why is it hard to write good music?

[Jace-BeOS]

What is good music? What is bad music?

I think it's possible to state that some music is technically more complex, planned, constructed, and accomplished, than other music, when considering music theory.

Taste is entirely different, though. Conflating the two is easy and dangerous, and people do this almost continuously. Drawing a hard and objective line between the two is impossible, as evidenced by all the argument in existence to this day that tries to do it.

Regardless of the skill present in it, I don't enjoy jazz..

I can't tell your intention with that last statement, but you just revealed why taste is not through itself relevant. Your enjoyment or not is not relevant to whether or not there is good music in "jazz". Jazz is a broad and diffuse thing to bring in.

I think that was kind of what I was going for in my last statement. It's been a few days though... sorry for not being more clear. But, I agree: taste and enjoyment is irrelevant to whether there is good music in jazz, or any genre.

You also referred to the act of learning to appreciate music, and that is an important and good point to make. I think that my personal tastes would change if I purposefully sat down and listened critically to a genre I don't currently care for, such as jazz (per my prior example of music that I don't currently enjoy but which certainly is known for having qualities found from music theory expertise). Especially so for genres that have complexity and great variety. I might not learn to appreciate a narrow genre of dance music, but a wider scope might provide me benefit and enjoyment.

I've learned to appreciate various kinds of music that weren't quite what I was seeking prior to growing accustomed to them. It's part of how I grew as a person. Taste is a limiting factor, and my personal preferences are definitely constraining my own musical palette. It's something I acknowledge as a flaw in my relationship with music.

[t3toooo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhM7zcLu9Ec

[Mike777]

Secondly, you can "study" /learn the above mentioned effects, and composing, not only by reading theory or in music academy, as you refer, but also "learning by doing", listening others music - and being musical. E.g. L&M used the later method. (of course you can use the both "methods", which many does). ..

true and I didn't mean McCartney didn't understand music theory, just that he and Lennon never formally studied music theory. They learned a lot about music by listening and playing songs they heard and then using that to write their own songs. I read as a youth McCartney's father wanted him to take piano lessons and he declined saying he would just learn by ear.

[low_low]

Today we have almost every music instrument and recording tool available, and while I hear a lot of great music productions being posted, it's too often the music composition is just so-so.

Performing is made easier for instruments using midi. Recording is easier. This exposes the one thing our PC's can not do for us, writing the music. Writing a good song, or instrumental work, with a great melody and song structure etc is truly the hardest part.

So is writing great music more a craft or a talent?

The reason it has so hard to write good music is because it has become so easy to write bad music ...

[vurt]

im guessing the op is right handed poor fellow.

[jancivil]

What is good music? What is bad music?

I think it's possible to state that some music is technically more complex, planned, constructed, and accomplished, than other music, when considering music theory.

Taste is entirely different, though. Conflating the two is easy and dangerous, and people do this almost continuously. Drawing a hard and objective line between the two is impossible, as evidenced by all the argument in existence to this day that tries to do it.

Regardless of the skill present in it, I don't enjoy jazz...

I can't tell your intention with that last statement, but you just revealed why taste is not through itself relevant. Your enjoyment or not is not relevant to whether or not there is good music in "jazz". Jazz is a broad and diffuse thing to bring in.

I think that was kind of what I was going for in my last statement. It's been a few days though... sorry for not being more clear. But, I agree: taste and enjoyment is irrelevant to whether there is good music in jazz, or any genre.

You also referred to the act of learning to appreciate music, and that is an important and good point to make. I think that my personal tastes would change if I purposefully sat down and listened critically to a genre I don't currently care for, such as jazz (per my prior example of music that I don't currently enjoy but which certainly is known for having qualities found from music theory expertise). Especially so for genres that have complexity and great variety. I might not learn to appreciate a narrow genre of dance music, but a wider scope might provide me benefit and enjoyment.

I've learned to appreciate various kinds of music that weren't quite what I was seeking prior to growing accustomed to them. It's part of how I grew as a person. Taste is a limiting factor, and my personal preferences are definitely constraining my own musical palette. It's something I acknowledge as a flaw in my relationship with music.

Thanks for this.
You are more intellectually honest than some...

I don't like technicality or 'music theory' brought in as though a border or divisive factor, and I really endeavored to distance myself from it as the crux of any argument. As it supposes 'correctness' as a criterion for 'good' vs. bad. In itself that can be a really stupid way to proceed; like 'taste' one's <knowledge> (or even their storehouse of information) may be a limiting factor here. What's correct for the common practice period aka "Classical", western art or concert music has no direct relationship with how you'd make a rock song. Practices in modern jazz don't serve you necessarily in other forms.
There is no necessity per se for the book learning, frankly. Information is not knowledge. Knowledge can be so subtle, and for music or any of the plastic arts, experience is key.

[Tomgu]

Can music be good, if there is no one hearing it? I think it has to be subjective, if music is good or bad: Good music is simply something someone enjoys listening to - for various reasons and in various contexts, including dancing to it, helping you focus, invoking memories, making you emotional. Enjoyment is the key.

Moreover, it’s easiest to like music that is simple and already familiar, that’s why pop music is converging towards singularity. But having some curiosity towards music allows you to listen to compositions that have more complex, novel characteristics - do this enough and you increase the vocabulary that is familiar to you. As a result, there is more and more good music in the world!

If the enjoyment would be the primary, functional feature of good music, there are also, let’s say qualitative features, that could used to analyse the ”goodness”: Skillful playing, insightful lyrics, amazing rhytmically, perfect and/or groundbreaking in music theory, masterful engineering, interesting arrangement. These would be features that are universally (or statistically) known to be pleasing.

Complicating this is, shall we call them extra musical properties, e.g. if the genre, situation, political message, artist, context is wrong for the listener, the otherwise ”qualitatively great” piece of music could be seen (or heard) as rubbish, because it is not enjoyable, due to the listener’s world view colouring and labeling the listening experience. Naturally, this works the other way also - the extra musical properties affect positively as well, and a not-so-great ”qualitatively” music can become your favourite, if you hear it in a emotionally great context.

[tapper mike]

If a tree falls in the forest....

I occasionally listen to unsigned singer songwriters as I'm an active member of a songwriting community, Most of the time I cringe at what I'm hearing. Same goes for instrumental performances. One guy I know personally from this community writes and performs wonderful material... But I hate his voice. He's a fine singer he hits all the notes just right but his accent is unbearable. Does it make the song bad if I love everything about it except his voice?

A long time ago there were these composers who would write exclusively in Guitar Pro format. I'd listen to quite a bit of that which was exceedingly bland and/or actually physically impossible to perform, with an occasional masterpiece. I sought out the composers I liked listening to via GP format and.... Most were mediocre at best with regards to live performance situations.

Years ago I stopped searching for new gp compositions simply because there were no more to be had. I'd occassionally find one and give a listen only to hear the cover they were trying to fake through in tablature.

I think it's also important to remember that for every song which may be a success for an artist there are tens or even hundreds more that aren't. Some of the successes were simply exercises in song writing just to have something done.

[jancivil]

Can music be good, if there is no one hearing it?

By 'no one' are you actually saying that the creator of the music is not enough to be 'one'?

"Enjoyment is the key." Well, some people enjoy things other people don't have the tools to understand, which is a part of enjoyment for musically-inclined people.

OTOH there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZFTUtbn1RU

[Mike777]

Can music be good, if there is no one hearing it? I think it has to be subjective, if music is good or bad: Good music is simply something someone enjoys listening to - for various reasons and in various contexts, including dancing to it, helping you focus, invoking memories, making you emotional. Enjoyment is the key.

Moreover, it’s easiest to like music that is simple and already familiar, that’s why pop music is converging towards singularity. But having some curiosity towards music allows you to listen to compositions that have more complex, novel characteristics - do this enough and you increase the vocabulary that is familiar to you. As a result, there is more and more good music in the world!

If the enjoyment would be the primary, functional feature of good music, there are also, let’s say qualitative features, that could used to analyse the ”goodness”: Skillful playing, insightful lyrics, amazing rhytmically, perfect and/or groundbreaking in music theory, masterful engineering, interesting arrangement. These would be features that are universally (or statistically) known to be pleasing.

Complicating this is, shall we call them extra musical properties, e.g. if the genre, situation, political message, artist, context is wrong for the listener, the otherwise ”qualitatively great” piece of music could be seen (or heard) as rubbish, because it is not enjoyable, due to the listener’s world view colouring and labeling the listening experience. Naturally, this works the other way also - the extra musical properties affect positively as well, and a not-so-great ”qualitatively” music can become your favourite, if you hear it in a emotionally great context.

thoughtful stuff, thanks. As for good=enjoyment, I find I can enjoy what I myself consider not good music. Similar to eating junk food and candy.. I enjoy junk food, but I know it's not good food.

There is junk pop music, and they even made a pop genre called bubble-gum. I never thought any bubble-gum song was good. I would never play it or buy it, but I enjoyed a few of them.

There are musical standards that when heard in a song, we call it good. But just because every music standard is present in a song- instruments in tune, singer on pitch, tempo steady, etc doesn't insure good music. A melody sticking around one or two notes too much becomes tiring, that's not good. A verse pattern that lingers too long is not good. We ask- where is the chorus? etc

There is art in making good music. Listen to a beginner composer write a concerto. We'll loose interest. Every standard is there, but it's not good. Grade C- maybe. Or D+.

Music is an art. The art of combining parts of music elements together, into a final 'composition'. Anyone can put music elements together, but only a few artists do with a higher skill.

[IncarnateX]

Once I dreamt of being world famous. Like many other young rising electronic musicians in the 80s, this was the core of my musical dream. Well, I was among the 99,999999999% that failed that quest. Then I lowered the ambition to a point that I only wanted to make a living as a music teacher. Then I realised that teachers were rather poor and often had to struggle to earn their rent. So, I became a researcher in the field of psychology instead and music became a hobby. For that I am grateful today, for I don`t have to pay any attention to what music people want and thus what they define as “good music”. Good music to me is the music I think is good and want to make, not what everybody else define as such. That is worth much more to me than it ever would if I had become a professional who had to bite my nails and worry about the public’s reception everytime I released something new. I love particular pieces of music within just about any style, but the music I make is for me and nobody else. Thus, the important thing became to achieve the musicial skills that could make me do as I want. I don`t have to consider whether my sound is outdated or whether I make something unique. I loved the focus on catchy melodies in synthpop, thus I still make melodies in that style now and then. I loved the heavy bass figures of early industrial (EBM), thus many of my tunes rely exactly on such figures. I loved the sound of the Berlin school, thus my music are fused with elements from that style too. I got facinated by psytrance sounds in the 00s, thus many of my lead themes are inspired by that sound and style. Only thing that did not really get into my music is a good deal of the techno styles of the late 90s/early 00s where it almost became a crime to use harmonies and melodies and everything had to be rhythm and noise instead. Today I fuse it all anyway I like. Is it good music? Hardly by any public or academic definition people can come up with but it is entirely mine and to me true artistic freedom is exactly that I don’t have to give a fvck.

[jancivil]

If the enjoyment would be the primary, functional feature of good music, there are also, let’s say qualitative features, that could used to analyse the ”goodness”: Skillful playing, insightful lyrics, amazing rhytmically, perfect and/or groundbreaking in music theory, masterful engineering, interesting arrangement. These would be features that are universally (or statistically) known to be pleasing.

So then, the enjoyment is subjective but the person that enjoys being more involved in music is exceeding the grasp of people who are not? Therein you're arguing objective criteria vs uninformed opinion; but if you break too much ground in 'music theory' or let's say vocabulary and innovative techniques you stand the chance of it being noise to the uninitiated.
Schoenberg and dodecaphony. If the majority of the populace thinks this is horrible, all we can do with that is examine the argument to popularity, a fallacy. There will tend to be a way to evaluate a music on its own merits.

Complicating this is, shall we call them extra musical properties, e.g. if the genre, situation, political message, artist, context is wrong for the listener, the otherwise ”qualitatively great” piece of music could be seen (or heard) as rubbish, because it is not enjoyable, due to the listener’s world view colouring and labeling the listening experience. Naturally, this works the other way also - the extra musical properties affect positively as well, and a not-so-great ”qualitatively” music can become your favourite, if you hear it in a emotionally great context.

This definitely is subjective. Extramusical is extramusical. There is such a thing as the way lyrics intertwine with music, hence are part of the composition, but you're going into another area.

[jancivil]

I don't think someone's opinions (on what is musically good), who decided that music isn't what they have to do in life in favor of safety, are necessarily to considered as more than personal opinion. If that's an argument for the subjectivity of it all, it's not so persuasive. It's circular.

Me, I had some experience as a teen with popular music and a little glimpse of what it takes, and I had the wherewithal to see it wasn't for me. I had an illusion for a brief time that I could get good enough to be a touring classical solo performer, but I was privy through most of that period to the struggle people undergo and make very scarce money; you have to have an infrastructure as a person, a good solid foundation in a number of areas (particularly background, leaving alone the necessity for the right instrument) to become a star here; and it hit me finally, that I had run into a wall I wasn't built to stand up to. I had some of the package but never enough.

At the same time I started having what is certainly my own ideas, and it was time to execute. I have no choice but to think about music all the time (whether it's in the forefront of my mind or not), and to somehow create music as much as possible.
There are people who could be a professional at something and a highly creative person in music or the plastic arts, or film etc; but note very well Charles Ives, who lost his creativity ultimately, was unable to do it. This is not an assessment of mine, I wouldn't know except his own words. It's bleak. There still may be others who manage, but I think the more you devote your mind to other interests, the less juice you have for composing music.

This all seems off-topic, but the thing that has cropped up here is that 'good' is purely down to the individual, vs anything objective. Music is an object. Some people never hear anything but the garbage they're fed by a medium that has anything but their best interests as a person at heart; in fact personal growth means growing out of accepting these things. I think most if not all of us know what I mean here, too. So regarding the people who experience no growth and are just consuming crap their entire life, the resultant 'opinion' is of no moment to what is good or not. Seriously. So at the other end are people that are deeply involved...

[ghettosynth]

A melody sticking around one or two notes too much becomes tiring, that's not good.

Except when it is. Solo begins at 55 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLlLtSG7xe4


If you don't like that, there's this, one pitch class though...bending the rules on one note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIs3jechQ_E

The vocal melody in this song stays on one note for a long time, is it too long? What if it were longer, what's too long?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0


Back to one pitch class, here's a three hour long album using a single pitch class.

https://recordings.irritablehedgehog.co ... ansas-city

I found it in the online New York Times, FWIW

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/arts ... -note.html

From the article:

Reviewing a 2015 performance of a three-and-a-quarter-hour Gibson drone epic for The New York Times, Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim noted his debt to Mr. Young, as well as his ability to create a mighty effect out of the simplest materials. A cello’s switch from single notes to a double-stopped fifth, she wrote, “registered as a gesture of monumental significance.”

Then there's this sort of thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td4N0DofOMI

Whether something is tiring or not is completely context dependent. You have described a subjective response to a musical property, not an objective measure of music.

[herodotus]

I think a lot of harm is caused by attempting to use simple dichotomies to classify vast swaths of human endeavor.

It may be emotionally satisfying to call all of the music you don't like 'bad', or all of your ideological antagonists 'evil', but it tends to cloud matters more than it clarifies them.

I am not a relativist, nor a subjectivist. As I wrote earlier, I do believe in objective standards. But you have to pick your standards with care. The more grandiose the claim, the less likely it is to be objective.

People don't like humble truths, but they tend to be the most solid truths we have. This alone is almost enough to explain the replication crises that plague so many sciences right now.