[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I recently stopped reading such a book. It wasn't terrible and had no blatant flaws, but it also had nothing good either. It was all just meh. Music can also like this -- there is a big gap between being able to make something that isn't bad and making something that is actually good.

[atleastoptimal]

Salieri vs Mozart phenomenon. Listening to Salieri's music, there's nothing ostensibly bad about it. People use labels like "forgettable", "bland", or anything else that seems more like labeling a symptom without analyzing the cause. The cause being, why do two pieces, both without any notable faults and in a music theory sense well-made, have two significantly different reactions and impact in the general musical consciousness over centuries? What defines the genius that keeps people playing Mozart's pieces over and over, and only play Salieri's when they're trying to make a contrived point about him not being that bad?