Why It Doesn't Matter How Good You Are
After a cursory glance at the music industry, many conclude that a "good" song is more likely to succeed than a "bad" song. People might often think that even if Britney Spears isn't musically innovative, lyrically profound, or even a particularly good singer, that something about her songs has that certain je ne sais quoi, that undefinable trait that makes it great. Well, guess what. This article is essentially proof that there is no such trait. If you've ever wondered why there's such an incredibly low correlation between quality and popularity, this is the answer. The article explains it well enough without me chiming in, so I'll shut up now. Enjoy.
And on an entirely separate note, here are some "contronyms", which seem rather similar to my biggest grammar pet peeve from a few days ago.
And on an entirely separate note, here are some "contronyms", which seem rather similar to my biggest grammar pet peeve from a few days ago.
posted by Gideon Humphrey at 1:56 PM
4 Comments:
from the article
"Overall, a song in the Top 5 in terms of quality had only a 50 percent chance of finishing in the Top 5 of success."
This is out of 48 songs. 50% chance of being in the top 10%? Instead of an ummm 10% chance? This seems to indicate quality does matter A LOT.
Anyone with a good live show that works really hard can build a fan base and be successful and pop music will always have a load of shit.
What about monopolies? How can I buy other operating systems when windows crushes everything else? Or buy an independent artists CD when it doesn't belong to a record company with a 200 million dollar advertising budget?
Gid you have a small penis.
I will grant that the title of my post is exaggerating, but there are still two problems with your argument that quality matters a lot:
1. I think most people would say that quality should be the ONLY factor, i.e. that anything less than 100% means that something "bad" is happening, or that people are being unduly influenced etc.
2. From the article: "the impact of a listener’s own reactions is easily overwhelmed by his or her reactions to others". If there is a stronger effect from the sociology of it, I don't think it makes sense to say that quality matters A LOT. It matters, but not as much as it should.
It seems counterintuitive that the quality doesn't matter much, but it fits with what we see with people. I suspect that when most people say "hey, this is a good song!" that they aren't necessarily referring to the inherent quality of the song, but rather how much they enjoy experiencing it, and part of that experience is tied up in how much people around them like the song.
I don't know if most people would say that quality would be the only factor. I wouldn't, and I'm not sure it's a fair assumption, but I don't really know for sure. I guess the gist of the article doesn't surprise me that much, but it does make for an interesting read.
Well put. To clarify, I would say that quality SHOULD be the only factor ideally, but isn't.
Post a Comment
<< Home