Are there universal qualities which apply to all great music? who decides?
359551
Great Music\n\n1) Creates an emotional effect on the listener\n\n2) Has a sense of inevitability\n\n3) Does not get boring even after repeated listenings\n\n4) Rewards repeated listenings\n\n5) Has variety and unity
123768
Having a good voice is nice, so is having stage presence or the ability to dance. But true musical talent includes all these plus the ability to write your own lyrics and music! Unfortunately there are not that many people that can do all that, which is why I love The Eagles!!!
486648
ALL music.\nEven though I find most disco and a lot of rap is full of cr*p, I'll even listen and find something to enjoy there.\nStill, rock (in all its various forms), classical (um, NO opera, please), country and definitly the blues with a bit of jazz on the side round out my plate for an audio feast.\nAnd as the saying goes: if its too LOUD, you're too OLD!
702841
Music is created just like art.  Look back, and you will find such old old songs that we still share, appreciate or even remake through the years.  These are to be treasured. And we thank the creators, for setting these songs to life, that at one point in time, we hear and enjoy. Even with todays' technology, the true beauty of good music is not easily created. Copied, yes, distributed, yes, imitated, yes.... but created, no.  I feel this way for many solo singers and groups from many era, eg, U2, Sting, the Beatles, Carpenters and even the simplest tune of twinke star from young Mozart.
269054
I've found through personal experience that my more intelligent friends tend to search beyond the top 40 or what is hot right now.  They tend to be a little more dedicated to finding a suitable song or artist that fits their style, instead of just listening to whatever everybody else thinks is cool.  I would love to see a study conducted on this theory sometime.
219414
Music has been based on colours, planets, tastes and numerical equations.\n\nhttp://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/history.html\nQUOTATION: Today, music heralds ... the establishment of a society of repetition in which nothing will happen anymore. \nATTRIBUTION: Jacques Attali (b. 1943), Algerian–born French economist, writer. Noise: The Political Economy of Music, ch. 1 (1977). \n\n \nNUMBER: 43568 \nQUOTATION: Music is your own experience, your own thoughts, your wisdom. If you don’t live it, it won’t come out of your horn. They teach you there’s a boundary line to music. But, man, there’s no boundary line to art. \nATTRIBUTION: Charlie Parker (1920–1955), U.S. jazz musician. quoted in Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain, “Afterwords,” sct. 3, ed. Michael Horovitz (1969).
644187
The definition of music as sound with particular characteristics is taken as a given by psychoacoustics, and is a common in musicology and performance. There are observable patterns to what is broadly labeled music, and while there are understandable cultural variations, the properties of music are the properties of sound as perceived and processed by humans.\n\nGreek philosophers and medieval theorists defined music as tones ordered horizontally (as melodies) and vertically (as harmonies). Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear. However, in the 20th century, composers challenged the notion that music had to be pleasant by creating music that explored harsher, darker timbres.\n\n20th century composer Austin Paul Harris disagreed with the notion that music was pleasant melodies. Instead, he argued that any sounds we can hear can be music, saying, for example, "There is no noise, only sound," [citation needed]. According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez (1990 p.47-8,55): "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined--which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."\n\nOther definitions of music list the aspects or elements that make up music. Molino (1975: 43) argues that, in addition to a lack of consensus, "any element belonging to the total musical fact can be isolated, or taken as a strategic variable of musical production." Nattiez gives as examples Mauricio Kagel's Con Voce [with voice], where a masked trio silently mimes playing instruments. In this example sound, a common element, is excluded, while physical gesture, a less common element in definitions of music, is given primacy.\n\nEtymology\n\nFrench musique ← Latin (ars) musica ← Greek μουσική (τέχνη) "(art) of the Muses".
639350
This is a great point to discuss! VU is an excellent example of sort of a non-mainstream answer to a "great influences" question. I'm not Brian Eno, and didn't myself grow up with the albums, but when talking to older musicians (two of which i play and record with now), they can agree, when they stop to examine it, that they're own music reflects VU's. Just the other day I was talking with my drummer about a song my guitarist wrote, and I mentioned that it gave me the impression of a VU song. He kind of lit up and said, "Yeah. It does sound like that."\n\nLong story short, they were very influential, and it's almost fun to try and pick them out in modern music because of their "band's band" quality. FMBM (for musicians, by musicians)
104934
I don't, but I'm sure there are people that do. \n\nSame goes for all genres of music. You have some that like, some that don't.
917677
No sir.\n\nThere are still some people out there that appreciate good music.
397356
it depends. down to the vocal patterns, the keys the songs play in, the techniques, the drum beats, even the way the guitarist plays certain lines, the culture that surrounds the music, the people that listen and go to the shows, the lyrics, the venues they play, every little detail almost.
713586
It is what the souls of the listeners long for! It feeds something in them, as all music does. Just cause of that saying, don't forget that Satan was the chief musician and has almost a monopoly on the music industry, to lead many astray... if possible, even the very elect!
691832
Do you like ANY good music at all?
303665
That is a really good question, but there is such a huge number of possible good pieces of music that we should never run out.  Look at the classics - they will always be classics, there is no need to try to outdo them and there is a lot there for coming generations to discover without having to make new music (or if you're thinking of pop, look at rereleases and remixes - a good pop song will always be popular).  But musicians will go on making new music forever, there is simply too much possible for it to be exhausted.
1007326
i don't think so. bands these days aren't that creative to warrant that kind of attention. the Beatles made rock BIG they recorded quadraphonically they invented rolling bass. unless someone INVENTS something new, it's not likely. and whether ir not anyone gets as "big" as the beatles as you say, they will never be as good. Think about this: What will people be listenting to in 100 years ? 200 years ? will Mozart be as popular as ever ? probably. and probably the Beatles will be as well. But no one will know who-the-frick is brittney spears or dave matthews.
558122
music is music, listen to what you like.....You can still be anything you want :)
571240
No not at all, different people like different types of music and why not. What a boring world we'd live in if we all liked the same things. Live and let live I say.