Chris Bonds' criteria:

>1. Does it avoid the obvious?

Agreed, I don't like predictable composers

>2. Do surprises or unexpected events not only make sense in retrospect but
>give a feeling of revelation or "aha"?

of course, but that's related to #1 above.

>3. Is the complexity level high compared to pieces in a similar style, yet
>it is easy to hear how each event fits into the overall plan?

"Complex, yet simple" Ideally yes, but not necessarily.

>4. Is the level of psychological or emotional intensity high, does the
>piece come out and "grab" you?

Almost an implicit criteria...

>5. Is every note necessary and sufficient?

Is every note necessary OR sufficient? There's always more than one possible
solution to a musical problem. I wouldn't apply #5.

>6. Is one left with the impression of superior craftsmanship?
>
>I would suggest that 4 of the 6 are necessary to call it a good piece.

Craftsmanship is seldom a problem.  I would suggest: 6.  Is the
craftsmanship appropriate (adapted?) for the composers musical style?

1 and 4 are most important to me.

Mikael
[log in to unmask]