Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: What is quality in music? (Read 22789 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What is quality in music?

This question is maybe a starting point for a big discussion (or maybe not)
with all the music enthusiasts in here but that's the point why I'm posting it. 

When somebody is speaking of the quality of music and I don't mean the
bitrate related stuff, I was always puzzled what he / she meant with that.

For me there are two different options to describe the quality of music.

1.) How skillful the musicians are when it comes to variation,"changes".
and playing itself. How is the sound of the recording. How is the sound of the
musicians when they play...

2.) The emotional part...what the music contains for the individual listener.

That's just my point of view but maybe you understand what i mean here.

So what's your opinion?


What is quality in music?

Reply #1 –
if it brings you to place from the past that you've never seen or to new place you've been there it has some quality to you
if it brings you to place from the past you've been there you are probably sentimental and don't care too much about music
and if your music is from cover magazine it brings you nowhere

it can have many forms of quality, of course, even be therapeutic for some patients

What is quality in music?

Reply #2 –
I generally don't like the term "quality" applied to music because it suggests that music can be rated on a one-dimensional scale and that some music can be considered better than other. Instead, every listener deems different aspects of music important, which bends and warps this scale.
Furthermore, even if we assume we could somehow merge these different perspectives on music into one system, the rating of a musical piece in each perspective is highly dependent on the listener's preferences. Therefore, "quality" consists of subjectively chosen measures, subjectively rated. No comparability.

I like to see "quality" as some kind of multi-dimensional room, with every dimension representing one musical aspect. Everyone can find his/her own definition of "high quality" at the intersection of the preferred dimension(s)'s upper ends and evaluate the rating of a musical piece in this arbitrarily formed scaling space. This is in fact how one does assess whether he/she likes a certain musical piece or not.

Sorry for the wordy introduction, I got carried away a little.

That said, these are my personally preferred aspects/dimensions when judging quality:

1. Originality
When musicians present or sell music as their own, I want it to actually be their own. Of course, every musician inevitably does something some other musician had already done in the past, but if the music is too derivative of other musicians, of earlier work by the same musician or, worst of all, a cover version (I really despise those), I simply cannot consider it good music.

2. Skill
This is a no-brainer. The skill in using one's instrument, whatever kind of instrument it may be, greatly contributes to my perception of quality.

3. Mixing/Mastering
Although not technically a part of the music itself, it is highly important that the recording sounds pleasant. I especially cannot stand ear-hurting loud high-pitched content in drum tracks.

There are some more aspects, but they all come down to be genre-specific or too subjective when it comes to rating. For example, a certain amount of variation is good while very much variation (like free jazz) or very little (like a metronome) is bad. I tried to choose aspects that can more or less be objectively rated.
Nothing is impossible if you don't need to do it yourself.

What is quality in music?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Silversight on
or, worst of all, a cover version (I really despise those), I simply cannot consider it good music.


As a person who listens almost exclusively to classical, I cannot agree. In my personal opinion, all good music is only available as, technically speaking, covers.

On a more serious note, I definitely regard composition (often including instrumentation) as the most most important determinant of the quality of a music piece. Then goes performance, then recording quality. Obviosly, all within reasonable limits.
Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".

What is quality in music?

Reply #4 –
I think there are several aspects to be aware of:
  • Quality of the composition
  • Quality of the musicians
  • Quality of the recording
  • Your pleasure listening to it.
The musicology is able to value the first two positions (1. and 2.) very exactly with objective methods. That Beethoven's Egmont or Paul Desmond's Take 5 as compositions are artistically more valuable than an arbitrary todays pop song is a fact, scientifically well supported and does not require any further discussion.

When somebody is talking about the quality of music (4.) he often means actually his personal preference, not the music's objective quality. The colloquial language does not distinguish between both and often the partner in discussion has no clue about the criteria e.g. for good singing, but claims that for example Pritney Spoers (oops) would be a good singer. In fact he means he likes her (her stage shows, her dancing, her outfit, her music).

Telling somebody that the music he likes is bad usually results in two typical replies:
  • "There's no accounting for taste."
  • "You can't compare apples with pears."
I take both arguments for wrong. Taste needs education (a) and I can compare apples with pears (b), because there are good apples as well as good pears.

By the way, at the moment I am listening to a song which I like very much although I know it is bad.

Interesting for me was the realization that a composition's (and next the musicians) quality is more important for me than the audio quality. I would rather listen to a bad recording of good music than vice versa. In so far I do agree with pawelq.

For questions concerning the audio quality I am a member here.
This is HA. Not the Jerry Springer Show.

What is quality in music?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: 2E7AH on
if it brings you to place from the past you've been there you are probably sentimental and don't care too much about music

Sometimes the only thing that brings me back to a place or a situation I visited / experienced
in the past is the music I was hearing in that special moment.
My brain seems to memorize things and links it with the music I was hearing.
Brains in general work this way....
BTW: I'm a little sentimental and can't care more about music!   

Quote from: pawelq on
Quote from: Silversight on
or, worst of all, a cover version (I really despise those), I simply cannot consider it good music.

As a person who listens almost exclusively to classical, I cannot agree. In my personal opinion, all good music is only available as, technically speaking, covers.

 

Quote from: Robertina on
When somebody is talking about the quality of music (4.) he often means actually his personal preference, not the music's objective quality. The colloquial language does not distinguish between both and often the partner in discussion has no clue about the criteria e.g. for good singing, but claims that for example Pritney Spoers (oops) would be a good singer. In fact he means he likes her (her stage shows, her dancing, her outfit, her music).

Maybe you (and all others) are interested in watching: "Before the music dies".
A documentary about mainstream music...
I liked it very much and if you ask me, there's a lot of truth in it!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/62945/before-the-music-dies

Hulu only streams in the US.

What is quality in music?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Gapkiller on
So what's your opinion?


I agree with you and it can be summed up as 'Beauty is in the ear of the beholder'. For the purposes of your discussion, why not just take the recording/mixing variable out of it?

Instead you could ask how 2 different people can be sitting next to each other in the same room as the performer(s) with one person being moved to joyful tears and the other person being annoyed. I think it's one of those perceptions we have that transcends language, culture, etc. It's also interesting that this perception can change throughout an individual's lifetime as they age.

What is quality in music?

Reply #7 –
Quote
I agree with you and it can be summed up as 'Beauty is in the ear of the beholder'. For the purposes of your discussion, why not just take the recording/mixing variable out of it?

Why not.

Quote
Instead you could ask how 2 different people can be sitting next to each other in the same room as the performer(s) with one person being moved to joyful tears and the other person being annoyed. I think it's one of those perceptions we have that transcends language, culture, etc. It's also interesting that this perception can change throughout an individual's lifetime as they age.

Interesting. Yeah, you are getting older and your taste and hearing habits change.
If I would have heard my newest album 10 years ago, I would have said that I
would never hear such music nor like it in any way.

What I find important is todays mainstream effect.
Quote
"Fans of Britney Spears aren't music fans, they are popular culture fans."

Quote from "before music dies". Habits change and music is getting
more and more a mixed bag of sounds. But what if you don't really care about music but
care about your daily Radio/TV/AD brain wash?