What makes a great song vs. a good song?

Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.
Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps... I agree and the reverse is true also. Below is one of my favorite truly great artists (singer/composer/painter) singing a few classics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ED44zz4O0&list=PL_jrKrBTmTmC6GqUGOryKxdcvRFfOob05&index=2 and her own songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKb9Ms68ME Notice, no fireworks, smashig of guitars, or jumping around. Just brilliance of lyrics augmented by great musicians. And a cut:
Pat Metheny and his group playing "Third Wind" from the album "Still Life (Talking)", released in 1987. In this album. Metheny mixes Brazilian-influenced harmonies and rhythm with jazz, folk, and pop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSmWCYNRpNs Are you claiming that those feelings--or your interpretations of what they mean--are not subjective? Lois
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.
Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps... I agree and the reverse is true also. Below is one of my favorite truly great artists (singer/composer/painter) singing a few classics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ED44zz4O0&list=PL_jrKrBTmTmC6GqUGOryKxdcvRFfOob05&index=2 and her own songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKb9Ms68ME Notice, no fireworks, smashig of guitars, or jumping around. Just brilliance of lyrics augmented by great musicians. And a cut:
Pat Metheny and his group playing "Third Wind" from the album "Still Life (Talking)", released in 1987. In this album. Metheny mixes Brazilian-influenced harmonies and rhythm with jazz, folk, and pop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSmWCYNRpNs Are you claiming that those feelings--or your interpretations of what they mean--are not subjective? Lois Of course they are subjective, but I know a little bit about music and I can recognize brilliance from mediocrity. Art does not lie in a concept, it lies in the ability to communicate the concept. As Bernstein says, notes are analoguous to words and phrases and when expressed with clarity and insight, tells a story which evokes an emotional response leading to reflection and thoughts of the noblest kind, or sometimes elicits a profound question, which again forces one to reflect and grow in understanding and appreciation of aestheticts. Why is a portrait of a pretty woman dressed in a bikini on a coca cola sign, placed every mile along a highway forgettable, while the Mona Lisa is burned in ones mind from the moment we see it? Which do you remenber, the woman on the coca cola sign or the Mona Lisa? What makes the music of Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, and the songs by Cole Porter, Gershwin, Paul Mc Carthy, Bob Dillon, etc. unforgettable experiences? What is it that sets them apart from other popular music, which may be pleasant at first audition but soon lose our interest? Because they were great artists, knowledgeable in the medium to which they spent years of study, analysis, and perfection of techniques of composing an idea into a coherent whole (a story) which continues to inspire us in the most profound ways. Have you ever wiped a tear while listening to a song which resonates internally and produces the same emotion at an ever deeper level every time we hear it and discover new aspects of the work? There is a story that Barbra Streisant was recording a song and one of the techs changed a phrase, on the studio cut. When listening to the studio cut Barbra immediately noticed the change and insisted that it be corrected as she intended it to be heard. Another tech chided the presumption of the offending tech ny telling him to "allow the lady her book". The passage was corrected and the song became a timeless work of art by an extraordinary vocalist (artist). Subjective yes, but when many people experience the same lasting subjective emotion from a work of art, it merits the title of great art, IMO. Selling products by appealing to the basest emotions (a scantily clad girl sitting on a motorcycle, eating a banana) is not great art, it is commercial art, a far cry from a profoundly introspective painting. This holds true in all areas of artistic expression. There is a line between great art and mediocre art. The difference lies in the brilliance and competency of the artist. I cannot come up with an different interpretation. It seems self-evident to me.
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.
Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps... I agree and the reverse is true also. Below is one of my favorite truly great artists (singer/composer/painter) singing a few classics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ED44zz4O0&list=PL_jrKrBTmTmC6GqUGOryKxdcvRFfOob05&index=2 and her own songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKb9Ms68ME Notice, no fireworks, smashig of guitars, or jumping around. Just brilliance of lyrics augmented by great musicians. And a cut:
Pat Metheny and his group playing "Third Wind" from the album "Still Life (Talking)", released in 1987. In this album. Metheny mixes Brazilian-influenced harmonies and rhythm with jazz, folk, and pop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSmWCYNRpNs Are you claiming that those feelings--or your interpretations of what they mean--are not subjective? Lois Of course they are subjective, but I know a little bit about music and I can recognize brilliance from mediocrity. But your analysis of what is mediocre and what is brilliant is subjective. There is no absolute standard of quality. anybody or everybody can have an opinion opposite to yours. Art does not lie in a concept, it lies in the ability to communicate the concept. As Bernstein says, notes are analoguous to words and phrases and when expressed with clarity and insight, tells a story which evokes an emotional response leading to reflection and thoughts of the noblest kind, or sometimes elicits a profound question, which again forces one to reflect and grow in understanding and appreciation of aestheticts. Why is a portrait of a pretty woman dressed in a bikini on a coca cola sign, placed every mile along a highway forgettable, while the Mona Lisa is burned in ones mind from the moment we see it? Which do you remenber, the woman on the coca cola sign or the Mona Lisa? Yes, there are images that are evocative or memorable to many people and sometimes there is agreement on which ones are memorable and which are not. But that doesn't mean there is an absolute standard of what is memorable. Many people would disagree with your responses to those pictures. Either or both would look ugly to some people. Agreement among people does not crate an absolute standard. Incidentally, the woman in the bikini does nothing for me. What makes the music of Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, and the songs by Cole Porter, Gershwin, Paul Mc Carthy, Bob Dillon, etc. unforgettable experiences? Again, they are not unforgettable experiences to everyone and possibly not even even most people. Yes, there is something about the music and something about the people who respomd to it but it is hardly a standard. It just happens that people who grew up exposed to certain musical characteristics respond to those characterisicsin a similar way. It still says nothing about absolute "quality." people who grew up in different cutures probably would not respomd toit as you do--and you probably wouldn't respond the the music they respond to--at least not the way that they do. What is it that sets them apart from other popular music, which may be pleasant at first audition but soon lose our interest? Because they were great artists, knowledgeable in the medium to which they spent years of study, analysis, and perfection of techniques of composing an idea into a coherent whole (a story) which continues to inspire us in the most profound ways. Have you ever wiped a tear while listening to a song which resonates internally and produces the same emotion at an ever deeper level every time we hear it and discover new aspects of the work? Sure, but I might not respond to the same music inthe same way that you do. I might shed atear over a piece that leaves you cold, and vice versa. I still say there is no absolute standard. There is a story that Barbra Streisant was recording a song and one of the techs changed a phrase, on the studio cut. When listening to the studio cut Barbra immediately noticed the change and insisted that it be corrected as she intended it to be heard. Another tech chided the presumption of the offending tech ny telling him to "allow the lady her book". The passage was corrected and the song became a timeless work of art by an extraordinary vocalist (artist). That says nothing about a universal standard of music. There are millions, if not billions of people who do not respond to Barbra Streisand's singing. What does that say about universal standards? All you've demonstrated with that anecdote is that Barbra Streisand has a certain subjective opinion of the music she produces. And we know some other prople will agree with her. That is still not a universal standard. Subjective yes, but when many people experience the same lasting subjective emotion from a work of art, it merits the title of great art, IMO. Selling products by appealing to the basest emotions (a scantily clad girl sitting on a motorcycle eating a banana) is not great art, it is commercial art, a far cry from a profoundly introspective painting. This holds true in all areas of artistic expression. Please describe the universal standards you have found -- universal meaning that everyone from any culture would agree. With your stated standards. Continued on the next post. Lois

Continued from previous post-- i did not know that we now have a limit as to the length of posts, which makes it impossible to respond in detail to a fairly long post.
Write4U: Subjective yes, but when many people experience the same lasting subjective emotion from a work of art, it merits the title of great art, IMO. Selling products by appealing to the basest emotions (a scantily clad girl sitting on a motorcycle, eating a banana) is not great art, it is commercial art, a far cry from a profoundly introspective painting. This holds true in all areas of artistic expression.
There is a line between great art and mediocre art. The difference lies in the brilliance and competency of the artist. I cannot come up with an different interpretation. It seems self-evident to me.

Lois: When you get practically the whole world’s population or even the whole population of the United States agreeing with your standards of what is great and what is mediocre (or poor) music, you will have a standard, until that happens there is no universal standard and all taste in anything is purely subjective.

Continued from previous post-- i did not know that we now have a limit as to the length of posts, which makes it impossible to respond in detail to a fairly long post.
Write4U: Subjective yes, but when many people experience the same lasting subjective emotion from a work of art, it merits the title of great art, IMO. Selling products by appealing to the basest emotions (a scantily clad girl sitting on a motorcycle, eating a banana) is not great art, it is commercial art, a far cry from a profoundly introspective painting. This holds true in all areas of artistic expression. There is a line between great art and mediocre art. The difference lies in the brilliance and competency of the artist. I cannot come up with an different interpretation. It seems self-evident to me.
Lois: When you get practically the whole world's population or even the whole population of the United States agreeing with your standards of what is great and what is mediocre (or poor) music, you will have a standard, until that happens there is no universal standard and all taste in anything is purely subjective.
The universal standard for great art is that it withstands the test of time. Why do we have traveling exhibits of the masters all over the world, drawing thousands upon thousands of people? Art is a Discipline, just as in physics or calculus. It requires study and understanding. Understanding that 2+2=4 is not the same as understanding E=Mc^2 There is a place for pleasant ditties in elevators or supermarkets, or while going about the business of daily life. But great art requires exclusive attention in order to enter the world through the eyes of the artist and to understand the deeper underlying messages in the work. Art is a form of communication and when the message is profound it touches all who take time "to look or listen". Fine Art,
Western European academic traditions, fine art is art developed primarily for aesthetics, distinguishing it from applied art that also has to serve some practical function. Historically, the five main fine arts were painting, sculpture, architecture, music and poetry, with performing arts including theater and dance.[1] Today, the fine arts commonly include additional forms, such as film, photography, conceptual art, and printmaking. However, in some institutes of learning or in museums, fine art and frequently the term fine arts (pl.) as well, are associated exclusively with visual art forms.[citation needed] One definition of fine art is "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic and intellectual purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture."[2] In that sense, there are conceptual differences between the Fine Arts and the Applied Arts. As originally conceived, and as understood for much of the modern era, the perception of aesthetic qualities required a refined judgment usually referred to as having good taste, which differentiated fine art from popular art and entertainment.[3] However in the Postmodern era, the value of good taste is disappearing, to the point that having bad taste has become synonymous with being avant-garde.[4] The term "fine art" is now rarely found in art history, but remains common in the art trade and as a title for university departments and degrees, even if rarely used in teaching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art If art is simply a matter of taste they why do we even have a university dedicated to the teaching of art; Julliard school of music? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juilliard_School
But, personally I think the bar has been lowered considerably in general and with a few exceptions, popular music today is not of the quality that was set by those giants. Of course this is subjective, but I consider a work of art must have certain special qualities, to rate the title “great" rather than “good".
Listening to the new stuff, I've often wondered if it's all been done already. I mean how many times can the wheel get reinvented. Last night watched a couple video's of the Howard Goodall's history of music, it's fascinating watching the progression of invention, awareness, inspiration leading to innovation and new levels of music. Then we get to today… and ... when I listen to stuff like Pfish, somewhere I can acknowledge that they must be virtuosos, but man it sure doesn't sound like music to listen to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Y6NPahlDE&index=35&list=WL ~ ~ ~ W4U, I know some can cut and dice anything anyone says, I for one like the way you've expressed it and it makes sense to me. PS. No absolutes needed.
Oh I thought of something else. Sometimes a good song can become a great song, when an artist's particular performance, makes it so.
Like Kurt Cobain's rendition of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOZKz_sPM6U You've got to watch it to the end to get the full effect--that's where you may experience an intense case of the goosebumps... I agree and the reverse is true also. Below is one of my favorite truly great artists (singer/composer/painter) singing a few classics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4ED44zz4O0&list=PL_jrKrBTmTmC6GqUGOryKxdcvRFfOob05&index=2 and her own songs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLKb9Ms68ME Notice, no fireworks, smashig of guitars, or jumping around. Just brilliance of lyrics augmented by great musicians. And a cut:
Pat Metheny and his group playing "Third Wind" from the album "Still Life (Talking)", released in 1987. In this album. Metheny mixes Brazilian-influenced harmonies and rhythm with jazz, folk, and pop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSmWCYNRpNs I can appreciate the Joni Mitchell rendition of "At Last". Not big on the Jazzy Pat Metheny cut, though. Music with very little melody just sounds kind of atonal and schizophrenic to me. Seriously, how can anyone like jazz? :-P I have enjoyed a couple of Nirvana's "jazz" jams though, particularly these: "Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DG8yO8qMRc "Endless Nameless" from "Nirvana: Live at the Paramount" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJ7J_uZTIE ...and a very different version of "Endless Nameless" from "Nirvana: Live and Loud" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D67iQ6T3U0 Nowhere near the level of instrumental skill required for a typical jazz cut, but I've convinced myself that Kurt Cobain could smash his guitar while burping and it would be pure genius. Subjectivity, isn't it great? note: No, I do not actually expect you to sit all the way through any of these. Because they're ear poison. Beautiful, glorious ear poison...
I don't disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music.
Wait, someone has created a new gender through music? That is an amazing accomplishment! ;-P
I don't disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music.
Wait, someone has created a new gender through music? That is an amazing accomplishment! ;-P :vampire:
BugRib, I can appreciate the Joni Mitchell rendition of “At Last". Not big on the Jazzy Pat Metheny cut, though. Music with very little melody just sounds kind of atonal and schizophrenic to me. Seriously, how can anyone like jazz? tongue laugh
Actually there is a melody. Jazz is "improvisation on a theme" the spontaneous inventiveness of the artist, using the chords structure based on an original theme. It is similar to Impressionism or Cubism in painting, where pure realism is reinterpreted through the eyes of the artist in a variety of ways.. Van Gogh is a wonderful example. Picasso, Jackson Pollock. At first these paintings look odd and unfamiliar, but with great art, the longer you study it, the more profound these works seem to become. It's weird, but true. The trick is not to look AT the painting, but look INTO the painting. The same holds true for music and all other forms of fine art. The deeper you look, the more you see. But smashing a guitar to make a point does not do it for me, unless it is the artists expression of his frustration that he has failed to create anything meaningful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Y6NPahlDE&index=35&list=WL
Nice!
I don't disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music.
Wait, someone has created a new gender through music? That is an amazing accomplishment! ;-P :vampire:
BugRib, I can appreciate the Joni Mitchell rendition of “At Last". Not big on the Jazzy Pat Metheny cut, though. Music with very little melody just sounds kind of atonal and schizophrenic to me. Seriously, how can anyone like jazz? tongue laugh
Actually there is a melody. Jazz is "improvisation on a theme" the spontaneous inventiveness of the artist, using the chords structure based on an original theme. It is similar to Impressionism or Cubism in painting, where pure realism is reinterpreted through the eyes of the artist in a variety of ways.. Van Gogh is a wonderful example. Picasso, Jackson Pollock. At first these paintings look odd and unfamiliar, but with great art, the longer you study it, the more profound these works seem to become. It's weird, but true. The trick is not to look AT the painting, but look INTO the painting. The same holds true for music and all other forms of fine art. The deeper you look, the more you see. But smashing a guitar to make a point does not do it for me, unless it is the artists expression of his frustration that he has failed to create anything meaningful.You need to step back and see the discussion correctly. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that the point that was being forgotten is context. Context is everything, and without that all of your posts are off. Somewhere you said art is about communication of a concept. I agree, that's why Beethoven sucks at a party but the Stones don't. See it's the context that matters. In the context of people having fun at a bar, or say a family wedding, Beethoven's 5th just doesn't cut it. In the context of intellectual enjoyment, the Stones Can't Get No Satisfaction just doesn't cut it. It's the context that matters AND you can't say one context is more relevant than the other.
You need to step back and see the discussion correctly. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that the point that was being forgotten is context. Context is everything, and without that all of your posts are off. Somewhere you said art is about communication of a concept. I agree, that's why Beethoven sucks at a party but the Stones don't. See it's the context that matters. In the context of people having fun at a bar, or say a family wedding, Beethoven's 5th just doesn't cut it. In the context of intellectual enjoyment, the Stones Can't Get No Satisfaction just doesn't cut it. It's the context that matters AND you can't say one context is more relevant than the other.
Speaking of contexts, if you happened to be a well-off middle class family hosting a party and had some wives or daughters who could whip out a 4-hands piano arrangement of Beethoven's 5th, that would make a fantastic party. Start with that, then when the hard cider starts to kick in, get into the action by singing some cutting-edge Stephen Foster songs en masse. :)
I don't disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music.
Wait, someone has created a new gender through music? That is an amazing accomplishment! ;-P :vampire:
BugRib, I can appreciate the Joni Mitchell rendition of “At Last". Not big on the Jazzy Pat Metheny cut, though. Music with very little melody just sounds kind of atonal and schizophrenic to me. Seriously, how can anyone like jazz? tongue laugh
Actually there is a melody. Jazz is "improvisation on a theme" the spontaneous inventiveness of the artist, using the chords structure based on an original theme. It is similar to Impressionism or Cubism in painting, where pure realism is reinterpreted through the eyes of the artist in a variety of ways.. Van Gogh is a wonderful example. Picasso, Jackson Pollock. At first these paintings look odd and unfamiliar, but with great art, the longer you study it, the more profound these works seem to become. It's weird, but true. The trick is not to look AT the painting, but look INTO the painting. The same holds true for music and all other forms of fine art. The deeper you look, the more you see. But smashing a guitar to make a point does not do it for me, unless it is the artists expression of his frustration that he has failed to create anything meaningful.You need to step back and see the discussion correctly. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that the point that was being forgotten is context. Context is everything, and without that all of your posts are off. Somewhere you said art is about communication of a concept. I agree, that's why Beethoven sucks at a party but the Stones don't. See it's the context that matters. In the context of people having fun at a bar, or say a family wedding, Beethoven's 5th just doesn't cut it. In the context of intellectual enjoyment, the Stones Can't Get No Satisfaction just doesn't cut it. It's the context that matters AND you can't say one context is more relevant than the other. You just made my point. There is a contextual difference between Art and Entertainment. Art is not necessarily intended to be entertaining and entertainment is not necessariiy artfull. Folding and flying a paper plane is not the same as creating an intricate work of origamy or a paper painting (see below) http://elizabethsthilairenelson.blogspot.com/ Note the heading "Art imitates life" (Natura Artis Magistra). Or the art of paper-cutting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercutting and see this Master in the art of paper-cut paintings. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=works+of+joanna_koerten&qpvt=works+of+Joanna_Koerten&FORM=IGRE I aso like this quote
Types, Not all songs are created equally. The division between songs is based on the type of music you are writing and the genre that you are using. Each of these has specific rhythms, sounds, instrumentation and lyrics that tie everything together to make the best song. Most of these are based on intricate theories that work together to create the best music. Knowing your genre and the theories that are a part of this first ensures that you are able to make the most of the song.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_4571788_what-makes-good-song.html Art is "the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" . OTOH, Entertainment is just that, a moment of pleasure, soon forgotten because it is design to "distract" from the more serious intellectual side of life. This is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive, but they are distinct from each other in purpose.
I don't disagree, you named the great artists who created a new gender in music.
Wait, someone has created a new gender through music? That is an amazing accomplishment! ;-P :vampire:
BugRib, I can appreciate the Joni Mitchell rendition of “At Last". Not big on the Jazzy Pat Metheny cut, though. Music with very little melody just sounds kind of atonal and schizophrenic to me. Seriously, how can anyone like jazz? tongue laugh
Actually there is a melody. Jazz is "improvisation on a theme" the spontaneous inventiveness of the artist, using the chords structure based on an original theme. It is similar to Impressionism or Cubism in painting, where pure realism is reinterpreted through the eyes of the artist in a variety of ways.. Van Gogh is a wonderful example. Picasso, Jackson Pollock. At first these paintings look odd and unfamiliar, but with great art, the longer you study it, the more profound these works seem to become. It's weird, but true. The trick is not to look AT the painting, but look INTO the painting. The same holds true for music and all other forms of fine art. The deeper you look, the more you see. But smashing a guitar to make a point does not do it for me, unless it is the artists expression of his frustration that he has failed to create anything meaningful.You need to step back and see the discussion correctly. I mentioned somewhere in this thread that the point that was being forgotten is context. Context is everything, and without that all of your posts are off. Somewhere you said art is about communication of a concept. I agree, that's why Beethoven sucks at a party but the Stones don't. See it's the context that matters. In the context of people having fun at a bar, or say a family wedding, Beethoven's 5th just doesn't cut it. In the context of intellectual enjoyment, the Stones Can't Get No Satisfaction just doesn't cut it. It's the context that matters AND you can't say one context is more relevant than the other. You just made my point. There is a contextual difference between Art and Entertainment. Art is not necessarily intended to be entertaining and entertainment is not necessariiy artfull. Folding and flying a paper plane is not the same as creating an intricate work of origamy or a paper painting (see below) http://elizabethsthilairenelson.blogspot.com/ Note the heading "Art imitates life" (Natura Artis Magistra). Or the art of paper-cutting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercutting and see this Master in the art of paper-cut paintings. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=works+of+joanna_koerten&qpvt=works+of+Joanna_Koerten&FORM=IGRE I aso like this quote
Types, Not all songs are created equally. The division between songs is based on the type of music you are writing and the genre that you are using. Each of these has specific rhythms, sounds, instrumentation and lyrics that tie everything together to make the best song. Most of these are based on intricate theories that work together to create the best music. Knowing your genre and the theories that are a part of this first ensures that you are able to make the most of the song.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_4571788_what-makes-good-song.html Art is "the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" . OTOH, Entertainment is just that, a moment of pleasure, soon forgotten because it is design to "distract" from the more serious intellectual side of life. This is not to say that the two are mutually exclusive, but they are distinct from each other in purpose.Well now you're just mincing words. Beethoven and the Stones both produced art, and what they produced can both be entertaining as well as artful. Your distinction is apples to oranges.