My Criteria For Art

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
TiggaTrigga





  • #261
  • Posted: 05/21/2021 19:20
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
https://soundcloud.com/18114/sets/haze-side-a

I listened to the first song "guILLty" and I like it; noticed some G-funk synths in there. To me it kinda has a similar impression that "The Tragic tale of Bisen Fransisco" from Signor Benedick the Moor's El Negro gives in making a proper introduction. But that may just be because I've listened to some of El Negro lately, lol


Any influences?
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #262
  • Posted: 05/21/2021 20:20
  • Post subject: Re: My Criteria For Art
  • Reply with quote
DelBocaVista wrote:
Wouldn't it be something if that 40 has become 40,000 and one of us here has come across your album? Shocked

Just yesterday I relistened to a comedy recording I made in 2011 featuring me rapping while my friend played piano and sang falsetto. I've deluded myself into thinking we have a legit shot at a Scaruffi 3/10+ because I threw in some vocal phrasing references to Beefheart's "Pachuco Cadaver" (and also Warren G and Nate Dogg's "Regulate") which went over his head Smile


Yes, maybe Ive become a major influence on the hip hop scene, as my disasterpiece was passed from hand to hand behind the scenes. Maybe Gangsta Bitch Casserole inspired Kanye's push for President and maybe I can take credit for his separation from Kim Kardashian. After all it does totally troll the usual hip hop claims/persona/lifestyle... Think

Laughing

Just a hunch from your description but your comedy album seems like it could get at least a 6 from Scaruffi. Never forget Dubi Dam Laughing
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #263
  • Posted: 05/21/2021 20:20
  • Post subject: Re: My Criteria For Art
  • Reply with quote
DommeDamian wrote:
AfterHours wrote:


Ok, thy brave soul, I'll check it out though I might want to hear the whole first before rating it. Do you know when you expect to have the 2nd half complete/released?

Regardless of what I eventually think about it and rate it, it will surely go down in history as superior to Gangsta Bitch Casserole (which is a satirical hip hop album I made with a couple friends about 15 years ago, and distributed to like 40 people as a joke). So just know that if my rating is a bit low, it could just mean I'm jealous of your talent Laughing


Awesome man.
My 2nd half aka the entire thing is out September 10th.

and a satirical rap album from the mid 2000s, wow Surprised


Ok cool - thank you, feel free to remind me around that time
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction


Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.
Denmark

  • #264
  • Posted: 05/22/2021 08:09
  • Post subject: Re: My Criteria For Art
  • Reply with quote
DelBocaVista wrote:
Wouldn't it be something if that 40 has become 40,000 and one of us here has come across your album? Shocked

Just yesterday I relistened to a comedy recording I made in 2011 featuring me rapping while my friend played piano and sang falsetto. I've deluded myself into thinking we have a legit shot at a Scaruffi 3/10+ because I threw in some vocal phrasing references to Beefheart's "Pachuco Cadaver" (and also Warren G and Nate Dogg's "Regulate") which went over his head Smile


Can I get access to that album, I wanna hear it
_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
DommeDamian
Imperfect, sensitive Aspie with a melody addiction


Gender: Male
Age: 23
Location: where the flowers grow.
Denmark

  • #265
  • Posted: 05/22/2021 08:15
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
TiggaTrigga wrote:
https://soundcloud.com/18114/sets/haze-side-a

I listened to the first song "guILLty" and I like it; noticed some G-funk synths in there. To me it kinda has a similar impression that "The Tragic tale of Bisen Fransisco" from Signor Benedick the Moor's El Negro gives in making a proper introduction. But that may just be because I've listened to some of El Negro lately, lol


Any influences?


Thank you man, appreciate it. That's right, that G-Funk synth was a last minute flavor we added. And you are very right about The Tragic Tale of Bisen Fransisco, although guILLty has a more Pharrell-ish intro.

My influences are many, for this track in particular was mainly Hopsin and DJ Quik.
_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
  • Visit poster's website
DelBocaVista





  • #266
  • Posted: 05/22/2021 16:03
  • Post subject: Re: My Criteria For Art
  • Reply with quote
DommeDamian wrote:


Can I get access to that album, I wanna hear it


It was just one track, which makes the 3/10 idea all the more silly
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #267
  • Posted: 02/22/2022 21:24
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
This post's main purpose is as a continuation from a conversation that DelBocaVista and I are mid (via PMs) about my ratings scale, especially in regards to what (lower ratings) make up the higher ratings.

My last update for this can (as of Feb 2022) be seen on my criteria page "ratings scale" where the "combo ratings" or "ratings by halves" are listed under each set of ratings.

These numbers now seem to me to be incorrect (too low).

They were never intended to be complete or ideal "equations" for the higher ratings, just a simple (overly simple) guide that could help lead one to more confidently determining them and being able to more easily double-check them if/when needed.

I noticed discrepancies more and more when I was recently going through paintings and comparing 6.8-7.3-rated works to higher rated works and it kept appearing that the gap between those and highest ratings was wider than initially thought, despite those 6.8-7.3s seeming (generally) correct. This was topped off when most recently evaluating Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, where the qualitative magnitude seemed so high that it seemed like a 7-7.3 was being achieved practically every 10x10 feet or maybe 20x20 feet in some sections (the whole work - Last Judgment + Ceiling - is approx 6600 square feet, so roughly 30 times 15x15 which is 225 square feet). This was perhaps explainable with the "qualitative infinitude" phenomena that seems to occur as a 10 is reached or closely approached, but it still hung in my mind as something of a "mathematical anomaly" (that one would apparently take "only" two 7s to reach 8.3 and about 3-4 for a 9, but a 10 seemed to hold about 30 or more of them over, in succession, accumulation).

When I returned to music and started listening to songs/tracks, this brought about the same phenomena/questions. As I started to upgrade many of these, it appeared more and more that most of the ratings above 6.8 (at least) are made up of greater magnitudes of quality than was previously accounted for on my ratings scale. It also became clearer that I was docking too many points for smaller works that were not nearly as "extensive" as a comparable album but yet had a very high consistency and/or density of emotional/conceptual/creative expression, and in many cases should be getting the same rating. My own criteria page states that it is an accumulation of BOTH consistency and degree that are given (generally equal) measure, but I had actually lost sight of this (partially). It was those (often relatively small scaled) paintings where I began "rediscovering" this in my criteria and then with songs/tracks.

Logically, this started to reveal discrepancies with the album ratings: what it took (qualitatively) to achieve them, what (qualitatively) their smaller parts (song or track ... by half... by avg quality...) needed to achieve to accumulate up to said higher rating.

So DelBocaVista and I have been discussing this, by PMs. We are now bringing it down to this thread because it is just way easier to communicate while keeping track of original messages and replies in the forum than by PM. In the PMs it can be hard to track a conversation amidst many consecutive message-replies in a row under the same subject header (without constantly switching things up). The other reason that could prove helpful is the potential that another user or users may possibly join in and provide some insight into this. That isn't being asked for or expected necessarily, but is a possibility and would be welcome should it occur.

I do want to warn that this is usually pretty dry nerd talk about ratings and numbers underlying the ratings (and the like), with little colorful talk about the "art" or "content" of the works under discussion (and even when this occurs it tends to be very brief, abbreviated). DelBoca and I have had an ongoing conversation about this for years that we take up from time to time when thoughts arise on this subject, and if you think my posts in the forum are sometimes "haphazard", you have no idea what he has had to put up with! Laughing Plus, we sometimes converse in a semi-shorthand style without a lot of detailed explanation (because we usually already know what the other means without much added reference or detail needed to back it up). By that I don't mean that it will be "over people's head" or even hard to follow. Just that there may not be much explanation provided (because we've usually already worked out or explained the main point under discussion farther back in the conversation).

Anyway, this will really just be a continuation of a conversation between DelBoca and I, but of course you're welcome to chime in if you want to.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #268
  • Posted: 02/22/2022 21:26
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Albums - with track ratings (plus some notes) - currently under discussion:

NONE are "final" or "official". Still under consideration, being worked on...

Ys - Joanna Newsom
1: 7.3
2: 6.0
3: 7.1
4: 7.4
5: 5.0

Misc notes...

Ys is among the "anomalies" that don't seem to follow my ratings scale despite having excellent "continuity" and not having "disparate halves" or really any disparate tracks (like, for instance Ummagumma) that would upset the accumulation and cause its parts to be more of an average of their ratings instead of an accumulation of them.

Tracks 1-3, collectively "feels like" (palpable impact) approx 8.0 (even though it "should" accumulate higher per the numbers?)
Tracks 4-5 collectively "feels like" 7.4-7.5 (even though it "should" accumulate higher?)

By "feel" or "palpable impact" = at least 15.5. Per (probably incorrect) "criteria page" ratings scale, this would mean a 9.0. This is probably no longer accurate. (See scale being considered below). 15.5 would now mean 8.5. Still doesn't explain...

-Why doesn't Ys seem to accumulate (qualitatively) above 8.5? Or, even lower, Scaruffi's 8 (8.2?)? Per "ratings by halves" that are under consideration, it should at least be 8.8 (mathematically, if not palpably). (Sometimes it seems like 8.8-8.9 palpably too, but more often, around 8.5)
-Is it because the tracks, even though individually rating high enough, don't "accumulate" from each other to higher qualitative degrees because they are each developing too similarly and not quite varied enough?
-Are the lower rated tracks (2, 5) enough to bring it down whereas "criteria page" ratings scale and prior incarnations don't indicate this? How much value does a 6 and 5 add (or detract) from the higher rated tracks? Has this been underestimated?

Lorca - Tim Buckley
1: 7.7-7.8
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.8-6.0????
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 7.1-7.2

-This provides a good point of comparison with Ys because they're both 5, generally lengthy tracks. And Lorca is for sure (both palpably, and by rating the tracks) 9.0 at least and probably 9.1, maybe even 9.2/10.
-It may be important to note that Lorca achieves its "9.1" in about 39.5 minutes. Ys achieves its rating (whatever it is) in about 55.5 minutes. Does time added to an achievement (thus less consistency per unit of time) affect the overall rating more than previously thought or accounted for by the ratings scale?

Spiderland - Slint (1991)
1: TBD ... 6.8+?
2: TBD ... 6.8+?
3: TBD ... 6.5+?
4: TBD ... 6.8+?
5: TBD
6: 7.1

-Potentially another good point of comparison... Just need to work out the track ratings to compare. Also 39.5 minutes. "Palpably" feels higher than Ys (most listens) despite possibly having lower track ratings. Is the 16 minute faster running time the main explanation for the discrepancy? Or, again, is Ys having 2 tracks below 6.5 enough to justify?

Astral Weeks - Van Morrison (1968)
1: 6.9-7.0
2: 7.0-7.1
3: 5.3???
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 5.6???
6: 6.9-7.0
7: 6.6-6.8?
8: 6.3???

Astral Weeks is one of the more similar 8.8+ albums to Ys ("narrative style", compositionally, type of emotional expressivity). It is certainly superior to Ys overall (not necessarily by a huge margin) but this gives a good point of comparison because I/we know Ys must be lower than it yet is also comparable so as to figure out why there is a discrepancy between it's "math" rating and "palpable" rating (as in, Ys can't be higher than 9.0 yet seems to be per the "math" so obviously something is incorrect about this).

(Note that probably the most musically similar album to Ys of all the 7.3+ albums would be Joni Mitchell's Hejira, so this can be used as well to give a lower 8 context)

Blonde on Blonde - Bob Dylan (1966)

1:
2:
3: 7.0-7.1
4: 6.7-6.9?
5:
6: 6.4-6.5?
7:
8:
9:
10:
11: 6.5-6.9?
12:
13:
14: 7.6-7.7

Happy Sad - Tim Buckley (1968)

1: 6.6-6.8?
2: 6.4?
3: 6.4-6.9???
4: 6.3?
5: 7.3
6: 5.8-6???


Note: Lots of question marks for these especially while I am still working out "smaller scale" ratings 6.9 and below...


"NEW" RATINGS SCALE "Combo Ratings" (aka "Ratings by Halves" (UNDER CONSIDERATION / MID TESTING / UNOFFICIAL)

13.6-13.7 = 7.8
13.8-13.9 = 7.9
14.0-14.1 = 8.0
14.2-14.3 = 8.1
14.4-14.5 = 8.2
14.6-14.7 = 8.3
14.8-14.9 = 8.4
15.0-15.1 = 8.5
15.2-15.3 = 8.6
15.4-15.5 = 8.7
15.6-15.7 = 8.8
15.8-15.9 = 8.9
16.0-16.1 = 9.0
16.2-16.3 = 9.1
16.4-16.5 = 9.2
16.6-16.7 = 9.3
16.8-16.9 = 9.4
9.5+ ???? TBD
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings


Last edited by AfterHours on 02/23/2022 21:52; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



Gender: Male
Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

  • #269
  • Posted: 02/22/2022 21:36
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
DelBocaVista wrote:
The worst an album can be is the weighted average of its songs.
The best is what your accumulation math would amount to.
The album is really somewhere in between.


Agreed (except the "in between" score is still to be determined as to how accurate it would reflect the overall rating, but I agree that it makes sense in theory).

DelBocaVista wrote:

I see two ways to do this...

1) Calculate a score that rates the consistency/cohesion of the album's combination of "artistic rating/emotional expression/conceptual expression/creativity"
- This would be the weighted average of consistency/cohesion for each song
- Each song is itself scored by the weighted average of its relation to the other songs, including itself
[Why include itself? Let's say there's an album with just two equal-length tracks which are unrelated. At any given time, what you're listening to has total cohesion (100% weight) to itself, lest it be so inconsistent that you'd see that reflected in the artistic rating. So that means overall cohesion is a 5 instead of a 0]

The consistency/cohesion score would determine how far up the ladder you go from the low end rating to the high end rating. But the jump is front-loaded so that half way up is represented by ~70% of the points instead of 50%. For example, halfway between 8.0 and 9.0 is ~8.7 because the jump from 8.7 to 9.0 is worth as much as the jump from 8.0 to 8.7.

[Note 1: that 70%-at-50% concept means pacing 1.4x , an amount that dwindles down to eventually 100%-at-100%. At 58% through, I have it at 79% of the points (1.36x), not worth explaining why....]

[Note 2: The same concept would apply to uneven lengths (which is what I first came up with it for). For example, let's say you have 2 songs and they are both 10 minutes and both are rated 7.0. They add to 8.4 in your old system. At the halfway point (50%) of that time doubling from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, by which I mean the 14.14-minute mark rather than 15-minutes (because of the square root of 2), the rating will jump from 7.0 to about 7.98 (assuming consistency): 7.0 + 70% * 1.4. At the actual 15 minute mark, around 8.11. So that means that a 10-minute 7.0 and a 5-minute 5.6 (the first half of another 7.0) yield ~8.11. Or, three 5.6s yield an ~8.11, meaning for triples you add 2.51 points (instead of the 1.4 you add with doubles). I wonder how close that is to how you've been doing it]

So for example, let's say Ys is as low as 6.6 (weighted average of the songs, assuming I'm right about Monkey and Cosmia) and has high as 9.3 (same), but that its cohesion is only a 5. It would get 70% of the 2.7 point differential: 6.6+1.9 = 8.5


I'm not completely sure I was 100% tracking with this, but the basic idea is intriguing and seems similar to my thinking, without that much math involved in actual practice, except maybe something like it or approximating it on some occasions just to double check (but also you lost me a little on the math, while reading -- I would probably just have to use some of this math myself and then I would be 100% tracking ... but pretty sure I get the gist for the time being).

The challenge with this, in regards to Ys specifically, is that it's cohesion/continuity is quite high, so remains a mystery. UNLESS its purely a developmental point of "over-repetition" (which I kind of doubt, but it sticks in the back of my mind as an explanation). An obvious example being if an album simply consisted of 2 Sister Rays, exactly repeated (no variance between them), would it be 8.6 + 8.6 in full accumulation (so 9.5+?)? No. Due to no development from the first Sister Ray to the last, they would very possibly be just an average of each other (8.6 total) or maybe a mild accumulation overall because perhaps more Sister Ray is still a little better than one even if just repeated (so maybe something like 8.9).

(I realize we've already discussed this idea, just reminding of it, thinking aloud so to speak...)

Obviously Ys isn't that poor in terms of repetition but I can see an argument that, while it has 3 7+ tracks, one could maybe say they don't accumulate as much as other albums that might feature less repetitive development between tracks. Maybe... (again I'm skeptical of that being a true flaw with Ys, while it would certainly hold true for the Sister Ray example).

DelBocaVista wrote:

2) Same as #1, but apply incrementally as you build out the album (with multiply cohesion scores, each referring to the increasingly large comparisons of halves).

So for example, Emily is a 7.2 and Monkey is a 5.0, which should ordinarily yield a 7.5 per your old system, but in this case is only a 7.4 because of poor cohesion, and so on...each doubling being stifled so that you only reach 8.5....

I have a feeling #2 is closer to what you've been doing.


Yes, this is pretty aligned with my thinking. For the record I have Ys at something like:

1: 7.3
2: 6.0
3: 7.1
4: 7.4
5: 5.0

The old system is definitely changing. I compared some low 7s (6.8-6.9) and high 6.5 (6.7...) albums (DSOTM, Same Trailer Different Park, Pontiac) to my newer track ratings and also the higher rated albums, and the gaps seem more correct than ever.

I also tested Happy Sad (8.2), Daydream Nation (8.2), Ys (Scaruffi 8.2 presumably; AH approx 8.5) and Marquee Moon (8.2) and each had a very similar phenomena where they added up to "15.0" or so (Ys perhaps higher). So with that happening with 8.2s increasingly as a rule and not an exception, it is unlikely that all of those are now "anomalies".

My current "working theory" scale (only per the overly simplistic "combo ratings" w/ no additional "continuity" math etc) is getting closer and closer to a doubling every 1.0 increase instead of 1.4. Meaning:

2 equal halved 5.8s = 11.6 = 6.8/10
2 x 6.0 = 12 = 7.0/10
2 x 6.3 = 12.6 = 7.3/10
2 x 6.5 = 13 = 7.5/10
2 x 6.8 = 13.6 - 7.8/10
2 x 7 = 14 = 8.0/10
2 x 7.3 = 14.6 = 8.3/10
2 x 7.5 = 15 = 8.5/10
2 x 7.8 = 15.6 = 8.8/10
2 x 8.3 = 16.6 = 9.3/10

etc

This doesn't quite explain those (supposed) 8.2s (Ys, MM, etc) but it gets closer, while at the same time within range of my current thinking on most of the rest.

DelBocaVista wrote:

I also wanted to point out that:
- Surprising to see Lorca so high, almost at VU & Nico/Doors level and higher than Astral Weeks even. Impressive for a 5-track album where only one track is an all-time masterpiece.


I'm still revisiting Astral Weeks with these "rediscovered" ideas in mind, but Lorca seem completely legit after several revisits recently.

If I were to sum up the key, it is when attentively following Buckley's vocal performance, really recognizing the emotional character in it -- just how far into the "depth of oblivion" his "blues" are. And, perhaps most importantly, the "deathly" and "dark" and nakedly emotional character that accompanies this, which might best be termed "ghoulish". It is harrowing and moving just how far he seems to be reaching down into the depths of his psyche, to a point of oblivion that seems like it can't be scavenged any further, to express his "blues".

My most recent track ratings for Lorca should clear it up (and match more closely with the newer "combo ratings" being considered above)

1: 7.7-7.8
2: 7.0-7.1
3: ??? Undecided ... Maybe 6.0? Again, may come easier to me as I revise and fill out ratings below 7.0
4: 7.0-7.1
5: 7.1-7.2

(still tinkering with Lorca's tracks ratings but those should give you a very good idea. They're, each, very likely (discounting #3 which I haven't decided) one of those two numbers. Also may mean the "combo ratings" listed above are STILL too low. We'll see as I check other albums out and make adjustments.

DelBocaVista wrote:

I feel like a lot of 5.5 tracks are going to be elevated to 6.0, so maybe you should change the cutoff for your list. Otherwise, might see some Rolling Stones on there...

Cosmia is pretty damn good Smile


You're probably right.

I agree that Cosmia is pretty good. 5.5 maybe even 6 were both under consideration. A rating in the 5-5.5 range over 7 min isn't especially "bad". It just doesn't add much to the rating like the better tracks do. Again this may come to light a little more as I start rating and revising more below 7.0.

Side note: I am increasingly opening up to the idea that the "accumulation factor" starts declining below 7.0 (very gradually at first), meaning 2 7s may accumulate to something like an 8.0, but two 6.5s perhaps "only" 7.3 or 7.4 (instead of 7.5), 2 6.0s maybe something like 6.7 (instead of 7), and so on, very gradually down (they're still accumulating, just less so). By the time we're at 5, it could be as low as 2 5s equals a 5.3 or 5.5 or something. And probably at 2.5 or 3 (or thereabouts) there is literally no accumulation (meaning each song could be 2.5 and the whole album still a 2.5, a literal representation of "the worst an album can be is a weighted average of its songs"). And then 2.4 or below (or maybe 2 or below), the songs have an increasingly detrimental quality. In other words, a 2.4 or maybe 2 (something like this) becomes a lower rating (2.3, 2.2 etc) simply by increasing its running time and not improving itself. So five 2.4s in a row would maybe be "2.3" or "2.2" or something like this. Not worked out much at all -- just something I am considering and seems to have more truth to it than the current scale indicates (mainly that it starts dropping at 6.9; whereas the current criteria scale shows this occurring far lower). We've discussed this before. And I think I even had my official scale illustrating it close to this way at one point. But it seems like it may be coming back into play. Feel free to float some scales or math in this direction if you want (or if you already have, just highlighting that again).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Rhyner
soft silly music is meaningful magical


Gender: Male
Age: 36
Location: Utah
United States

  • #270
  • Posted: 02/24/2022 03:01
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Oooh, dry nerdy math talk about ratings systems! One of my favorite subjects!

I'll need to digest and ruminate more fully on the giant wall of text above to contribute more to this conversation, but I do have one observation off the top of my head that could potentially be of value. It's something I've always wondered about ever since I first saw your "rating by halves" math, and has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Your ten-point scale seems to me to be logarithmic, and I'm pretty sure you confirmed to me, in some previous conversation, that it basically is. In which case traditional arithmetic operations don't apply, at least not in a uniform and simplistic way. Which means something like this...
AfterHours wrote:
9.0/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 15.2 or 15.3. Examples: 7.6/10 + 7.6/10; 8.3/10 + 7.0/10
...is no bueno. In logarithmic terms, two 7.6es do not add the same as some other combination that adds up to 15.2. If 7.6 + 7.6 = 9, then 8.3 + 7.0 (or even 8.3 + 6.9) should be higher, more like 9.1. The more disparate the numbers, the bigger the difference would be. For example, 9.5 + 5.7 should, on the face of it, be something like 9.7 or 9.8. This example is helpful in getting the point across because if the 5.7 is purely additive to the quality of the piece as a whole, then you should certainly expect the resulting score to be higher than the 9.5 on its own. Yet 9.5 and 5.7 combine to the 15.2 that should equal a score of just 9.0 according to your stated rule.

Of course this is all ignores confounding factors, like how your the logarithmic base of your scale seems to fluctuate as you go up and down the scale itself, or whether there is some threshold that the second half of an album needs to cross before its contributions begin factoring positively into the final score, or whether the scale is not simply logarithmic but something more complicated (for instance, it might factor in the "consistency per unit of time" and thus the length of an album is nontrivial).

Or this could all be futile because it's a matter of trying to quantify and compare proverbial Wittgensteinian beetles in Wittgensteinian boxes. Although that shouldn't affect the math.

I do have more thoughts, but I think they'll need to congeal a bit more to be coherent and of any use to anyone.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 27 of 29


 

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum
Your Rating Criteria videoheadcleaner Lounge
Criteria for Music Evaluation DelBocaVista Music Diaries
[ Poll ] What criteria determine "greatne... AngryAchilles Music

 
Back to Top