The concept of "good" or "bad" applied to music only works if specific criteria for judgment are agreed upon (by the judges) in advance.

For example, you could compare two pieces of music and judge which performance involved fewer wrong notes by comparing them to the notes printed in the score. If you value the correct playing of notes, then you would say the performance with fewer missed notes was "better." (Judging improvisation music in this way would be impossible.) However, if you are someone who likes improvisation and surprise in music, you might actually prefer the performance which had more "incorrect" notes.

As for Rolling Stone magazine's "Best" lists, they are probably using certain criteria to make their judgment. I looked up their list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, and learned this:

John Cage's 4'33" may not make that list as it doesn't have (2) melody or (5) great production. It does make a strong statement, I'd say, so it succeeds at (4), but lacks emotion IMO, as it has no music...but I prefer 4'33" to a whole mess of songs you can actually hear. :p: Like Il Duce said, sometimes I like silence more than listening to a song.

EDIT: Rolling Stone lists Bob Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" as the greatest song of all time...and I doubt that is a coincidence, given the name of the magazine. :rolleyes: Strange, because I've never liked that song much at all.

Dylans song has nothing to do with the name of the magazine. The magazine, Dylans song, and the Rolling Stones band were named after the Muddy Waters song of the same name. Considering Rolling Stone magazines criteria, I'd say that "Like a Rolling Stone" is a good fit. I'm not saying I think it's the greatest. It would be impossible for me to say what song is the greatest ever. It's actually one Dylan song that I got tired of rather fast. I think he has better songs. But considering that criteria, I think it's a good fit.

Ah...I didn't realize the source of the name of Rolling Stone Magazine. Thank you for that information.

I agree Dylan's "Like A Rolling Stone" does a good job of meeting the magazine's criteria that they seemed to be using to pick their greatest 500 songs. The reason I felt their choice was strange was that I don't like to listen to that song, and therefore I don't think of it as "good" music.

"Good" music to me is music I enjoy listening to, for whatever reason.

My criteria for "good" music:
(1) It holds my attention.
(2) I feel emotionally moved by it (except that it shouldn't make me annoyed *at* the song).
(3) The musician is doing something novel or conceptually clever and so the song sounds new and fresh to me.

I readily accept that other people's criteria for judging music are different than mine, and that there is no fixed "goodness" or "badness" inherent in music.

However, I don't much like the Rolling Stone Magazine's criterion that I numbered as 4: a song has "a strong statement that becomes part of the lexicon." This suggests that only famous songs can be considered "great."

Now THIS song, "Fine Objects" by Eskamon, tops my list of good music because it meets my criteria very well, especially my third criterion:



I like crunchy music that sounds like shattering glass and has an ominous yet playful feeling about it. I'd never heard such a song before listening to this one...and when I heard it, it was :love:. If I could shoot one song off into space to represent humanity's music, I might shoot this one! :p:

Sure, this works. But this only presents a different perspective from which subjective opinions are valued; it is the act of externalizing an opinion (from its subject) and canonizing it. Your own distaste for "Like a Rolling Stone" should be evidence enough that an objective "good" and "bad" simply doesn't exist.

But that, I feel, is one of the great appeals to music -- everyone has their own preferences, and nobody is any more "correct" in their convictions than anyone else.

Good golly, we agree on something! :p:

I think if you were to come up with a greatest songs list, the criteria would have to be a little more broad and not just based upon your feelings about music. I think that the Rolling Stone criteria covers that pretty well. Transcending time, becoming part of human consciousness and lexicon are pretty big deals. There have been a lot of other popular acts that haven't had as much of a profound affect on culture as Bob Dylan. Surely there are more reasons for his influence on things other than just popularity. I think he rightfully belongs at the top of any "Greatest songs" list or and "Greatest Artists" list. Not many, if any, can match the influence he had on music and culture. And it's not just because he was popular. He wasn't even that popular at the beginning of his career, his songs were first popularized by other artists.

I agree with you that the Rolling Stone Magazine criteria were pretty good, given their goal of identifying music that has, does, and probably will speak to many people. If they had published *my* top 500 songs, based on *my* emotions, they probably wouldn't have pleased many readers.

:laughing:

If there's music out there that can transcend time, I'd love to hear it. Do you need special earbuds to listen to it?

There certainly is music that transcends time. Artists like Dylan, The Beatles and Zeppelin continue to sell a lot of records and their influence and popularity are still strong almost 50 years after their heyday. Not every band is capable of that. Therefore, some artists transcend time a little more than most.

I know what you were trying to say, but your phrasing was suggestive of a very, very different connotation...
That's all I was hankering on about.