I agree that the sound of traditional Quranic recitation, the "call to prayer", etc. are haunting and beautiful. However, I think that has little to do with the content of what is being said, since Islamic poetry has similar qualities, as do the liturgical services of Middle Eastern Churches (even when not in Arabic, but in it's older sister tongue, Aramaic.)
As for the Qur'an itself, I've read from and owned different versions, and to be perfectly honest I found all of them extremely difficult reading - mainly because the text was usually not all that interesting. There are of course more sublime passages - such as that God is closer to men than their own jugular vein, etc. However, there are also a lot of things which I have no doubt were culled from Jewish folklore, so called "midrash" which generally are not even understood by the Jews to be of historical value, but are tales told for their moral content (for example, an early portion of the Qur'an recites an incident with the Israelites, where God supposedly turned them into apes as a sign against them - the difference being the Qur'an records this as a matter of fact.)
Another thing I noticed about the Qur'an, and it is really a comment on Islam in general, is that there is not "one Qur'an" really, but several which were eventually combined together, standardized and "canonized" so to speak, long after Mohammed himself was dead and buried. The bitter infighting amongst the personal friends, family, and acquaintances of Muhammed (which explains the fundamental division of Islam to this day into "Shi'ite" and "Sunni" branches, which btw. is not simply a question of sectarian loyalties but also of central doctrinal matters) and the centuries of theological and philosophical plurality which existed in Islam well into the Middle Ages is evidence of this.
This is probably why the greatest cultural achievements of Islamic peoples, occured before the onset of an "Islamic orthodoxy" amongst the Sunnis in the middle ages, when it became agreed that only four major schools of jurisprudence/interpretation (all of which were agreed on some basic, fundamental issues), the four madhabs constituted this "orthodoxy." Prior to this, Islam had within it's various strains those which were quite open to different types of learning, including a very modern tolerance for different religions. In fact this was the source for a lot of the classical learning (particularly Aristotle) that made a big comback in the west during the Crusades - the Latins rediscovering these works in their forays into the Middle East.
Thus in the Qur'an, as in historical Islam itself, you see "different religions" as it were. On one hand, you have very pacific persons and ideologies, like those embodied in Sufism or the hellenized Islam which eventually became "anathema" in the Islamic world. Unfortunately, on the other hand, you have the virulently intolerant, sword swinging Islam, which is currently embodied in Wahhabism, which is the flavor/outgrowth of Hanafi jurisprudence that reigns in Saudi Arabia, and is being exported all over the world mainly by the funding of the Saudi royal house (which is somewhat comical, since implicit in Wahhabist ideology is the rejection of the very idea of "monarchy" as such - indeed a lot of it has an egalitarian, quasi-marxist quality to it - which is why so much of the struggle of the modern mujahadeen looks and sounds like the violent marxist uprisings in Latin America.)