another topic on the value of music

If that were true then how come they make announcements in subways, put up adverts and people pass out flyers? If they really thought people weren't paying attention, this would be futile, right?

It would be futile if they expected a massive, instantaneous cash response and only left the advertisement in place for 43 minutes, in one station. Obviously there is a big difference between attempting to entice people to hand over money with a short performance, vs. putting up dozens of advertisements citywide for weeks or months, with the sole aim of putting a brand in people's consciousness.
 
Most musicians don't perform for "society as a whole", they perform for audiences. I haven't seen the thing you describe- I've found that in situations where people want to hear music and/or expect to be entertained, they are very easy to please. When they would rather be talking to their date, friends or family, or if music is being thrust upon them at an inconvenient time- as in the "experiment"- they're more difficult, sometimes impossible to reach. It's a completely different dynamic from what you describe. And they do respond to the band in the room with them, not the hypothetical abundance of others they might like better. I'm sure there are a few psychos out there who can't talk to a woman doing this, but most people and audiences do actually respond personally in these situations.

True enough, but even when up and coming bands are performing for a specific group, marketing their wares to an intended audience, isn’t it true that their status is more akin to that of a street busker?

Sure. Like anything else, if you want to sell massive quantities you have to market it. Regardless of its quality.

I don’t think that was in dispute, since every surely musician knows the importance of “marketing”. But then, when you hear some confident songwriters harping on about the odds of their future success (as they often assert, “I have the right material”) maybe they’re a bit naive as to how much of a role the context and packaging plays?

It may surprise many of you to learn that Jerzy Kosinsky's bestselling novel 'Steps' was rejected by all 27 publishers it was sent to under a different name and title (by some practical joker), including Random House who originally published it! It was a proven hit, and even the publishing house who originally published it sent a rejection letter. I guess it's a good example on how randomness and bad judgements are as common, maybe even more so, than successful ones whether or not good material was present. And these were 27 publishers who are supposedly able to spot what they think are hits. Odd, than not one of them spotted a best-selling novel in their midst.

Todd, given that you are well-versed in art, what’s your take on the actual value of art? What do you look for when assessing the value of a piece? This experiment has been done with wine tasting (cheap wine in expensive bottles getting a higher rating) and with high priced art being “down-graded” in price and then ends up being passed up as a cheaper work. What do you think makes a piece of art worth while? And how does anyone actually know what makes something great? Even wine snobs have been fooled, so what does that tell us?

It would be futile if they expected a massive, instantaneous cash response and only left the advertisement in place for 43 minutes, in one station. Obviously there is a big difference between attempting to entice people to hand over money with a short performance, vs. putting up dozens of advertisements citywide for weeks or months, with the sole aim of putting a brand in people's consciousness.

Depends on the advertisement though, doesn’t it? Someone suggested people are too busy commuting to notice much going on, when obviously some people did notice the guy playing. That’s all I was pointing out. I mean, a violinist playing music has both a visual and audio properties to catch one’s attention, whereas an advertisement is static. But the point was, not all commuters are 'too busy' not to notice things.
 
True enough, but even when up and coming bands are performing for a specific group, marketing their wares to an intended audience, isn’t it true that their status is more akin to that of a street busker?

I don't follow you at all. What do you mean by status, and what does that have to do with it?

I don’t think that was in dispute, since every surely musician knows the importance of “marketing”. But then, when you hear some confident songwriters harping on about the odds of their future success (as they often assert, “I have the right material”) maybe they’re a bit naive as to how much of a role the context and packaging plays?

I can't judge "their" naiveté. Again, I'm not sure what you're saying- they understand the importance marketing but not of context and packaging?

Todd, given that you are well-versed in art, what’s your take on the actual value of art? What do you look for when assessing the value of a piece? This experiment has been done with wine tasting (cheap wine in expensive bottles getting a higher rating) and with high priced art being “down-graded” in price and then ends up being passed up as a cheaper work. What do you think makes a piece of art worth while? And how does anyone actually know what makes something great? Even wine snobs have been fooled, so what does that tell us?

You mean, what does the anecdote tell us if it's true and the interpretation is correct. If it's anything like the violinist "experiment", it might not actually reveal much except the biases/ineptness of the people who made it up.

Otherwise, I wish you would focus your points better. Do you really talk to people by bombarding them with strings of barely-related questions?
 
Tommy, I'm thinking about the fish again (my first post on the thread) ... a similar principle with the busking virtuoso, successful trash pop, the Perrier, the wine tests, the art presentation ... it's generally about only a minority with the sensibilities to deeply understand art/music/wine/whatever who form the opinions and other following in their wake. You have the opinion makers and the opinion takers.

Packaging and marketing follows this course too - if someone takes the trouble to present something well then, if are are unsure of our own judgement, then we are more likely to assume that it's been valued by someone and therefore valuable. Advertising plays on this impulse all the time.

Looking forward to the next big bout between the two Ts ... as a spectator, may I suggest that you guys type normal prose responses rather than the zebra crossings? In packaging / presentation terms it's much better (if not too long) and therefore more likely to be read and convince the audience :)
 
Now you're talking :)

The experiment has its faults, and we can't draw any hard conclusions, but it's a valid metaphor for the plight of many musicians today, no?

Indeed, 'packaging' certainly has a lot to do with perceived 'value'.

I agree. Packaging as you perceive it has been around forever (Frank Sinatra as one example)but I also think nowadays it's harder to stick out. World class music yet no one pays attention... nothing really shocks anyone anymore.
 
I don't follow you at all. What do you mean by status, and what does that have to do with it?
For the same reason that if it was a famous pop star busking at that Subway, more people would have noticed because they possess more status. Self-starter musicians don’t have that kind of social currency to draw on right away. You follow me now?

I can't judge "their" naiveté. Again, I'm not sure what you're saying- they understand the importance marketing but not of context and packaging.
I think so. For every musician who reckons they have a winning hit, they might not realise just how important the context and packaging that goes into marketing.

You mean, what does the anecdote tell us if it's true and the interpretation is correct. If it's anything like the violinist "experiment", it might not actually reveal much except the biases/ineptness of the people who made it up.

Otherwise, I wish you would focus your points better. Do you really talk to people by bombarding them with strings of barely-related questions?
Ouch! Todd, where’s the love? I’m just asking some questions here, looking for genuine answers. I’m really curious. Enlighten me, please. You did mention you had 25 years of experience with art, so I just wanted to get your take on how you evaluate a “performance”. How do you spot a fake from an authentic?

And, the wine tasting and art “framing” experiments are not merely anecdotes. They have been reproduced many times to demonstrate cognitive biases. My main question then is, knowing these biases exist, how do you then determine what makes a great piece of art, so great?
 
It's generally about only a minority with the sensibilities to deeply understand art/music/wine/whatever who form the opinions and others following in their wake.
OK, but does that then make taste superior, and something one has to educate themselves on? Maybe I’m opening a can of worms asking that question...

Even still, wine buffs who reckon they know good wine still get caught out with cheap plonk in a fancy bottle. I'm wondering then, if their taste buds seem to like the plonk, is that really so bad? Because otherwise it just looks like they're giving the expensive wine a good rating because they're supposed to. Cheap wine is supposed to be cheap and inferior because we expect it to be (and we can draw on examples where it actually did taste bad), yet people (even experts) can't always tell the difference when you remove the context for them. What does this say about their expertise then? Seemingly, we take our cues from labels of distinction (from what other people say about it).
 
Ouch! Todd, where’s the love?

I wasn't saying it to be mean. If you want a discussion, you need to make concrete points, otherwise it's just wanking.

I’m just asking some questions here, looking for genuine answers. I’m really curious. Enlighten me, please. You did mention you had 25 years of experience with art, so I just wanted to get your take on how you evaluate a “performance”. How do you spot a fake from an authentic?

The concept of fake vs. authentic is completely off my radar. I honestly don't even know what the word means in a musical context. It barely even has meaning in art, where it's more of a curatorial matter than an artistic one: to be a convincing forgery, a painting has to be a work of art in its own right. At any rate, I'm not qualified to evaluate artistic forgeries.

And, the wine tasting and art “framing” experiments are not merely anecdotes. They have been reproduced many times to demonstrate cognitive biases.

Yeah, they keep turning up, and they're generally BS created to make some kind of editorial statement to buck up middle America that their biases are all true. There was one years ago where someone submitted for critique a painting by an ape; some art people liked it, and this was taken as proof that modern art is a fraud. Or something. It's a journalistic game.

My main question then is, knowing these biases exist, how do you then determine what makes a great piece of art, so great?

Two things:
- The fact that game-playing people can occasionally make experts look like fools does not negate the concept of expertise. Experts are not the final word on everything, but they're not worthless.
- Greatness in art does not just mean taking someone's word for it that a painter/painting/musician is "really, really, reeelly good", and it's not just a question of taste or of the effect of a particular piece on a viewer. There are less subjective things in play, like artistic/technical innovations, the scale of the artist's output, their place in history, and influence on society and other artists.
 
Todd, it’s an Internet discussion board, not a televised university debate. I'm not being smart here but look around you: there’s “wanking” off all kinds on this message board. That’s why people share their thoughts with others, to open the floor to an exchange of ideas. I even mentioned in my OP, that it wasn’t 100% coherent. You don’t have to respond to me.

Now, just a few things:

I wasn’t trying to negate the expertise of all experts. I don’t agree that someone can take these framing experiments as concrete evidence that all critics don’t know what they’re talking about. The point was to highlight the actual process of how people evaluate things, that if you alter the context in such a way, they can still give it high praise but for reasons they think have to do with its material qualities, when in reality, if they really were judging it on that property, they would rate it much lower, and have done so. The reverse also happened, where expensive wines were priced at $5 and people rated them lower in value than the bottle marked $90 containing plonk. If people trust their taste buds, then something is afoot.

I think your perception of it being merely a journalistic game is a little cynical, but I don’t know what articles you’ve read, and maybe the writer was being a bit hyperbolic, so it’s understandable. In fairness, a lot of journalism is that way for a reason: to get a reaction with bold assertion. Controversy sells, after all.

I think people fall back on their mental heuristics, since we are all cognitive misers in some aspects: expensive = good; less expensive = bad. And 99% of the time, we’re usually right. But you can see the problem when it comes to evaluating things which have a tendency to be much more subjective and, in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn’t know how to properly “interpret” a popular rock song, for instance. I listen to it, pass it through my frame of reference (past songs) and then figure out whether I like it or not. But some people reckon there’s a “correct” way to interpret music, art, and whatnot, and I'm really curious about the methodology involved.

Isn’t that what people do in university too? Students sit in class and get spoon-fed information. In theory, university classes teach you critical thought, but what really happens is that you learn to regurgitate someone else’s insights in your own words. This is fine when it comes to matter-of-fact things, like the sciences and any other number of subjects, but concerning more subjective tastes, it gets more complicated, no? If Pablo Picasso had lived in a poor African country rather than in Paris at the centre of the art world being surrounded by glamour and avant-garde artists, would people still have considered him to be a genius? It's a question that doesn't have an answer. You might say people would have recognised his greatness but again, people have missed out on greatness, even when it was handed right to them (the example of Jerzy Kosinsky's bestselling novel 'Steps' ).

The part about greatness in art not being just about taking someone’s word for it: I agree that an evaluation of art will obviously take into account the skill involved, their output scale and how many people they have influenced, etc. But aren’t all those evaluations still validated by other people? People argue over how much of a virtuoso some guitarist is, yet no one will buy his music because it doesn’t do anything for them.

And don’t people argue over the perceived amount of effort put into a piece of work? In another experiment, subjects were shown 2 identical paintings with one group being told it took the artist 4 hours to paint, and the other group being told 26 hours. The second group rated the piece higher in quality and value.

Exact same piece; different evaluation.

The concept of fake vs. authentic is completely off my radar. I honestly don't even know what the word means in a musical context.
I'm surprised you haven't encountered this before. I'm not trying to hand out a reading assignment but this book:

385413.jpg


...outlays where the idea of authenticity has been invoked in debates and evaluations of music.

Andrew Potter's The Authenticity Hoax is a good one too, which deals with the concept overall in the context of modernity.
 
Last edited:
Todd, it’s an Internet discussion board, not a televised university debate. I'm not being smart here but look around you: there’s “wanking” off all kinds on this message board. That’s why people share their thoughts with others, to open the floor to an exchange of ideas. I even mentioned in my OP, that it wasn’t 100% coherent. You don’t have to respond to me.

No, but I choose to, though I'm rapidly losing interest. I don't care if it's the Internet, you still need to be able to make a point clearly.

Reading the rest of your response, I've lost interest already- sorry. I've said what I have to say about your original post, and I can't follow the changes of subject you seem to be free-associating (we're going from fake in the sense of deceptively labeled wine to fake in the rock & roll sense of being a "poser"? Really?). Have fun, I'm back to the drum forum. Best- tb
 
No, but I choose to, though I'm rapidly losing interest. I don't care if it's the Internet, you still need to be able to make a point clearly.

Reading the rest of your response, I've lost interest already- sorry. I've said what I have to say about your original post, and I can't follow the changes of subject you seem to be free-associating (we're going from fake in the sense of deceptively labeled wine to fake in the rock & roll sense of being a "poser"? Really?). Have fun, I'm back to the drum forum. Best- tb

Lighten up, Francis.
 
Tommy, no one listens to music in a vacuum. Every time you listen to something, you create a mental image of what that music embodies. Even when you listen to a guy playing the violin, you conjure up imagery that goes along with what you hear. Try listening to a Ray Charles track and tell me you can't see Ray bobbing around to the rhythm smiling. That's one example of many.

The majority won't follow you to the "you should only listen to the music and not look at the show" because they don't think as much about it as you or I do... they just enjoy what they like to listen to, and they listen to things which they identify with, be it a cultural message or whatever.

And by the way, I can use your argument about pop stars against you: Who is to say that the violinist was as talented as everyone thinks he is? Who is to say his violin is worth the many millions he paid for it? Who is to say that violin is more enjoyable to listen to that a one-string slide guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCFXeChXfcI ?

Every person has their personal taste in music, and let the record / tix sales speak for themselves!
 
I posted this link a while back in a different thread, but I figured I would post it again due to the relevance of it to this topic. It's an interview with Duke Ellington, and I think that what he says from 2:29 to the end fits right in with this issue we are discussing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9F_hRpwL4M
 
Last edited:
That’s fine Todd, like I said earlier, you’re not obligated to reply and if you have indeed lost interest, that’s fair enough. Thanks for your initial input.
 
Tommy, no one listens to music in a vacuum. Every time you listen to something, you create a mental image of what that music embodies. Even when you listen to a guy playing the violin, you conjure up imagery that goes along with what you hear. Try listening to a Ray Charles track and tell me you can't see Ray bobbing around to the rhythm smiling. That's one example of many.

The majority won't follow you to the "you should only listen to the music and not look at the show" because they don't think as much about it as you or I do... they just enjoy what they like to listen to, and they listen to things which they identify with, be it a cultural message or whatever.

And by the way, I can use your argument about pop stars against you: Who is to say that the violinist was as talented as everyone thinks he is? Who is to say his violin is worth the many millions he paid for it? Who is to say that violin is more enjoyable to listen to that a one-string slide guitar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCFXeChXfcI ?

Every person has their personal taste in music, and let the record / tix sales speak for themselves!

Well, let's not misrepresent my stance: I never said one should only listen to the music and ignore the context but I completely agree with the gist of your post hence, why I probed the evaluation process of music, art, taste in general, etc.

When people praise something, they give all kinds of reasons for why they think that way. But sometimes the reason they cite isn’t the actual reason at all. They’re not lying; it’s usually because they are not consciously aware of how their perception is being coloured.

Here’s one parallel just to finish up on the topic:

When religious people are asked for why they believe, and then why other religious people believe, the reasons are not the same.

Michael Shermer took part in a survey that he collaborated on with Frank Sulloway which explored the reasons that religious people give for belief. When people were asked why they themselves personally believed in god, the responses broke down as follows:

1. Good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe (28.6%)
2. Experience of God in everyday life/a feeling that God is in us (20.6%)
3. It is comforting, relieving, consoling, and gives meaning and purpose to life (10.3%)
4. The Bible says so (9.8%)
5. Just because/faith/or the need to believe in something (8.2%)
6. Raised to believe in God (7.2%)
7. God answers prayers (6.4%)
8. Without God there would be no morality (4.0%)
9. God has a plan for the world, history, destiny, and us (3.8%)
10. To account for good and avenge evil in the world (1.0%)

But when the same people are asked why they think other people believe in god, the results are as follows:

1. It is comforting, relieving, consoling, and gives meaning and purpose to life. (26.3%)
2. Raised to believe in God. (22.4%)
3. Experience of God in everyday life/a feeling that God is in us. (16.2%)
4. Just because/faith/or the need to believe in something. (13.0%)
5. People believe because they fear death and the unknown. (9.1%)
6. Good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe. (6.0%)
7. The Bible says so (5.0%)
8. Without God there would be no morality (3.5%)
9. To account for good and avenge evil in the world (1.5%)
10. God answers prayers (1.0%)

Emotions and wishful thinking (1, 4, 5, 8, 9) now rise to the top (53.4%), habit and authority (2, 7) comes second at 27.4%, while evidence (3, 6, 10) comes in last at 23.2%.
What is interesting about these results is that believers tend to think that while they themselves have rational reasons to believe in god, they think other people do so for emotional or irrational reasons.

A long time ago, I used to get into heated discussions over music; why this band was greater than the other and the only reasons people could like some other band (that I disliked) was because the band had a sexy female singer or because the fans had bad taste. Think of the indie rocker kid dissing commercial pop music.

I think the majority of discussions about taste lead to a kind of dead end. And like I was saying in the Great Musicianship = Limited Access? thread:

No judgement on taste is innocent. We are all snobs. In the course of everyday life we constantly choose between what we find aesthetically pleasing and what we find tacky, merely trendy, or ugly. Taste is not pure, and Bourdieu demonstrates that our different aesthetic choices are all distinctions – that is, choices made in opposition to those made by others.
 
Tommy, you said in reply to my comment ... It's generally about only a minority with the sensibilities to deeply understand art/music/wine/whatever who form the opinions and others following in their wake.


OK, but does that then make taste superior, and something one has to educate themselves on? Maybe I’m opening a can of worms asking that question...

Even still, wine buffs who reckon they know good wine still get caught out with cheap plonk in a fancy bottle. I'm wondering then, if their taste buds seem to like the plonk, is that really so bad? Because otherwise it just looks like they're giving the expensive wine a good rating because they're supposed to. Cheap wine is supposed to be cheap and inferior because we expect it to be (and we can draw on examples where it actually did taste bad), yet people (even experts) can't always tell the difference when you remove the context for them. What does this say about their expertise then? Seemingly, we take our cues from labels of distinction (from what other people say about it).

The opinion makers' tastes are more developed and many-sided than that of the followers. But taste is often just taste ... X floats your boat and Y doesn't, unless you're talking about connoisseurship. My point was just that when people follow, what determines their choice is as much to do with security and validation as it does their innate taste. The "I'll have what she's having" syndrome ...

Not judging, since it's logical enough. However, it leads to anomalies like the busking virtuoso violinist. If he plays in a major hall then people know he's a pro. If he plays on the street, well, any bum can busk ... but wow, he sounds pretty good. No standing ovation or encore, though. Validation.

The other side when talking about the value of music in this context IMO is the busking violinist example shows us how important presentation is ... the wooden stage and velvet curtains instead of a dirty street ... the atmospheric lights instead of bright sunlight ... the silence of a focused audience instead of street sounds and distracted crowds. It's all designed to enhance the musical experience.
 
The opinion makers' tastes are more developed and many-sided than that of the followers. But taste is often just taste ... X floats your boat and Y doesn't, unless you're talking about connoisseurship. My point was just that when people follow, what determines their choice is as much to do with security and validation as it does their innate taste. The "I'll have what she's having" syndrome ...

Not judging, since it's logical enough. However, it leads to anomalies like the busking virtuoso violinist. If he plays in a major hall then people know he's a pro. If he plays on the street, well, any bum can busk ... but wow, he sounds pretty good. No standing ovation or encore, though. Validation.

The other side when talking about the value of music in this context IMO is the busking violinist example shows us how important presentation is ... the wooden stage and velvet curtains instead of a dirty street ... the atmospheric lights instead of bright sunlight ... the silence of a focused audience instead of street sounds and distracted crowds. It's all designed to enhance the musical experience.

Well said. I agree, and it's why I think people who call the masses “sheeple” for their “common” tastes sound a bit hypocritical, when for all they know, they are equally swayed by the sensibilities of others.

All I wanted to say, was why self-starters and unsigned bands are finding it tougher to get heard these days (ironically, in an era where “getting heard” is much easier than before) because while there still is an audience eager for great music from such musicians, they have to sift through heaps of “amateur” performances that don’t excite the ears, and in many cases leave them jaded altogether.

Expectations are thus lowered in this mundane context of over saturation, where anyone can be in band, and the group blowing their own promotional trumpet (sans the thumbs up of a record label PR team or mass social validation) doesn’t always cut the mustard for people. I think the plight of such musicians is much like the plight of street buskers. Not a revelation, but it’s worth remembering, always.
 
Back
Top