Is your music better or worse than this?

[woggle]

Interesting topic - I cannot see how there can be good or bad music without reference to some criterion. But it is possible to say why you prefer some pieces of music over others - we do that all the time. And you could do stats and maybe use a popularity measure. That is not as easy as it seems as there are training effects through the media.
I quite like the occasional listen to The Shaggs but I find they don't bear repeated listens. I'm happy to claim some of my stuff is better than The Shaggs because I can listen to it more often without being annoyed. I would be surprised if there weren't plenty of people who found the opposite (or similar) to be true - that they thought The Shaggs music was better than mine because mine was really boring. And they'd be right.

[jancivil]

Well, this Adele record 'Hello' has been viewed over one billion times there and I would say it's anything but a worthwhile musical experience. Your fallacy here is known as bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the people; argument ad populum. "But the general public..." "The general public voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay."

There is a difference between a country populous and a global populous.

NON-SEQUITUR. Why won't you deal in what I said?! You totally used youtube stats as a metric of quality. Let me repeat this slow-ly: THIS_IS_THE_ARGUMENT_FROM_POPULARITY_FALLACY. I did the simplest and most direct thing in the world, I addressed the argument from popularity fallacy you had just presented, with 'One billion views is not in itself persuasive'; and even if one thinks "Hello" is the superlative exemplar of its kind there would tend to be some record in yer awareness that sold enormously that demonstrates the deficiency of popularity as arbiter of quality. I would think.

[woggle]

Well, this Adele record 'Hello' has been viewed over one billion times there and I would say it's anything but a worthwhile musical experience. Your fallacy here is known as bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the people; argument ad populum. "But the general public..." "The general public voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay."

There is a difference between a country populous and a global populous.

NON-SEQUITUR. Why won't you deal in what I said?! You totally used youtube stats as a metric of quality. Let me repeat this slow-ly: THIS_IS_THE_ARGUMENT_FROM_POPULARITY_FALLACY. I did the simplest and most direct thing in the world, I addressed the argument from popularity fallacy you had just presented, with 'One billion views is not in itself persuasive'; and even if one thinks "Hello" is the superlative exemplar of its kind there would tend to be some record in yer awareness that sold enormously that demonstrates the deficiency of popularity as arbiter of quality. I would think.

but your point "Well, this Adele record 'Hello' has been viewed over one billion times there and I would say it's anything but a worthwhile musical experience" isn't a criticism of harryupbabble's point. harryupbabble has said that those sorts of (youtube) stats matter to him and you are implying they don't matter to you. That's a couple of self-reports about personal values. I assume you are both being truthful

[jancivil]

Well, this Adele record 'Hello' has been viewed over one billion times there and I would say it's anything but a worthwhile musical experience. Your fallacy here is known as bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the people; argument ad populum. "But the general public..." "The general public voted for Hitler and likes Coldplay."

To be clear, those kinds of statistics weren't the things that I was talking about. I want to know if people tune out in 10 seconds, a few minutes, or if they can stomach an entire track or more.

My remark there has nothing to do with your post regarding youtube stats. HarryUpBabble used views and thumbs up/down tallies as a measure of quality. So the day I saw "Hello" on youtube behind people discussed it here, I found Dweezil's new album (Sept 2015) with views of double digits. A million views will never happen because there isn't any industry push, there isn't any push because it isn't that kind of record. The industry's enthusiasm is determined by the perpetually 13 years old <Debbie> who does not have any use for that record.

[jancivil]

Well, this Adele record 'Hello' has been viewed over one billion times there and I would say it's anything but a worthwhile musical experience. Your fallacy here is known as bandwagon fallacy, appeal to the people; argument ad populum. "

There is a difference between a country populous and a global populous.

NON-SEQUITUR. Why won't you deal in what I said?! You totally used youtube stats as a metric of quality. Let me repeat this slow-ly: THIS_IS_THE_ARGUMENT_FROM_POPULARITY_FALLACY.

but your point "Well, this Adele record 'Hello' has been viewed over one billion times there and I would say it's anything but a worthwhile musical experience" isn't a criticism of harryupbabble's point. harryupbabble has said that those sorts of (youtube) stats matter to him and you are implying they don't matter to you. That's a couple of self-reports about personal values. I assume you are both being truthful

What.the.f**k. No, Harry presented the appeal to popularity fallacy quite OBVIOUSLY and did it a number of times. My point was really very simple: THIS_IS_THE_ARGUMENT_FROM_POPULARITY_FALLACY. I don't know what's hard about that point.

[woggle]

there's nothing hard about your point, but you applied the fallacy incorrectly (on the quoted bit anyway) as harryupbabble was not making an argument - he was merely saying that he found those stats important for forming a personal view. That is not committing a logical fallacy, that's recounting a chain of influence. If someone says they like artist 'X' because she is popular there is no point of logic that can make that claim untrue.

[mellotronaut]

is my music better or worse?
i've done a lot of spontaneous stuff with unintentional elements: sometimes charming, sometimes annoying. there were lots of test runs in the monthly music café with sometimes funny, sometimes irritating results.
i like professionalism and i adore it and i'm far from professional, not just in music making. my life has been close to some edge most of the time and improvised. it makes me sick and ill and i love it. reflection is overwhelmingly good. it's all about pampers.

[ghettosynth]

Anyways, assuming that the YouTube stats system is not corrupted too much, the Shaggs stats for that video is really extremely good in terms of thumbs-up/thumbs-down ratio. 17 to 1. Wow. 1 to 1 is already good, no? But 17 to 1?

Maybe it's just a matter of exposure. Suppose the Shaggs get watched by the Earth's entire population and all watchers are required to give either a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down then I doubt the Shaggs's stats would remain at 17/1.

You don't need to expose the entire earth's population to the Shaggs, only a representative and random sample. The listeners that choose to listen are no such thing. So it's not surprising that the stats are skewed.

[jancivil]

YouTube stats for that Shaggs video is 230,995 views and 1,738 of those people bothered to give it a thumbs-up but only 141 gave it a thumbs-down: a 17 to 1 favourable ratio.

my music is way way way worse because my stats for my most watched video is 34,622 views with 17 thumbs-up and 42 thumbs-down.

17 to 1. Wow. 1 to 1 is already good, no? But 17 to 1?

Of course, this is all based on people's opinions mattering. I guess it's possible that some music-makers pay no attention to other people's opinions since they probably think that music is subjective, and rightly so for thinking that?

Why should I care about opinions, why would this "matter" at all? My default position is neutral as to everyone, the existence of your opinion has zero impact thru itself. If you present a well-reasoned line in support of a view your view has been embiggened to my view, if what you do is this post we're at square one. In neither scenario does your opinion alter my view in the least.

[woggle]

Anyways, assuming that the YouTube stats system is not corrupted too much, the Shaggs stats for that video is really extremely good in terms of thumbs-up/thumbs-down ratio. 17 to 1. Wow. 1 to 1 is already good, no? But 17 to 1?

Maybe it's just a matter of exposure. Suppose the Shaggs get watched by the Earth's entire population and all watchers are required to give either a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down then I doubt the Shaggs's stats would remain at 17/1.

You don't need to expose the entire earth's population to the Shaggs, only a representative and random sample. The listeners that choose to listen are no such thing. So it's not surprising that the stats are skewed.

people get influenced by seeing how other people vote as well - there's some research on that but I don't think it is clear yet what is being influenced ie whether you like it coz others like it or, if you like it anyway you will like it even more if you see that others like it

[jancivil]

there's nothing hard about your point, but you applied the fallacy incorrectly (on the quoted bit anyway) as harryupbabble was not making an argument - he was merely saying that he found those stats important for forming a personal view. That is not committing a logical fallacy, that's recounting a chain of influence. If someone says they like artist 'X' because she is popular there is no point of logic that can make that claim untrue.

In fact, he said "my music is worse" than The Shaggs based in ratio of upvotes to downvotes. So now he's only recounted a 'chain of influence'? Influence on WHAT? He's evaluated views and likes in order to evaluate The Shaggs as good or bad. This is not good reasoning and the fault is 'popularity in itself denotes quality' is a fallacy. Equally, your attempt to confuse the issue is fallacious: no one has said 'this fallacy means your claim of basing your assessment on popularity can't be true'. That's quite absurd. I'm not the one confused here.

[woggle]

there's nothing hard about your point, but you applied the fallacy incorrectly (on the quoted bit anyway) as harryupbabble was not making an argument - he was merely saying that he found those stats important for forming a personal view. That is not committing a logical fallacy, that's recounting a chain of influence. If someone says they like artist 'X' because she is popular there is no point of logic that can make that claim untrue.

In fact, he said "my music is worse" than The Shaggs based in ratio of upvotes to downvotes. So now he's only recounted a 'chain of influence'? Influence on WHAT? He's evaluated views and likes in order to evaluate The Shaggs as good or bad. This is not good reasoning and the fault is 'popularity in itself denotes quality' is a fallacy. Equally, your attempt to confuse the issue is fallacious: no one has said 'this fallacy means your claim of basing your assessment on popularity can't be true'. That's quite absurd. I'm not the one confused here.

Yeah, you are a bit confused but I'm not going to try and help you with that anymore. Don't lose the shouting though - works a treat.

[Daags]

damn. this thread had promise. instead it's devolved into a typically egocentric, hand-wringing pseudo-philosophical circle-jerk.

[woggle]

damn. this thread had promise. instead it's devolved into a typically egocentric, hand-wringing pseudo-philosophical circle-jerk.

you are right and I was sucked in. Happens every so often.

[ghettosynth]

damn. this thread had promise. instead it's devolved into a typically egocentric, hand-wringing pseudo-philosophical circle-jerk.

Heh, keeping it real!

Alright then, back to where we were and all that