Basic Math: How to score a CM musician!?!?

[Rsachi]

Dear all,
Eureka. In the bath, I got this fantastic idea. We can reduce CM rating of a musician into four BASIC arithmetic operations!

Step 1: score the musician's talent (=ability for more senior artistes) on a scale of 1 to 10 10 being the highest.
Step 2: score the musician's fame (how often they get positive reviews, awards, media coverage, full house concerts etc) on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest.

Talent score =T. Fame score= F.

Now the basic Math.

If you are a sabha organiser, you will rank the musician as
T X F. You are a product person.

If you are an Aam concert goer, swayed by WHAT OTHERS THINK, you will do T+F. Addition.

If you are a talent spotter and a bit serious about your musical experience, you will do subtraction. T-F

If you are a fellow musician, and you really pursue the truth about music, you will do T÷F. Divided by.

[Rsachi]

I can see a lot of you dismissing this as trivia. Some may argue about the functions and scales. But basically I want you to see where I am going.
If a young talent with a low fame score approaches a sabha, they will turn him down or give him a low spot. Audiences are not as discriminatory as sabha secretaries. . Hence they have a linear response unlike sabha secs who are much more "geared" both by fame and talent.
A serious listener is indeed a talent spotter and in fact stays away from the big names however good they are.

And fellow musicians are the best critics and won't give a high score for anyone big on fame but not so big on talent. Of course they may engage with them for political gains!

Run some numbers on some artistes. You will see how my CM Math works.
At best this gives a ball park. Don't take it too seriously

If you want a normalised scale, you can do the following :

Sabha sec: T X F. As %
Audience: (T + F) X 5 as %
Talent spotter: (T-F) X 10 as %
Fellow musician: (T/F) X 25 as %

[Nick H]

Numbers are hard for my head!

The one I am having the most difficulty understanding is why the "fellow musician" should be a division? Wouldn't they rate by just T, leaving F out of the question altogether?

How about other elements that you might be able to include, eg C, Charisma, c, contacts, I, Influence. Probably, the more baths you take, the more complex this could become

[Rsachi]

yes, Nick. wanted to keep it simple. My own sense is that each new variable will prove more difficult to factor into an equation, without subjectivity. Both Talent and Fame are "external" or output measures. The things you mention are all "Input" factors.

Why the fellow musicians use fame to derate the score is, in my understanding, that there exists a bias amongst them in favour of the "unsung heroes". There is also a sense amongst musicians that "luck plays a big role in fame". They would like to take out that factor.

[Rsachi]

Tried some examples:

[Nick H]

Is it really possible that an entire talent score can be negated by fame for the "talent spotter?"

If I take the personal example, there are famous talented people whose concerts I don't attend, but it is the secondary effects of fame that I avoid, eg large, crowded auditoria, not the artists themselves.

[Rsachi]

Nick, it's impossible to "spot" a famous talent, just as you won't hold a candle to the moon. That's all.

[VK RAMAN]

Any evaluation based on mathematical formula fails if it fails the formula "KISS"

[Nick H]

I can hold a candle to the moon --- but the wind usually comes by and blows it out

[rshankar]

I can hold a candle to the moon --- but the wind usually comes by and blows it out

Nick, really? A candle in the wind, again??

[rajeshnat]

Rsachi
I will try what you have put. I think instead of rating a musician directly you have to possibly rate concerts of that musician for a period of time and then only take test.

I thought the more simpler way is to keep all the algorithms in your head and just like what i do for every review say Overall mediocre to good to very good to excellent to outstanding . Simplicity is the key.

For me the whole problem in general is the absolute time for a concert . Atleast in india many capable artist are at a disadvantage where they are asked to sing for 60 minutes to 90 minutes while those who cross the chasm are lucky, some so lucky to even start their concert at 06:00 PM IST . Because of that aberration , your complex formula can even be tough to even put a point.

As such I will give a try on what you said, but looks I need double head to extrapolate the result after the excel scores a point .

[Rsachi]

Rajesh, go ahead. If you have a finer algorithm, all the better indeed.

I am, in the context of the length of concerts etc., afraid you are likely to be more and more isolated on the scene. I just read that "humans have only 8 second attention spans whereas goldfish have 9". Such a scenario that, as I mentioned to a very senior musician just 2 days back, someone will invent a popular format for The One Minute RTP!

[hnbhagavan]

Rsachi,

Sometimes number of people is misleading.How to rate a concert by a senior musician not popular ,but has only dedicated fans?
More often this is the case.I heard a sabha secretary not wanting to invite a particular musician as the crowd will be less and sponsors do not like less crowd!

[Rsachi]

Yes HNB, Precisely my point about the sabha secy attitude. But as the audience you would give equal weightage to the talent factor.