So in other words, you can be very talented at not just playing, but performing, writing, inspiring etc. But if you can not communicate emotionally to your audience you're wasting your time.
So could you describe this emotional-quality more in depth?
And is it the one and only skill required to make 'good' music? -in other words- Are all other skills interchangeable and fleeting except emotional communication?

What I think you're touching on is psychological/emotional exploitation- namely, knowing the buttons to press to provoke your audience. This 'skill' is something that seems to have a magical and eternal quality, but is it not just something that I can become technically proficient at, like anything else?

Moreover, what if someone got so good at this emotional exploitation that they didn't even have to attempt anything remotely talented or skillful to sell thousands of records? Essentially I think we are heading into Pop music territory where everything about a song is tailored to 'fit' the emotional trends of the masses.

A crude example to end with: Is it not a very high level of emotional communication to have a lot of naked woman on during my stage show? This will be a lustful provocation for a lot of men and will be pleasing to many people who will be in universal/emotional agreement about these fantastic women.

Dan.

de budding--The hypnotist analogy is a good one. The reason I say emotion--true emotion--is the most important quality in music is because it has the ability to move you, and the music you return to is the music you've been moved by. "I Know You Are But What Am I?" by Mogwai--a post-rock piece with no lyrics--is a good example of what I mean.

Pop music, especially idol-driven pop, on the other hand, uses a castabout cliche of what corporate perceives "emotion" to be to drive sales. It is indeed a lie* of the most heinous sort. This, I contend, is why pop music has no staying power (who remembers Avril Lavigne?). It is especially despicable when the lie is flat-out obvious (Daughtry).

Yet, sometimes we need the recording companies. Red Hot Chili Peppers and Incubus, Coldplay, most Radiohead, Muse, Bloc Party, recent Death Cab for Cutie, and so on, were all produced under the same sorts of major contracts as Britney, Christina, Avril, Colbie Caillait, Daughtry, and so on.

Perhaps what we should be looking for is the amount of time a given artist spends perfecting his or her work. Indie music, for instance, is qualatatively somewhat better than major-label music because indie artists tend to need to spend much more time practicing, working venues, etc., not just during their formative period but also even after they become well-known. Bands, because they depend as much on the synergy of the individual members, and need to jointly practice and perform, also tend to be somewhat better than single artists--that is, Thom Yorke, while exceptional in his own right, is even better because his strengths are best brought out by his presence in a band, to wit, Radiohead; similar, while major-label ladies' singing abilities are superior, much of their energy, and possible real ability, is wasted by their lack of being in a band.

I shall read the chapter you posted soon, I think.

*Except when the surface lie belies deeper truths, i.e., if anyone's ever read Pratchett, what Death perceives a metaphor to be.

As simply (and perhaps crudely) put as possible, what are the explicit criteria music has to meet for you to consider it 'good'?

For me it must be original within its own frame of reference (or genre), must be technically sound (must include musical difficulty and player skill), must have definitive intentions (e.g. to portray a certain message, or display creative exploration of a certain musical or recording technique) and above all it must utilise the compositional skills of subtlety.

Dan.