&#079;bjectivity in rating albums

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 11:54

Yes, there is this understanding of "objective" as "quantifiable", but I admire your

ability to be diligent, progaardvark.

- But being more serious, I reckon after all that there is a tradition in the music art,

and maybe other arts as well, for somehow another understanding of "objective" than in philosophy

and sociology.

And I would certainly like if people could try to define how they use the term "objective"

- except of course from Archisorcerus, who has done it, and thank you very much for that.

Because how to discuss the usefulness of a term and presence of that

a term refer to without defining this term?

Edited by David_D - March 19 2022 at 14:55

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 07 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 18446

Post Options

Quote JD

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 14:22

Lots of interesting thoughts on this subject. I suppose my last point would be to say that music is in and of itself an emotional thing. I can't think of any music of any kind that doesn't elicit some sort of emotional response.

So ever aspect of relying the "worthiness?" of the music to anybody else will by default have a emotional component. As much as we try to put the objectivity of mathematics in play, as has been pointed out, the only relevant information to be passed on that would truly benefit another person will be subjective.

Even @progaardvark's attempt to granularize his rating system (a very interesting take by the way) becomes subjective pretty quick.

Quote "These subjective values could be different qualities one rates for an album, such as those Paul has noted in his Max Factor 10 system."

And Paul's Max Factor list is ripe with subjectivity.

* Emotional Appeal

* Originality

* Power and Passion

* Production & Arrangement

* Replayability

* Songwriting Technique

* Technical Ability

* Versatility

* Vocal Ability

* That Indefinable 'X' Factor

Thank you for supporting independently produced music

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15132

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 14:58

David_D wrote:

Yes, there is this understanding of "objective" as "quantifiable", but I admire your

ability to be diligent, progaardvark.

- But being more serious, I reckon after all that there is a tradition in the music art,

and maybe other arts as well, for somehow another understanding of "objective" than in philosophy

and sociology.

And I would certainly like if people could try to define how they use the term "objective"

- except of course from Archisorcerus, who has done it, and thank you very much for that.

Because how to discuss the usefulness of a term and presence of that

a term refer to without defining this term?

this post updated!

And Lewian is of course an exception, too, from what I missed in this post, as he simply rejects to

use "objective", which is perfectly alright to do.

Edited by David_D - March 19 2022 at 17:34

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

Archisorcerus View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2667

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:05

^ You're welcome.

Here are some "objective" takes from me on music:

Bruce Dickinson's technique is flawed. He goes out of the tune a lot.

Lars Ulrich's precision is... well, that word is too much for his flawed drumming.

Also, amazing - being amazed. Totally subjective. No doubt.

But what about an artwork being sophisticated? Sure, something sophisticated to one can be simple for another. Or something sophisticated like an undiognised illness for an era, can be seen as simple as pimple in the next. But, it still carries a value of objectivity. At least more than something being thrilling, boring etc.

Edited by Archisorcerus - March 19 2022 at 15:09

I prophesy disaster View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 31 2017
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4780

Post Options

Quote I prophesy disaster

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:23

Archisorcerus wrote:

But what about an artwork being sophisticated?

This forum couldn't quite agree on the meaning of "objective". Do you think we are going to agree on the meaning of "sophisticated"?

No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.

Archisorcerus View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2667

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:30

^ Actually I wasn't hoping that. And honestly, I would rather not discuss it, notwithstanding my question. Big smile

I prophesy disaster View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 31 2017
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4780

Post Options

Quote I prophesy disaster

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:34

^ It's probably best not to discuss it, given the etymology of the word.

No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.

Archisorcerus View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2667

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:39

^ Etymology lets words expand, change, die, evolve etc.

I prophesy disaster View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 31 2017
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4780

Post Options

Quote I prophesy disaster

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:43

^ Yes. The word "sophisticated" has changed its meaning. And I quite like its original meaning.

No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man.

Archisorcerus View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2667

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 15:43

Hahah. I wrote undiognised. Etymology should punish me for making the word like a teenage mutant. Tongue

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15132

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 17:59

Examples of to a certain degree objective terms (the way I've defined "objective")

in a list of musical characteristics worked out by wiz_d_kidd:

Timing Characteristics:
Tempo (low to high)
Time signatures (stable, varied)
Rhythm complexity (none, mono- or poly-rhythmic)
Notable rhythmic structure (timing of down/back beat, reggae, soca rhythm, syncopation, etc)

Melody Characteristics:
Note modulation (none, slow bending, rapid bending, sustained, droned)
Melody (none, pleasant, angular, experimental, noisy)
Atmosphere (bright, dark, harsh, deep, shallow, resonant, tinny, soft, harmonic, ambient)

Instrumentation Characteristics:
Instrument composition (acoustic, electric, ethnic, brass, string, synthetic, etc)
Use of odd instruments (violin, sax, mellotron, flute, steel drums, nature sounds)
Guitar style (lead, vamping, chord strumming, repetitious, shred, etc)
Guitar effects (sustain, echo, fuzz, overdrive, djent)
Percussion (none, basic, virtuoso, double bass)
Electronics (synthesizers, sequencers, MIDI, looping, etc)
Instrument mastery (basic, advanced, virtuoso)

Structural Characteristics:
Composition complexity (low to high)
Composition type (melodic, melody/harmony, counterpoint, etc)
Density/layering (low to high)
Song structure (verse/chorus, chord progressions, 12-bar blues, experimental, etc)
Dynamics (low to high)
Musical Scale (Std western, blues, mid-eastern, eastern, atonal, etc)
Lead/Solos (none, some, many, alternating)

Vocal Characteristics:
Lyrical style (none, romantic, sci-fi, story telling, poetic, meaningless, invented language)
Vocal effects (none, autotune, distortion, scream, twangy, synthetic, etc)
Vocal type/style (solo, group, operatic, melismatic, spoken, rhythmic, torch, instrumental, chant, shout, etc)

Emotional Characteristics:
Energy level (low to high)
Mood (sad, neutral, happy)
Ethnic Influence (western, eastern, asian, european, multiple)
Cultural Influence (drugs, violence, sex, historic, fables, fantasy, etc)

Edited by David_D - March 20 2022 at 01:59

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

Lewian

Prog Reviewer

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14742

Post Options

Quote Lewian

Thanks(1)

Quote

Posted: March 19 2022 at 19:37

The thing is that any option on these characteristics is compatible with any rating. Sure, these are (mostly) facts, but I don't see how they have implications for rating.

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15132

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 00:34

As I see it, to deny the possibility for a certain degree of objectivity in rating criteria is the same as

to deny certain objectivity in music, which is again to deny the huge amount of knowledge

in the music art which has been accumulated by many millions of people through out many centuries.

Polski filozof Leszek Kolakowski by moze powiedzial: "nieuki".

Edited by David_D - March 20 2022 at 03:41

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

Atavachron View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266

Post Options

Quote Atavachron

Thanks(1)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 00:46

^ That almost describes what I'd call 'conscious composition', or what it actually used to mean to formulate a piece of western music: when a composer was not someone who created music out of thin air, but rather who intentionally and freely took from, developed or deconstructed other music that had come before. Now that process of musical heritage seems either unknown & ignored, or only subconsciously utilized by modern composers.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15132

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 02:14

Lewian wrote:

The thing is that any option on these characteristics is compatible with any rating. Sure, these are (mostly) facts, but I don't see how they have implications for rating.

The OP is asking for rating criteria which can be said to possess some degree of objectivity.

Let us limit to that, and is it not possible to compose some rating criteria of terms like those on this list?

Edited by David_D - March 20 2022 at 02:38

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

nick_h_nz

Collaborator

Prog Metal / Heavy Prog Team

Joined: March 01 2013
Location: Suffolk, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 6737

Post Options

Quote nick_h_nz

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 02:47

^ I think what Lewian is saying (and apologies if I am wrong) is that regardless of how factual any of those characteristics are, and regardless of how compatible they are with rating, none are, per se, objective.

I can see how you might use any of those characteristics to come to your rating, but I can’t see how you could possibly do so objectively.

If the OP is presently asking for rating criteria which can be said to possess some degree of objectivity, all Lewian is saying (and again, apologies if I am wrong), is that those you posted above don’t conform to your own OP.

(Well, I guess that depends on your definition of “some”, as much as of “objective”. Next to none is still some, but in a homeopathic degree of objectivity, only a homeopath would still consider it objective….)

Reviewer for The Progressive Aspect

David_D

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 26 2010
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Points: 15132

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 06:12

David_D wrote:

Lewian wrote:

The thing is that any option on these characteristics is compatible with any rating. Sure, these are (mostly) facts, but I don't see how they have implications for rating.

The OP is asking for rating criteria which can be said to possess some degree of objectivity.

Let us limit to that, and is it not possible to compose some rating criteria of terms like those on this list?

The OP is asking for rating criteria which try just to describe different and particularly relevant

aspects of the music without valuating it.

When putting it that way we might even not need terms like "objective" and "factual".

Edited by David_D - March 20 2022 at 06:17

quality over quantity, and all kind of PopcoRn almost beyond

moshkito

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Online
Points: 17524

Post Options

Quote moshkito

Thanks(1)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 06:43

Hi,

Let's have fun with this stuff now:

JD wrote:

...

* Emotional Appeal

...

Sure ... that's why folks today remember and discuss Vivaldi and Handel ... easily, and spend their time wondering what "emotional" means, when it just defines "favorite" Wink

JD wrote:

...

* Originality

...

Doubt it ... since so much of the stuff today sounds exactly the same as a lot of previous stuff. Originality, around here is a sure sign of a group that will not get a whole lot of attention. Heck, look at the list of some of the folks made here with hundreds of unknowns, and not a single discussion on the majority of them, and we spend our time with a symphonic version of what "originality" is when we don't even agree that we are not good judges of it anyway! Tongue

JD wrote:

...

* Power and Passion

...

What Power and Passion? All I hear is more loudness! But then at 71, it's possible that my ears are tired of the repetitive and boring stuff being discussed! There is Power in both PT and M ... but there is Passion in M but not in PT! Why is this news?

JD wrote:

...

* Replayability

...

That's a fans preference. If "replayability" was an issue, more folks would be mentioning Vivaldi, Handel, and many other composers before the musically inept (by comparison) rock music folks that abound in so many of the bands. It also means it is all a part of the "classic" syndrome in radio, that you have come to believe is the "standard" for what something good is! Embarrassed

JD wrote:

...

* Songwriting Technique

...

Isn't it an embarrassment to notice that the majority of the stuff discussed has EXACTLY the same format and style as most of the previous material. That's not technique! That's copy, almost as good as "carbon copy". Confused

JD wrote:

...

* Versatility

...

Oh, I like this one ... so I can play the bass, and then do keyboards with my feet and a flute with my dick ... and wow ... I'm a technical wiz to do so much! Oh, I have one of those voice things so I can growl, also! LOL

JD wrote:

...

* Technical Ability

...

I know so much music and play only a wee bit of it. Rachmaninoff take a hike. Debussy, you are a turkey. Satie, you smell! Oh wait ... but I can play three keyboards at the same time, make it four, because my feet can do another one! Shocked

JD wrote:

...

* Vocal Ability

...

Singing is not just about the notes. And the "pop music" are has a lot of singers that can hit the notes that have a fake, and lack emotional content, because the notes are more important for the effect. Well, few of them will ever hit that high note like Annie Haslam that blew a hole in DD's ears ... but then, vocal pyrotechnics is something for the many folks that can't sing ... gotta show that something is good here, right?

We ought to get Mick Jagger to do America Got Talent, and then do a school for singing ... so many of these folks don't even know how to tell a story to a child ... and you think they can sing? Notes that is! Not singing in the way that can take you from here to everywhere in less than a few seconds!

=================

There you go ... progressive music in a fun way, as presented by the makers of the various drinks from SPR. Don't forget to let out your big howl and wow!

Edited by moshkito - March 20 2022 at 06:43

Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com

Lewian

Prog Reviewer

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14742

Post Options

Quote Lewian

Thanks(1)

Quote

Posted: March 20 2022 at 06:45

@David_D: Rating is not descriptive. Reviewing can be descriptive, but earlier you state that it's not reviewing that you want to discuss.

Nobody will deny that facts can be a basis for a rating, however the essential element of rating is the quantitative evaluation, on which the facts themselves don't normally have implications (unless of course incapable musicians try to play stuff that's too sophisticated for their abilities and the like).

@nick: I think I'd half agree with your interpretation of my posting. Personally I try to avoid the term "objectivity" except for saying that I think it's unhelpful. We can still discuss to what extent ratings rely on factual criteria where we feel confident most people would agree on the bare facts (in which respect the listed criteria by the way may be more or less controversial - for sure complexity or acoustic vs. electric are easier to accept as facts than whether a melody is "pleasant" or what the "mood" is). That's a legitimate and potentially interesting discussion, but see above (which is probably in line with what you think).

Edited by Lewian - March 20 2022 at 06:53

nick_h_nz

Collaborator

Prog Metal / Heavy Prog Team

Joined: March 01 2013
Location: Suffolk, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 6737

Post Options

Quote nick_h_nz