How do you qualify good songwriting?

If the lyrical and musical ideas form a cohesive work that serves its purpose and isn't too derivative

Things like strong melodies, effective chord progressions and originality can all contribute

>>73144544
What makes a melody strong or a chord progression effective? Or is it something that has to be heard? I have a hard time explaining why I think certain Beatles songs have very strong and special melodies and chord progressions when people tell me they think the band wrote boring and generic songs.

>>73144578
>What makes a melody strong or a chord progression effective
For melody - can you sing it, is it memorable etc. Does it maintain your interest.
Chords - are they used effectively to build and release tension and to evoke emotions through each chord's unique way it can do so.

Some of The Beatle's early stuff is a bit generic (especially their covers), but they throw in some tight harmonies and some interesting chords that keep things moving along nicely and prevent things from sounding too boring or twee etc. Lennon in particular was great at interesting chord progressions, while McCartney was gifted melodically.

It still is kind of subjective - if somebody finds The Beatles boring, then they're boring. But I think if you consider what they set out to do with their music, they certainly achieved it, and to great acclaim.

>does it make you feel good
/thread

>>73144653
Well that's not true at all. Listening to Leonard Cohen or Elliott Smith doesn't make me feel "good" but it's certainly good songwriting.

>>73144450

if it feels good to roll up a picture of the songwriter, paint it with hardening glaze, and shove it into my anus.

>>73144680
>>73144680
Depressing music is still cathartic, insofar as it provides an outlet for emotion. So a "good" depressive song is one that allows you to channel your emotions through it, one that evokes emotion. One that makes you empathise with the narrator of the tune

>>73144711
I agree, but that's different from "mak[ing] you feel good"

>>73144793
It does sort of make you feel better in a way, to have an outlet for your emotions. I think it's good for your mental health.

Catharsis: the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions.
"music is a means of catharsis for them"

does you enjoy listening to it? if yes, its good

Music is dumb in that its nearly impossible to logically describe why certain combinations of sounds and words just appeal to our individual ears.

Sound is just so damn abstract. Its why music reviews are total BS.

>>73144578
If youre interested in the Beatles' harmony sound, definitely look into secondary dominants. They used those a lot despite not knowing what it was

If this thread does anything it should illustrate how quality in music is totally subjective. Most of us can't even properly describe why we like something or why it's good. We just know it is. You could boil all music criticism and discussion down to:
- I like it because it sounds good / My taste is good.
- I don't like it because it sounds bad / Your taste is bad.

It really doesn't matter what you like about something, or why you like it at all: you just do. Music is like everything in life that way.

>>73145380
>Most of us can't even properly describe why we like something or why it's good. We just know it is.
That's just because people on /mu/ are stupid. Most people actually knowledgeable about music can articulate why or why not they like something even in purely musical terms. It's not that out there, you just need to have the vocabulary to do it.

>>73145419
Not one of that matters. Music evokes an emotional response and is entirely subjective. Whether you're versed in music theory or play an instrument, your ability to enjoy music is independent of that. Explaining what you like about something doesn't change the fact that you just like it.