I have in fact noticed that comments of mine that discuss music score consistently lower than my other comments.
Did you notice that your comments (and those agreeing with you) nonetheless score higher than your critics in such discussions? (And whoever’s modding you down in this thread, it’s not me—I don’t use downmods against opponents when my investment in the discussion might be compromising my judgment.)
(1) It matters when determining whether a clique is learning the structure of reality or just replaying inside jokes. If the clique judges designs based on useful models that carve reality at its joints, and that use objective, unfakeable (e.g. through consensus) metrics, we should care what they think and we should be impressed those who can hit narrow targets in the design space they define. If the clique has to keep checking on whether the rest of the clique already likes something, because there really isn’t a successful model … then none of that applies. Which category do MACs fall in?
(2) Well, then where does the rest of Mozart’s value come from?
From the other stuff that people still like, voluntarily listen to, etc. after hundreds of years and no indoctrination.
As bad as Lady Gaga might be, where’s the Music Theory PhD can that can demonstrate a superior understanding of the mind-music relationship, rather than just whine about how reality won’t bend to fit his theories?
In the present context, this is a distinction without a difference. The point is that I could simply say to you “the market has spoken” with regard to Bell, just as you are wont to do with EKM. What criterion of “justification” are you appealing to here?
The ability to make a judgment without having to first be told what your judgment should be. Layfolk who get recordings of EKM aren’t doing it because it’s the hot thing right now among their friends and the elite cultural arbiters told them to.
In contrast, the royalty really wouldn’t tell the difference if Bell flubbed and “only” performed at the 95% percentile. While the market has spoken, it is not announcing a victory of the characteristics you claim are important: it is showing that people will buy based on hype, and we know it’s hype because their market value changes when the hype is removed (as the Bell experiment showed—no wealthy person said, “Holy s***! Let me hire you to be my personal performer! You’re way undervalued here!”)
It should really raise a red flag for your when you’re basing your opinion on “but rich people like this stuff when they’re duped!”
I am fairly “indoctrinated” in classical music (my parents have been taking me to the symphony since I was small, and I sing the stuff) and I like Lady Gaga. Whatever sense in which she is awful doesn’t have much effect on her popularity. Yeah, her music isn’t as complex and challenging as Mozart’s, but maybe that just shows that complexity isn’t the only thing that makes music pleasant to listen to...in fact, if anything I think simple music is funner to listen to, since untrained people can sing along and enjoy the tune for themselves. (I enjoy classical pieces 20 times more when I know them well enough and am in a venue where I can sing along.)
Did you notice that your comments (and those agreeing with you) nonetheless score higher than your critics in such discussions?
This isn’t true today! At the moment, you are being upvoted and I am being downvoted. (And actually downvoted, as in negative scores, as opposed to merely being upvoted less.)
As bad as Lady Gaga might be, where’s the Music Theory PhD can that can demonstrate a superior understanding of the mind-music relationship, rather than just whine about how reality won’t bend to fit his theories?
I don’t know actually know any music theory Ph.D. who whines in the manner you describe, though it’s not exactly clear what you mean. What theories, and what aspect of reality isn’t bending?
What would they have to do in order to demonstrate a “superior understanding of the mind-music relationship”?
And let me be clear: neither I nor any MAC-type I know is after Lady-Gaga-status. I would settle for slightly greater respect specifically among technically-minded science types. (Enough to be acknowledged as existing, say.)
The ability to make a judgment without having to first be told what your judgment should be. Layfolk who get recordings of EKM aren’t doing it because it’s the hot thing right now among their friends and the elite cultural arbiters told them to.
Are you kidding? Of course they are! I would assign a high probability to the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of the popular interest in eighteenth-century music is driven by status-signaling.
And if you’re tempted to say “Hm, you’re right, I guess that means that only Lady Gaga is what people really like”, I’ve got some bad news there too: most people who like Lady Gaga do so because it’s what their friends like.
Mind you (and I think you may be missing this point), these status perceptions are capable of really, truly affecting people’s actual enjoyment—rather like how people really, truly find the same jokes funnier when told by higher-status people. In the case of people without a specific interest in music, signaling probably accounts for most of their tastes. Even in the case of someone like me, I would probably like Mozart (or Schoenberg) almost, but not quite, as much, if I didn’t know “who he was”.
In contrast, the royalty really wouldn’t tell the difference if Bell flubbed and “only” performed at the 95% percentile
Maybe not on a single occasion, but over the long term (i.e. if Bell descended to the 95th percentile consistently), they surely would. More specifically, elite musicians and critics would notice, and the “royalty” would follow their opinion.
This isn’t true today! At the moment, you are being upvoted and I am being downvoted. (And actually downvoted, as in negative scores, as opposed to merely being upvoted less.)
Look again, woe-is-me-sto. Most of my comments have gone negative, almost none of yours have. Someone recently came by and downmodded everything I posted—someone who isn’t justifying it anywhere (which is about the level of justification MACs can give for their field). (I’m not going to insult you by suggesting you would dip to these tactics, of course; I have far too much respect for you.)
I don’t know actually know any music theory Ph.D. who whines in the manner you describe, though it’s not exactly clear what you mean. What theories, and what aspect of reality isn’t bending?
What would they have to do in order to demonstrate a “superior understanding of the mind-music relationship”?
The very same thing that I or Michael Vassar or anyone else mentions whenever this topic is brought up: if higher-level students of music theory really do know the secrets of the music-mind relationship, why can’t they take that skill, pair it with existing record companies’ hype machines, and outcompete existing, non-academic hitmakers, without having to tell people in advance “you should like this because the elite ivory tower deems it good”?
Are you kidding? Of course they are! I would assign a high probability to the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of the popular interest in eighteenth-century music is driven by status-signaling.
A high proportion of people with a broad, indiscriminate collection of classical music might be, but those weren’t the ones I was using to make the point. You’re using the presence of hype victims I wasn’t referring to, to deny the significance of the non-hype victims I was referring to.
I was referring to the everyday mouthbreather who for the first time hears EKM (perhaps in the Movie Ace Ventura: Pet Detective), then decides to add it to their playlist, not knowing which elite endorses it. Such people continue to listen to it privately even in the rare case that their friends disapprove of it. Or to the person who hears Paganini’s Op. 1 in a similar context and wants it on their playlist, not realizing it was written ~200 years ago (because it sounds creative and experimental).
(But yes, there are cases where a member of the elite will decree that some long-unknown composer is now high status again and you better get on the bandwagon. I believe this is what happened to Bach—IIRC, most of his fame now is due to someone reviving interest of him in the 19th century, after he had been forgotten. Which itself is proof of the ephemerality of the boundaries MACs draw.)
In any case, I agree that there can be information cascades in which fame builds on itself. The difference is that I find the fame derived this way uninformative, while you seem to be willing to defend this arbitrary, artifical set as indicative of a fundamental aspect of reality about music (rather than social phenomenon) … at least, when it supports compositions you approve of.
Maybe not on a single occasion, but over the long term (i.e. if Bell descended to the 95th percentile consistently), they surely would. More specifically, elite musicians and critics would notice, and the “royalty” would follow their opinion.
Only if experts (who have pointlessly wasted time making measurements this precise) alert them that this music isn’t high enough in status. The point is, it has nothing to do with the musical quality itself, just conspicuous consumption. Joshua Bell agrees that his income—and indeed, self-worth—come from pre-validation, and not from some widely, objectively-discernable measure of his performance quality. Why won’t you?
Most of my comments have gone negative, almost none of yours have. Someone recently came by and downmodded everything I posted—someone who isn’t justifying it anywhere (which is about the level of justification MACs can give for their field). (I’m not going to insult you by suggesting you would dip to these tactics, of course; I have far too much respect for you.)
Yes, the scores have changed since I wrote that. And no, not due to me; like you, I generally avoid downvoting my opponents in a discussion. (I don’t make it an absolute rule, but exceptions are rare.)
if higher-level students of music theory really do know the secrets of the music-mind relationship, why can’t they take that skill, pair it with existing record companies’ hype machines, and outcompete existing, non-academic hitmakers
Because that skill doesn’t suffice for that task. In order to reliably produce “hits”, you have to do a lot more than be able to imagine music in your mind; in fact, you have to do a lot more than imagine music in your mind that you yourself like (already harder). You have to have to have a detailed knowledge of the psychology of large groups of other humans, so that you can produce music that they will like (actually a lot more than “like”; you have to get them to “pass it on”) in large numbers. That, as far as I know, is an unsolved problem. And if you think the field of music theory (or any field I know of) claims to have solved it, you’re mistaken.
In any case, I agree that there can be information cascades in which fame builds on itself. The difference is that I find the fame derived this way uninformative, while you seem to be willing to defend this arbitrary, artifical set as indicative of a fundamental aspect of reality about music (rather than social phenomenon)
Just the opposite: I’m trying to identify particular groups of people whose opinions are atypically informative.
Joshua Bell agrees that his income—and indeed, self-worth—come from pre-validation, and not from some widely, objectively-discernable measure of his performance quality. Why won’t you?
The pre-validation is ultimately a result of his performance skill. I agree with you to the extent that I may not necessarily prefer Bell’s playing to someone slightly less popular. His fame has some information content; it may not be enough for my purposes.
Similarly, the fact that EKM is more “popular” than the Jupiter symphony wouldn’t have been informative to me, because (as good as EKM is) I like the Jupiter symphony better. At most, EKM’s fame might tell me that Mozart is worth looking into.
There’s very little that I’m familiar with which meets that standard—possibly some Christmas carols.
Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Ode to Joy, Water Music, The Four Seasons, Flight of the Bumblebee, Flight of the Valkyries, …
What do you mean by indoctrination?
Being taught throughout schooling that “This is good music, high status people produced and listen to this music”, plus, in the case of higher learning, the inferential distance chain you’re taken through that results in you liking obscure academic classical-style music.
Alternatively, being taught throughout schooling that, “Being [religion X] is good, high status people belong to this religion, you will be high status if you’re faithful”, plus only getting good grades/promotion if you can master the doctrines of a religion.
Popular classical music isn’t as high status as difficult modern and contemporary classical music, but it’s still pretty high status.
“No indoctrination” is a high standard. Also, is there a difference so far as indoctrination is concerned between “high status people like this” and “normal people like this”?
Also, is there a difference so far as indoctrination is concerned between “high status people like this” and “normal people like this”?
Not in terms of the uninformativeness it injects into the fact of their popularity. That is, if something’s popular without that kind of in-school promotion (like Halo), that says a lot more about it then whether people “like” something (but continue to doze through any actual performance until the part where they get to sleep with their date) that is promoted in school, such as Shakespeare.
Did you notice that your comments (and those agreeing with you) nonetheless score higher than your critics in such discussions? (And whoever’s modding you down in this thread, it’s not me—I don’t use downmods against opponents when my investment in the discussion might be compromising my judgment.)
(1) It matters when determining whether a clique is learning the structure of reality or just replaying inside jokes. If the clique judges designs based on useful models that carve reality at its joints, and that use objective, unfakeable (e.g. through consensus) metrics, we should care what they think and we should be impressed those who can hit narrow targets in the design space they define. If the clique has to keep checking on whether the rest of the clique already likes something, because there really isn’t a successful model … then none of that applies. Which category do MACs fall in?
From the other stuff that people still like, voluntarily listen to, etc. after hundreds of years and no indoctrination.
As bad as Lady Gaga might be, where’s the Music Theory PhD can that can demonstrate a superior understanding of the mind-music relationship, rather than just whine about how reality won’t bend to fit his theories?
The ability to make a judgment without having to first be told what your judgment should be. Layfolk who get recordings of EKM aren’t doing it because it’s the hot thing right now among their friends and the elite cultural arbiters told them to.
In contrast, the royalty really wouldn’t tell the difference if Bell flubbed and “only” performed at the 95% percentile. While the market has spoken, it is not announcing a victory of the characteristics you claim are important: it is showing that people will buy based on hype, and we know it’s hype because their market value changes when the hype is removed (as the Bell experiment showed—no wealthy person said, “Holy s***! Let me hire you to be my personal performer! You’re way undervalued here!”)
It should really raise a red flag for your when you’re basing your opinion on “but rich people like this stuff when they’re duped!”
I am fairly “indoctrinated” in classical music (my parents have been taking me to the symphony since I was small, and I sing the stuff) and I like Lady Gaga. Whatever sense in which she is awful doesn’t have much effect on her popularity. Yeah, her music isn’t as complex and challenging as Mozart’s, but maybe that just shows that complexity isn’t the only thing that makes music pleasant to listen to...in fact, if anything I think simple music is funner to listen to, since untrained people can sing along and enjoy the tune for themselves. (I enjoy classical pieces 20 times more when I know them well enough and am in a venue where I can sing along.)
This isn’t true today! At the moment, you are being upvoted and I am being downvoted. (And actually downvoted, as in negative scores, as opposed to merely being upvoted less.)
I don’t know actually know any music theory Ph.D. who whines in the manner you describe, though it’s not exactly clear what you mean. What theories, and what aspect of reality isn’t bending?
What would they have to do in order to demonstrate a “superior understanding of the mind-music relationship”?
And let me be clear: neither I nor any MAC-type I know is after Lady-Gaga-status. I would settle for slightly greater respect specifically among technically-minded science types. (Enough to be acknowledged as existing, say.)
Are you kidding? Of course they are! I would assign a high probability to the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of the popular interest in eighteenth-century music is driven by status-signaling.
And if you’re tempted to say “Hm, you’re right, I guess that means that only Lady Gaga is what people really like”, I’ve got some bad news there too: most people who like Lady Gaga do so because it’s what their friends like.
Mind you (and I think you may be missing this point), these status perceptions are capable of really, truly affecting people’s actual enjoyment—rather like how people really, truly find the same jokes funnier when told by higher-status people. In the case of people without a specific interest in music, signaling probably accounts for most of their tastes. Even in the case of someone like me, I would probably like Mozart (or Schoenberg) almost, but not quite, as much, if I didn’t know “who he was”.
Maybe not on a single occasion, but over the long term (i.e. if Bell descended to the 95th percentile consistently), they surely would. More specifically, elite musicians and critics would notice, and the “royalty” would follow their opinion.
Look again, woe-is-me-sto. Most of my comments have gone negative, almost none of yours have. Someone recently came by and downmodded everything I posted—someone who isn’t justifying it anywhere (which is about the level of justification MACs can give for their field). (I’m not going to insult you by suggesting you would dip to these tactics, of course; I have far too much respect for you.)
The very same thing that I or Michael Vassar or anyone else mentions whenever this topic is brought up: if higher-level students of music theory really do know the secrets of the music-mind relationship, why can’t they take that skill, pair it with existing record companies’ hype machines, and outcompete existing, non-academic hitmakers, without having to tell people in advance “you should like this because the elite ivory tower deems it good”?
A high proportion of people with a broad, indiscriminate collection of classical music might be, but those weren’t the ones I was using to make the point. You’re using the presence of hype victims I wasn’t referring to, to deny the significance of the non-hype victims I was referring to.
I was referring to the everyday mouthbreather who for the first time hears EKM (perhaps in the Movie Ace Ventura: Pet Detective), then decides to add it to their playlist, not knowing which elite endorses it. Such people continue to listen to it privately even in the rare case that their friends disapprove of it. Or to the person who hears Paganini’s Op. 1 in a similar context and wants it on their playlist, not realizing it was written ~200 years ago (because it sounds creative and experimental).
(But yes, there are cases where a member of the elite will decree that some long-unknown composer is now high status again and you better get on the bandwagon. I believe this is what happened to Bach—IIRC, most of his fame now is due to someone reviving interest of him in the 19th century, after he had been forgotten. Which itself is proof of the ephemerality of the boundaries MACs draw.)
In any case, I agree that there can be information cascades in which fame builds on itself. The difference is that I find the fame derived this way uninformative, while you seem to be willing to defend this arbitrary, artifical set as indicative of a fundamental aspect of reality about music (rather than social phenomenon) … at least, when it supports compositions you approve of.
Only if experts (who have pointlessly wasted time making measurements this precise) alert them that this music isn’t high enough in status. The point is, it has nothing to do with the musical quality itself, just conspicuous consumption. Joshua Bell agrees that his income—and indeed, self-worth—come from pre-validation, and not from some widely, objectively-discernable measure of his performance quality. Why won’t you?
Yes, the scores have changed since I wrote that. And no, not due to me; like you, I generally avoid downvoting my opponents in a discussion. (I don’t make it an absolute rule, but exceptions are rare.)
Because that skill doesn’t suffice for that task. In order to reliably produce “hits”, you have to do a lot more than be able to imagine music in your mind; in fact, you have to do a lot more than imagine music in your mind that you yourself like (already harder). You have to have to have a detailed knowledge of the psychology of large groups of other humans, so that you can produce music that they will like (actually a lot more than “like”; you have to get them to “pass it on”) in large numbers. That, as far as I know, is an unsolved problem. And if you think the field of music theory (or any field I know of) claims to have solved it, you’re mistaken.
Just the opposite: I’m trying to identify particular groups of people whose opinions are atypically informative.
The pre-validation is ultimately a result of his performance skill. I agree with you to the extent that I may not necessarily prefer Bell’s playing to someone slightly less popular. His fame has some information content; it may not be enough for my purposes.
Similarly, the fact that EKM is more “popular” than the Jupiter symphony wouldn’t have been informative to me, because (as good as EKM is) I like the Jupiter symphony better. At most, EKM’s fame might tell me that Mozart is worth looking into.
Ha! I will use this.
Thanks for catching the error, but what makes it an accidentally-clever pun?
There’s very little that I’m familiar with which meets that standard—possibly some Christmas carols. What do you mean by indoctrination?
Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, Ode to Joy, Water Music, The Four Seasons, Flight of the Bumblebee, Flight of the Valkyries, …
Being taught throughout schooling that “This is good music, high status people produced and listen to this music”, plus, in the case of higher learning, the inferential distance chain you’re taken through that results in you liking obscure academic classical-style music.
Alternatively, being taught throughout schooling that, “Being [religion X] is good, high status people belong to this religion, you will be high status if you’re faithful”, plus only getting good grades/promotion if you can master the doctrines of a religion.
Popular classical music isn’t as high status as difficult modern and contemporary classical music, but it’s still pretty high status.
“No indoctrination” is a high standard. Also, is there a difference so far as indoctrination is concerned between “high status people like this” and “normal people like this”?
Not in terms of the uninformativeness it injects into the fact of their popularity. That is, if something’s popular without that kind of in-school promotion (like Halo), that says a lot more about it then whether people “like” something (but continue to doze through any actual performance until the part where they get to sleep with their date) that is promoted in school, such as Shakespeare.