what is good music?


opinions abound as to the merits of a piece of music. we all have our opinions as to music we like and dislike.

i believe there are two ways to judge a musical composition, namely, based upon the intrinsic qualities of the composition or by the reaction you get when listening to the music.

are there any health benefits to listening to a piece of music--physically or psychologically. such an approach relies on extrinsic criteria.

thus with each approach a piece of music may be jidged "good", as to composition, but if someone has a negative reaction to it, it could be judged "bad" based upon one's listening experience.

can a case be made to exclude either as a basis for judging the quality of music ?
mrtennis
good music is usually the one that last. A lot of music nowadays you wont hear them anymore after a year or so.
David Bowie good. Fifty Cent bad.
Beethoven good. John Adams bad.
DMBand good. Jimmy Eat World bad.
The Rolling Stones good. Yanni bad.

YES, there is good and bad music. No doubt.
I agree with Jond, except for the music that he likes but I dislike, which of course is bad music.
mrtennis, i'll bet you spent a lot of late nights in freshman dorm discussing profound topics such as god being dog spelled backwards and whether, in fact, earth is just a speck of dust on some giant's pimple in some alternate universe.
What is good reverb?
What is good harmonics?
What is good soundstage?
What is good detail?
What is good bass?
What is good damping?
What is good karma?

Can a case be made for excluding any of these for a good discussion thread?