I checked all but a few, so I think it makes the most sense for me to explain why I don't prefer those qualities that I left unchecked.
Simple: Simple music leaves little to think about. Specifically, there's less "stuff" packed into each arbitrarily divided chunk of time, and little or nothing new to discover when revisiting a song after the first listen. Of course, some songs couldn't convey the proper
atmosphere or
emotion if they were crammed full of extraneous complexity, so there are plenty of exceptions.
Slow-paced: I have musical ADD. As with simple music, slow-paced songs have fewer musical ideas packed into the same length of time. Also like simple music, there are plenty of exceptions for evoking certain kinds of
atmosphere and
emotion.
Plain: This is kind of a vague category, and no contrasting quality was given to help me understand exactly what you meant. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself to put words in your mouth - mundane, typical, unoriginal, and uninspired for instance. In my mind, this quality would apply especially well to
most of the singer/songwriter genre. You know, person learns a few chords on the guitar, writes a wealth of uninspired lyrics that provoke not a single thought, is more interested in fame and attention than music, etc. EDIT(without hitting the edit button due to noticing before posting:ninja
: I see now that
plain was intended to contrast
diverse. In that case, of course I prefer diversity.
Consistent: This isn't a strong preference for me. There's nothing wrong with a song maintaining its own consistency, but if you hold a gun to my head and demand that I choose between a song that is repetitive and a song that dares to contradict itself, I will choose the latter.
Natural: Again, I'm not certain what you mean by this, but given that the contrasting quality is "artificial" I'm going to assume you mean something like live instruments vs electronic instruments or straight recording vs heavily produced. Also again, live instruments and live sound have their uses, and many songs wouldn't work if reproduced electronically or overproduced.
However, I actually find the use of "natural" instruments to be kind of cliche and repetitive across the music scene. There are only so many of them, and they've been the only instruments used to make music for thousands of years, with a few modern exceptions. They are
limiting. I think electronic instruments expand the possibilities almost endlessly. Some would argue that live instruments are more "human" and therefore easier to relate to and more evocative, and within the framework of their own preferences, they would be correct.
BUT, given that my perspective in general is relatively detached from the "human" perspective - part of the quest for objectivity I guess? - such "humanity" is not necessary for my enjoyment of any particular piece of music. That's not to say I never enjoy the use of live recording in music, though; that "real" and "human" quality is intrinsic and necessary in a lot of music.
As for production, I feel pretty much the same way. If the technology to master your song to the perfect balance, add just the right effects in just the right places, etc. is available to you, why
wouldn't you take full advantage of it?
