Weird Question.

[73109]

Ok, I am going to see if I can ask this and try to get my question across.

The question is: What makes a song a good song? When I ask that, I don't mean good music or good lyrics, I mean what makes the music good, what makes it catchy or likeable in general? Why do people as a collective whole like one song and hate another. Why do bands have hits? What is it about the hit that makes it so good when some random album cut isn't as good. A way I can illustrate this is that I was being introduced to Devin Townsend. People were telling me that his music was great but I went by myself to figure him out. No one said "Oh! Check out this song! It is great" I listened to his songs but still found the "hits" to be my favorites. Why?

Sorry if you don't get it. I can't really articulate what I am trying to say.

[antigoon]

Hooks, baby. Hooks.

[73109]

But what makes hooks hookey?

[j]

Something about their elements (pitch, rhythm, dynamics, etc) evokes some common positive neurological responses from a majority of people.  I don't know much about this, but it's very interesting.

Good question, by the way, not a weird one.

-J

[antigoon]

Melodic symmetry? I dunno.

[Jakartabassplayer]

bacon

[ariich]

It's down to individual preferences and what speaks to you personally.

[73109]

It's down to individual preferences and what speaks to you personally.

That is not what I am talking about.

[hefdaddy42]

It's down to individual preferences and what speaks to you personally.

That is not what I am talking about.

But it is the only real answer.  No one knows.  History is full of songs that were almost left off albums completely but wound up being huge hits.  It is also full of heavily hyped singles that go absolutely nowhere.

[73109]

That still isn't the question. My question is almost scientific. Scientifically, what makes a good song?

So far, the closest response to what I was looking for was this:

Something about their elements (pitch, rhythm, dynamics, etc) evokes some common positive neurological responses from a majority of people.  I don't know much about this, but it's very interesting.

Good question, by the way, not a weird one.

-J

But explained a little more.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

You'd have to ask a psychologist who specializes in sensation and perception.

[hefdaddy42]

That still isn't the question. My question is almost scientific. Scientifically, what makes a good song?

So far, the closest response to what I was looking for was this:

Something about their elements (pitch, rhythm, dynamics, etc) evokes some common positive neurological responses from a majority of people.  I don't know much about this, but it's very interesting.

Good question, by the way, not a weird one.

-J

But explained a little more.

It still won't mean anything, because plenty of songs with such characteristics fail.

[orcus116]

Being tasteful always helps. Simplicity is debatable since it can be boring to some but there is almost never a place for superfluous shredding in a lot of songs. There are exceptions though.

[cthrubuoy]

That still isn't the question. My question is almost scientific. Scientifically, what makes a good song?

So far, the closest response to what I was looking for was this:

Something about their elements (pitch, rhythm, dynamics, etc) evokes some common positive neurological responses from a majority of people.  I don't know much about this, but it's very interesting.

Good question, by the way, not a weird one.

-J

But explained a little more.

I don't think you can be scientific. Defining a song as 'good' is completely subjective.
You could ask yourself 'what makes that painting good?'. It wouldn't be the brush strokes or the colours, it would be a persons opinion on the overall qualities of said painting and would differ in every single person on the planet.

That being said, the qualities that define what I consider good music are that the artist takes me on a journey, they take me somewhere with twist and unexpected turns, they use melodies that work together (not a theory nerd) and rhythms that I can tap or nod my head to, which might make me feel like I'm somehow involved.

[73109]

It's ok people. You aren't getting my question but I didn't expect you to. No worries.

[KevShmev]

No, it is just a strange question, since there isn't one thing or one single characteristic that would accurately answer it. 

[ehra]

It's ok people. You aren't getting my question but I didn't expect you to. No worries.

I'm pretty sure no one is having any trouble "getting" your question.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

I'm sure there is, in fact, a scientific answer to the question, but it's certainly not going to be an easy one.  If you're really curious, you should contact a university professor of psychology who specializes in sensation and perception.  I think Princeton University has a research group in their psychology department that specializes in that very thing.

[LudwigVan]

This is the ages-old question of 'aesthetics', i.e. what makes something look and sound 'beautiful' to the average human being.  You might as well ask why big boobs and an hour-glass shape appeals to 90% of the male population.  

antigoon actually brought up a good word: symmetry. The human brain tends to struggle with things that are asymmetrical, fragmented or unfinished.  People look for a sense of balance, completeness and purpose in a work of art, whether it be a Michelangelo sculture, DaVinci painting or a David Gilmour guitar solo.  

[Marvellous G]

I do get your question, I think. I still think it's just a pleasing simple vocal melody, but I can't explain why. Listen to Dixie Chicks' 'The Long Way Around' for what I'd call an IMMEDIATELY pleasing song. Most songs from DT, Opeth, Tool etc don't have this quality, even though I eventually like them more. I only like these songs that much through perseverance, which is perhaps why the hookier ones are more appealing to the general public.

[73109]

That sucked.

And I'm not saying that because it is a pop song. Ther are many a song I feel are quite catchy but that was bad.

[Marvellous G]

Well that's probably the best example I could think of that's an immediately pleasing melody without resorting to John Mayer, so I guess it really is subjective.

[73109]

Rich Girl by Hall and Oats

There ya go.

[Dr. SeaWolf]

You might as well ask why big boobs and an hour-glass shape appeals to 90% of the male population.

Because those are signs of fertility and fitness for childbearing.

[Ben_Jamin]

73109 why does that dixie chicks song suck?

Everyone here is right, your question can not be answered easily on a forum board. You'd have to ask someone in person cause it's too long of answer to understand other than face to face conversation. It's like asking why does this person love, let's say, carpentry while the other cooking?

[LudwigVan]

You might as well ask why big boobs and an hour-glass shape appeals to 90% of the male population.

Because those are signs of fertility and fitness for childbearing.

Of course they are, but the big smile I get in my pants when I see boobs doesn't know that      I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not something that's consciously determined.  You don't say to yourself: aha this piece has a symmetrical shape with a solid beginning and end with the solo in the right place and therefore it must be beautiful.   It's all sub-conscious and just hits you without prejudice, just like an erection. 

[Dr. SeaWolf]

You might as well ask why big boobs and an hour-glass shape appeals to 90% of the male population.

Because those are signs of fertility and fitness for childbearing.

Of course they are, but the big smile I get in my pants when I see boobs doesn't know that      I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not something that's consciously determined.  You don't say to yourself: aha this piece has a symmetrical shape with a solid beginning and end with the solo in the right place and therefore it must be beautiful.   It's all sub-conscious and just hits you without prejudice, just like an erection. 

I never said that they were consciously determined.  The predisposition to most men toward curvaceous women is something that was encoded into our DNA through millions of years of natural selection.  The women with wide hips and big breasts were more successful at some point in producing offspring, so men who chose women with these characteristics for their mates were more successful at passing on their own genetic material.

The same goes for art and music.  At some point in human history, we developed predispositions toward certain sounds, forms, and expressions that were beneficial to producing offspring or for survival in certain environments.

[lonestar]

There is no answer to the question.  By this, I mean that music, like religion, is such an intensly personal thing that it has no definitive answer.  Sure, our enviornment and family will haved a say in what direction we go. My brothers introduced me to rock, and later to early prog, but the path that led me to DT was one I walked alone, and they are one of my top five favorite bands. 

[Fluffy Lothario]

It is simply about subjective opinion, but if you take so many peoples' subjective opinions and combine them, people are, for whatever reason, going to prefer certain songs over others more often.

Of course, those 'so many people' are generally just a subset of people. Which is why if you show most metal fans ten Devin Townsend songs and tell them to show you the ones they most like, and from that deduce which are most likely the 'hits', they should be able to point to the same ones with some degree of accuracy, whereas if you showed those ten songs to most Beyonce fans, they're far less likely to be able to tell you at all. The same way most metal fans couldn't tell you which Beyonce songs would more likely be her hits (provided they'd never heard any of her songs, of course).

I would say that, in choosing which songs should be their singles, the band, or I imagine in most cases the people behind desks, simply try to judge which of their songs will most likely be those most liked ones.

This is the ages-old question of 'aesthetics', i.e. what makes something look and sound 'beautiful' to the average human being.  You might as well ask why big boobs and an hour-glass shape appeals to 90% of the male population. 

antigoon actually brought up a good word: symmetry. The human brain tends to struggle with things that are asymmetrical, fragmented or unfinished.  People look for a sense of balance, completeness and purpose in a work of art, whether it be a Michelangelo sculture, DaVinci painting or a David Gilmour guitar solo. 

Interestingly, I once saw a documentary about human attraction and apparently, the feature which most summed up what people judge as appealing when it comes to facial features is symmetry.

[fsh3702]

if a song want to be popular in the general public, at least it must follow the common scale pattern or the chord progression, it can be diverted a little out of the ordinary pattern, but i has to be drew back to normal. of course DT's music is not follow this pattern, and we still love them. and i think one particular merit of DT songs is: labrie's vocal part is always traditional, no exaggeration in tones(except his high pitch voice), no distortion in voice, compared with other extreme singers, labrie's voice is gentle and aesthetic. but in the contrary DT's instrumental part is extraordinary and drastics sometimes, so this creats a beautiful contrast, and dt also follows some patterns, though the pattern they follow is not usual in its own sake.

i believe the criteria of judging a song is also varying along the years. imagine you play some famous rock song, for example megadeath's holy punishment in egypt 500 years ago, maybe they will think you are crazy and run away. the acceptance of music genre and pattern is evolving through the years, it's changing all the time.

this make me think of gustave marhler, the german composer, though he was a successful conductor in his own age, but his achievements as a composer was high questioned in his lifetime, even during many years after his death. but just like he said "my age will come", his works were finally rediscovered, marhler's symphonies are masterpieces according to the current viewpoint, but only about several decades before the opinion towards his work was totally different.

and also bach's unaccompanied cello suite NO 1, no one doubt it's a gorgeous piece, but its good musical quality can not be acknowledged in the past.

anyway,music is mysterious, music trancends language, music is beyond the description of language, so any intention of explaining or decoding music will conclude in vain.

[fsh3702]

sorry i mean people play megadeth's holy war in egypt at 5000 years ago

[ariich]

It's ok people. You aren't getting my question but I didn't expect you to. No worries.

We are getting your question but there is no right answer, that's what hef and I were trying to explain. There is no possible way of knowing or explaining what will appeal to the masses.

[Plasmastrike]

There is no answer to your question. By your rationale, some people's opinions on what is or is not a good song could be wrong in a sense that they like a song that isn't "scientifically good" (wtf does that mean?). There's no such thing as a wrong opinion when it comes to music taste as we all know.

Defining a song as good or not comes down to nothing except opinion.




... in my opinion

[73109]

The thing is, I really shouldn't have asked you guys. That was problem. I should have went and asked some dude with a PhD is Psychology. No big deal. I'm too lazy to do it anyways.


Basically my question can be boiled down to:

What happens in someones brain when they hear a song they dig?

And why do many people like one song vs another?

[Plasmastrike]

if a song want to be popular in the general public, at least it must follow the common scale pattern or the chord progression, it can be diverted a little out of the ordinary pattern, but i has to be drew back to normal. of course DT's music is not follow this pattern, and we still love them. and i think one particular merit of DT songs is: labrie's vocal part is always traditional, no exaggeration in tones(except his high pitch voice), no distortion in voice, compared with other extreme singers, labrie's voice is gentle and aesthetic.

Then why do I love LTE?