ITT we develop a way to judge whether music is good or bad. What criteria should it be judged on? What makes these criteria more important than others? How can we operationalise these criteria?
Also le maymays.
>What criteria should it be judged on?
how much you enjoyed it
>What makes these criteria more important than others?
I don't know
>How can we operationalise these criteria?
I don't know what that means
>>61883653
>I don't know what that means
How do we make the criterion measurable?
>>61883664
>How much you enjoyed it
Numerical score on replayability/quotability for general enjoyment.
A significant portion of /mu/ is too new to understand the hampus meme, stop trying to force it.
>>61883715
And how do you operationalise that? Just self-reporting?
>>61883715
Numerical ratings feel too rigid to me. Makes it sound like you'd have to have a checklist with you with all the things you like and dislike in music, and then tally up the score.
I'd rather write a paragraph explaining why I liked it.
If you're using language to judge these things, it'd only end up being subjective. You'd have to figure out some sort of mathematical formula to judge this, which may or may not be possible but it would certainly be a waste of time.
>>61883748
>I'd rather write a paragraph explaining why I liked it.
Yes, but that's drifting far away from trying to develop a theory of what makes music good.
>>61883764
That's what operationalising means - to make measurable (sort of)
1. Set up a group of people who are confirmed to be patricians
2. Let these people discuss a piece of music and its merits, with everybody having done research on the artist and the themes of the album.
3. The group votes and gives the piece a rating between atrocious and masterpiece.
4. This is now the objective value of the album.
>>61883775
This just seems like a very intangible and subjective (and tedious) way of creating an arbitrary rating, not a way of actually measuring quality.
>>61883744
I suppose it would, but that's too subjective. So there's a problem.
>>61883748
>>61883772
>>61883775
There would need to be guidelines created to make the rating much easier. So that say an album is ran through those guidelines or tests ie: Songwriting. Then is given a numerical score for that category. Then an average is made and that is then the objective score.
>>61883807
How do you operationalise the measurement of songwriting?
>>61883772
Well for every song, you'd have to run thesong through a human to calculate it, you could never get a computer to accurately understand if a piece of art is good or not. That decision could only come through humans, no matter what.
The criteria is all over the board in a pretty extreme manner since you have the velvet underground and you have classical music. You can't judge these things accurately without life experience.
>>61883807
Ah! But what about an album without lyrics? Should it get a 0 rating on the lyrics, bringing the total down just because it's an instrumental album? Or should it not be rated on lyrics while other albums are, making the rating system unbalanced? The rating of certain aspects of a piece of art will never work when dealing with the whole range of different genres and individual musical goals.
>>61883807
>Songwriting
But what defines good songwriting? What if I think Taylor Swift strumming three chords makes for a better song than Keith Emerson performing wank on his keyboard, even though he's a much more competent musician.
Or how about some drone or noise album?
>>61883832
Yes but the same could be said about any cognitive process, yet people work hard to operationalise and test them.
>>61883802
Music is subjective, but nobody can deny that there is good taste and bad taste. Taste is defined by society, and as such the only way to get as close of a rating as possible would be to get the people with the best taste (as defined by society) to rate something. This is the most objective way to do discern value in art.
>>61883867
Wouldn't this just mean that the top of the chart hits would be the "most objectively" good music?
>>61883855
You can measure weight, you can measure light waves, you can measure sound frequencies, but there will never be a day where you can measure "goodness". That's something that brings me comfort personally, its what makes us human.
>>61883843
>what defines good songwriting?
-the music underpins the exact message or emotions of the text at all times.
-wordpainting and wordsetting is immaculate
-keys and chords used symbolically, or with close relevance to the lyrics
-lyrics are written and delivered in a way as to be clear and unmistakable in their meaning
-holds interest throughout
-has an emotional impact on a listener, ideally all listeners
And then we have the popular music world ideas of:
-has a catchy melody
-sells a lot of albums
-is immaculately produced (concerning songs that are primarily stored on recordings, instead of sheet music like art songs /classical songs)
Then there's the criteria for ease of performance:
-is easy to sing
-is easy to sing and play at the same time
-is within singers comfortable range
-makes good use of singers voice
>>61883874
No, because good art is not defined by the popular majority. Good taste however, is defined by the popular majoritys reliance on a certain group of well-respected people to be able to discern what is good and what is not.
>>61883893
Again, you could say the same thing about neural activity, sensory activation, activity in ANS; and cognitive processes. Yet we work with cognitive processes all the time.
>>61883903
But you said we should decide on a group of people based on their tastes, as defined by society.
>>61883874
popular music is pretty contrived. its 100% marketing and 0% actual music. not a very good example of music as a whole.
>>61883837
You make a good point. If two of the five or so categories were lyrics and instrumentation. Instrumental albums would get lyrics at 0 by default. Instead the average score at the end would only take into account the other four categories, not effecting the average in anyway.
What should the categories be other than songwriting/lyrical content and instrumentation.
Structure
Accessibility
Composition
??
Criteria 1:
>get a large, diverse sample of people with absolute pitch
>measure their brain activity when listening to a song
>aggregate into average activity per region
>highest score goes to the most stimulating tracks
>Repeat this 10 times per track and aggregate overall stimulation
Criteria 2:
>create a computerized record of all melodies ever published
>develop an algorithm to check for similarities
>highest score goes to tracks that have the lowest similarity percentages to the top 5 songs they're similar to
*A similar idea can be utilized for lyrics as well
>>61883916
No, but the guy said society should decide on a group of people with good taste, which would mean you end up with a group of people who listen to the same things as most people, ie mainstream pop music.
>>61883901
>-the music underpins the exact message or emotions of the text at all times.
>-wordpainting and wordsetting is immaculate
In my mind these are almost in direct conflict with each other. If you're sending a message as clear as possible, you can't wordpaint and obfuscate the message with clever wordplay.
>>61883901
This is really dumb. Sounds like somone trying to think up the "perfect song" and putting everything that makes music good into this one song. It's like trying to make a perfect cake by putting in all the things that make cakes great; lemon, strawberries, chocolate, sprinkles, toffee, banana, custard, etc. The result is just a horrible mess with no direction.
>>61883901
>clear and unmistakable in their meaning
I disagree. Something vague or cryptic is much more interesting that blatant and straightforward, to me at least.
>>61883913
Goodness cannot be tested. You can't judge how good music is through dopamine release. There's absolutely no way to calculate how good something is, youd need to build a robot that can think exactly like a human before that's possible.
Even if there were a way, it wouldn't stop me from liking something that everyone thought was objectively terrible.
>>61883930
>these are almost in direct conflict with each other
wordpainting just means making a word have a certain character. you might make "higher" arch upwards. thats word-painting. it doesn't have to clutter the meaning, if anything it should accentuate it, if done well.
Word-setting is simply the art of putting words to music. its where you place the words, what melody they use, and how they fit with the chords. all songs have word-setting, but some have better word setting than others. For example the syllables sit naturally over the beat and the phrases sound natural.
>>61883937
These are all just things to think about when writing a song. you dont follow them like rules, you just try to excel in each area. great matching of meaning to chords, great lyrics and wordsetting, clarity, emotional impact and holding interest. all pretty standard things to have in a song.
Dont you want to write the greatest song you can?
>>61883940
Sure, if you want to be chino or Cobain melding words together or muffling the meaning/having vagaries, go right ahead. Often vague meanings can help more people connect with a song, as they each interpret the words in their own way.
A good songwriter doesn't need to pussy foot around though, you know exactly what the song is about, and why the music sounds the way it does.
for example "mama.... just killed a man"
straight away, a clear meaning, emotional impact, etc. cuts right to the core. imo thats better songwriting than vague words thrown together to create an interpretive meaning.
>>61883975
But that's exactly why we're trying to operationalise it: find a way to measure it. Why would you need a robot? We use humans to make the judgement in all scientific endeavour.
Add all the scores together and you will have a rough grade
>Originality
[ ] / 10
>Effectiveness (does the piece do what it intended to?)
[ ] / 10
>Interest level (Does it sustain interest throughout?)
[ ] / 5
>Critical acclaim/popularity
[ ] / 5
>Longevity
+1 point per 10 years since composition (for values over 100, add +1 point per 50 years past 100)
>Your own personal score (did you like it?)
[ ] / 5
>Production
[ ] / 3
Written music:
>Use of selected compositional techniques (Perfect counterpoint, Forms, use of inversions/retrogrades/melodic cells etc)
[ ] / 5
>Clarity of score
[ ] / 3
>Orchestration
[ ] / 5
>Idiomatic part writing
[ ] / 3
>Performance: (grade from -10 to +10)
[ -10 0 +10 ]
>Originality/conductors handling/programme/professionalism (grade from -3 to +3)
[ -3 0 +3 ]
>>61884017
Not at all, there's no way to have a human know the temperature or psi of something, wed absolutely have to use some kind of device. And the device you're looking for in this case is a robot who can think exactly like a 21st century human being, which would be the only key to this whole thing.
>>61884062
And these devices are used to measure what we humans have operationalised as temperature and pressure. Neither of them actually show temperature or pressure directly.
>>61884062
we have devices to measure music.
its called "music theory" and if you knew it, you'd know there are many many ways to objectify music, but that taste is individual.
So you could say "x piece is well composed" but the majority of people dont even like it or prefer something much simpler and more "poorly written".
So you usually factor in popularity into a judgement of a piece. Y piece may not be well composed, but it must have some element that makes it so popular. what is it? catchy melody? rising semitones in the bass? that same chord progression everyone uses?
>>61884099
I know about music theory, but I also think Sister Ray is an objectively great song. How does that play in with theory being a unity of measurement?
>one thread of discussion is going to change protocol
>>61884130
*whispers* the protocols already exist.
The most important thing I look for in a catchy pop song is how interesting/experimental/well produced the instruments and sonic arrangement is.
Does anyone else value this?
>>61884146
of course. for pop the production is essential. production can make or break a song. If you dont have Max Martin producing your track, dont hope for a number 1 hit.
>>61883633
first
examine your own biases, tastes, and what you are really looking for in a peice of music at that moment. You don't need to justify it, just report/meditate on it
then you need to ask youself if this piece of music belong in any specific genre
then compare that piece of music to others in the genre. When critisizing it and saying "leage of its own", compare it to other esoteric records, or maybe how it differs from the genre.
after you examine the genre
you then need to be familiar with music prodction- taking into consideration how appropriate the melodies are or presence of any. after you have examined melody, tempo and voice
you have effectively
objectively as possible
gave a comprehensive critique of a piece of music.
>>61884119
>Sister Ray
cant believe I interrupted Bach for this. Its not good. objectively pretty poor.
repetitive, poorly produced, lacking musical substance.
>>61884166
Max Martin sucks. Boring producer. Everything sounds flat and dull, no depth or soundscapes. He doesn't even play around with panning.
>>61884177
I hope you also know music theory, or good luck rating anything written by a trained composer.
>>61884007
You did not just use queen as an example of great songwriting
>>61884180
Then you lose my vote in the council of patricians for the determination of objective quality (CPDOQ)
>>61884182
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fndeDfaWCg
He seems pretty good. cant argue with the amount of hits he's had. plenty of panning on this track
you can't define a way to judge music, but you can define a way to judge the reliability of the the listener's opinion.
so where Nt is the total number of albums rated, N1 is the number of 1 out of 10 given, N2 the number of 2 out of 10 given and so on, the pic related expression estimate the reliability of the listener. a good value should be around 1.
when we want to judge an album we just do a weighted average
>>61884205
CPDOQ is the saviour that /mu/ needs
>>61884202
They wrote some great songs. Bohemian Rhapsody is superbly written. Have you never at any stage in your life enjoyed queen? not even as a youngster?
>>61884207
Hits don't mean shit.
>>61884233
they do when you're talking about pop production, which is exactly what >>61884146 was.
Poorly produced songs never make it to No.1 fact.
>>61884230
Yes but I grew out of it, just like I grew out of KISS. I can't trust a person who holds up Queen as a pinnacle of songwriting to make some sort of objective measurement of good music. And I guess that's the main issue here, the objective qualities by which music would be judged are completely based off of one person's subjective opinion on what makes a great song. So in reality even this objective test would be subjective as well.
>>61884248
But who cares about chart position when we're talking about objective qualities?
A good song is a good song regardless.
>>61883775
>confirmed to be patricians
By what standard? Some say patricians only listen to dadrock, others say unless you listen to noise, drone, field recordings and Tibetan throat singing and nothing else you are still a filthy pleb.
Who judges the patrician status of these people?
>>61884408
Me
(pssh, you're all patricians to me <3)
>>61884408
A true patrician listens to a wide variety of genres and doesn't hold any one genre over all others. You have to have some appreciation for dadrock, as well as drone, noise, serialism, onkyo, sound art, pop, folk and as much as possible. A true patrician can find some value in all music, but still be able to discern the good from the bad.
>>61884260
I never said queen was the pinnacle of songwriting, it was just an example of clarity in lyrics.
Strauss' 4 last songs is the pinnacle of songwriting imo
>>61884298
The discussion of pop production value isn't really relevant to rating music. Pop music has very little to do with good songs. its marketing. you market a decently produced song, it becomes a hit.
Good music doesn't usually make it into the pop charts, or at least my opinion of good music. Classical chart maybe, but I've only heard 2 songs I would call "good" on pop radio stations over the last 5 years.
>>61884803
Which two?
>>61884879
West coast and dark horse.
not saying they're great, but they're the best written of the pop bunch. west coast even has a tempo change going to the chorus, very cool.
adele's hello is also fairly well written, part of its success. Max Martin songwriting/production once again. He seems to be where quality and commercial success intersect.
Dark horse was also martin.
The most basic litmus test is:
>Is it classical or does it have guitars
If yes: It can be considered further
If no: It can be thrown in the trash
>>61885036
>answering yes or no to an "or" question
I completely agree
>>61885036
This is the most pleb thing I've read today.
