Objecting to the results

I've been told I've been objecting to the results of the UnTwelve Competition more than anyone else ever has, which I find to be a remarkable claim given that I haven't objected to them at all. Doing so would scarcely be possible, since I haven't heard most of the entries. So I want to make it clear that objecting to the results isn't what I am doing, and if you don't agree I issue this challenge--show me where I objected to the results, quoting what I said.

I did and do have some objections. I'm good at having objections, and one of the things I object to is people responding not to what I say, but how it comes across to them on an emotional level. If you think I am a bit annoyed, you are correct; but the default assumption should be, I think, that I'm annoyed about what I say I am annoyed about, and not something else. It's elementary psychology to surmise I would be less cranky if I had won a prize--in part, just because I would feel more of a moral obligation to soft-peddle any objections I might have. There's also the principle of the IQ test: you may object to treating it as a measurement, but probably more quietly if you scored highly. But that's psychology, it's not the point at issue.

In the spirit of full disclosure, having listened to last year's results, I think the person who should have won didn't even place. I'll give my own ranking when I've sorted it out and if you want to call that objecting to the results I suppose you may. It's really more by way of illustrating my point that the results of adding up apples and oranges isn't a measurement, or even a fruit salad, and should not be presented as one. That, I DO object to.

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:14 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> In the spirit of full disclosure, having listened to last year's results, I think the person who should have won didn't even place. I'll give my own ranking when I've sorted it out and if you want to call that objecting to the results I suppose you may. It's really more by way of illustrating my point that the results of adding up apples and oranges isn't a measurement, or even a fruit salad, and should not be presented as one. That, I DO object to.

You're basically saying that a panel of judges voting based on their
opinion doesn't say anything about the artistic merit of a work, and
that to insinuate that this is the case adds insult to injury for the
losers, right?

-Mike

Gene>"Doing so would scarcely be possible, since I haven't heard most of the
entries. So I want to make it clear that objecting to the results isn't what I
am doing, and if you don't agree I issue this challenge--show me where I
objected to the results, quoting what I said...."
...but....
"In the spirit of full disclosure, having listened to last year's results, I
think the person who should have won didn't even place. I'll give my own
ranking when I've sorted it out"

MikeB>"You're basically saying that a panel of judges voting based on their
opinion doesn't say anything about the artistic merit of a work, and that to
insinuate that this is the case adds insult to injury for the losers, right?"

If I get it right, Gene is simply saying he does not agree with the
ranking...not that the judges opinion does not have artistic merit...but that
their one single Apples + Oranges vote from many judges of many different
opinions does not quite constitute a fair representation of the musical
community and the music community should, perhaps ideally, be allowed to be
involved in the voting process for songs (other than their own, of course).

Alternatives? Personally I think this is an opportunity for someone like
Chris to post a re-rating of songs on his own site and have, say, multiple users
from this list and beyond be able to cast votes. Thus leading to a public vote
to supplement the Untwelve official vote. No, this would not be a "save the
losers" effort...in fact if the official judges opinion was indeed
representative of the "general public", as Aaron seemed to be try for with his
purposefully varied judges, the list should come out much the same. It would
simply, IMVHO, serve to help diffuse any of the "results serve the judge's
opinions over the public's" issues typical of competition voting.

Another note...blocking multiple votes from the same IP would, of course, be
a desirable feature...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> You're basically saying that a panel of judges voting based on their
> opinion doesn't say anything about the artistic merit of a work, and
> that to insinuate that this is the case adds insult to injury for the
> losers, right?

I'm not saying it says nothing, which would be a claim that the results were absolutely uncorrelated with merit, and it would be just as reasonable to decide the winner by throwing darts blindfolded. I'm saying it is not a measurement; it doesn't say everything which needs to be said, and it can't be taken as a result equally valid for all tastes (as the darts would be, in their way.)

Compare to the case of judges evaluating dogs at a dog show, or the technical performance of figure skaters. At a dog show, "best of breed" is not the "best" dog, whatever that means. It means a dog which best exemplifies a detailed list of characteristics considered to be optimal for that particular breed. You don't look at all the breeds together, plus mutts in off the steet, with no particular idea in mind but asking which dog the judge likes. For figure skaters, you look at whether someone did a triple lutz, triple toeloop, executed flawlesslessly, and if they do the crowd ooos and the judges gravely add it to the score. As a consequence, these are much more like measurements--there are quite specific standards in place about the characteristics one is looking for.

None of that is remotely true about a competition contest, and still less about one where the nature of the pieces desired is not specified beyond insisting they be microtonal. The results adding together the scores even of similar judges in such a case would hardly amount to a measurement of value, and still less so when the judges are not chosen to represent any point of view on what is desirable in music. To claim to be presenting only the best, with everything else not worthy of attention, is presumptuous in any contest in the arts, but it's manifestly foolish under circumstances like these. That it adds insult to injury to the losers is one good reason not to say something idiotic, but there are obviously others.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
> If I get it right, Gene is simply saying he does not agree with the
> ranking...not that the judges opinion does not have artistic merit...but that
> their one single Apples + Oranges vote from many judges of many different
> opinions does not quite constitute a fair representation of the musical
> community and the music community should, perhaps ideally, be allowed to be
> involved in the voting process for songs (other than their own, of course).

I'm not saying anything so long and complicated. I'm saying don't make claims like "we are interested in promoting only the best, and these are the best". That's presumptuous even when a clear idea exists as to what kind of music is best, which in this case it does not. When they hand out Oscars, they may call one "Best Picture" but to assume it actually is and that no one should watch anything else until they've watched it would be damned silly. The Oscars are supposed to promote the film industry in general, not to piss on it.

> Alternatives? Personally I think this is an opportunity for someone like
> Chris to post a re-rating of songs on his own site and have, say, multiple users
> from this list and beyond be able to cast votes. Thus leading to a public vote
> to supplement the Untwelve official vote.

That would be interesting if Chris wants to do it and if we can get some agreement that he can host the files, which I haven't heard.

you don't need me.

All you have to do is set up a poll in which ever yahoo group with voter
identity set to visible to prevent anyone loading the votes.
Can't get much easier.

you can have up to 25 choices. If it turns out only 1 vote then you need to
make 3 polls - 1st, 2nd, third place - but honestly one poll should do it.
And the poll can have a time limit.

/tuning/editsurvey

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:11 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com <MakeMicroMusic%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > If I get it right, Gene is simply saying he does not agree with the
> > ranking...not that the judges opinion does not have artistic merit...but
> that
> > their one single Apples + Oranges vote from many judges of many different
>
> > opinions does not quite constitute a fair representation of the musical
> > community and the music community should, perhaps ideally, be allowed to
> be
> > involved in the voting process for songs (other than their own, of
> course).
>
> I'm not saying anything so long and complicated. I'm saying don't make
> claims like "we are interested in promoting only the best, and these are the
> best". That's presumptuous even when a clear idea exists as to what kind of
> music is best, which in this case it does not. When they hand out Oscars,
> they may call one "Best Picture" but to assume it actually is and that no
> one should watch anything else until they've watched it would be damned
> silly. The Oscars are supposed to promote the film industry in general, not
> to piss on it.
>
>
> > Alternatives? Personally I think this is an opportunity for someone like
> > Chris to post a re-rating of songs on his own site and have, say,
> multiple users
> > from this list and beyond be able to cast votes. Thus leading to a public
> vote
> > to supplement the Untwelve official vote.
>
> That would be interesting if Chris wants to do it and if we can get some
> agreement that he can host the files, which I haven't heard.
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gene,

Why are these arguments/complaints still being made?

1) "promoting excellence" means getting people to compose, in this case, by a competition, where they try to do their best and get noticed by some judges. It doesn't mean "we know what's great and here it is". We are NOT the "committee on microtonal aesthetic correction" from a totalitarian fiction that you keep strawman-style claiming we are.

2) relating to 1)--we *will* be posting links to all the pieces that folks agree to allow. 4 or 5 responded so far. Everyone can now make their own judgements, after the 29th, b/c it is our gentlemen's agreement with the contestants that they don't release material until after the concert. In fact, it was always my intent to have links to all the pieces, I just had forgotten that I wrote it on the original competition page until recently. I just hadn't thought through all the administrative minutia...

3) You entered a competition, Gene, where you knew a subjective judgement would be passed on your piece. You should have complained then. Nowhere in the rules or description or mission statement does it say that only the winners are in some 'objective' way 'excellent music' and the losers are 'bad music'. We're not sorry that you weren't a finalist, b/c you had a nice piece that happened to not win. On the contrary, we are proud to say that we helped inspire you to write a piece of microtonal music that many around here have already given positive feedback on. What's the beef? A set of people got together, as you said, and raised some pieces over others as being more attractive to them. That's all that happened. Please, either tell me where UnTwelve said this was an objective measurement of quality, or refrain from your pointless strawman arguments. It's a fantasy.

Everything that you've asked or criticized UnTwelve as not doing is now being done. What more needs to be said? Can we move on? Or do I have to get a new domain: "untwelve.competition.crtiques.moveon.org"?

:)

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
>
> > You're basically saying that a panel of judges voting based on their
> > opinion doesn't say anything about the artistic merit of a work, and
> > that to insinuate that this is the case adds insult to injury for the
> > losers, right?
>
> I'm not saying it says nothing, which would be a claim that the results were absolutely uncorrelated with merit, and it would be just as reasonable to decide the winner by throwing darts blindfolded. I'm saying it is not a measurement; it doesn't say everything which needs to be said, and it can't be taken as a result equally valid for all tastes (as the darts would be, in their way.)
>
> Compare to the case of judges evaluating dogs at a dog show, or the technical performance of figure skaters. At a dog show, "best of breed" is not the "best" dog, whatever that means. It means a dog which best exemplifies a detailed list of characteristics considered to be optimal for that particular breed. You don't look at all the breeds together, plus mutts in off the steet, with no particular idea in mind but asking which dog the judge likes. For figure skaters, you look at whether someone did a triple lutz, triple toeloop, executed flawlesslessly, and if they do the crowd ooos and the judges gravely add it to the score. As a consequence, these are much more like measurements--there are quite specific standards in place about the characteristics one is looking for.
>
> None of that is remotely true about a competition contest, and still less about one where the nature of the pieces desired is not specified beyond insisting they be microtonal. The results adding together the scores even of similar judges in such a case would hardly amount to a measurement of value, and still less so when the judges are not chosen to represent any point of view on what is desirable in music. To claim to be presenting only the best, with everything else not worthy of attention, is presumptuous in any contest in the arts, but it's manifestly foolish under circumstances like these. That it adds insult to injury to the losers is one good reason not to say something idiotic, but there are obviously others.
>

Along with I, changing my domain to www.ozanyarmanisdeadtiredofbeingsingledoutbrandedtrolleranddrivenoffwhenmuchworseduplicitiousexamplesabound.com

Hah hah,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:53 PM, akjmicro wrote:

> Gene,
>
> Why are these arguments/complaints still being made?
>
> 1) "promoting excellence" means getting people to compose, in this case, by a competition, where they try to do their best and get noticed by some judges. It doesn't mean "we know what's great and here it is". We are NOT the "committee on microtonal aesthetic correction" from a totalitarian fiction that you keep strawman-style claiming we are.
>
> 2) relating to 1)--we *will* be posting links to all the pieces that folks agree to allow. 4 or 5 responded so far. Everyone can now make their own judgements, after the 29th, b/c it is our gentlemen's agreement with the contestants that they don't release material until after the concert. In fact, it was always my intent to have links to all the pieces, I just had forgotten that I wrote it on the original competition page until recently. I just hadn't thought through all the administrative minutia...
>
> 3) You entered a competition, Gene, where you knew a subjective judgement would be passed on your piece. You should have complained then. Nowhere in the rules or description or mission statement does it say that only the winners are in some 'objective' way 'excellent music' and the losers are 'bad music'. We're not sorry that you weren't a finalist, b/c you had a nice piece that happened to not win. On the contrary, we are proud to say that we helped inspire you to write a piece of microtonal music that many around here have already given positive feedback on. What's the beef? A set of people got together, as you said, and raised some pieces over others as being more attractive to them. That's all that happened. Please, either tell me where UnTwelve said this was an objective measurement of quality, or refrain from your pointless strawman arguments. It's a fantasy.
>
> Everything that you've asked or criticized UnTwelve as not doing is now being done. What more needs to be said? Can we move on? Or do I have to get a new domain: "untwelve.competition.crtiques.moveon.org"?
>
> :)
>
> AKJ
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
>>
>>> You're basically saying that a panel of judges voting based on their
>>> opinion doesn't say anything about the artistic merit of a work, and
>>> that to insinuate that this is the case adds insult to injury for the
>>> losers, right?
>>
>> I'm not saying it says nothing, which would be a claim that the results were absolutely uncorrelated with merit, and it would be just as reasonable to decide the winner by throwing darts blindfolded. I'm saying it is not a measurement; it doesn't say everything which needs to be said, and it can't be taken as a result equally valid for all tastes (as the darts would be, in their way.)
>>
>> Compare to the case of judges evaluating dogs at a dog show, or the technical performance of figure skaters. At a dog show, "best of breed" is not the "best" dog, whatever that means. It means a dog which best exemplifies a detailed list of characteristics considered to be optimal for that particular breed. You don't look at all the breeds together, plus mutts in off the steet, with no particular idea in mind but asking which dog the judge likes. For figure skaters, you look at whether someone did a triple lutz, triple toeloop, executed flawlesslessly, and if they do the crowd ooos and the judges gravely add it to the score. As a consequence, these are much more like measurements--there are quite specific standards in place about the characteristics one is looking for.
>>
>> None of that is remotely true about a competition contest, and still less about one where the nature of the pieces desired is not specified beyond insisting they be microtonal. The results adding together the scores even of similar judges in such a case would hardly amount to a measurement of value, and still less so when the judges are not chosen to represent any point of view on what is desirable in music. To claim to be presenting only the best, with everything else not worthy of attention, is presumptuous in any contest in the arts, but it's manifestly foolish under circumstances like these. That it adds insult to injury to the losers is one good reason not to say something idiotic, but there are obviously others.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "akjmicro" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> Why are these arguments/complaints still being made?

Because I was told I was complaining about the results, which is false and I wanted to make it very, very clear that wasn't what I was saying. Then I responded to questions.

> 3) You entered a competition, Gene, where you knew a subjective judgement would be passed on your piece. You should have complained then.

You still don't get it. You came on this group and said, not that you were promoting excellence by presenting excellent pieces, but that you were doing so by presenting "the highest quality work that
comes out of this particular field". And that is not the same thing. That is a flat-out claim to be able to determine what is the highest quality and present only that, and it implies everything you didn't present is, objectively and as a matter of fact, not opinion, of lesser quality.

> Nowhere in the rules or description or mission statement does it say that only the winners are in some 'objective' way 'excellent music' and the losers are 'bad music'.

It's what YOU said, Aaron. I was objecting to not having links to all the music, and you basically said you didn't do that because you were only interested in the good stuff.

> We're not sorry that you weren't a finalist, b/c you had a nice piece that happened to not win. On the contrary, we are proud to say that we helped inspire you to write a piece of microtonal music that many around here have already given positive feedback on. What's the beef?

The beef is that you ran it down, along with the work of most of the other contributors.