I've been reading along, and don't profess to have the answers to what constitutes a "good" or "great" song as opposed to anything else. But I am a keen observer. I recall reading about how in the early days of Motown, Barry Gordy used to decide which songs were "good" and worthy of release. He had the studio crew record them, played them back for the entire staff and asked everyone to vote based on a simple question: you only have a dollar and haven't eaten; do you get something to eat or buy this record? If the majority voted for the record, he released it. Seems to have worked pretty well.
A corollary I can identify with is print copy; I've published enough and know what I was thinking each time. Sometimes I had something I wanted to say; other times, I was writing for a paycheck. The former tend to stand the test of time, while the latter were soon forgotten. Perhaps it's the same for folks who write songs. (And having something to say transcends whether it has lyrics or not.) Are you writing a song because you genuinely have something to say? Or solely because you want to make a buck? (Recognizing, of course, that those who genuinely have something to say may also want to make $$--but it isn't their primary motivation.)
I like music where the songwriter had something to say, whether it be instrumentally or w/ lyrics (I tend to prefer instrumentally). Few others share my tastes, but that's a 'nother issue. In this context, to me, a "good" song is one that I can readily identify w/ the writer (or performer), a specific issue or point in time; a "great" song is one where there is general agreement that a song is "good" (given my definition) and that others also want to play/record. True, there is a lot of crap released that somehow sells to the masses, but I've never been one to follow crowd mentality--while recognizing the power of it. Just because everyone is buying [insert name here]'s latest release doesn't mean it's "good"; it just means folks are buying it. Let's see who is still buying it in 10 years. But a song that has something to say, or invokes a specific issue, point in time, etc. will still be relevant in 10 years. And folks will still be listening to it.
A corollary I can identify with is print copy; I've published enough and know what I was thinking each time. Sometimes I had something I wanted to say; other times, I was writing for a paycheck. The former tend to stand the test of time, while the latter were soon forgotten. Perhaps it's the same for folks who write songs. (And having something to say transcends whether it has lyrics or not.) Are you writing a song because you genuinely have something to say? Or solely because you want to make a buck? (Recognizing, of course, that those who genuinely have something to say may also want to make $$--but it isn't their primary motivation.)
I like music where the songwriter had something to say, whether it be instrumentally or w/ lyrics (I tend to prefer instrumentally). Few others share my tastes, but that's a 'nother issue. In this context, to me, a "good" song is one that I can readily identify w/ the writer (or performer), a specific issue or point in time; a "great" song is one where there is general agreement that a song is "good" (given my definition) and that others also want to play/record. True, there is a lot of crap released that somehow sells to the masses, but I've never been one to follow crowd mentality--while recognizing the power of it. Just because everyone is buying [insert name here]'s latest release doesn't mean it's "good"; it just means folks are buying it. Let's see who is still buying it in 10 years. But a song that has something to say, or invokes a specific issue, point in time, etc. will still be relevant in 10 years. And folks will still be listening to it.