24 of 56

Write now Article Tools

I suppose there have to be several distinctions made in defining the word "good" in relation to music. Does good mean pleasant to the ear, virtuosic in nature, or is it full expression of the human nature? I believe all three to be quite important to what makes music good all in their different contexts. For instance, an untrained ear is going to be far more apt to turn the volume up on something pleasant and familiar such as Mozart and more likely to disregard a composer like Bela Bartok or George Crumb. Pertaining to the virtuosic nature of music being appealing, the music does not necessarily have to be pleasant to be impressive or "good". A good example of this is Gyorgy Litegi's "Disodre". In this work for piano, the right hand is playing in C major while the left is playing in B major. However, not only are the key areas off-set but the rhythm is as well. The piece contains no prescribed meter and the barlines between the treble and bass cleff continuously become more and more out of sync. In essence, two hands are playing two pieces. The virtuosic nature of "Disordre" provides awe to an observer rather than sweet notes to a listener. Finally, good music is composed through expression of human nature. When a song or a piece of music hits a chord with the listener it is because they can relate to it emotionally. Either the work provides some reminiscience or it can help the listener say or feel what they may or may not understand is occuring in their own mind. These three ideas however are not exclusive as music contains either one or more of these principles within the work.

Learn more about this author, Graham.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about What makes good music??
We want to hear your view. Write now!