Would you say that there are some general principles, criteria, patterns, behind what kind of music you will or will not like? Or is it just a subjective, esthetic, uncommunicable experience, that you only try to put into words afterwards, without your words being consistent from one judgement to the next one? Or does it depend on the genre (you'd like your prog to be thus, your folk to be thus, etc.)?

In case there are such principles, feel free to share them and discuss.

In my case, I'd say it's like this (the following mostly tackles prog):

1/ The song can be long or short, but there is more potential in long tracks, and as a matter of fact, half of my favorites are 10+ min long

2/ I rarely appreciate a prog song that follows a classic pattern, with verse, bridge, chorus... One of the things I enjoy with prog is its liberating from those shackles.

3/ I appreciate creativity, but I rarely appreciate songs that don't have some form of melodies, even very rhapsodic ones. - Actually, I particularly love when they get very rhapsodic, like Marillion's Ocean Cloud or Mike Oldfield's Ommadawn.

4/ I don't know that much still of prog, and if some music resembles some other style from earlier, like it's "just like PF" or something, I will barely notice if at all and I won't bother at all.

5/ I don't have a particularly ... "knowledged" ear, and as long as they don't impact my amateur esthetic experience, I will not disturbed by any "musical fauxpas"

6/ I particularly enjoy prolonged hold-and-release (I don't know what the exact musical concepts are), as in the live (with Scott Higham) version of Pendragon's Breaking the Spell for instance, as well as reprises of the (musical) theme in the end, as in for instance Airbag's Homecoming or Rick Miller's Don Quixote, it's like the homecoming in LOTR, there is a sense of homeness delivered by the song when it "returns to itself" at the end.

7/ Lyrics and theme are very important to me. I really dislike superficial lyrics, and I think that the lyrics, and the theme conveyed (not just the abstract music), are really crucial. Overall, I usually prefer bands and artists that venture more towards the fantasy, the fantastic, the imaginary, heroes, like Pendragon, Rick Miller do, even Mystery oftentimes, or Silhouette to some degree. Venturing towards the soul and the dark is fine as well (like what BelIeve, Porcupine Tree, or Riverside do, or even Moonrise in its own way), as long as it's not love songs (with a few exceptions, I generally don't like love songs at all).

8/ - And when a concept-album is really well made, it can hardly avoid being a 5-star to me.

- The vocals need to sell it

One I can think of right now is fondness of quality.

I don't look at the arts as something that must have rules for appreciation ... it's just another person, and the only thing that makes it tough to enjoy and appreciation is our own set of idiocies and various bits and pieces we all grew up with ... though I am of the variety that does not like the socialistic style of music ... that is everyone is everybody else, dresses the same, plays the same combination of instruments, and looks the same and writes something that they imagine is "lyrics" and think themselves great ... and in the end ... it is so vacuous as to be very boring. Like commercial music ... !!!

Vive la difference!

This.

Agreed. But one can take a look at the releases that end up highest on the playlist/aoty lists. In my case it's musicianship and songwriting that feature most prominently, for others it might be different criteria or indeed it might be all over the place 

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^^ This criterion manifests as the urge to listen to a release again. If you really like something you will want to listen to it repeatedly, given the proper circumstances (having time to do it). If you just "think" that it's awesome but you don't feel like listening to it again soon, that may be a hint by the intuitive part of your brain that you are "overthinking" the quality of the music.

Great point.

Lyrics and vocals.

These have been brought up. Stating the obvious, they are very different things. For me, the vocals can be very important as I consider them just another instrument, a part of the sound palette. If they are high quality and pleasing, that helps the band a lot. 

On the other hand, the lyrics, what these folks are babbling on about, mean next to nothing to me, especially if they are political. If they are more toward abstract emotional environments or more uplifting in some way, they would be slightly more interesting to me. Generally though, I don't care what their opinions are. Music serves a very different purpose for me than lyrical content. Music nurtures, invigorates emotions, moves me on a different level. If I want lyrical content, opinions, or subject matter exploration, I'll read a book or listen to a speaker on said subject. I'm not looking to rock recordings for that content or experience.

I realize that sounds sacrilegious to those who consider music lyrics very important, and I say it not to insult anyone here. It's just my own feeling.

Good point,

but then, what if your favorites are one of the early Mike Oldfield's, or Transatlantic's the Whirlwind (the 72 min song-album)? 

Edit: I'm a big fan of Ayreon as well, and of course there's often not enough time to listen to the full album in one sitting. At AP I'll often create a playlist entry when I've started listening to a release, but there is no guarantee that I'll finish listening. Sometimes I'll resume later - it's not an exact science 

Interesting. We match a lot actually!

I didn't particularly bring up that notion of balance, but I think I can relate.

One thing I love with Pendragon is that, even though it revolved a lot around the guitarist and singer Nick Barrett, the other musicians really contribute a lot and are remarked. If you go through the comments under a song like Breaking the Spell, there will be comments about how great and enthusiastic Scott Higham is, others lauding Clive Nolan, and others about Nick Barrett. Peter Gee is a bit more "discrete", but there are many songs that would just not be the same without his contribution; I love how he and Nick Barrett together work in harmony on Shane, the Chaos out of order version; at around 3:30 or something, there is a bass line that always hits me, kinda hidden under the guitar solo.

Another interesting example is that of Silhouette, where the lead vocals alternate, and everyone sings in a quite different way. This particularly shines on Across the Rubicon.

I'm not sure it really is. You seem in line with the other comments bringing up lyrics.

Even in my case, I say lyrics and theme are important, but overall what matters is the "theme" conveyed, and that covers a wide spectrum (and it's also negative: lyrics are important in that they're a good occasion for me to dislike the music). Mike Oldfield's Ommadawn is one of my all time favorite, and it's mostly lyricless. There's just a little moment near the end when he says some lines in Gaelic, and it's something like "you idiot, drink some milk" and later "I like horseriding", and I'm totally fine with it, because the piece of music itself has conveyed more than most bands throughout their entire career, http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxe0o2pCGwo" rel="nofollow - the music speaks for itself .

Another case is that of Sigur Ros (not prog): in Varud, in the clip, they even tell in Morse that the words don't matter, and that what mattters is the experience of the listener.

And when you say that you're not really interested in political songs and the like, that matches what most here are about. Although personally I do appreciate how Rick Miller for instance brings literature to his music.

I hear that and agree that certainly lyrics, when cleverly employed, can add to the experience. And I like occasional humor. Some might think me daft, but I might point to Bon Scott or Henry Rollins as more appealing and amusing lyrically than Bob Dylan or Roger Waters. Observations on culture done creatively and with humor would be much more appealing to me than perceived wisdoms pontificated from on high.

Hi,

Absolutely ... and we would love it if some more bands heard that comment instead of over blowing the guitar ... in some metal stuff, for example ... no balance there.

wiz_d_kidd wrote: ... 2. Instrumental over Vocals. I prefer instrumentals, but if there are vocals, they need to be done as if they are another instrument in the band.  ...

This might not sound right, but here goes ... I'm not sure that someone grounded and growing on pop music, will be able to do this well at all, as they will often come back to the only stuff they know and when we might think that it is but 10/15% of the music cannon, then these folks would be severely lacking, which is the majority of bands in the listings these days. (Kudos to Sean Trane for a list on JMA that is above and beyond ... most of them!!!!!!!!)

wiz_d_kidd wrote: ... 3. Honest vocals.  ...

The toughest of all elements in rock music ... because the person that is singing more often than not is not the writer, and he/she has to bring up emotions that are not exactly belonging to them, and that acting is (usually) not very good. I saw YES on one of the last tours by Chris, and that singer needed to be fired ... sure he knew the lyrics, but if he were trying for a film role, or a stage role in NY/ or LA, he would be one of the first to be thrown out of the theater ... also using the worst stock hand this and that to make it look like the lyrics were great ... the worst show by a singer I have ever seen ... and this was a major band that OBVIOUSLY did not care much for the stuff that Jon had written ... it was not only disappointing to see this, it was ridiculous.

wiz_d_kidd wrote: ... 4. Skilled musicianship. If the band thinks they can hide their lack of musicianship and composition with noise, loudness, brashness, or randomness -- it's not working. ...

Not sure this is fair ... I like to think/say that at least a third of all the bands out there are too young to have the ability to employ skilled musicianship, specially when all they know is a format or two, which does not exactly take any skill. Skill might (and then again NOT) show up later, but in the younger days, all musicians can show some ability that is very promising, which can develop in a very skilled detail. But too much of the stuff listed is not about skill ... it's about a known ability and format and the bands that have this skill are usually listed in the bottom or not listed at all ... prog/progrock fans don't often seem to like an over blown clown show off his music skills amidst the rest of the band, and probably ruin the music. 

But this is a weird area ... I remember some 50 years ago, seeing on TV a whole bunch of Harlem kids playing all kinds of containers, and everything else they could with just tree sticks on their hands, and they made any drummer out there look stupid and horrible ... there was no music in the bands compared to what these kids were doing, and they were all teens at best!

wiz_d_kidd wrote: ... 5. Lyrics.  ...

If words mean anything any more, it would help, but they don't and the majority of progressive/progrock fans don't even listen to the lyrics ...otherwise they would comment on the various this or that about them. But no one cares ... nobody here even considers the great wordsmiths in rock music and probably Ian Anderson gets the most kudos, and while good, he is not exactly a poet, like Roy Harper. Or even Christian Decamps from Ange (not even sure which brother sings more!!!), who is a very emotional singer and quite expressive in all ANGE material.

But you can tell words don't mean poop much .... look at all the politicians talking and saying nothing ... what makes you think that a rock singer is any better?

wiz_d_kidd wrote: ... 6. Composition. ...

I think this is a joke, sometimes ... because so many of the stuff listed is so formatted ... so designed to make sure that the internet listener will stay with it, instead of turning it off. The top of the pops and idea of "composition" is something of the past when music was not available to the masses as there was no radio or tv ... and the only thing that became recorded history of music? ... composition! Rock music pretty much blew that out, and internet fans blew that out even more ... and if we take the years best 50, I don't think that we can draw a line about "composition" in at least half the folks on the list. And I would like to see a nice list like the one on PDQ Bach's biography! That would make my day! But rock bands don't have enough enjoyment of MUSIC beyond the format they play. I like Gayle's comment in Djam Karet ... that suggested any piece of music by them might start  with an A but they usually end up with a Z! Good luck trying to find someone cool enough to discuss the only three chords they know in their progrock act!

wiz_d_kidd wrote: ... These are all preferences as opposed to hard-and-fast rules ... ...

You made a very nice list of a lot of things ... though I'm not sure that many of us ever think of any of these when we hear something ... I certainly don't since all I look for in the music is a "movie" ... in other words the music takes me away. Few lyricists can do this for me ... in the early days, Bob Dylan for sure, then Roy Harper, then Peter Hammill, and then a handful of others ... who know how to color their words and make the moves for them ... and end up making the music better. 

But there are many great examples ... not many folks have seen, or will see the movie "PERFORMANCE" which had Mick in it, and in that movie are two pieces that are incredible ... "Memo from Turner" is the piece which I think taught Mick how to use his lines on stage, and he has been faithful to his delivery and I would ever say that for a long time he was very good with the lyrics, and made them better than just words. It was one of the pieces that "made" MTV later ... a true rock video. And the other was a moment by The Last Poets, that is incendiary to say the least, but nobody wants to admit that there already was something going on with black folks, and their music was one of the highlights ... but today's internet fans couldn't careless about prophetic words ... which makes a lot of the things you wrote left behind ... but many of us actually listen for something ... but one of the bad sides of the internet is bands using their fans to write something that seems nice, to make the band look better, and often (Bandchump is a good example) what it says is actually a turn off and not even a good description of the music.

Good job ... enjoyed reading it.

One last thing ... recently Rick Beato did a show with a guy named Bob something or other.

It wasn't a great listen, but it was valuable and had some history by way of the left fields in Neptune, that were good, and better words about the FM radio thing would have likely made a lot of the things he said a lot better, but instead he stuck with his put down of a lot of internet folks and their "credibility" and often talked about as if they were "special" and (probably) a bit more educated than simply promoting their favorite three bands. And Bob goes a bit further and calls many of them fake, and trash. It's really hard to disagree many times, since so much of it has become commercial this and that, and record companies love it, because their product is being discussed and that usually means some more money coming home.

But, in my book, I wish that people learned music history a bit more ... like there was no recorded music available to buy until 1945/1950 more than likely, and then rock and jazz blowing the doors open and creating "record stores" that really brought it all home ... before that ... there weren't enough folks with a music system to play things, and the only things you heard was what the radio played, and a lot of those things were studio mannequins so the studios could keep the money at home with their main actors singing. AND, don't forget, that in general the studios owned all the radio stations.

Fly forward 50 years, and it is all crazy and impossible to work on and I am not sure that things will get better in pop/popular music for another 50 years, when I think a line might be drawn between serious music and pop music ... one is studied and educated, and the other not ... although I would not want to say that all of it is real and the rest is just street music, and not worth the consideration ... there is a lot on the street that challenges all the ideas about music theory ... and we often don't like to admit it. The idea that the internet has made everything available and out there, has shown us that the ideas we have about music, are making it very difficult to get a consensus as to what/how it should be looked at. At that point, I suppose that we can suggest that composition is more important than a pop format, for example, something that a lot of fans here will not abide by or want to hear ... I can't blame them!

But I tend to listen to mixes of prog, "classic rock", classical, Kpop, metal, folk, indie, etc ... so I feel that my overall tastes are pretty broad, and I try to appreciate music for what it is rather than comparing it to something else. 

Fuzz-tone guitar leads....likewise.

Rickenbacker bass guitars.....ditto.  

Melodic, moving vocals, either male or female....preferred, but I also love instrumental jazz-rock etc. 

Competent, even virtuoso, percussion is essential.  Broof? 

Everything else is negotiable.  I know good music when I hear it. 

Could you please give some examples of what you consider fuzz-tone guitar leads?

  That is not musical snobbery.  It’s just that it’s not the sort of thing that I like. 

I'm not interested in avant, generally find metal boring along with blues and most hard rock. The keyboard is where it's at for me. I only love The Stranglers for Dave Greenfield. Take him out and it's nothing as far as I'm concerned. That said there are some predominantly guitar bands that float my boat, especially Rush so it's not a rule by any means (but if they hadn't made those almost keyboardy Permanent Waves - Grace Under Pressure then I might not care as much). BTW Sky 2 has been mentioned (and I agree it's great) but then of course I love Francis Monkman so when he leaves it gets very uninteresting for me.