|
Post by JessieLou on Oct 1, 2015 8:40:09 GMT -5
the question is: if you think something that is usually well respected is overrated, maybe it's because you don't get it? at the time there weren't that many groundbreaking artists. The first lady of rock and roll has a message for you:
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Oct 1, 2015 19:26:00 GMT -5
I believe the study is likely as factual as gravity given the parameters though. To say it is not is to say the authors of the study have intentionally misappropriated the data of their study. Or I guess you could be insinuating these tenured professors are incapable of research? That's the thing. They could have intentionally misappropriated the data. Do we know why this study was done in the first place? Was it funded by anyone in particular? Was there a particular theory that was tested prior to it? Or maybe there are other criteria that went missing for this study that pretty much nulls these results. To accept this or any study at face value is poor science. All scientists should analyze with the intention of justification. But to insinuate blanket statements about individuals such as myself adjusting criteria of fun research like this is preposterous. Questioning intent is a very credible and legitimate thing to question for any study. In regards to music, the use of the word "iconic" itself is questionable - though I suspect it was used for the article headline rather than in the actual study? I'm not sure. In any case, music has technical aspects to it that are down to math and science and can't be debated, but for what this study claims to test, there's so much that can influence the results. The mere fact that the top 5 songs are also well-regarded just because is one big confound. Is it the sound of the songs that holds attention or the fact the songs are so familiar to most of us and are viewed in such high regard that one can't purposely ignore them because there's a certain social requirement that says, to some degree, these songs must be at the very least respected, if not liked.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Oct 1, 2015 20:34:46 GMT -5
Most of the artists in the list are, to me, pretty basic. I suppose we can twist the past, and include all the old bands in this list and be right in calling them original, since back then, the music genres were not as diverse as now. So you get that. But Whitney? ABBA? Beach Boys? What's not to get? These are basic artists that at most, made really catchy music. I do get them, but I dismiss them. Maybe it depends on your definition of basic. Seems to me that you might be dismissing them on the basis that their music isn't layered with hidden meanings and ideas - or maybe they are? In any case, if their music is limited to merely being "really catchy", there's certainly an art to making something universally catchy, don't you think? Nothing basic about that, otherwise we'd all be capable of it.
|
|
J.T.
"I have great faith in fools; my friends call it confidence."
Posts: 1,455
|
Post by J.T. on Oct 1, 2015 20:57:19 GMT -5
I believe the study is likely as factual as gravity given the parameters though. To say it is not is to say the authors of the study have intentionally misappropriated the data of their study. Or I guess you could be insinuating these tenured professors are incapable of research? That's the thing. They could have intentionally misappropriated the data. Do we know why this study was done in the first place? Was it funded by anyone in particular? Was there a particular theory that was tested prior to it? Or maybe there are other criteria that went missing for this study that pretty much nulls these results. To accept this or any study at face value is poor science. I believe we're saying similar things with a single paradigmatic caveat. I lean toward cautious optimism when an article is published in a Tier 1 journal, has faced peer review, and is published in an academic format with a methodology that is well reasoned and sound. You seem to lean toward questioning the study. I'm not sure what indices you use when choosing to accept a study. But I know plenty of excellent researchers who are more aligned with your approach than mine and you may very well be taking a better approach than me. With that said, the folk who I note normally taking an approach similar to your own are the naturalistic inquiry folk. This is a study in the positivist paradigm. When assessing a positivist study I put on my Vienna Circle hat and shy away from the Charmaz, Guba, and Lincoln types. I do not know an awful lot about you so perhaps I am preaching to the choir or barking up the wrong tree...but, and this is my primary point and what I believe our difference is: to assess a positivist study with a social constructionist paradigm is like trying to test gravity in a vacuum. It is an exercise in futility. Instead I do make an attempt to assess works on their merits in their proposed paradigm.
|
|
MIKEB
The King Of Rationality
Posts: 4,536
|
Post by MIKEB on Oct 1, 2015 21:17:58 GMT -5
Using plain language, I'd just like to see the study for myself to see what they actually tested. If they were comparing qualities of a song that people responded most positively to, then that's definitely acceptable because more often than not, they're not testing songs themselves because there's too much emotional and preconceptions about specific songs and artists to be able to do that without having external influences hinder the results. Simply put, if we were to test the most well-liked genre of music in a scientific setting and used participants who were already partial to specific artists while they also detested other specific artists, it wouldn't exactly be a reliable test if those artists were to show up as representations of certain genres of music. But if you were to test which musical instruments and/or tempo and/or whatever got the most positive response, that's also doable.
I think my issue with this study is that you can't use historically well-known songs as auditory examples in determining what qualities of a song makes it iconic unless the participants are people who have no previous exposure to those songs. Otherwise, you face the possibility of having previous associations (whether emotional or otherwise) cloud potential responses of those specific songs - the songs aren't on an equal playing field. It's like doing a memory test using patterns of numbers commonly found in society. Then it's no longer a test of memory of numbers unless you're testing lifetime exposure to those stimuli. But again, it's entirely possible the original article (found in the first post of this thread) just took one aspect of the actual study and framed it in such a way to make it about the top 5 songs mentioned rather than what the actual study itself was about. As I said, I'd have to read it to see.
|
|
J.T.
"I have great faith in fools; my friends call it confidence."
Posts: 1,455
|
Post by J.T. on Oct 2, 2015 13:32:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JessieLou on Oct 2, 2015 17:06:34 GMT -5
This is the kind of study you can throw out the window. But "Pretty Vegas" isn't mentioned in this quiz.
|
|