Discussion:
Obscure 1950s Recordings Tournament - April - Round 1 - Group 7
(too old to reply)
SavoyBG
2019-04-13 02:42:59 UTC
Permalink
Group 7 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.

Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie


Down Home Special - Bo Diddley


When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee


Lu Lu - Sh-Booms

SavoyBG
2019-04-13 02:45:39 UTC
Permalink
MY RANKINGS

1. When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee
2. Down Home Special - Bo Diddley
3. Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
4. Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
OleManRiver
2019-04-13 11:22:07 UTC
Permalink
1. Down Home Special - Bo Diddley
2. When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee
3. Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
4. Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
Bob Roman
2019-04-13 03:04:28 UTC
Permalink
1. E&W
2. Bo
3. Brownie
4. Booms

--
BR
Rick Schubert
2019-04-13 03:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 7 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
1. Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
2. When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee
3. Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
4. Down Home Special - Bo Diddley

Swapped #2 and #3 just as I was about to post.
Roger Ford
2019-04-13 05:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 7 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Down Home Special - Bo Diddley
Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee


ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk) Please
delete same before responding.Thank you!
Bill B
2019-04-13 11:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 7 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
1 Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/p3layA_moN8
2 Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/5OzkF0U_AWY
3 Down Home Special - Bo Diddley
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/ACbV_Xorjd0
4 When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/bmHit4fsjsk
DianeE
2019-04-13 11:44:02 UTC
Permalink
1-Down Home Special - Bo Diddley
2-Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
3-When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee
4-Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
DianeE
2019-04-13 11:52:24 UTC
Permalink
I think Geoff is being an asshole, but I'm not real happy with the way
this contest is going. And it's the fact that it's not really a
*contest* but--as Bruce accurately named it--a tournament.

These groups of 4 always seem to include either 4 records I really like
or 4 records I think are mediocre, and then inevitably 1 or 2 really
good records get flushed while in the next group 1 or 2 really "meh"
records advance.

So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries. And I don't even remember
what won in March!
SavoyBG
2019-04-13 12:53:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by DianeE
So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries. And I don't even remember
what won in March!
Little Joe & the Thrillers
Dennis C
2019-04-13 13:49:29 UTC
Permalink
How do you seed anything like this to make it more competitive.

It's 94% subjective as far as the ratings are concerned and actually, these things were obscure for a reason. They weren't that good at their time of release. But then again, there were indeed records that became cult favorites later on or attained aesthetic value over time and thus achieved "hidden gem" status!!

I'm starting to blumenthal here but I've really enjoyed this!!

And Jeoff ain't an asshole!!
DianeE
2019-04-13 14:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis C
How do you seed anything like this to make it more competitive.
It's 94% subjective as far as the ratings are concerned and actually, these things were obscure for a reason. They weren't that good at their time of release. But then again, there were indeed records that became cult favorites later on or attained aesthetic value over time and thus achieved "hidden gem" status!!
I'm starting to blumenthal here but I've really enjoyed this!!
And Jeoff ain't an asshole!!
---------
I said he was *being* an asshole (by refusing to vote).

When you have major basketball, golf, tennis, soccer tournaments the
entrants get "seeded" before the tournament starts. I doubt that anyone
would want to bother ranking all 44 songs in order of preference every
month, but that might give us a better reflection of the group's tastes.
RWC
2019-04-15 00:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DianeE
When you have major basketball, golf, tennis, soccer tournaments the
entrants get "seeded" before the tournament starts. I doubt that anyone
would want to bother ranking all 44 songs in order of preference every
month, but that might give us a better reflection of the group's tastes.
You're not the first to consider seeding for this tournament, Diane.

For me, seeding in this context is rough ranking.

Strictly speaking, as I've said in an earlier post, if everyone ranked the 44
songs, there would be no need for any matchups and voting.

You doubt that anyone would want to bother ranking all 44 songs. Not
necessarily. What would you rather do, rank 44 mp3s in a folder (after
downloading from YT using a simple free app) in just one or two private sessions
OR have a duty to appraise and vote in 26 match-up contests every day over 2
weeks.

The seeding idea has some merit. It's ranking done roughly. It would involve a
bit of time on each participants part, but not nearly as much time as
that needed for a detailed ranking. And here's another, related, good idea:
seeding could be optional amongst participants. I'm confident that Bruce and
Roger for starters could each come up with seedings (rough rankings) fairly
quickly - and these guys are in tune with what the majority of voters here like.

There is a downside to seeding from *one* perspective - most if not all 'white'
sounding music (even by black doo-wop groups) would soon be eliminated (cynical
perhaps, but true).

The way the tournament is currently being staged actually puts a lie to it being
only about discovering or re-discovering obscure artist-songs. It's too drawn
out over time for that to be true. Far more songs could be exposed and enjoyed
in a given time period if either:
1. all 44 songs were ranked in one go, or, more realistically
2. prelim rounds were eliminated by having 5 or 6 entries in round 1 matchups;
this would bring 26 mini contests down to 15
Mark Dintenfass
2019-04-15 00:29:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
You doubt that anyone would want to bother ranking all 44 songs. Not
necessarily. What would you rather do, rank 44 mp3s in a folder (after
downloading from YT using a simple free app) in just one or two private sessions
OR have a duty to appraise and vote in 26 match-up contests every day over 2
weeks.
I would have a lot of trouble ranking 44 songs that are obscure since
the bottom 30 or so would be impossible to rank in any meaningful way.
Even two of these obscurities going against each other is sometimes not
much more than a coin flip. At least one on one we can make a sensible
comparison, or give the edge to a genre we like more.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
RWC
2019-04-15 03:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Dintenfass
I would have a lot of trouble ranking 44 songs that are obscure since
the bottom 30 or so would be impossible to rank in any meaningful way.
Even two of these obscurities going against each other is sometimes not
much more than a coin flip. At least one on one we can make a sensible
comparison, or give the edge to a genre we like more.
My approach after making a folder of tournament mp3s is to give each song a
first pass integer ranking out of 10. The range for the current tournament
turned out to be 3 to 6. This makes it quick and easy to rank matchups if each
song has a different integer score. If two songs have the same integer score
then you only have to appraise those two songs at the time of a mini-contest.

'5' serves as a special reference point, it means the song is enjoyable enough
to get a pass to be heard again (keeping in mind that time available for
listening to music is limited and there are thousands of likeable songs from all
decades to choose from).
'4' means is doesn't quite meet this 'play again' criteria, 'close but no cigar'
as they say.
'3' means it's not bad, but not close
'2' means I don't like it, period

To go further, one could then rank songs within the same integer score
(for example, 4 is refined to become 4.7 - the .7 simply reflects relative
likeability between the nominated songs with the same integer score)
Bob Roman
2019-04-15 01:43:51 UTC
Permalink
The tournament format, whatever its flaws, is more fun than a ranking plan. There would be no enjoyment-of-discovery while ranking so many records. It would just feel like a time-consuming chore. I cant imagine more than three people would do it, and two of those people already rank everything they hear.

--
BR
Bob Roman
2019-04-13 14:12:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DianeE
So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries.
If that's true -- and I think you're right -- that means that the song we EACH like best overall in the tournament usually gets flushed out before the final round. That in itself is kind of interesting. Favorites are totally idiosyncratic.

And it shows why the songs themselves are the point. The outcome is just a byproduct.

--
BR
DianeE
2019-04-13 21:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Roman
Post by DianeE
So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries.
If that's true -- and I think you're right -- that means that the song we EACH like best overall in the tournament usually gets flushed out before the final round. That in itself is kind of interesting. Favorites are totally idiosyncratic.
And it shows why the songs themselves are the point. The outcome is just a byproduct.
----------
Yes. Round 8, for example, contains 3 out of 4 songs that I never heard
before. Two of them turned out to be keepers for me.
Roger Ford
2019-04-14 05:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by Bob Roman
Post by DianeE
So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries.
If that's true -- and I think you're right -- that means that the song we EACH like best overall in the tournament usually gets flushed out before the final round. That in itself is kind of interesting. Favorites are totally idiosyncratic.
And it shows why the songs themselves are the point. The outcome is just a byproduct.
----------
Yes. Round 8, for example, contains 3 out of 4 songs that I never heard
before. Two of them turned out to be keepers for me.
The main values of exercises like this IMO are--of course---the
occasional "goodie" that turns up that I never heard before
but also the exposure of records that I stupidly never paid that much
attention to previously that on further hearing deserve long overdue
re-evaluation--- as,for instance in the case of "This I Know" in the
last contest

ROGER FORD
-----------------------

"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (***@bblueyonder.co.uk) Please
delete same before responding.Thank you!
RWC
2019-04-14 08:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DianeE
So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries.
So what? If everyone has a different #1 in their personal rankings, it doesn't
make sense to simply pick one of these, because several voters might be
unimpressed by that particular song. It's a 'team' pick amongst equals. Let's
pretend that everyone kinda likes the instrumental and ranks it at #3 (2x11=22
points, symbolically). Meanwhile, Diane, Bruce and Roger have another, blues
song, at #1, but the other 8 voters consider this particular song mediocre and
rank it at #4 (=20 points). The instrumental, despite not being any one person's
favorite, deserves to win because it has *broader appeal*.
Rick Schubert
2019-04-14 20:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by DianeE
So, as Bruce himself admits, we ended up with an instrumental winning in
February, even though none of us--I am confident of this--would have
ranked it #1 out of the 44 original entries.
So what? If everyone has a different #1 in their personal rankings, it doesn't
make sense to simply pick one of these, because several voters might be
unimpressed by that particular song. It's a 'team' pick amongst equals. Let's
pretend that everyone kinda likes the instrumental and ranks it at #3 (2x11=22
points, symbolically). Meanwhile, Diane, Bruce and Roger have another, blues
song, at #1, but the other 8 voters consider this particular song mediocre and
rank it at #4 (=20 points). The instrumental, despite not being any one person's
favorite, deserves to win because it has *broader appeal*.
Geoff, are you suggesting that there would be a different scoring or voting system that you believe
would produce more "accurate" results? If you've explained such a system, I've forgotten it.

I think you implied that participants rank songs based on who nominated them. Other than for my
own songs, I rarely know who nominated a song. Bruce doesn't identify nominators when presenting
each group. For the most part, the only time I know who nominated a song is when I listen to one
of the mp3s that you uploaded for us, where you included the nominator's name in the filename. Even
then, I am confidend that I haven't based my rankings on this.
RWC
2019-04-15 01:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Geoff, are you suggesting that there would be a different scoring or voting system that you believe
would produce more "accurate" results? If you've explained such a system, I've forgotten it.
Your '"accurate" results?' phrase is too nebulous to discuss at any length.
What results? - in each of the 26 match-ups or in the Finals (big difference).
What does 'Accurate' mean, anyway it does not have the same meaning as 'Fair'.
Four top tournament contenders in one match-up might produce an 'accurate'
result, but a *non-transparent* match-up might be perceived as not 'fair' to the
songs that came 3rd and 4th. People keen on seeding might even consider a fully
transparent match-up, to be 'not fair' in these circumstances. However, a fully
transparent match-up system would allay any possible unfounded suspicion of
'nefarious' tactics :-)

As a purely academic challenge (since it won't be implemented) I'd like to
devise an algorithm that will produce prelim match-up patterns for any number of
nominators - the criteria being: a nominator appears 4 times in 4 different
matchups (ie their 4 songs), and any two nominators face each other the minimum
possible number of times. I'm not aware of any 'formula' to achieve this, so a
systematic (not random) 'brute force' technique will be used (gradually building
up each match-up while keeping to the criteria - so far, I get 9.75 matchups out
of 11 (for 44 nominations) before the *current* logic cannot find any further
match-up combination of four nominators that meets the criteria.
Post by Rick Schubert
I think you implied that participants rank songs based on who nominated them.
I only remember saying that many (not all) nominators rank their own nominations
first in any match-up.

If you think I've implied what you say, you'll have to remind me what I said,
Rick.
Rick Schubert
2019-04-15 04:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by Rick Schubert
Geoff, are you suggesting that there would be a different scoring or voting system that you believe
would produce more "accurate" results? If you've explained such a system, I've forgotten it.
Your '"accurate" results?' phrase is too nebulous to discuss at any length.
What results? - in each of the 26 match-ups or in the Finals (big difference).
What does 'Accurate' mean, anyway it does not have the same meaning as 'Fair'.
Four top tournament contenders in one match-up might produce an 'accurate'
result, but a *non-transparent* match-up might be perceived as not 'fair' to the
songs that came 3rd and 4th. People keen on seeding might even consider a fully
transparent match-up, to be 'not fair' in these circumstances. However, a fully
transparent match-up system would allay any possible unfounded suspicion of
'nefarious' tactics :-)
Sorry if I misrepresented your point. You are unhappy with the Tournament, and I was trying to
understand exactly what it is that you're unhappy about. If it's just that you don't trust how
Bruce selects the match-ups, I guess you can completely disregard my questions and comments above.
Post by RWC
As a purely academic challenge (since it won't be implemented) I'd like to
devise an algorithm that will produce prelim match-up patterns for any number of
nominators - the criteria being: a nominator appears 4 times in 4 different
matchups (ie their 4 songs), and any two nominators face each other the minimum
possible number of times.
In each match-up, a song faces 3 other songs. Thus the 4 songs for a given nominator face 12 other
songs. There are 10 other nominators, so the best that can be done is for that nominator to face 8
of the nominators once and 2 of the nominators twice.

Here is one possible grouping for the preliminary round that satisfies those criteria:

Contributors are numbered 1 through 11, and their 4 selections are designated a, b, c, and d

Group 1 1a,2a,3a,4a
Group 2 2b,6a,8a,11a
Group 3 1b,5a,6b,7a
Group 4 2c,7b,9a,10a
Group 5 3b,4b,8b,11b
Group 6 1c,8c,9b,10b
Group 7 4c,5b,7c,10c
Group 8 3c,5c,9c,11c
Group 9 3d,6c,7d,10d
Group 10 4d,6d,8d,9d
Group 11 1d,2d,5d,11d
Post by RWC
I'm not aware of any 'formula' to achieve this, so a
systematic (not random) 'brute force' technique will be used (gradually building
up each match-up while keeping to the criteria - so far, I get 9.75 matchups out
of 11 (for 44 nominations) before the *current* logic cannot find any further
match-up combination of four nominators that meets the criteria.
Post by Rick Schubert
I think you implied that participants rank songs based on who nominated them.
I only remember saying that many (not all) nominators rank their own nominations
first in any match-up.
If you think I've implied what you say, you'll have to remind me what I said,
Rick.
RWC
2019-04-15 06:06:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 21:04:44 -0700, Rick Schubert <***@san.rr.com> wrote:

No, it's not
just that [I] don't trust how Bruce selects the match-ups.
My votes only serve to spoil the outcome for the majority.

Good example: If I had voted in Round 1 Group 7, Bruce's McGhee nomination would
have been beaten by Mark's Little Esther and Little Willie. The McGhee side is a
classic example of a 'hardcore r&b' sound strongly favored by the electorate.
.
DianeE
2019-04-15 19:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
No, it's not
just that [I] don't trust how Bruce selects the match-ups.
My votes only serve to spoil the outcome for the majority.
Good example: If I had voted in Round 1 Group 7, Bruce's McGhee nomination would
have been beaten by Mark's Little Esther and Little Willie. The McGhee side is a
classic example of a 'hardcore r&b' sound strongly favored by the electorate.
------------
Except it's *not* hardcore R&B; it has strong pop elements (deviates
from the classic blues structure), and that's why I like it less than
some of the other records.

I don't think your votes "spoil the outcome"; as I said elsewhere, due
to the "tournament" format, the outcome is not going to be an accurate
representation of the group's favorites.
IOW, this is a "just for fun" contest. It really *is* the opportunity
to hear different songs that matters.
Dennis C
2019-04-15 21:01:11 UTC
Permalink
That's why it is so fortunate that I take the time from my cumbersome schedule to offer my votes on this contest.

No pereconceptions

No biases

No nominations

You're welcome!
RWC
2019-04-15 21:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by RWC
No, it's not
just that [I] don't trust how Bruce selects the match-ups.
My votes only serve to spoil the outcome for the majority.
Good example: If I had voted in Round 1 Group 7, Bruce's McGhee nomination would
have been beaten by Mark's Little Esther and Little Willie. The McGhee side is a
classic example of a 'hardcore r&b' sound strongly favored by the electorate.
------------
Except it's *not* hardcore R&B; it has strong pop elements (deviates
from the classic blues structure), and that's why I like it less than
some of the other records.
I'm referring to R&b not Blues. All r&b (leaving aside pure blues) has pop
elements. It's McGhee's vocal that leaves the impression of 'hardcore'.
When you compare McGhee's record to The Cleftones - McGhee is hardcore :-)
DianeE
2019-04-15 22:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by Roger Ford
Post by RWC
No, it's not
just that [I] don't trust how Bruce selects the match-ups.
My votes only serve to spoil the outcome for the majority.
Good example: If I had voted in Round 1 Group 7, Bruce's McGhee nomination would
have been beaten by Mark's Little Esther and Little Willie. The McGhee side is a
classic example of a 'hardcore r&b' sound strongly favored by the electorate.
------------
Except it's *not* hardcore R&B; it has strong pop elements (deviates
from the classic blues structure), and that's why I like it less than
some of the other records.
I'm referring to R&b not Blues. All r&b (leaving aside pure blues) has pop
elements. It's McGhee's vocal that leaves the impression of 'hardcore'.
When you compare McGhee's record to The Cleftones - McGhee is hardcore :-)
-------
That's because the Cleftones came from right here in Queens, where we
don't exactly have a strong blues tradition.

RWC
2019-04-15 08:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
In each match-up, a song faces 3 other songs. Thus the 4 songs for a given nominator face 12 other
songs. There are 10 other nominators, so the best that can be done is for that nominator to face 8
of the nominators once and 2 of the nominators twice.
Contributors are numbered 1 through 11, and their 4 selections are designated a, b, c, and d
Group 1 1a,2a,3a,4a
Group 2 2b,6a,8a,11a
Group 3 1b,5a,6b,7a
Group 4 2c,7b,9a,10a
Group 5 3b,4b,8b,11b
Group 6 1c,8c,9b,10b
Group 7 4c,5b,7c,10c
Group 8 3c,5c,9c,11c
Group 9 3d,6c,7d,10d
Group 10 4d,6d,8d,9d
Group 11 1d,2d,5d,11d
Thanks for this post, Rick.
Congrats.Your solution comes very, very close to meeting the criteria.
Just 4 minor exceptions:
7 meets 10 three times.
3 nominators meet the same nominator 3 or 4 times (not 2):
5:1, 5:7, 5:11 8:4, 8:6, 8:9, 8:11 11:2, 11:3, 11:5, 11:8
(5 does not meet 8, 8 does not meet 5 or 7, 11 does not meet 7 or 10)

not easy, huh!
Mark Dintenfass
2019-04-13 12:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 7 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie
Down Home Special - Bo Diddley
When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee
Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Dennis C
2019-04-13 13:40:51 UTC
Permalink
1- Bo Diddley

2- Sh Booms

2 Little Esther

4 Brownie. Hate to do this since he's from my home town but then again, so is Johnny Knoxville, baby!!
Jim Colegrove
2019-04-13 14:18:16 UTC
Permalink
1. When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee

2. Down Home Special - Bo Diddley

3. Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie

4. Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
Steve Mc
2019-04-13 14:35:07 UTC
Permalink
1. When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee

2. Down Home Special - Bo Diddley

3. Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie

4. Lu Lu - Sh-Booms
--
Steve Mc

DNA to SBC to respond
SavoyBG
2019-04-13 18:49:06 UTC
Permalink
FINAL RANKINGS

1. Down Home Special - Bo Diddley - 34
2. When It's Love Time - Brownie McGhee - 27

3. Turn the Lamps Down Low - Little Esther and Little Willie - 27
4. Lu Lu - Sh-Booms - 22

Brownie edges Esther on the tie breaker as he was ranked higher than her on 6 of the 11 ballots.
Loading...