What makes a great song vs. a good song?

What is greatness?
Enough people in agreement that a particular piece of music is "great." "Greatness" is always subjective, but if a critical mass of people agree on it, it means something. But in the end, all "greatness" dissipates. Lois Nope. That is the old argument from popularity fallacy. Actually, I don’t think it is. The Argument From Popularity is only a fallacy if it is used to support a factual argument, e.g. “God exists because most people believe in Him". But when talking about a subjective and somewhat nebulous concept like “greatness" (a word with a rather vague definition), I think the argument from popularity is perhaps as valid as anything else. OK, call it the Bandwagon fallacy then. My point is still valid. Popularity is not an indicator of quality.
I'm not a fan of "Achey, Breaky Heart", but I must admit that it is infectious melodically, rhythmically, and, though I loath to admit it, even lyrically. Just a quick thought experiment: You clearly hate that song, but have you ever wondered why you can instantly recall the melody and perhaps even the lyrics of the chorus, while you've probably forgotten the melodies and especially the lyrics of most other hits that you were totally unmoved by? There are "grunge" songs from the 90's that I rather liked that I can barely recall anymore, yet "Achey, Breaky Heart" will not leave my pscyhe, even though I don't think I heard it that many times (and probably not at all for the last ten years or so), since I don't listen to modern country music.
Good observations. If I had an awful spaghetti dinner at some restaurant and I remember it a week later, does that mean that the meal was actually awesome? I think that people sometimes confuse remembering something with actually liking it. The music industry makes a lot of money off of that. There's got to be a cognitive bias involved in there somewhere. Yay for cognitive science and stuff.
I'm not a fan of "Achey, Breaky Heart", but I must admit that it is infectious melodically, rhythmically, and, though I loath to admit it, even lyrically. Just a quick thought experiment: You clearly hate that song, but have you ever wondered why you can instantly recall the melody and perhaps even the lyrics of the chorus, while you've probably forgotten the melodies and especially the lyrics of most other hits that you were totally unmoved by? There are "grunge" songs from the 90's that I rather liked that I can barely recall anymore, yet "Achey, Breaky Heart" will not leave my pscyhe, even though I don't think I heard it that many times (and probably not at all for the last ten years or so), since I don't listen to modern country music.
Good observations. If I had an awful spaghetti dinner at some restaurant and I remember it a week later, does that mean that the meal was actually awesome? I think that people sometimes confuse remembering something with actually liking it. The music industry makes a lot of money off of that. There's got to be a cognitive bias involved in there somewhere. Yay for cognitive science and stuff. I think the spaghetti analogy is kind of apple and oranges. Flavor doesn't really work in the memory the way music does. I hear the musical equivalent of rancid spaghetti mixed with fresh dog feces on the radio or TV at least once every few days, and I tend to forget it forever within five minutes. I definitely wouldn't forget eating a single bite of actual rancid spaghetti mixed with fresh dog feces--EVER! It would probably haunt my dreams and bias me from ever eating spaghetti again. Once I drank some spoiled milk on accident and didn't touch milk for a year. I really do think a song like "Achey, Breaky Heart" is exceptional in some artistically valid way. I often find a song annoying or not-for-me but can still recognize that it's got some type of artistic merit that 99% of songs don't have. A recent example: Miley Cyrus'* "Wrecking Ball" is better IMHO than most of what's out there, but it's not and never will be on my playlist (though that may be due more to the way it's overproduced and the fact that it's by Miley Cyrus than the actual melody, lyrics, and basic rhythm). BTW, what about songs that you genuinely love, but are embarrassed to admit it? Though I may regret it, I'll come clean about one: Hanson's "I Will Come To You". Sorry, but that is one well-constructed, Beatlesque gem. Sorry, but that's an objective fact and anyone who disagrees is stupid! Except, it's by Hanson, the child masterminds behind "Mmmbop"... I'm so embarrassed by it, I really can't even listen to it when I'm alone. But seriously, it's a good song. *I just remembered that Miley Cyrus is Billy Ray Cyrus' (of "Achey, Breaky, Heart" fame) daughter. Some kind of weird subconscious action at work there on my part? Perhaps, just perhaps...
Take this song for example. Yet I love it. In fact, it's one of my favorite songs, but I'd be willing to bet money most of you would hate it or even find it completely unlistenable.
Yeah... Didn't care for it. The music was okay (but not my thing). However the vocals were, IMO, pretty shitty, as I couldn't understand a damn thing. :) As to the original question... Very subjective, in my opinion. I think it's all about personal preference. A similar question can be asked of food, i.e. What makes a great cookie vs. a good cookie? (Disclaimer: I've only read the first page of the thread.) This is, IMO, a great song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C11MzbEcHlw :cheese: Take care, Derek
What is greatness?
Enough people in agreement that a particular piece of music is "great." "Greatness" is always subjective, but if a critical mass of people agree on it, it means something. But in the end, all "greatness" dissipates. Lois Nope. That is the old argument from popularity fallacy. Actually, I don’t think it is. The Argument From Popularity is only a fallacy if it is used to support a factual argument, e.g. “God exists because most people believe in Him". But when talking about a subjective and somewhat nebulous concept like “greatness" (a word with a rather vague definition), I think the argument from popularity is perhaps as valid as anything else. Thanks. That was my point exactly. If we're talking about how people react to something (such as music) there is no other way to describe it but by popularity. Conflatng it with an argument about fact is invalid. Whatis "greatness," anyway, but popular opinion? There is no absolute greatness. Lois
What is greatness?
Enough people in agreement that a particular piece of music is "great." "Greatness" is always subjective, but if a critical mass of people agree on it, it means something. But in the end, all "greatness" dissipates. Lois Nope. That is the old argument from popularity fallacy. Actually, I don’t think it is. The Argument From Popularity is only a fallacy if it is used to support a factual argument, e.g. “God exists because most people believe in Him". But when talking about a subjective and somewhat nebulous concept like “greatness" (a word with a rather vague definition), I think the argument from popularity is perhaps as valid as anything else. Thanks. That was my point exactly. If we're talking about how people react to something (such as music) there is no other way to describe it but by popularity. Conflatng it with an argument about fact is invalid. Whatis "greatness," anyway, but popular opinion? There is no absolute greatness. Lois And I already acknowledged I got the wrong fallacy. Please read my subsequent post. You and Bugrib are parsing words instead of discussing ideas.
What is greatness?
Enough people in agreement that a particular piece of music is "great." "Greatness" is always subjective, but if a critical mass of people agree on it, it means something. But in the end, all "greatness" dissipates. Lois Nope. That is the old argument from popularity fallacy. Actually, I don’t think it is. The Argument From Popularity is only a fallacy if it is used to support a factual argument, e.g. “God exists because most people believe in Him". But when talking about a subjective and somewhat nebulous concept like “greatness" (a word with a rather vague definition), I think the argument from popularity is perhaps as valid as anything else. OK, call it the Bandwagon fallacy then. My point is still valid. Popularity is not an indicator of quality. But what is "quality"? Is there an absolute quality? No. Its ALL opinion. So there is no other way to define it but by popularity. Of course you can create your own definition of quality and even find others to agree with you as to its parameters, but in the end, it's STILL nothing but opinion. There is no fact to be discussed when we speak of "quality" or "greatness" or "beauty. It's all in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. So trying to apply the fallacy from popularity to opinion is a fallacy in itself. Lois
What is greatness?
Enough people in agreement that a particular piece of music is "great." "Greatness" is always subjective, but if a critical mass of people agree on it, it means something. But in the end, all "greatness" dissipates. Lois Nope. That is the old argument from popularity fallacy. Actually, I don’t think it is. The Argument From Popularity is only a fallacy if it is used to support a factual argument, e.g. “God exists because most people believe in Him". But when talking about a subjective and somewhat nebulous concept like “greatness" (a word with a rather vague definition), I think the argument from popularity is perhaps as valid as anything else. Thanks. That was my point exactly. If we're talking about how people react to something (such as music) there is no other way to describe it but by popularity. Conflatng it with an argument about fact is invalid. Whatis "greatness," anyway, but popular opinion? There is no absolute greatness. Lois When normally talk of a piece of music being "great", popularity does enter the equation, but also consider the level to which people who do like the music like it. I think it's a fair assessment to say that people who like "Achy Breaky Heart" like that song less strongly than someone's who likes Beethoven's 9th Symphony likes the symphony. Consider statistics and different voting methods: Song quality by popularity would be like voting "yes" or "no" on each song. Song quality by the terms I describe would be like ranking each song in a list. Sure, not as many people would rank Beethoven's 9th as Achy Breaky, but those who are actually familiar with it and like it will very likely rank the 9th way, way higher on the list. Think of a song's "greatness" as a statistical measurement, as a weighted mean.
But what is "quality"? Is there an absolute quality? No. Its ALL opinion. So there is no other way to define it but by popularity. Of course you can create your own definition of quality and even find others to agree with you as to its parameters, but in the end, it's STILL nothing but opinion. There is no fact to be discussed when we speak of "quality" or "greatness" or "beauty. It's all in the eye (or ear) of the beholder. So trying to apply the fallacy from popularity to opinion is a fallacy in itself. Lois
I can't say I'm comfortable equating quality entirely with popularity. I agree that popularity should be part of the equation, but what other objective measures could be used, short of neuroscience or some kind of mathematical formula incorporating music theory? Or the opinions of music "experts" (professional critics)? And what would make any of those things valid in a way that is not arbitrary in some sense? This makes me think of my personal definition of a snob: Someone who thinks their opinions are facts. edited to add: This also reminds me of the "Is/Ought Problem" in moral philosophy. Not really a meaningful problem in my opinion, but I digress...
My wife and I like to listen to the XM station "Alt Nation" which plays rock music but usually more obscure artists. My wife carpools with a friend who complains about the music on the car ride and tells co-workers that my wife listens to "weird"'music. But sometimes the songs on Alt Nation become mainstream hits after weeks or months of regular play. Then my wife's friend suddenly likes that song and tells others that she had been listening to that for a while. My point being that sometimes a person's taste in music is just what others think is good which is also known as not really having any taste in music at all, in my opinion. Maybe this is a common problem which could explain why pop music is so, well, popular. The only reason people like it is because it's popular which begs the question on how it became popular in the first place.
It became popular because a lot of people liked it, even if you don't. Taste is subjective. You can never make it objective. Lois
My impression is that most pop music today is written by teenagers, graduates of those arts schools in California that are just churning them out by the carload. The only thing that seems to matter is the video that they make at the same time. The words or the music don't matter because the song will be replaced by something else next week. Me I like the golden oldies. Remember the Alan Parsons Project?
Most pop music is written by teenagers, especially since Rock and Roll. Other teenagers respond to it and buy it. It's their game. Money talks. Of course, there's The Rolling Stones who started out as teenagers and got old before our very eyes--and much too quickly. Lois

I consider the most important element of pop music (and I include rock 'n roll in that category) to be the melody. Or what I like to call “hummability” or “hummitude” or “humminess” or “hummogrification” or “combination-of-notes-that-people-feel-an-inexplicable-urge-to-hum”. By this standard, I think Nirvana is easily one of the greatest pop bands of all time.
Notice that most popular-to-the-mainstream pieces of classical music are extremely hummable? Like the opening notes of a section in Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, a melody so hummable that it was adapted into the disco song “A Fifth of Beethoven”. Kind of funny, really.
And what kind of objective measure is there for hummability? I really can’t think of anything other than popularity. It keeps coming back to popularity…
Actually, I think popularity could be a valid and somewhat objective measure of “greatness” in music and other kinds of art–provided it was measured in a controlled environment, sheltered from commercial promotion, radio play, peer pressure, etc.
The scientists running this experiment would bombard a few thousand test subjects–who have been isolated from the outside world for at least ten years–with dozens of new songs per day. The test subjects (sometimes referred to as “people” or “science slaves”) would then pick their favorite song from each day. Once per month, the science slaves would be forced to pick their favorite song of the month from their list of daily favorites. Any “people” who refused or tried to escape from the study would be subject to physical torture until they agreed to comply.
After ten years of this, the test subjects would be released into a large wilderness area in order to gauge their survival skills. The last surviving test subject would be rewarded with their freedom. They be released back into society and be given a generous reward of $100 to restart their life, twenty five years older than before they “volunteered” for the study, but much, much wiser.
Maybe I should crowd source this idea. I don’t think it would cost more than a few million dollars, what with the slave labor and all.

I don’t think that you could find enough qualified scientists to engage in such a criminal and unethical study. But reality show producers might love the idea.

I don't think that you could find enough qualified scientists to engage in such a criminal and unethical study. But reality show producers might love the idea.
Now that's the kind of can-do attitude I can get behind!
What is greatness?
Enough people in agreement that a particular piece of music is "great." "Greatness" is always subjective, but if a critical mass of people agree on it, it means something. But in the end, all "greatness" dissipates. Lois Nope. That is the old argument from popularity fallacy. Actually, I don’t think it is. The Argument From Popularity is only a fallacy if it is used to support a factual argument, e.g. “God exists because most people believe in Him". But when talking about a subjective and somewhat nebulous concept like “greatness" (a word with a rather vague definition), I think the argument from popularity is perhaps as valid as anything else. Thanks. That was my point exactly. If we're talking about how people react to something (such as music) there is no other way to describe it but by popularity. Conflatng it with an argument about fact is invalid. Whatis "greatness," anyway, but popular opinion? There is no absolute greatness. Lois When normally talk of a piece of music being "great", popularity does enter the equation, but also consider the level to which people who do like the music like it. I think it's a fair assessment to say that people who like "Achy Breaky Heart" like that song less strongly than someone's who likes Beethoven's 9th Symphony likes the symphony. Consider statistics and different voting methods: Song quality by popularity would be like voting "yes" or "no" on each song. Song quality by the terms I describe would be like ranking each song in a list. Sure, not as many people would rank Beethoven's 9th as Achy Breaky, but those who are actually familiar with it and like it will very likely rank the 9th way, way higher on the list. Think of a song's "greatness" as a statistical measurement, as a weighted mean. It's still based on opinion. Lois
TromboneAndrew, Think of a song's "greatness" as a statistical measurement, as a weighted mean.
Lois, It's still based on opinion. Lois
Most songs become popular because it contains a "hook". A refrain that resonates in the listener. But that does not make a great song. There has to be a more fundamental emotion, which touches everyone at a deeper, more profound level. And if this shared experience withstands the test of time, then IMO, we can speak of great art (of any kind). Songs and tunes by Paul MacCartney are played by symphonies all over the world and continue to evoke the same emotional responses in the listeners. I consider Paul Mc Carthy on a par with the likes of Cole Porter. Not a day goes by when McCartney is not played somewhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S09F5MejfBE The insightful lyrics by Bernie Taupin and the musical frame work by provided by Elton John have produced some unforgettable songs. Examples of what I consider great art is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwzdVHTNpXs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEw9SB8NMfs
Most pop music is written by teenagers, especially since Rock and Roll.
Yeah but quality music is written by adults. The stuff that will still be listened to 20 or 30 years from now.

I just thought of another possible entry into what makes a good song a great song. A song that has a strong impact on a society’s policy development could be considered a great song.
e.g., “Tin soldiers and Nixon coming…”

99luftballons %-P

99luftballons %-P