What makes a Song great?

IMO, for a song to be GREAT, it needs to be timeless. It needs to connect with something universal to people, at any time, any place. Of course, it has to be well written, produced and sung. But there are many songs like that, which are NOT great. They have their "15 minutes of fame", and then fall by the wayside. A great song is immortal!

Hi Monger --

I voted for 'lyrics'. I love folk music with good lyrics. Bob Dylan is my hero!!

Of course it's a combination.

"Blowin' in the Wind" with Bob Dylan is one thing. "Blowin' in the Wind" with Peter, Paul & Mary is another.

Timelessness certainly helps a song to be great. I'm not sure about it being a condition sine qua non.

Hmmmm ... it would appear no single element is considered preponderant. I agree; many factors make for the success of a song. Unfortunately, a song can become a success without exhibiting excellence in any of the factors, and another fail while being a paragon example of all factors. There is no accounting for taste. To paraphrase an old truism, "No one ever went broke underestimating the sophistication of the market at large".



timber

**I agree with Phoenix, that to be great
it must be one that is timeless, not
dated by current music trends.
The concept of universality is not
heeded often by music producers
**I agree with Peace & Love& lyrics,
DYLAN IS MY HERO TOO
**Another seldom thought of but
very important part of the song is
the BEAT! It has to make you wiggle
in your seat, and want to get up and
dance!

While the beat and the urge to get up and wiggle is certainly appropriate to some songs, I don't believe it would apply to all. I consider "Old Man River" a great song, but it certainly does not make me want to get up and wiggle- cry perhaps.

Some songs just hit the pluse of society when they are introduced and become classics because of that. Each generation has such anthems.

Use in a television commercial.

Patiodog I hate the use of my memories through songs used in commercial TV. I really feel cheated.

Hey, at least now it doesn't take so long. I've been hearing a lot of songs on TV that I heard four months ago on my little alt radio station here. They go from obscurity to beer commercial without the usual intermediate step of corporate radio success. (Or is it that only recently has my listening been current enough for me to notice this?)

Really, Mong, I can't answer your question on the grounds that songs that I thought were absolutely friggin' brilliant five years ago bore me to tears now. The poetry, sly humor, and immaculate production of later Beatles continues to get me, though.

I voted for "Voice" because I am looking at it strictly as a vocal song and not just music.

I have enjoyed listening to singers just because of their voices, for example Anastasia. I heard her for the first time several weeks ago and I went out and purchased her CD. The music, beat and song lyrics are mediocre at best but her voice is gritty and sexy to my ear and that is what I am enjoying listening to.

I like variety too - I can enjoy the warblings of Mariah Carey, Donna Summer, Cher, Tina Turner, George Michael, Barbara Streisand, Shirley Bassey, Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, Peter Gabriel, Seal, Karen Carpenter, Nina Simone, Josh Groban, and many more.

Yes there are a variety of things that need to make a song good, but I still put the emphasis on the voice because that is what will make me listen to it again and again.

My measure of a good song is ... something that makes me physically smile with enjoyment.

Some of my favorite songs are sung by vocalist who aren't great singers. Mick Jaggar comes to mind instantly. He's not a great singer but his delivery is gutsy and raw. The Stones have such superb musicianship, I think. And well-written lyrics. Then you have Sade. That girl really could not sing when she first hit but her lyrics and her arrangements were so powerful. She sounds better now and her last album was more voice, less instrumentation.
It's a combo of things, in my opinion. And when it all comes together, like a "Brown Sugar" or "Is it a Crime", then you've got yourself a hit for all time.

If a song a great melody, and lyrics that universally touch people, it will be great and timeless. A song like this is hard to mess up. If the musician is only adequate, the song is still moving. Songs like "Stardust" and "Sophisticated Lady," come to mind. There is virtually no such thing, as a bad version of these songs.

Sometimes I wonder why I spend the lonely nights dreaming of a star who´s MELODY haunts my reverie.

Was it "of" or "on a star" Booman?
The melody is where it´s at I think.

I think that there MAY be a dodgy version of Stardust though.Or at least one that doesn´t really work:Nino Tempo and April Stevens messed it up with that style of theirs.
Their rendition of Tea For Two however is fantastic while the song itself is lousy.Hmmmm.

hebba, Willy Nelson does a rendition of Stardust which is .... well, Willie Nelson. I suppose its a matter of personal taste. Oh, and who doesn't want to forget Roseann's rendition of The Star Spangled Banner?



timber

Hebba,
...It's "of"......and that line explains our appreciation of MELODY.

Oh Yeah, while Willie proves you can't ruin it, Johnny Mathis has done my favorite version, so far.

I'm a 'tune' follower and voter.




and i love Willie's version of Stardust - the album it was on turned me on to traditional country as well as whatever genre Stardust can be said to be part of. For all that I've studied music, some tunes seem to be beyond simple classification.