Which Artist Has The Largest Number Of Perfect Songs? - Music

AfterHours

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

StreetSpirit wrote:

There is no quantitative way to measure how good a song is, plus it's subjective. Thus, the word "perfect" doesn't make sense when it comes to describing music.

It's entirely possibly I'm reading more into what youre saying than what you actually mean but I think statements like this take the idea of subjectivity much too far, as if the artist has no causation whatsover in the effect he/she is having through their music/art over the audience. As if none of it was intentional, or as if there are no known techniques and methods to successfully convey emotions/concepts musically, or no known methodologies to organize a composition, etc. These have been known, passed on/taught and applied for centuries.

In the above, I am only referring to "there is no quantitative way to measure how good a song is, plus its subjective" if this is meant in an absolute sense like it seems.

Just not true. It is not some random luck that great composers compose great compositions (usually many times over) that any experienced or knowledgeable and observant listener will call a great composition.

Again, maybe you didnt really mean what you said in an absolute sense, but it might be worth pointing out anyway, for the thread in general.
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

AfterHours

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

StreetSpirit wrote:

Thus, the word "perfect" doesn't make sense when it comes to describing music.

I would agree that perfect shouldn't be given much ground in the overall quality or "best of" of art. Maybe this is your main point, in which case we would be on the same page. "Perfect" is obviously variable to what one's intention or ambition was. Therefore, should be defined as something on the order of "expressing/conveying exactly as one intended and producing the intended effect". And so this is very wide-ranging in a qualitative sense. One could have a perfect little nursery rhyme or a perfect symphony. Each produce entirely differing degrees of impact and significance (providing the symphonic listener knows enough about what he/she is listening to, but probably even despite that) ... but both could each be "perfect".
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

AfterHours wrote:

It's entirely possibly I'm reading more into what youre saying than what you actually mean but I think statements like this take the idea of subjectivity much too far, as if the artist has no causation whatsover in the effect he/she is having through their music/art over the audience. As if none of it was intentional, or as if there are no known techniques and methods to successfully convey emotions/concepts musically, or no known methodologies to organize a composition, etc. These have been known, passed on/taught and applied for centuries.

In the above, I am only referring to "there is no quantitative way to measure how good a song is, plus its subjective" if this is meant in an absolute sense like it seems.

Just not true. It is not some random luck that great composers compose great compositions (usually many times over) that any experienced or knowledgeable and observant listener will call a great composition.

Again, maybe you didnt really mean what you said in an absolute sense, but it might be worth pointing out anyway, for the thread in general.

This is true in the bolded sense. There is a common ground upon which humans have accepted beauty, and artists are those who masterfully portray it to gain response which is common to humans. Sure there are outliers, but by and large most humans agree on what is aesthetically pleasing (not just entertaining) and what is not.

What's not true is you can't assign an absolute value to a feeling. You can perhaps score it on a scale of 1-10, but you can't measure it and measure it the same every time. It is not a hard science. I think this is what streetspirit was using subjective vs objective.

If it were truly an objective task, I wouldn't think you'd be able to change your ratings after another listen.

Plus if you take the definition of objective and apply it to your argument, that clearly isn't what you meant either - just speaking to the fact that objective and art really can't exist in the same realm because all art is dissected in distortion fields of reality called the subjective and NOT in this regard:

Quote:

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

If you think art is objective like a math problem and you get the same result EVERY time because there is no other way to see it, then I'd love to see some examples. I can't think of a single critic who views any art EXACTLY the same. They may be in similar tiers or something, but that's like doing a math problem and saying well I'm getting 2+2=4, but if you are getting 2+2=6, that's ok cause it's not 100. It's more or less the same response with a slight degree of variance.

Also if one is experiencing art without feeling... it feels a bit like their missing the mark?

theblueboy

Yes, yes, its all subjective....but saying that doesn't answer Bay State's question!

Next person to mention: subjectivity, objectivity, or use the term "metric" has to drink!!

Please consume alcohol sensibly. Terms and conditions apply Cool

LedZep

baystateoftheart wrote:

In b4 “a perfect song is emotionally and conceptually astounding, on such a level as to be among the best works of art ever created”

StreetSpirit wrote:

There is no quantitative way to measure how good a song is, plus it's subjective. Thus, the word "perfect" doesn't make sense when it comes to describing music.

_________________
Finally updated the overall chart

2020s
90s

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Michael1981 wrote:

Yes, yes, its all subjective....but saying that doesn't answer Bay State's question!

Next person to mention: subjectivity, objectivity, or use the term "metric" has to drink!!

Please consume alcohol sensibly. Terms and conditions apply Cool

I mentioned this earlier - not sure if anyone wants to give it a go to put the thread back on topic I suppose.

Quote:

Also if you want to extract this data for yourself, you can download the CSV from this site of the songs you've rated (go to your profile and see your song ratings) and then use this formula to extract the name of the artist from the track title, then pivot the data according to how many 100 songs an artist has according to your track ratings: =RIGHT(A2,LEN(A2)-FIND("by",A2)-1).

PM me if you have questions.

AfterHours

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

[quote="sethmadsen"]

AfterHours wrote:

It's entirely possibly I'm reading more into what youre saying than what you actually mean but I think statements like this take the idea of subjectivity much too far, as if the artist has no causation whatsover in the effect he/she is having through their music/art over the audience. As if none of it was intentional, or as if there are no known techniques and methods to successfully convey emotions/concepts musically, or no known methodologies to organize a composition, etc. These have been known, passed on/taught and applied for centuries.

In the above, I am only referring to "there is no quantitative way to measure how good a song is, plus its subjective" if this is meant in an absolute sense like it seems.

Just not true. It is not some random luck that great composers compose great compositions (usually many times over) that any experienced or knowledgeable and observant listener will call a great composition.

Again, maybe you didnt really mean what you said in an absolute sense, but it might be worth pointing out anyway, for the thread in general.

sethmadsen wrote:

This is true in the bolded sense. There is a common ground upon which humans have accepted beauty, and artists are those who masterfully portray it to gain response which is common to humans. Sure there are outliers, but by and large most humans agree on what is aesthetically pleasing (not just entertaining) and what is not.

sethmadsen wrote:

What's not true is you can't assign an absolute value to a feeling. You can perhaps score it on a scale of 1-10, but you can't measure it and measure it the same every time. It is not a hard science. I think this is what streetspirit was using subjective vs objective.

If it were truly an objective task, I wouldn't think you'd be able to change your ratings after another listen.

Keep in mind that I never claimed it was entirely objective either.

That said, one can, with certainty, determine degrees of expression or, better, "expressed conviction" and come very close to an absolute with these, perhaps not entirely. It is fundamentally no different than being able to determine one or another's degree of conviction in a conversation, or of that of an orator or speaker, etc. Now, if one had an "ideal" to work back from (such as The Sistine Chapel or Beethoven's 9th etc) and -- even senior to those, a fully logical statement of the definition and purpose of art, and its idealization -- then a qualitative scale becomes quite determinable.

sethmadsen wrote:

Plus if you take the definition of objective and apply it to your argument, that clearly isn't what you meant either - just speaking to the fact that objective and art really can't exist in the same realm because all art is dissected in distortion fields of reality called the subjective and NOT in this regard:

Quote:

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Agreed in essence. As we are each "IN" our own point of view it is probably impossible to fully demonstrate otherwise at the most fundamental level. I might have more to say about this...

sethmadsen wrote:

If you think art is objective like a math problem and you get the same result EVERY time because there is no other way to see it, then I'd love to see some examples. I can't think of a single critic who views any art EXACTLY the same. They may be in similar tiers or something, but that's like doing a math problem and saying well I'm getting 2+2=4, but if you are getting 2+2=6, that's ok cause it's not 100. It's more or less the same response with a slight degree of variance.

Solid answer from my criteria page:

"Experiences do tend to differentiate -- even if slightly -- from one to the next, so a resulting evaluation marks an attempt to determine as precisely as possible the highest rating that the work consistently sustains. Therefore, I will tend to assimilate a work several times (particularly in the higher ratings) before I really settle in to a more permanent rating and ranking for it. Of course, even then, these are subject to change, but usually I can sooner or later come to terms with a very close estimation of its sustained value within my criteria and in relation to other works of art. After that, there may still be variances with that work, from one experience to the next, but in most cases they are so minute that the rating usually doesn't change much, if at all."

sethmadsen wrote:

Also if one is experiencing art without feeling... it feels a bit like their missing the mark?

Uggh -- I agree -- why bother?
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

And again semantics probably get in the way and we 90% agree.

AfterHours

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

sethmadsen wrote:

And again semantics probably get in the way and we 90% agree.

Right on

_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

their is not they're... haha. Sorry, my own typo is driving me crazy.