderful - but he has nothing to do with my need to listen to The Flying Lizards’ version of Money (youTube link) every now and then. As I try to stress to my son when he trashes the Disney stuff my daughter listens to - there can be great examples of pretty much all types of music; stay open to listen to what you hear…

Counterpoints:
Ben Folds Five
10,000 Maniacs
Galaxie 500
And many, many more…

Also, this. A thousand times, this.

If you’re really interested in this subject, I highly recommend This is Your Brain on Music - The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel Levin.

Levin is uniquely qualified to write about this - he’s a former rock musician and big label music producer who went back to school and got a Ph.D in cognitive neuropsychology, and is now one of the top researchers in the field.

The book is all about what makes good music ‘good’. It’s heavily peppered with examples from many genres of music, and draws on peer-reviewed research into brain physiology, MRI studies, and the like.

For example, he draws on research that suggests our brains evolved to recognize rhythm as a defense against predators - we need to tell the difference between the sound of a branch constantly hitting something because the wind is moving it regularly, vs the sound it might make when a predator brushes against it. So when we hear a beat we expect, it soothes us. Good music plays with this, perhaps using syncopation or an odd rhythm to raise tension in our minds, then a recognized fill to cause our brains to go, “ahh… I know that.”

Some of what makes good music is purely cultural. If you grow up listening to western music, you develop a subconscious ‘feel’ for the patterns inherent in the music, such as western scales, the I-IV-V progression in the blues, call-and-response phrasing, etc. Good music works within those forms, but great music plays with them - thwarting our expectations while still eventually ‘bringing it home’.

Levin has a great web site full of clips of real songs that illustrate various principles and ideas in the book. It’s worth checking out even if you haven’t read the book. Go to ‘interactive features’, then ‘song clips’. He’s got a whole bunch of links to short samples of songs, along with a paragraph for each telling you what to listen for. It’s really interesting.

Thanks for that link, Sam Stone; I’m gonna order me that book.
I have put a lot of thought into the OP’s question lately, in large part because of some posts on the Dope – but I don’t think I can come up with a better answer than Thudlow Boink did. Head, ears, hips/feet, and heart: that’s good.
RR

I think that this is a good working theory, but I would go further and say that GOOD music, must appeal to *more than *one of them not one or more. My problem with Van Halen is that it only appeals to my head. He’s amazing, but I don’t really care. On the other hand Stevie Ray Vaughn was just as amazing, but he also hit my ears and (to use WordMan’s substitution) my hips. Sometimes my heart as well.

Good music moves you, and that is the reason why people’s tastes are so varied. I enjoy the music of Philip Glass, because it appeals to my head, but also appeals to my heart. Inside the repetition and change you get something very deep and emotional. In fact I would say that any music that appeals only to “the head” is missing something fundamental from the equation. Just as something that appeals only to the ears (for me Abba would be a good examply) is missing something fundamental. My guess is that people who like Abba and bands of that ilk, like them because not only are their songs catchy earworms, but that it’s music that makes them want to move. It doesn’t do that for me, but hey, that’s taste for you. Consequently I can’t really stand it but that’s because it only hits one of the four.

I could go on, but I don’t know that I need to. But I like the breakdown of where music hit’s you a lot. I plan to steal that and use it when I talk to my music nerd friends later. :wink:

The MC5. Kick out the jam’s Motherfucker.

Louis Armstrong and his hot five
Louis Armstrong and his hot seven
Quintette of the Hot Club of Paris

Any jazz trio, quartet, quintet, sextet, septet, octet.

What about piano trios, string quartets, woodwind quintets…?

Well, with all due respect, Thudlow’s theory pertains to how one recognizes good music or the taxonomy of reactions that good music engenders. Which is not the same thing as explaining why a piece of music is good or bad i.e. why does a particular tune evoke joy rather than boredom or make a rhythm infectious rather than just a jumble of noise?

Sam Stone I am checking out that book, too. I have read Jourdain’s Music, The Brain and Ecstasy but it is more about how the brain processes music, not what makes it good. Also a worthy read, but it does go into the weeds when it comes to brain biology…