# Formula(s) for calculating merit



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

OK, this is half-serious, as I know there's no objective way to measure it. It's very subjective. But I am proposing my formula for calculating merit of musical works.
You're welcome to comment on it, modify it, or propose your own formulas.

Merit = (C * M) * 7 + X * 3

where C = complexity index (can go from 0 to 10)
M = memorability index (can go from 0 to 10)

X = factor X (can go from 0 to 100) - includes ideas, innovation, emotions, etc that are present in a piece of music

So according to this calculation, the most perfect piece of music would have score 1000.

Merit = (10*10)*7 + 100*3 = 100*7 + 100*3 = 700+300 = 1000

It would get 70% of its score for pure musical merit, and 30% of its score for everything else, like innovation, emotions expressed, originality, ideas, etc...

So to explain it...
I believe that truly great works are very memorable, in fact, unforgettable. But if they are too simple, they can't be truly great. Beethoven's ta-ta-ta-TAAA motif would be insignificant if it wasn't used in complex ways in his 5th symphony. Just that motif itself would get 10 points for memorability, but perhaps just 0.1 points for complexity. But the whole symphony approaches 10 points for both complexity AND memorability.

On the other hand if the work is very complex, but not memorable at all, like say Schoenberg's Piano Concerto... it would get 10 points for complexity, but just 1 point for memorability.

It would perhaps score high on the factor X, because it's radical, original, etc... so it might get 80 points on factor X scale.

In total, it would be like this.
Schoenberg's Piano concerto:
Merit = (C*M)*7 + X*3 = (10*1)*7 + 80*3 = 70+240 = 310
Symphony no. 5:
Merit = (C*M)*7 + X*3 = (9*10)*7 + 85*3 = 630 + 255 = 885

The logic behind my formula: Purely musical merit should be given more weight, that's why it is multiplied by factor 7, while all the rest is multiplied by factor 3. Regarding purely musical merit, I think both complexity and memorability are equally important. They are usually inversely proportional, so when a work is very complex, it's usually not so memorable. When a work can be extremely memorable, despite its huge complexity, IMO this is a good indicator that it's truly great.
I've read about theory of forgetting. It says that we most readily forget meaningless information, like random syllables or numbers. On the other hand, pure, clear abstract ideas are almost completely unforgettable, if we truly grasp them and learn them. For example once you learn the idea behind the law of communicating vessels, you can never forget it. (Not including situations like dementia, etc)
So I think, that the same is true in music: truly meaningful musical ideas are unforgettable, and memorability is a strong indicator of merit. Complexity is also equally important, because without some complexity we can't have a really satisfying work that is not very short.

But if I had to decide what is more important, complexity or memorability, I'd give a little advantage to memorability, because there can be some beauty in simplicity too. Elegant solutions are usually simple. Then comes Occam's razor, etc... So complexity is a good thing only when it's justified. And memorability can usually give us a good test if it's justified. Complex, convoluted compositions that go nowhere usually aren't very memorable, and their complexity is perhaps unjustified.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

There's a wonderful scene in "Dead Poet's Society" where the English teacher has a student read the preface from the English Poetry text, where the author outlines a rubric for evaluating the merits of poetry. After the student is done reading, the teacher (played by Robin Williams, instructs the students (much to their shock and surprise) to tear that page out of the book.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Boston Charlie said:


> There's a wonderful scene in "Dead Poet's Society" where the English teacher has a student read the preface from the English Poetry text, where the author outlines a rubric for evaluating the merits of poetry. After the student is done reading, the teacher (played by Robin Williams, instructs the students (much to their shock and surprise) to tear that page out of the book.


Excellent. I've seen the movie and I agree with it. I am doing this just for fun. It's good to have such formulas challenged and criticized. If we took it too seriously it could perhaps be damaging to music and our experience of it. I am sure that there's no objective way to calculate merit.

So my formula is there mostly for fun, and perhaps to inspire discussion. It's not intended to be seriously used, but perhaps to ask question about why we really think some works are great. So my proposition is that complexity, memorability and that elusive factor X, are important elements that contribute to the greatness of a given work.

But I am aware that there could be total exceptions, and situations in which one work can be extremely important for completely different reasons that can't be explained by this (or any other) formula.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Excellent. I've seen the movie and I agree with it. I am doing this just for fun. It's good to have such formulas challenged and criticized. If we took it too seriously it could perhaps be damaging to music and our experience of it. I am sure that there's no objective way to calculate merit.
> 
> So my formula is there mostly for fun, and perhaps to inspire discussion. It's not intended to be seriously used, but perhaps to ask question about why we really think some works are great. So my proposition is that complexity, memorability and that elusive factor X, are important elements that contribute to the greatness of a given work.
> 
> But I am aware that there could be total exceptions, and situations in which one work can be extremely important for completely different reasons that can't be explained by this formula.


I think definition is essential - i.e. degree of distinctiveness - and your 'memorability' element correlates to this.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

you formula is BS, because the 3 variables used in it are again subjective. And to claim that Schoenberg's Piano concerto has memorability of 1 is an insult. It is one of the most memorable compositions of the 20th century. Your formula reminds me of the infamous Drake equation computing the number of intelligence civilization on the galaxy. Superficially it is OK, but if you scrutinize it, it is ridiculously useless.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Jacck said:


> you formula is BS, because the 3 variables used in it are again subjective. And to claim that Schoenberg's Piano concerto has memorability of 1 is an insult. It is one of the most memorable compositions of the 20th century. Your formula reminds me of the infamous Drake equation computing the number of intelligence civilization on the galaxy. Superficially it is OK, but if you scrutinize it, it is ridiculously useless.


How is it memorable? Well, after listening to it a couple of times, all I can remember is how it feels. Its dynamic, perhaps a bit of rhythm, interaction between the pianist and the orchestra... but the actual music? - not so much. I am not really able to repeat exact musical phrases in it in my head.

And yes, it's true that it's very subjective. Perhaps someone who is more musically talented would have no problems to whistle long parts of it. But generally, I think it's not very musically memorable. Maybe it's memorable as an experience. I will definitely not forget listening to it, and its general feel. But I will probably have a lot of problems to remember the actual music.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

And yes... It is VERY subjective... How many points one will give to a certain composition on the scale of memorability, complexity and factor X, is completely subjective.

But it can perhaps help one argument and explain their evaluation of a certain work. For example, I value the work XY, because I think it has these and these qualities.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ZJovicic said:


> And yes... It is VERY subjective... How many points one will give to a certain composition on the scale of memorability, complexity and factor X, is completely subjective. But it can perhaps help one argument and explain their evaluation of a certain work. For example, I value the work XY, because I think it has these and these qualities.


yes, it is like a multi-dimensional evaluation of compositions in several variables. But it is still an attempt to rationalize something which is as fundamentally irrational as musical taste. I have never seen so much obsessive ranking in any other community besides the classical listeners, constantly creating Halls of Fame or Halls of Infamy, Pantheons of the greatest composers etc :lol:


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Jacck said:


> yes, it is like a multi-dimensional evaluation of compositions in several variables. But it is still an attempt to rationalize something which is as fundamentally irrational as musical taste. I have never seen so much obsessive ranking in any other community besides the classical listeners, constantly creating Halls of Fame or Halls of Infamy, Pantheons of the greatest composers etc :lol:


Well, we need to play with something 
But you're right... any formula simplifies things, because it limits the evaluation to just a limited number of factors, while in truly subjective evaluation, you might subconsciously take thousands of factors into account...
Maybe formulas can help just as a guide, or if we don't have strong intuitive feeling about a certain work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I like it! In the spirit that you intend, that is. But I also do find Schoenberg's Piano Concerto - it is a good example to give - a fairly memorable work. There was a time when I didn't get Schoenberg at all and at that time I would have found it unmemorable. So, there is something in the subjective side of this that depends on your experience or familiarity with the language that the composer uses. But then, once you are familiar with a composer's language, the works s/he composed might seem a little less complex?

I do wonder how the formula will handle Mozart. On the one hand Mozart's music can often seem rather simple. On the other, though, we know that it requires the sort of ability to bring off properly in performance that it might not be at all easy to play. A machine could not do justice to Mozart - we wouldn't know how to programme it to do so (presumably because there is a hidden complexity) - but it might be more possible to get a machine to do some justice to a late Beethoven sonata? Mozart might also be difficult to assign an X value for?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The only way I can see to calculate musical merit is to say that one piece contains more meritoriousness than another.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2018)

You need P (purpose). If a piece isn't intended to be 'complex', why mark it down for being simple?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I do wonder how the formula will handle Mozart. On the one hand Mozart's music can often seem rather simple. On the other, though, we know that it requires the sort of ability to bring off properly in performance that it might not be at all easy to play. A machine could not do justice to Mozart - we wouldn't know how to programme it to do so (presumably because there is a hidden complexity) - but it might be more possible to get a machine to do some justice to a late Beethoven sonata? Mozart might also be difficult to assign an X value for?


Symphny no. 40 - Memorability 10; Complexity 7; Factor X = 80
Merit = (10*7)*7+3*80 = 490+240 = 730

Symphony no. 41 - Memorability: 8; Complexity: 9; Factor X = 90
Merit = (8*9)*7 + 90*3 = 72*7+270=504+270= 774

Eine Kleine Nachtmusik - Memorability: 10; Complexity: 4; Factor X = 60
Merit = (10*4)*7+ 3*60 = 280 + 180 = 460


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Beethoven's 9th:

Memorability = 10; Complexity = 9; Factor X = 100
Merit = 630 + 300 = 930

Eroica:
Memorability = 9; Complexity = 8,5; Factor X = 100

Merit = 535,5 + 300 = 835,5


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Four seasons:

Memorability: 10; Complexity: 6; Factor X = 90

Merit = 420 + 270 = 690


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Boston Charlie said:


> There's a wonderful scene in "Dead Poet's Society" where the English teacher has a student read the preface from the English Poetry text, where the author outlines a rubric for evaluating the merits of poetry. After the student is done reading, the teacher (played by Robin Williams, instructs the students (much to their shock and surprise) to tear that page out of the book.


The _very first thing_ I thought when I started to read the OP was "Be gone, J. Evans Pritchard!"


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

But to actually address the OP:

Complexity? How does one address minimalism seriously with this metric?
Memorability? If Schoenberg's piano concerto scores so low, it sounds like you really mean "hummable tunes". No good.
Factor X? Jesus, this is just the underpants gnomes all over again.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> But to actually address the OP:
> 
> Complexity? How does one address minimalism seriously with this metric?
> Memorability? If Schoenberg's piano concerto scores so low, it sounds like you really mean "hummable tunes". No good.
> Factor X? Jesus, this is just the underpants gnomes all over again.


I never claimed that my formula is perfect. Minimalism would often score high on factor X; and regarding memorability and complexity, there are works that are complex as a whole, even if they are built of very simple blocks, and can be memorable in a way. I have listened to some Philip Glass, but I am not too familiar with minimalism. But generally it probably wouldn't reach too high scores, but it wouldn't be too low either.

Regarding Schoenberg... well, I wish I could award it more points for memorability, but it's just like that. It's simply not too memorable. Maybe my formula is not too nice towards minimalism and serialism, but maybe it's because according to some parameters that I find important these types of music aren't all that great after all. It's just personal opinion.

Regarding my formula; I could make exception for some works and add more weight to factor X, if this is what is fundamentally important about the work, but I wouldn't water it down too much either.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Folks, now you can measure greatness the modern way. Avoid the hidden costs of bad arithmetic and subjectivity and know _instantly _how great a work is!

Simply buy my patented Great-o-Meter. The new model has a top range expanded to a full seven Ludwigs (just in case somebody that great comes along) and a new low range has been added, calibrated in microLudwigs, for those fourth- and fifth-tier composers who seem always to be with us. Finally, the Great-o-Meter now measures negative Ludwigs, for those pieces that make you cry out, "You call this music???"

You can pay in three easy monthly installments, and best of all - the first annual recalibration is free! Check it out on eBay. I'll be seeing you there. You won't be sorry!

PayPal accepted.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> But to actually address the OP:
> 
> Complexity? How does one address minimalism seriously with this metric?
> Memorability? If Schoenberg's piano concerto scores so low, it sounds like you really mean "hummable tunes". No good.
> Factor X? Jesus, this is just the underpants gnomes all over again.


:lol: .... _underpants gnomes?_ What the heck are underpants gnomes?!


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Folks, now you can measure greatness the modern way. Avoid the hidden costs of bad arithmetic and subjectivity and know _instantly _how great a work is!
> 
> Simply buy my patented Great-o-Meter. The new model has a top range expanded to a full seven Ludwigs (just in case somebody that great comes along) and a new low range has been added, calibrated in microLudwigs, for those fourth- and fifth-tier composers who seem always to be with us. Finally, the Great-o-Meter now measures negative Ludwigs, for those pieces that make you cry out, "You call this music???"
> 
> ...


A Satisfied Customer writes:
I bought the new Great-o-Meter to replace my clapped-out Amadeus Clapometer, and I simply cannot praise it high enough! Easy to use, lovely shiny brass balls, and pseudo quantitative figures to justify my crazy subjective prejudices. 
If you think musical merit can be objectively measured by an algorithm, then this the the gadget for you!
You might also want to experiment with an aluminium foil helmet.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Folks, now you can measure greatness the modern way. Avoid the hidden costs of bad arithmetic and subjectivity and know _instantly _how great a work is!
> 
> Simply buy my patented Great-o-Meter. The new model has a top range expanded to a full seven Ludwigs (just in case somebody that great comes along) and a new low range has been added, calibrated in microLudwigs, for those fourth- and fifth-tier composers who seem always to be with us. Finally, the Great-o-Meter now measures negative Ludwigs, for those pieces that make you cry out, "You call this music???"
> 
> ...


Hm... when I look at it this way... indeed it becomes scary. My formula is for fun and perhaps a tool to help one evaluate works, but when you imagine the possibility of algorithm being there that would do it, it becomes scary. It kind of removes the magic, mystery and humanity from music. If algorithm can measure it, there's another algorithm that could write music according to those specifications, and such music would be great. According to formulas. But if something is written just to satisfy certain criteria, it, IMO, by definition can't be great. If a work has certain complexity, memorability, and other elements going on there, factor X, whatever, _for its own reasons, and out of intrinsic necessity for certain type of expression_ then it might be indeed great. But if it's complex, memorable or radical in some way, just in order to satisfy criteria of complexity, memorability, or originality, it might be insincere, and therefore artistically insignificant.

Right now there are still no such algorithms, but in the future there might as well be. I guess factor X, which has solid 30% of influence on the score would be hardest to measure.
But perhaps, rather than algorithm it's more realistic that there is something based on augmented _human_ intelligence. For example something similar to what metacritic does, calculating weighted average of assessments of human critics. Or simply a type of algorithm that processes in a more sophisticated way, aggregated opinions of critics and public.


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Respectfully, this is full of subjectivities. Each has his/her own meaning of memorability, complexity, etc.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

As long as Schoenberg wins, I'm all for it


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> It's just personal opinion.


I thought the point of the formula was to remove personal opinion/subjectivity?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Thank God I'm an idiot at math.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> I thought the point of the formula was to remove personal opinion/subjectivity?


A reasonable misapprehension, MacLeod. The actual point is to enable us to agree to discover how it would feel to remove personal opinion/subjectivity without the humiliation of having it pointed out that we mistakenly believe we are doing so.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Merit = (C * M)

This look suspiciously like E=mC^2 to me and we know where that all led to


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> A reasonable misapprehension, MacLeod. The actual point is to enable us to agree to discover how it would feel to remove personal opinion/subjectivity without the humiliation of having it pointed out that we mistakenly believe we are doing so.


Misapprehension is correct. If only I'd read the OP properly.



ZJovicic said:


> OK, this is half-serious, as I know there's no objective way to measure it. It's very subjective. But I am proposing my formula for calculating merit of musical works.


I'm not sure what the point of a formula is if it's all subjective anyway. Let's all just stick with our subjective views and revel in the occasional coincidences that mean we can even agree about "the merit" of works by composers that we subjectively dislike.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

I see no problem with trying to use this formula to try to figure out how much _you personally_ value a certain piece, but besides that, this formula seems pretty ad-hoc, and offers no real way to measure any of these variables. It might be an interesting exercise to rate C, M, and X for a number of works and see if the "merit" rankings match up how you'd expect. I don't think there's one way to judge merit, or one "magic" formula, so if this works for you, I say go for it!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Merit = (C * M)
> 
> This look suspiciously like E=mC^2 to me and we know where that all led to


But this is the Very Special Theory of Relativity.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> But this is the Very Special Theory of Relativity.


Exactly, where C is the speed of light and M is mass. I guess we are taking about the relative merits of composers.

I wonder what sound matter makes when it is converted into energy, anyone game to record it up close!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

laurie said:


> :lol: .... _underpants gnomes?_ What the heck are underpants gnomes?!


It would have been quicker for you to Google that than to ask me...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> It would have been quicker for you to Google that than to ask me...


It that safe to do, I'm at work


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I invented the formula because I was bored, but I am actually glad that it fails. On the first thought it's fun but on the second thought it becomes disturbing. Yes, there is some sound logic behind the formula, and perhaps it can help one, if they are undecided about a certain work, but in most if not all the cases, it's impossible to reduce the merit of a certain work to a formula. And I am glad for this. There are so many different factors involved, besides those that I included in formula. What about internal consistency, what about beauty? What about appropriateness for its intended purpose? If you're writing a funeral march or requiem, it fails even if it's very complex, memorable and radical... if it happens to be frivolous sounding.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Symphny no. 40 - Memorability 10; Complexity 7; Factor X = 80
> Merit = (10*7)*7+3*80 = 490+240 = 730
> 
> Symphony no. 41 - Memorability: 8; Complexity: 9; Factor X = 90
> ...


So the result is not working for Mozart. To score so much lower than a couple of Beethoven symphonies - which Mozart's last two symphonies are surely the equal to - is not convincing. I suppose the lower memorability you assign for for the Jupiter might have made a difference along with a very low X factor score. So, suppose I change it to values that I might choose ...

Mozart Jupiter - Memorability 10; Complexity 7; Factor X - 100
Merit (C * M) * 7 + X * 3 = 790

Beethoven Eroica - Memorability 10; Complexity 8; Factor X - 100
Merit = 870

Still a very wrong answer IMO! I think the problem is Complexity. If a work scores highly for memorability and X Factor (which is hard to think of except as a subjective measure of Merit) and does this in a simple way then surely that is praiseworthy rather than detrimental?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> So the result is not working for Mozart. To score so much lower than a couple of Beethoven symphonies - which Mozart's last two symphonies are surely the equal to - is not convincing. I suppose the lower memorability you assign for for the Jupiter might have made a difference along with a very low X factor score. So, suppose I change it to values that I might choose ...
> 
> Mozart Jupiter - Memorability 10; Complexity 7; Factor X - 100
> Merit (C * M) * 7 + X * 3 = 790
> ...


True, complexity is the most controversial part of the formula. But if we remove complexity, then Jingle Bells would be atop of the pieces of music... it's memorable, and it definitely has Factor X of putting countless kids, and some adults in celebratory, merry, Christmas mood.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I think Jingle Bells is actually perfect for what it is, it doesn't pretend to be anything more than a happy Christmas tune.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Did we really need a thread involving calculations so close to Income Tax time?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> True, complexity is the most controversial part of the formula. But if we remove complexity, then Jingle Bells would be atop of the pieces of music... it's memorable, and it definitely has Factor X of putting countless kids, and some adults in celebratory, merry, Christmas mood.


Jingle Bells invokes those feelings partly because of a learned association rather than something intrinsic to the tune. But point made.

Now, if we get rid of complexity we are left with memorability (which is good but cannot just be a matter of how whistle-able the music is) and the X factor. This exposes yet X as a sort of bin for a good few other qualities. So we need to break up X! Your Jingle Bells example makes me think that one quality that is important is "profundity" (or depth). Another I would want to include is beauty. A third quality might be "coherence over length".

So we might end up with a formula that uses M along with P (profundity), B (beauty) and Coherence-over-length. This last quality might be represented as C (<11 points possible) multiplied by L (in minutes divided by 10)?

I will need to play with this to see how it works but do these suggestions work for you?


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

All good suggestions.
So yeah, now we have several variables: memorability, complexity, beauty, consistency/coherence, appropriateness, meaningfulness (if there is any in absolute music?), and yes, length is also a factor probably, but not sure how exactly to count it. For example Witerreise and Well Tempered Clavier are often seen as one work, but are actually collections of works, and probably the same criteria can't be applied to the them in their entirety, as it would to just one prelude, fugue or song.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

As someone with an admittedly juvenile fondness for music that doesn't behave the way it's "supposed" to (e.g. I like serial music with tonal properties, tonal music with extreme dissonance, Chopin in his least virtuosic works, Debussy at his most un-impressionist, John Adams at his least minimalist, etc.), I would be inclined to treat this formula like a game of golf and actively aim for the lowest possible score.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

I propose the following formula:

Take the year the work was composed, add the year you first heard it. Multiply by the square root of the number of windows in your home (if windowless, use 0.5). Finally divide by your favourite colour. The higher the score the better the work, unless a work you like gets a low score, in which case it's opposite.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Kivimees said:


> Take the year the work was composed, add the year you first heard it. Multiply by the square root of the number of windows in your home (if windowless, use 0.5). Finally divide by your favourite colour. The higher the score the better the work, unless a work you like gets a low score, in which case it's opposite.


By these rules, Palestrina's Missa O Sacrum Convivium gets a score of 17,597.13/purple. I'm impressed. I knew the work was good, but I didn't know it was _that_ good.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Eschbeg said:


> By these rules, Palestrina's Missa O Sacrum Convivium gets a score of 17,597.13/purple. I'm impressed. I knew the work was good, but I didn't know it was _that_ good.


It's not that good. Purple is the wrong answer.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

Kivimees said:


> Purple is the wrong answer.


I wouldn't be so sure. While it is true that dividing by purple is even worse than dividing by zero, I've found (the hard way) that if you do it often enough it eventually tears the fabric of space and time and creates a wormhole to universe where Palestrina wrote every work in existence--roughly analogous to the way Agent Smith inhabits every being in the world of the Matrix.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)




----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> All good suggestions.
> So yeah, now we have several variables: memorability, complexity, beauty, consistency/coherence, appropriateness, meaningfulness (if there is any in absolute music?), and yes, length is also a factor probably, but not sure how exactly to count it. For example Witerreise and Well Tempered Clavier are often seen as one work, but are actually collections of works, and probably the same criteria can't be applied to the them in their entirety, as it would to just one prelude, fugue or song.


Perhaps rather than using these variables on a scale where more is better, we should be thinking of them like a recipe where the elements have to be in the proper balance and proportion. Compositions are like recipes in a way. So complexity, for example, like salt or pepper, only works well when you put just the right amount. Too little, and there's no flavor, too much and it's ruined. And of course, everyone brings their own palate to the table, so some people are accustomed to spicy foods whereas others prefer them bland. I think the analogy works better than a 1-10 scale, what do you think?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I guess one reason I liked this idea was not that we can or should measure such things as artistic merit numerically. That is just a game. But the possibility to explore the different elements that contribute to the merit we find in great and less than great music was interesting. I wonder if the same could not be achieved using the Kelly Repertory Grid?

http://www.terapiacognitiva.net/record/pag/man1.htm


----------

