An Idiot Listens to Western Music: Coll (2021)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 106, 107, 108  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #11
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 02:32
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Thanks AfterHours.

RE: length/sum of parts
Yes, I suppose that could be true. I've yet to find a methodology that works better (for me). If I try and gut check it strictly from an overall point, it isn't detailed enough. Except for my 2017 list, so far the song for song methodology has been working great (I think I'm being too lenient on 2017 so when I compare scores with the rest of the 1700 albums, they rank higher than I think they really should).

RE: "best ofs"
No, I'm not listening to best ofs. There are few classical albums with just one work on them. For example, by vinyl copy of Beethoven's 5th also has the 4th symphony. If I were to rank on this site the album as a whole, it wouldn't rank that well because I'm not as fond of the 4th symphony. The site isn't made for it. And from what I can tell is you've just created your journal and keep that updated instead of a site chart.

And then there really are "abridged" releases of works like The Messiah and Der Ring des Nibelungen. If you aren't familiar with a work intimately it's actually pretty easy to think you are listening to the full version when you aren't (they don't always say it's the abridged version... you can just tell because the run time is an hour shorter or something).

Here's the example I have on vinyl. But as someone who listens to classical music, you have to admit there are more classical music albums with multiple works on them then you'll find a single work album. It's very common... not sure why there's a misunderstanding.


Beethoven's 4th And 5th Symphonies by G... Orchestra

RE: Answering my question
I'll have to review your charts and journal again for further understanding of how you are doing it. I'm not understanding your math right now, but perhaps after I read that section, it'll make more sense (it doesn't look like an average of each movement).


Last edited by RoundTheBend on 02/06/2019 02:04; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #12
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 02:53
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Quote:
7.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.5. Examples: 7.2/10 + 7.3/10


Afterhours, perhaps I failed math, but I can't for the life of me make sense of this equation.

14.5/2=7.25, not 7.8.
7.2+7.3 indeed equals 14.5.
How are you getting 7.8 as the total score?

Perhaps it's just because I'm not seeing your run time in the equation?
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #13
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 03:03
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
Also, here's my list from like 2013 I created and haven't updated since:
My most favorite Art Music by sethmadsen

Hoping to update it and have a better list, but as I've brought it up many times in the forums in the past, this site really isn't great for reviewing and ranking music before the album era.

And most times that's fine. A limitation is typically what makes something great! And I really do love how this site works.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #14
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 03:18
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
sethmadsen wrote:
Thanks AfterHours.

RE: length/sum of parts
Yes, I suppose that could be true. I've yet to find a methodology that works better (for me). If I try and gut check it strictly from an overall point, it isn't detailed enough. Except for my 2017 list, so far the song for song methodology has been working great (I think I'm being too lenient on 2017 so when I compare scores with the rest of the 1700 albums, they rank higher than I think they really should).

RE: "best ofs"
No, I'm not listening to best ofs. There are few classical albums with just one work on them. For example, by vinyl copy of Beethoven's 5th also has the 4th symphony. If I were to rank on this site the album as a whole, it wouldn't rank that well because I'm not as fond of the 4th symphony. The site isn't made for it. And from what I can tell is you've just created your journal and keep that updated instead of a site chart.

And then there really are "abridged" releases of works like The Messiah and Der Ring des Nibelungen. If you aren't familiar with a work intimently it's actually pretty easy to think you are listening to the full version when you aren't (they don't always say it's the abridged version... you can just tell because the run time is an hour shorter or something).

Here's the example I have on vinyl. But as someone who listens to classical music, you have to admit there are more classical music albums with multiple works on them then you'll find a single work album. It's very common... not sure why there's a misunderstanding.


Beethoven's 4th And 5th Symphonies by G... Orchestra

RE: Answering my question
I'll have to review your charts and journal again for further understanding of how you are doing it. I'm not understanding your math right now, but perhaps after I read that section, it'll make more sense (it doesn't look like an average of each movement).


Re: best ofs ... Oh yes, I agree then. Now I see what you mean. It is very common to have two Beethoven, or Mozart symphonies on a single "album" ... and so forth... I dont think its all that common these days to release abridged versions of well known works like Messiah, but I may be wrong.
_________________
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 ;-)

  • #15
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 03:31
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I would just rate them "by Classical work" on your own list. That the charts only allow albums to be rated is understandable given the nature of the site, but disadvantageous for the accurate listing, rating and ranking of Classical works
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #16
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 03:43
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:
I would just rate them "by Classical work" on your own list. That the charts only allow albums to be rated is understandable given the nature of the site, but disadvantageous for the accurate listing, rating and ranking of Classical works


Probably a good idea. If at the end I want to do a hunt for best recordings/groupings of works on single album I can do that as a secondary idea.

Here's an example of an abridged version of The Messiah and the actual full performance (the difference is a startling 2 hours and 20 minutes vs 59 minutes:(what's more aggrevating in my opinion is that it doesn't say it is excerpts or an abridged version... it's just the acceptable "common" release):

https://open.spotify.com/album/6MUgSMXOme9ePYMVspK357

https://open.spotify.com/album/1Ufdvm3MnCm3GOC9NZSmM4

When I discovered this, I realized that I need to compare to Wikipedia or another source to make sure all the movements are present before I make any assumptions that the release is the complete release.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #17
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 03:59
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
sethmadsen wrote:
Quote:
7.8/10 = Combined total of both halves equaling 14.5. Examples: 7.2/10 + 7.3/10


Afterhours, perhaps I failed math, but I can't for the life of me make sense of this equation.

14.5/2=7.25, not 7.8.
7.2+7.3 indeed equals 14.5.
How are you getting 7.8 as the total score?

Perhaps it's just because I'm not seeing your run time in the equation?


I dont rate by "average song/track", which doesnt work out in actual practice anyway. For instance, if Joshua Tree is a 10/10, and each track a 10/10, that would mean that each track is not only a more incredible experience than all of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (so the equivalent experience of better than 11 Beethoven's 9ths successively!) but also equal to the sum of all the tracks, each on their own, while also equating to a 10 which includes all of them but is no greater than any single one of them (!?!?!?). In my opinion, this is ridiculous, and in the actual experience of listening to the album, does not hold true whatsoever, so as a rating system presents a false representation of its quality, especially in relation to how incredible an experience of music has and can actually be across history.

What I am saying, in the above example, is that an album that has a first half rated 7.2 and a second half rated 7.3 (or any combination totalling 14.5 when first and second side are added together) will amount to the experience of a 7.8/10. And that all those numerical constructs work out in actual practice throughout my whole list(s) (any art form, but perhaps easiest to see in those with more "movement" such as music and film). It is possible I am slightly off on these (such as by 0.1 or 0.2) but at this time they seem very accurate in practice, or very close.

The following explanation is important too, which you may have missed:

A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (7.8/10 - 8.2/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.3's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 7.9/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.3's.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad



Location: Ground Control
United States

  • #18
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 04:49
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
AfterHours wrote:

I dont rate by "average song/track", which doesnt work out in actual practice anyway. For instance, if Joshua Tree is a 10/10, and each track a 10/10, that would mean that each track is not only a more incredible experience than all of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (so the equivalent experience of better than 11 Beethoven's 9ths successively!) but also equal to the sum of all the tracks, each on their own, while also equating to a 10 which includes all of them but is no greater than any single one of them (!?!?!?). In my opinion, this is ridiculous, and in the actual experience of listening to the album, does not hold true whatsoever, so as a rating system presents a false representation of its quality, especially in relation to how incredible an experience of music has and can actually be across history.

What I am saying, in the above example, is that an album that has a first half rated 7.2 and a second half rated 7.3 (or any combination totalling 14.5 when first and second side are added together) will amount to the experience of a 7.8/10. And that all those numerical constructs work out in actual practice throughout my whole list(s) (any art form, but perhaps easiest to see in those with more "movement" such as music and film). It is possible I am slightly off on these (such as by 0.1 or 0.2) but at this time they seem very accurate in practice, or very close.

The following explanation is important too, which you may have missed:

A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (7.8/10 - 8.2/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.3's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 7.9/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.3's.

[/quote]

To your first point I understand, and perhaps my 10/10 isn't the greatest ever, rather if it is emotionally and intellectually appealing and intriguing to me, at a subjective level. So no, U2's Joshua Tree isn't the greatest work of art ever conceived, but it is emotionally and intellectually appealing and intriguing to me. It also is "good" music.

To your equation, I'm still lost. I suppose you are getting 7.8 not by mathematical means, rather a subjective "guess" for a lack of a better word?

I am not seeing how you are getting there mathematically, so I must assume you are subjectively getting there. None of your math adds up. I read the paragraph you shared and assumed from that that you are halfing the run time and then rating on first and second run times? But why would I assume a 7.3+7.3=7.9 in your example? Or in your other example you have a first half of the album being a 7.3 and the last half being 7.2... if you aren't averaging, how are you getting 7.3 and 7.2=7.8. That's some add math... it's not average or addition, what is it? How does 7.3 and 7.2 "amount" to 7.8? 7.25 would make sense from an average perspective and if you were just to add the .3 and .2 together, you'd get a 7.5... so 7.8 sounds like you rounded up for other subjective reasons, not mathematical. Either that or I really am a complete idiot.

I'm interested to see if your methodology makes more sense, but if this is too laborious to explain, that's ok too. I understand.

Basically give me a proof statement like your in math again... show your work if you will. I don't feel your words are making it clearer.
Back to top
  • Visit poster's website
  • View user's profile
  • Send private message
AfterHours



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

  • #19
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 05:05
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
sethmadsen wrote:
AfterHours wrote:

I dont rate by "average song/track", which doesnt work out in actual practice anyway. For instance, if Joshua Tree is a 10/10, and each track a 10/10, that would mean that each track is not only a more incredible experience than all of Beethoven's 9th Symphony (so the equivalent experience of better than 11 Beethoven's 9ths successively!) but also equal to the sum of all the tracks, each on their own, while also equating to a 10 which includes all of them but is no greater than any single one of them (!?!?!?). In my opinion, this is ridiculous, and in the actual experience of listening to the album, does not hold true whatsoever, so as a rating system presents a false representation of its quality, especially in relation to how incredible an experience of music has and can actually be across history.

What I am saying, in the above example, is that an album that has a first half rated 7.2 and a second half rated 7.3 (or any combination totalling 14.5 when first and second side are added together) will amount to the experience of a 7.8/10. And that all those numerical constructs work out in actual practice throughout my whole list(s) (any art form, but perhaps easiest to see in those with more "movement" such as music and film). It is possible I am slightly off on these (such as by 0.1 or 0.2) but at this time they seem very accurate in practice, or very close.

The following explanation is important too, which you may have missed:

A mathematical assessment for a work of this stature (7.8/10 - 8.2/10) can be broken down and calculated by halves as follows, provided one ensures to balance each half at equal running times (for music, film) or equal spatial parameters (for paintings/visual art). Also, it is necessary that each half is an expansion and extension of the other's content (emotions/concepts/creativity) in order to produce the requisite cumulative impact/significance for a work of this order. For example, two miscellaneous 7.3's, experienced one after the other, will not necessarily equal that of a 7.9/10 -- it will be the experience of two separate 7.3's.



sethmadsen wrote:
To your first point I understand, and perhaps my 10/10 isn't the greatest ever, rather if it is emotionally and intellectually appealing and intriguing to me, at a subjective level. So no, U2's Joshua Tree isn't the greatest work of art ever conceived, but it is emotionally and intellectually appealing and intriguing to me. It also is "good" music.

To your equation, I'm still lost. I suppose you are getting 7.8 not by mathematical means, rather a subjective "guess" for a lack of a better word?

I am not seeing how you are getting there mathematically, so I must assume you are subjectively getting there. None of your math adds up. I read the paragraph you shared and assumed from that that you are halfing the run time and then rating on first and second run times? But why would I assume a 7.3+7.3=7.9 in your example? Or in your other example you have a first half of the album being a 7.3 and the last half being 7.2... if you aren't averaging, how are you getting 7.3 and 7.2=7.8. That's some add math... it's not average or addition, what is it? How does 7.3 and 7.2 "amount" to 7.8? 7.25 would make sense from an average perspective and if you were just to add the .3 and .2 together, you'd get a 7.5... so 7.8 sounds like you rounded up for other subjective reasons, not mathematical. Either that or I really am a complete idiot.

I'm interested to see if your methodology makes more sense, but if this is too laborious to explain, that's ok too. I understand.

Basically give me a proof statement like your in math again... show your work if you will. I don't feel your words are making it clearer.


Not a guess. In actual practice, the actual experience, the amazement or awe incurred when assimilated. It means that the cumulative or combinative impact of those "equations" works out to the same overall impact as works that fall under the ratings given. That's all, no more complicated than that. Technically, not mathematical except that it shows how to figure out/equate to the ratings.

Re: U2 Joshua Tree ... So, is it, subjectively, the most astonishing/awe-inspiring/incredible/profound/moving artistic experience you have ever had and that is even possible for you to have in the entire history of art? That is, basically, what a 10/10 means to me. There are thousands, tens of thousands, examples of "good" art, or works that are emotionally/intellectually intriguing, arent there? To me, there is (and should be) only one 10 (or at best, 1 or maybe a few, per art form) if one is being honest in their ratings (again, imo, per my scale).
_________________
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 ;-)

  • #20
  • Posted: 01/24/2018 05:59
  • Post subject:
  • Reply with quote
I think the mistake you might be making is not thinking with the idea that the numerical rating is not just a number, but representative of the consistency and degree of amazement produced by/experienced from the work (more thoroughly explained on the page). Logically, a smaller section, such as the halves we're looking at, would each equate to a lesser degree of "amazement experienced" than the overall sum experience (except in occasions where the work is very heavily front loaded or back loaded with quality out of proportion to each other to such an extent that one half actually detracts from the overall score, and the greater half may even out-score its overall score ... but this is rare).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings
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, ... 106, 107, 108  Next
Page 2 of 108


 

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
Sticky: Music Diaries SuedeSwede Music Diaries
Sticky: Info On Music You Make Guest Music
Sticky: Beatsense: BEA Community Music Room Guest Lounge
An Idiot Listens to 2017 RoundTheBend Music Diaries
Grogg listens to music grogg Music Diaries

 
Back to Top