Originally posted by PBE6That depends on a lot of things. What does "better" mean here? What reasons did people have to give the number they gave? What number did they give to the other piece? What age are they and what sort of musical education (if any) do they have? For example, if the 1,000 people giving a piece a 10 are all part of a religion worshipping the composer of the piece, I don't think it would say anything about the quality of the piece.
I've always wondered which of the following more people would consider "better": (a) a piece of music that affects many people in a positive way fairly strongly; or (b) a piece that affect a small group of people in a positive way profoundly.
(For the sake of argument, let's say that (a) corresponds to 1,000,000 people giving the piece a 7, and (b) corresponds to 1,000 people giving the piece a 10.)
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThe obvious problem of your view is that then popularity is the only way to determine which artists are rated higher in average.
The trouble is any one of those people's 7s is unequatable with any of the others'. One man's appreciation of mediocrity is worth a 7 whilst another's appreciation of excellence is worth a 7. It is, as you have pointed out already, a subjective thing. So a 7 being 'just not that good' is a claim you can't really substantiate. It's an incredibly interest cide upon which subjective agreements the consensus of either side had been reached?
In your view popularity is then the sole barometer of quality for art and we can then deduce that Beyonce is factually better than Radiohead.
Edit: Note that the rate is not necessarily a cardinal one, but an ordinal. The ordinality can then be compared across individuals and the point stands.
Originally posted by StarrmanAll good points. And to be clear, I was joking. I maintain my position that quality is a subjective term which cannot be quantified universally when it comes to enjoying things. Obviously that position is not reconcilable with my statement that a 7 is mediocre.
The trouble is any one of those people's 7s is unequatable with any of the others'. One man's appreciation of mediocrity is worth a 7 whilst another's appreciation of excellence is worth a 7. It is, as you have pointed out already, a subjective thing. So a 7 being 'just not that good' is a claim you can't really substantiate. It's an incredibly interest ...[text shortened]... cide upon which subjective agreements the consensus of either side had been reached?
Originally posted by NordlysBy "better", I mean whatever you mean by "better". I'm sure you have, like everyone has, your own favourite collection of music that you consider "better" than the rest. I only used numbers to represent the general feeling, they weren't meant to be exact.
That depends on a lot of things. What does "better" mean here? What reasons did people have to give the number they gave? What number did they give to the other piece? What age are they and what sort of musical education (if any) do they have? For example, if the 1,000 people giving a piece a 10 are all part of a religion worshipping the composer of the piece, I don't think it would say anything about the quality of the piece.
I have other things to say about this, but I'm off to drink beer! See ya later, suckers...
Originally posted by PBE6Exactitude of the numbers wasn't part of my points.
By "better", I mean whatever you mean by "better". I'm sure you have, like everyone has, your own favourite collection of music that you consider "better" than the rest. I only used numbers to represent the general feeling, they weren't meant to be exact.
I have other things to say about this, but I'm off to drink beer! See ya later, suckers...
My favourite music is not necessarily music I consider to be of better quality than other music, and there's some music I'd consider to be of very high quality that I don't like at all. That's why I asked about the reasons why people gave the score they gave. Did they give it for what they consider to be musical qualities, did they give it for subjective preference, or did they give it for social reasons ('my best friend says it's great'😉?
I believe that musical qualities are to a degree objective within a certain culture and genre. Some music is also so complex that you need to have some musical education (again within a certain culture and genre) to be able to appreciate the qualities fully. Such pieces may score low on average, but score very high among musicians or musicologists. Other pieces may be so simple and have so many technical flaws that they are only appreciated by a few people who do not have any musical background. In both cases you would have a piece scoring high in a small group of people and low on average, but the reason for this is opposite.
Originally posted by PalynkaIf I understood Starrman correctly, he doesn't think quality can be quantified, so an aggregate measure of quality wouldn't be possible.
Ordinal preference by each person => one can aggregate => Popularity gives us an aggregate measure of quality in a particular society for each artist.