What criteria determine "greatness"?

[AngryAchilles]

It seems that different people have very different ways of defining greatness. What do you consider to be the most important factor when putting an album on your list? Theoretically, a "great" album can (and maybe should) have all of these attributes, but do you find yourself privileging some of these factors over others when making your list?

[Elston]

Personally, I don't know what I like about music. It's a kind of unconscious intuitive thing. I just sit there passively and let the music do it's thing. If it overpowers and has it's filthy ways with me, it's done its job. The only thing I consider important is music is would I listen to this several times? If I wind up listening to something a lot, I determine it must be great.

[joannajewsom]

I know that I like my music to have certain traits: originality, technical proficiency (music and lyrics), and emotional impact. Now, why I like those things, I don't know. That's what I happen to be drawn to most of the time. I choose to like those things as much as I choose to like certain foods. Ultimately I think uniqueness and technical proficiency work to heighten the emotional impact, so I guess that would be the thing that's most important to me. Then again, I truly doubt that I can get into a record that isn't original. It's hard for me to connect with an artist/band when they're trying to be something that they're actually not, rather than just being honest. So I guess originality would be the most important thing since I doubt I could have an emotional reaction to something unoriginal. See, this is too confusing.

[telefunker]

gotta be emotional impact.. and in my case that usually involves great melodies.. not just the lead melody, but the entire arrangement.. that's why i hold records like pet sounds and thriller in such high regard

and when those melodies are sung with sincerity and in a voice that i like, the tunes come to life..

i also find it easier to get into any music that has a strong rhythm section.. in fact i think i share this trait with a lot of people - probably why so much production these days focuses on loud drums..

i also find copious amounts of reverb appealing to my tastes.. just gives everything so much more warmth and depth

anyway, when i look back at my favourite artists at different points in my life i guess they're all so because they spoke for me at the time, gave a voice to my sentiments and opinions

having said that, the likes of 'in a silent way' and 'in the court of the crimson king' don't really mean much to me.. i'm just so blown away by the atmospheres they create that i have to laud them too..
_________________
no fat chicks

[Mr. Shankly]

It's an interesting question. Music is such an abstract ephemeral thing, so it's hard to put it in simple concrete terms why one connects with certain albums. What does it mean for a connection to be emotional? I'm not sure. It's such an individual thing, but I do know what it feels like to be moved by music. The thing about emotional impact though is it can be one or two songs that move you or it can be the full emotional impact of a "great" album, the feeling of having gone on a journey of sorts, been made to think or feel, or just having been thoroughly entertained for 30 minute or more.

But in the case of judging an album as an art form, consistency and lack of filler, I think is the key. For example: Small Change is not one of Tom Waits's best albums , but there are few more powerful emotional gems in his canon than the opening track, "Tom Traubert's Blues." But again, that's a great song, but a great song does not necessarily make a great album. A great album must be filled with great songs and have a consistency or overall feel to it. R.E.M.'s Murmur and Automatic for the People are great for maintaining a certain mood or feel throughout. What's Going On by Marvin Gaye comes to mind too. But again, the album as an art form is about its overall impact from the first note on the first track to the last. In that sense, when judging an album, I'm not sure if emotional connection and consistency are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps the next question is, is an album just a collection of songs or does it have its own identity? I think it can be either, but the best of the best usually exist as their own entity.

[albummaster]

If you look at the same question in a different way. If you listen to "xyz's greatest hits", you might have an album of 10-12 great tracks, but they don't stand together as a unit. "No filler" on its own is not a strong enough criteria to determine a great album, you need bridges between songs to link things together into a cohesive unit. I agree with Mr. Shankly about a great album taking you on a journey.

Emotional impact is a vague criteria, I might listen to an album and it might make me sad, happy, pensive, wistful, romantic etc but if the music isn't melodic, if the songs are repetitive, if the lyrics are meaningless (and a 101 other factors), then it is not going to stand alone as a "great" album.

A lot of the great albums have trodden new ground in terms of their innpvation, or tried something a bit different to what has gone before. But, it is not enough to just be innovative. It's the *combination* of these factors that counts.

[maxxy]

Really hard question, but I think that no one criterion can determine weather or not an album is great. For example: Kind of blue is great because of its significance, musical virtuosity, and enjoyability, I guess. Then you have something like London Calling. No offense to jones, simonon and strummer, but they aren't masters of their instruments like Davis or Coltrane. However, London Calling is hugely inventive and influential, and is just as an enjoyable listen as Kind of Blue. Originality can't really define greatness either; for example, the smiths weren't all that original. Sure, they did some new stuff, but nothing as drastic as an album such as VU & Nico or Shape of Jazz to Come. Does it mean the smiths aren't awesome? No.

Actually, I think the true definition of greatness is how well something stands the test of time. Journey were hugely popular in their heyday, but does anyone really give a crap about them now? No. On the flipside, the Velvet Underground were unheard of in the late 60s, but are today considered one of the greatest bands of all time.
_________________
"I'm so ugly but that's OK cause so are you"

[GARY]

I went with consistency of the quality of the songs is most important.

I rate an album with all good songs on it higher than an album with 2 classic great songs and 8 songs that are just filler. And there are a LOT of albums like that.
_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.

And all I got was this silly hat



.

[purple]

wow... somebody's been digging

[GARY]