Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA

You're welcome, Lisnaholic.

Good point about Rolling Stone's criterion #5. It's a little like saying a good movie has to have good production, which seems obviously false, since some great movies have poor production, even lacking color (GASP!).

The idea of the degree to which a song fulfills its purpose (conceived by the composer or musician) intrigues me. I like that criterion. That explains why I can admire a song that I may dislike in many other ways. Songs like "My Humps." Er... actually I don't admire that song even though it *does* fulfill its purpose. :/ But I still like the criterion you've added!


True, there's no *need* for explanation, but identifying reasons that individuals like one piece of music and not another interests me because doing so tries to nail down the qualities of the music that draw them to it.

This sort of analysis of music, like other forms of art criticism or appreciation, may seem academic and rather like the horror of killing and then putting a pin through a beautiful butterfly, but seeking to understand *why* different music appeals to different people and why many people may appreciate the same song is fun to me. I want to understand the allure of music by going beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it." Add in brain scans of people listening to music, and it would be even better!

Thinking about my own criteria for judging music that I like or don't like challenges me to break down a "gut" reaction and try to understand it. I think the music one likes is similar to a personality test and may reveal a lot about a person, even to herself or himself.