5 ms·

Note this: "Tsay took the actual audition recordings of the top 3 finalists" It seems entirely possible to me that the top 3 finalists in a prestigious musica

by frossie 13y ago

Note this: "Tsay took the actual audition recordings of the top 3 finalists" It seems entirely possible to me that the top 3 finalists in a prestigious musical competition are so close in skill (or so complementary in strengths and weaknesses) that the judging is dominated by extraneous factors. This is quite unlike the wine example, where people who allegedly can tell the geographic provenance of a wine fail to do so.

GuiA 13y ago
> This is quite unlike the wine example, where people who allegedly can tell the geographic provenance of a wine fail to do so. Being French and not being a big wine person (I do have other vices though :) ), those results (see the linked Priceonomics article, or [1]) amuse me quite a bit. Especially when I brought them up to my dad, a typical French wine snob who frequently goes to wine expos, wine tastings (the kind where you spit it out, not the kind where you get wasted with your friends on a bus in Napa). He entirely rejected the validity of those experiments, claiming that they were probably rigged or done sloppily. This reminds me that I should do my own blind test with him next time I go home. The human brain is a funny, funny thing. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/wine-taste.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06...
- rpedroso 13y ago
  I think there is a tendency to overestimate the conclusions of the cited study. We definitely should be wary of price tags -- I've had $10 and $15 bottles of wine that kicked the pants off many $50-100 bottles. I'm also definitely skeptical of people who believe they can divine the vineyard a bottle came from by taste alone. There definitely are, however, differences among wines. Whether or not the price reflects these differences, it's not wrong to have preferences. Two years ago I went to a coffee tasting. At one point, the brewer handed everyone two marked cups of distinct coffees. He described the two by flavor profile, but didn't say which cup was which. After everyone had a taste, he quizzed us by straw poll. Almost everyone correctly identified which cup matched which profile (they were very distinct beans), but people's preferences fell 50/50. Afterwards, he revealed that the price/lb difference between the two cups was about $90. There are also good reasons for these price differences. Ethiopian coffee beans are highly regarded, but are also often priced highly because the supply and export of these beans, due to political reasons, is volatile. I don't think you were implying all wine is the same :) I just wanted to make the point that nobody should begrudge themselves a good cup of coffee, wine, beer, etc. Never trust the price tag, be skeptical of consumer ratings, but do trust your taste buds and drink what makes you happy!
lmg643 13y ago
As a longtime musician myself, I can certainly tell when someone is making mistakes. in one example, i've listened to so many versions of beethoven opus 111 that i've noticed a world-famous pianist who played the bass line in a single measure differently than what was written (sounded better his way, IMHO). but what makes one "best" is highly subjective. i'm not sure what the research proves other than perhaps it's harder to move on from adolescent disappointments than is commonly acknowledged. A more relevant question for the snob factor is "how do critics recognize when NEW music is great, average or crap." because that's pretty much what wine is - a constant cycle of new product, varying from year to year, even when it came from the same vines. the valid "snob" angle here for both wine and music is that we aren't supposed to judge based on pure sensory experience. For example, a very sweet wine is going to be palatable to a lot of folks, but we're supposed to recognize the subtleties of a dry pinot noir instead. or compare most anything by john cage to anything by beethoven. or compare beethoven to justin timberlake. there is a valid case to be made that once you learn to have "cultivated" tastes, you can pick out all these details and truly appreciate them. i once participated in a blind wine tasting where only one woman out of 30 people could reliably pick out the fancy wines from the cheap ones. for her, i expect the process of drinking wine is a lot different than for the rest of us yokels. Tasting things we can't notice, and appreciating them differently. good goal to aspire to, if we care, otherwise just admit we have no clue, be happy, and move on.
- 001sky 13y ago
  As a side note, the explosion in terroirs from the new world has really (seems to have) made the notion of wine snobbery somewhat archaic. In the 19/20th century perhaps it was a mark of distinction, to put some investment in this. The math is far more dauting to have an encyclopaedic understanding of the field than it was in, say 1930. The growth of new areas, new techniques, and the everchaning weather has made this a fools errand, and a false class marker at best.
  - wozniacki 13y ago
    Dispense with the class markers and terroirs. I wonder how many self-professed wine snobs can even tell reds from whites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rmm-xqRHGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rmm-xqRHGw
mathattack 13y ago
One could argue similar on wine. Only a very small subset of people can actually detect the provenance. Most of us can't. There is a big gap between trained Sommelier and so-called expert. They may sound the same, which makes it confusing. A slight digression in the topic of music, I recall reading (in Freakonomics or Gladwell?) a study which showed that people tend to like music purely because they hear it more often. In essence, there isn't an objective standard.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  This is one reason why I think copyright needs reformed. We made the Beatles famous by playing their records all the time, we (the public) should get some recognition for that in terms of shortened terms for popular works.
  - VLM 13y ago
    I think that may have some negative system gaming outcomes, like playing a "sure to be a success" song on repeat from 2am to 6am every morning so that you don't have to pay royalties on it for the next 40 years. With a very large number of stations being owned by a very small number of players this kind of "cooperation" in a market is inevitable. The primary effect of this game would be a substantial reduction in the diversity of music, because off times which could have introduced new(er) sounds are now channel-stuffed with top40 to eliminate their copyright before the top40 becomes an oldie. Also if only top40 music is free, competitive pressure will annihilate all other forms of music because they would cost money. This also applies to retail sales, why pay $15 for something new when you could pay $10 for something popular. So two forces acting together means you'd end up with zero choices for music. However I'm not convinced that the elimination of the Music Industry would be bad for Music. Even if it creates a wasteland, what lives in wastelands tends to be interesting.
    - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
      Free and out of copyright are two very different things.

by frossie 13y ago

GuiA 13y ago

> This is quite unlike the wine example, where people who allegedly can tell the geographic provenance of a wine fail to do so. Being French and not being a big wine person (I do have other vices though :) ), those results (see the linked Priceonomics article, or [1]) amuse me quite a bit. Especially when I brought them up to my dad, a typical French wine snob who frequently goes to wine expos, wine tastings (the kind where you spit it out, not the kind where you get wasted with your friends on a bus in Napa). He entirely rejected the validity of those experiments, claiming that they were probably rigged or done sloppily. This reminds me that I should do my own blind test with him next time I go home. The human brain is a funny, funny thing. [1]: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/wine-taste.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06...

rpedroso 13y ago
I think there is a tendency to overestimate the conclusions of the cited study. We definitely should be wary of price tags -- I've had $10 and $15 bottles of wine that kicked the pants off many $50-100 bottles. I'm also definitely skeptical of people who believe they can divine the vineyard a bottle came from by taste alone. There definitely are, however, differences among wines. Whether or not the price reflects these differences, it's not wrong to have preferences. Two years ago I went to a coffee tasting. At one point, the brewer handed everyone two marked cups of distinct coffees. He described the two by flavor profile, but didn't say which cup was which. After everyone had a taste, he quizzed us by straw poll. Almost everyone correctly identified which cup matched which profile (they were very distinct beans), but people's preferences fell 50/50. Afterwards, he revealed that the price/lb difference between the two cups was about $90. There are also good reasons for these price differences. Ethiopian coffee beans are highly regarded, but are also often priced highly because the supply and export of these beans, due to political reasons, is volatile. I don't think you were implying all wine is the same :) I just wanted to make the point that nobody should begrudge themselves a good cup of coffee, wine, beer, etc. Never trust the price tag, be skeptical of consumer ratings, but do trust your taste buds and drink what makes you happy!

lmg643 13y ago

As a longtime musician myself, I can certainly tell when someone is making mistakes. in one example, i've listened to so many versions of beethoven opus 111 that i've noticed a world-famous pianist who played the bass line in a single measure differently than what was written (sounded better his way, IMHO). but what makes one "best" is highly subjective. i'm not sure what the research proves other than perhaps it's harder to move on from adolescent disappointments than is commonly acknowledged. A more relevant question for the snob factor is "how do critics recognize when NEW music is great, average or crap." because that's pretty much what wine is - a constant cycle of new product, varying from year to year, even when it came from the same vines. the valid "snob" angle here for both wine and music is that we aren't supposed to judge based on pure sensory experience. For example, a very sweet wine is going to be palatable to a lot of folks, but we're supposed to recognize the subtleties of a dry pinot noir instead. or compare most anything by john cage to anything by beethoven. or compare beethoven to justin timberlake. there is a valid case to be made that once you learn to have "cultivated" tastes, you can pick out all these details and truly appreciate them. i once participated in a blind wine tasting where only one woman out of 30 people could reliably pick out the fancy wines from the cheap ones. for her, i expect the process of drinking wine is a lot different than for the rest of us yokels. Tasting things we can't notice, and appreciating them differently. good goal to aspire to, if we care, otherwise just admit we have no clue, be happy, and move on.

001sky 13y ago
As a side note, the explosion in terroirs from the new world has really (seems to have) made the notion of wine snobbery somewhat archaic. In the 19/20th century perhaps it was a mark of distinction, to put some investment in this. The math is far more dauting to have an encyclopaedic understanding of the field than it was in, say 1930. The growth of new areas, new techniques, and the everchaning weather has made this a fools errand, and a false class marker at best.
- wozniacki 13y ago
  Dispense with the class markers and terroirs. I wonder how many self-professed wine snobs can even tell reds from whites. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rmm-xqRHGw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rmm-xqRHGw

mathattack 13y ago

One could argue similar on wine. Only a very small subset of people can actually detect the provenance. Most of us can't. There is a big gap between trained Sommelier and so-called expert. They may sound the same, which makes it confusing. A slight digression in the topic of music, I recall reading (in Freakonomics or Gladwell?) a study which showed that people tend to like music purely because they hear it more often. In essence, there isn't an objective standard.

ZeroGravitas 13y ago
This is one reason why I think copyright needs reformed. We made the Beatles famous by playing their records all the time, we (the public) should get some recognition for that in terms of shortened terms for popular works.
- VLM 13y ago
  I think that may have some negative system gaming outcomes, like playing a "sure to be a success" song on repeat from 2am to 6am every morning so that you don't have to pay royalties on it for the next 40 years. With a very large number of stations being owned by a very small number of players this kind of "cooperation" in a market is inevitable. The primary effect of this game would be a substantial reduction in the diversity of music, because off times which could have introduced new(er) sounds are now channel-stuffed with top40 to eliminate their copyright before the top40 becomes an oldie. Also if only top40 music is free, competitive pressure will annihilate all other forms of music because they would cost money. This also applies to retail sales, why pay $15 for something new when you could pay $10 for something popular. So two forces acting together means you'd end up with zero choices for music. However I'm not convinced that the elimination of the Music Industry would be bad for Music. Even if it creates a wasteland, what lives in wastelands tends to be interesting.
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    Free and out of copyright are two very different things.