Discussion:
Obscure 1950s Recordings Tournament - April Preliminary Round - Group 11
(too old to reply)
SavoyBG
2019-04-08 13:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.


I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs


Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)


I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia


Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page

Roger Ford
2019-04-08 14:05:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs - I May Be Wrong - 8
Hot Lips Page - Last Call For Alcohol - 7
Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie) - 7
I'm So Glad (Mickey & Sylvia) - 6


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!
Roger Ford
2019-04-08 15:02:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by SavoyBG
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs - I May Be Wrong - 8
The flip of the ven better (a 9) "Dirty By The Dozen (Sweet Little
Woman)". That's Elmore on guitar BTW
Post by Roger Ford
Hot Lips Page - Last Call For Alcohol - 7
Recorded in Paris October 29 1952, with André Réwéliotti's Orchestra
Post by Roger Ford
Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie) - 7
I believe these are actually The Flairs. Either way Young Jessie
features here. This was the better "B" side to "Rabbit On A Log" which
was the reviewed side in BB and which featured in a "New This Week"
post way back in 29005
Post by Roger Ford
I'm So Glad (Mickey & Sylvia) - 6
Not counting the Little Sylvia Vanderpool & Mickey Baker single on Cat
I make this pretty poppy offering their first record under the actual
"Mickey & Sylvia" banner

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!
SavoyBG
2019-04-08 15:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs - I May Be Wrong - 8
The flip of the even better (a 9) "Dirty By The Dozen (Sweet Little
Woman)". That's Elmore on guitar BTW
Definitely better, I've got them 7 and 8.
Bill B
2019-04-08 14:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
2 I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/bxaHHNFlV8Y
3 Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/BSOtT6-9vT4
1 I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/e0yAmpaLOFQ
4 Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/G0Ag9Xz5yNM
Bill B
2019-04-08 14:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill B
Post by SavoyBG
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
Sorry, I forgot to list them in order:


1 I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
Post by Bill B
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/e0yAmpaLOFQ
2 I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
Post by Bill B
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/bxaHHNFlV8Y
3 Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
Post by Bill B
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/BSOtT6-9vT4
4 Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
Post by SavoyBG
http://youtu.be/G0Ag9Xz5yNM
OleManRiver
2019-04-08 14:54:27 UTC
Permalink
1. I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
2. I’m So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
3. Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
4. Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
Steve Mc
2019-04-08 15:01:08 UTC
Permalink
1. I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
2. Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
3. I’m So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
4. Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
--
Steve Mc

DNA to SBC to respond
SavoyBG
2019-04-08 15:04:48 UTC
Permalink
MY RANKINGS


1. Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie) - 7
2. I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs - 7
3. Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page - 5
4. I’m So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia - 4

The Mickey and Sylvia was their first (minor) hit, but I always thought it was really hokey.
Mark Dintenfass
2019-04-08 15:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia

Sorry, Bill, but this is one of the better groupings, and they lost me
with that first tra-la-la. I'm also sorry Hot Lips had to run up
against Little Johnny, but I'm almost always going to pick good blues-y
over good jazz-y.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Dennis C
2019-04-08 15:31:43 UTC
Permalink
1- Hot Lips: this one ain't fair! Had to look away from the video so it wouldn't unduly influence my take. Still a runaway winner.

2- Little Johnny Jones. Good stuff!

3- Down at the Haydens- when you can't affird the Coasters, baby!!

4- Mickey and Sylvia. Hard to believe this is the same couple that sizzled with
Love is Strange
Jim Colegrove
2019-04-08 15:27:50 UTC
Permalink
1. Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)

2. I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs

3. Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page

4. I’m So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
Bob Roman
2019-04-08 16:01:23 UTC
Permalink
1. Hot Lips
2. Jones
3. Hunters
4. Mick & Syl

--
BR
RWC
2019-04-08 18:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
I’m So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
DianeE
2019-04-08 19:08:01 UTC
Permalink
1-I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
(That's Elmore James on guitar and J.T. Brown on sax)

2-Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
(Which goes to show that not all *very fast* records are *frantic*)

3-Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
4-I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
Rick Schubert
2019-04-08 22:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 11 is now open. Please rank these from best to worst.
1. Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)
2. I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs
3. I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia
4. Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page
SavoyBG
2019-04-09 00:20:46 UTC
Permalink
FINAL RANKINGS

1. I May Be Wrong - Little Johnny Jones & Chicago Hound Dogs - 41
2. Last Call For Alcohol - Hot Lips Page - 32
3. Down At Haydens - Hunters (Young Jessie)- 28

4. I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia - 19

Mickey & Sylvia are out and the other advance into the upcoming First Round.

Group 1 of Round 1 will be up and open later tonight.
RWC
2019-04-09 04:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
Group 1 of Round 1 will be up and open later tonight.
Let's give a big round of applause for those courageous songs that are leaving
us today:

Hot Dog - Betty Nickell - 22
Shufflin' Jive - Joe Lyons and the Arrows - 28
Alabama Boogie Boy - Johnny Bond - 24
Is This The Way - G-Clefs - 20
Boogie Woogie Choo Choo Train - Mabel Scott - 24
In Spite of All The Danger - The Quarrymen - 19
Hound Dog - Betsy Gay - 14
Run, Run Little Joe - Gladiolas - 23
Oh Yeah! - The Blue Tones - 22
Tico Tico - Charlie Parker - 24
Starlight Starbright - Luther Bond & His Emeralds - 24
I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia - 19
Bill B
2019-04-09 10:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by SavoyBG
Group 1 of Round 1 will be up and open later tonight.
Let's give a big round of applause for those courageous songs that are leaving
Hot Dog - Betty Nickell - 22
Shufflin' Jive - Joe Lyons and the Arrows - 28
Alabama Boogie Boy - Johnny Bond - 24
Is This The Way - G-Clefs - 20
Boogie Woogie Choo Choo Train - Mabel Scott - 24
In Spite of All The Danger - The Quarrymen - 19
Hound Dog - Betsy Gay - 14
Run, Run Little Joe - Gladiolas - 23
Oh Yeah! - The Blue Tones - 22
Tico Tico - Charlie Parker - 24
Starlight Starbright - Luther Bond & His Emeralds - 24
I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia - 19
Shufflin' Jive will be missed by me.
Roger Ford
2019-04-09 10:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill B
Post by RWC
Post by SavoyBG
Group 1 of Round 1 will be up and open later tonight.
Let's give a big round of applause for those courageous songs that are leaving
Hot Dog - Betty Nickell - 22
Shufflin' Jive - Joe Lyons and the Arrows - 28
Alabama Boogie Boy - Johnny Bond - 24
Is This The Way - G-Clefs - 20
Boogie Woogie Choo Choo Train - Mabel Scott - 24
In Spite of All The Danger - The Quarrymen - 19
Hound Dog - Betsy Gay - 14
Run, Run Little Joe - Gladiolas - 23
Oh Yeah! - The Blue Tones - 22
Tico Tico - Charlie Parker - 24
Starlight Starbright - Luther Bond & His Emeralds - 24
I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia - 19
Shufflin' Jive will be missed by me.
The Luther Bond/Emeralds is easily the best record so far to fall by
the wayside

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!
DianeE
2019-04-09 11:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by SavoyBG
Group 1 of Round 1 will be up and open later tonight.
Let's give a big round of applause for those courageous songs that are leaving
Hot Dog - Betty Nickell - 22
Shufflin' Jive - Joe Lyons and the Arrows - 28
Alabama Boogie Boy - Johnny Bond - 24
Is This The Way - G-Clefs - 20
Boogie Woogie Choo Choo Train - Mabel Scott - 24
In Spite of All The Danger - The Quarrymen - 19
Hound Dog - Betsy Gay - 14
Run, Run Little Joe - Gladiolas - 23
Oh Yeah! - The Blue Tones - 22
Tico Tico - Charlie Parker - 24
Starlight Starbright - Luther Bond & His Emeralds - 24
I'm So Glad - Mickey & Sylvia - 19
------------
Besides the two I nominated, I was sorry to see "Shufflin' Jive" get
knocked out. Always liked that one. Also think the Gladiolas record is
pretty good and would have done better in a different matchup.
RWC
2019-04-09 15:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Also think the Gladiolas record is
pretty good and would have done better in a different matchup.
Matchups can be critical. The eventual tournament winner and runner-up will, in
theory at least, not be affected by any earlier matchups, but that's not the
point - most folk, I imagine, like to watch their nominations progress thru the
rounds even if they think one or two will not reach the Finals (they are happy
enough to have given exposure to an obscure favorite) .

A flaw in the tournament is the *lack of transparency* regarding matchups - it
potentially invites paranoia (a suspicion of occasional match-up 'fixing' in
order to favor or disfavor specific nominations).

Here is one totally transparent method, and it's very simple:
First, list the nominations in the order they were posted; for example:

Bill
1
2
3
4
Bob
5
6
7
8
...
44

The 11 prelim matchups will then be:

1,5,9,13
17,21,25,29
33,37,41,2
6,10,14,18
22,26,30,34
38,42,3,7
11,15,19,23
27,31,35,39
43,4,8,12
16,20,24,28
32,36,40,44

post-prelim matchups, that meet the required criteria, could also be determined
systematically (aka transparently).
Dennis C
2019-04-09 15:29:32 UTC
Permalink
I agree with Geof's recommendations as it is a known fact that Bruce carries a triple helix strand of rhythm and blues gene, baby!!

Bias I reckon!!!
DianeE
2019-04-09 16:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by DianeE
Also think the Gladiolas record is
pretty good and would have done better in a different matchup.
Matchups can be critical. The eventual tournament winner and runner-up will, in
theory at least, not be affected by any earlier matchups, but that's not the
point - most folk, I imagine, like to watch their nominations progress thru the
rounds even if they think one or two will not reach the Finals (they are happy
enough to have given exposure to an obscure favorite) .
A flaw in the tournament is the *lack of transparency* regarding matchups - it
potentially invites paranoia (a suspicion of occasional match-up 'fixing' in
order to favor or disfavor specific nominations).
Bill
1
2
3
4
Bob
5
6
7
8
...
44
1,5,9,13
17,21,25,29
33,37,41,2
6,10,14,18
22,26,30,34
38,42,3,7
11,15,19,23
27,31,35,39
43,4,8,12
16,20,24,28
32,36,40,44
post-prelim matchups, that meet the required criteria, could also be determined
systematically (aka transparently).
---------------
Wouldn't it just be easier to bring Yolanda Vega out of retirement?
RWC
2019-04-09 18:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by DianeE
Wouldn't it just be easier to bring Yolanda Vega out of retirement?
I contacted Yooooolannnnda Vega to get her thoughts and ideas on the issue.
"I like it, Geoff", she said, "your methodology to determine matchups couldn't
be simpler".
Dennis C
2019-04-09 18:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Jf you want to get somewhere slowly and methodically, I recommend a Vega, baby!!
Bob Roman
2019-04-09 19:31:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
A flaw in the tournament is the *lack of transparency* regarding matchups - it
potentially invites paranoia (a suspicion of occasional match-up 'fixing' in
order to favor or disfavor specific nominations).
The best way to avoid paranoia about the process is to not care about the outcome.

--
BR
RWC
2019-04-09 23:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Roman
Post by RWC
A flaw in the tournament is the *lack of transparency* regarding matchups - it
potentially invites paranoia (a suspicion of occasional match-up 'fixing' in
order to favor or disfavor specific nominations).
The best way to avoid paranoia about the process is to not care about the outcome.
Try using that logic with millions of Democrat voters following the 2016
election - many to this day do not accept the result :-)
Dennis C
2019-04-09 23:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Like, ouch babe!!
Bob Roman
2019-04-10 01:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by Bob Roman
The best way to avoid paranoia about the process is to not care about the outcome.
Try using that logic with millions of Democrat voters following the 2016
election - many to this day do not accept the result :-)
Right. Tell all those people about Bruce's contests. I'm sure the stakes involved will blow them away.

--
BR
Roger Ford
2019-04-10 13:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by Bob Roman
Post by RWC
A flaw in the tournament is the *lack of transparency* regarding matchups - it
potentially invites paranoia (a suspicion of occasional match-up 'fixing' in
order to favor or disfavor specific nominations).
The best way to avoid paranoia about the process is to not care about the outcome.
Try using that logic with millions of Democrat voters following the 2016
election - many to this day do not accept the result :-)
What about the multitude of people over here (including high ranking
political figures) who still refuse to accept the democratic Brexit
referendum result and have consequently plunged the country into a
seemingly never-ending political crisis and total humiliation in the
eyes of a watching world


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
2019-04-11 00:37:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
What about the multitude of people over here (including high ranking
political figures) who still refuse to accept the democratic Brexit
referendum result and have consequently plunged the country into a
seemingly never-ending political crisis and total humiliation in the
eyes of a watching world
After reading a bit more about the impact on trade agreements if Britain leaves
the EU, I have my own theory as to one major reason the so-called elites are so
opposed to a no deal Brexit. It's the immense and complex effort required by the
civil service (think Sir Humphrey Appleby :-) to reconstruct UK-EU trade
relations, and to re-negotiate World Trade Organization deals, which could
involve getting the approval of each of the other 160+ WTO nations!!!

Many people might not realise that the EU has important trade agreements with
the WTO. If Britain leaves the EU it will no longer be able to take advantage of
these agreements and will have to negotiate new, unilateral agreements to
replace them.

To quote from the introduction to eBook "Brexit Beckons: Thinking ahead by
leading economists" - written in the months following the referendum in 2016.

"UK policy in many areas has been made at the EU level for decades. Leaving the
EU thus means that the UK will have to replace EU policies, rules, and
agreements with British policies, rules, and agreements. As we shall
see, this will prove a massively complex task..."

..."many of the UK’s rights and obligations in the WTO are entwined with those
of other EU members."

Imagine being a senior civil servant responsible for carrying out and achieving
these tasks - perhaps these (SE England based) civil servants (as well as other
elite Remainer interest groups) have been privately applying pressure to MPs to
not allow a 'no deal' (hard) Brexit.

============================================================

"Perhaps the most serious economic issue in the WTO package of Brexit problems
is the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). This is the agreement that
gives British companies the right to bid for government purchasing contracts in
other members of the agreement. As these members include most major economies,
being part of this agreement is important economically for UK-based firms. Rollo
and Winters, for example, note that the annual value of procurement activities
opened up by membership in the GPA is $1.3 trillion.
One of the reasons that this could be difficult is that fact that the UK’s
participation in the GPA is only via the EU’s participation in the agreement. If
the UK is not allowed to remain a party to the agreement, the UK will lose its
rights of access to all GPA members’ procurement markets upon exit from the EU.
Moreover, since the UK’s procurement market is important globally, Brexit will
change the deal that third nations struck with the EU on government procurement.
In the world of trade, such changes trigger renegotiations to rebalance deals.
In this way, Brexit will cause problems for the EU. This matters since all
existing GPA members, including the EU, have the right to veto the UK’s
accession to the GPA."
While sticky and surely slow to resolve, the WTO headaches may not be a major
source of problems since WTO members tend to apply the status quo until a new
arrangement is negotiated – as long as everyone ‘plays nice’. As Rollo and
Winters point out, “maintaining the goodwill of trading partners should be a
very high diplomatic priority”.

Rick Schubert
2019-04-09 19:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by DianeE
Also think the Gladiolas record is
pretty good and would have done better in a different matchup.
Matchups can be critical. The eventual tournament winner and runner-up will, in
theory at least, not be affected by any earlier matchups
I agree that matchups can be critical, but the eventual tournament winner and runner-up can also be
affected by any earlier matchups. For example, what if everyone ranked the same 4 songs as their 4
favorites of the tournament, you would expect that 2 of those songs would end up as the top 2 given
most (or, at least, many) matchups . But if those 4 songs met in one round, any of them could
finish 3rd or 4th, depending on how the voters rank those songs. One song that might end up as the
eventual tournament winner with a more reasonable set of matchups could end up 3rd in this matchup
of these 4 top songs. For example, say 7 people ranked it as #1 while 5 people ranked it as #4.
That would give it 7*4 + 5*1 = 33 points. There are a total of 120 points, so that leaves 87
points for the other 3 songs. If one of those were ranked #3 by 5 people and #4 by 7 people, it
would get 2*5 + 4*1 = 14 points. That leaves 73 points for the other 2 songs. There are many
ways that people could rank those 2 songs so that they end up with a 37-36, 38-35, or 39-34 split
(even 40-33 could result in these 2 winning the round depending on tie-breaker rules).
Post by RWC
, but that's not the
point - most folk, I imagine, like to watch their nominations progress thru the
rounds even if they think one or two will not reach the Finals (they are happy
enough to have given exposure to an obscure favorite) .
A flaw in the tournament is the *lack of transparency* regarding matchups - it
potentially invites paranoia (a suspicion of occasional match-up 'fixing' in
order to favor or disfavor specific nominations).
I trust that Bruce is not trying to "fix" the match-ups other than to adhere to his criteria of
which songs shouldn't face others. But for the sake of curiosity, if not transparency, it would be
nice if he would explain exactly how how produces the match-ups.
There are problems with this method. Bill and Bob face each other 3 times and don't face 9 other
people at all. Also, if the order of people were known in advance, people might try to order their
songs to try to anticipate how their "opponents" might order their songs (I agree that this is
fairly weak).
Post by RWC
Bill
1
2
3
4
Bob
5
6
7
8
...
44
1,5,9,13
17,21,25,29
33,37,41,2
6,10,14,18
22,26,30,34
38,42,3,7
11,15,19,23
27,31,35,39
43,4,8,12
16,20,24,28
32,36,40,44
post-prelim matchups, that meet the required criteria, could also be determined
systematically (aka transparently).
SavoyBG
2019-04-10 00:02:20 UTC
Permalink
it would be nice if he would explain exactly how how produces the match-ups.
Funny, I don't remember anyone asking Roger how he produced the matchups in those Battle contests.

I do it by creating a playlist in Musicmatch and then hitting "shuffle." The songs are shuffled at random, and those are the matchups. If there's a matchup that can't go, like 2 songs from the same nominator, the bottom one drops to the next group with the top one from that next group moving up.
Dennis C
2019-04-10 00:20:19 UTC
Permalink
No one asked Sir Roger Ford because he's a consummate gentleman and a proper Englishman!!

You would do well to emulate his standout example of decorum and rectitude and quit shufflin' about, baby!!
Roger Ford
2019-04-10 05:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dennis C
No one asked Sir Roger Ford because he's a consummate gentleman and a proper Englishman!!
Thanks Dennis! Which account do I send the bitcoin to?
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
2019-04-10 01:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by SavoyBG
it would be nice if he would explain exactly how how produces the match-ups.
Funny, I don't remember anyone asking Roger how he produced the matchups in those Battle contests.
Those Battle contests were song against song, with Roger expertly choosing the
songs.

The Obscure contest, on the other hand, is not just song against song. Each song
has an 'owner'... who might identify (to a degree depending on the individual -
forget Bob :-) with its success or failure. I don't recall Bill 'whining' (to
use his word) about any Battle outcome :-)
Roger Ford
2019-04-10 13:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by RWC
Post by SavoyBG
it would be nice if he would explain exactly how how produces the match-ups.
Funny, I don't remember anyone asking Roger how he produced the matchups in those Battle contests.
Those Battle contests were song against song, with Roger expertly choosing the
songs.
How much of an "expert" do you need to be to pick the Battle matchups
out of a hat? That's how it was done.

OK officer,I lied.

It wasn't a hat.

Actually it was a large china bowl

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
2019-04-10 14:29:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Ford
Post by RWC
Those Battle contests were song against song, with Roger expertly choosing the
songs.
How much of an "expert" do you need to be to pick the Battle matchups
out of a hat? That's how it was done.
I was not referring to matchups, but the pool of candidate songs for the year.
RWC
2019-04-10 14:20:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick Schubert
Post by RWC
Post by DianeE
Also think the Gladiolas record is
pretty good and would have done better in a different matchup.
Matchups can be critical. The eventual tournament winner and runner-up will, in
theory at least, not be affected by any earlier matchups
I agree that matchups can be critical, but the eventual tournament winner and runner-up can also be
affected by any earlier matchups. For example, what if everyone ranked the same 4 songs as their 4
favorites of the tournament, you would expect that 2 of those songs would end up as the top 2 given
most (or, at least, many) matchups . But if those 4 songs met in one round
Yes, I should not have used the 'theory' word, but 'realistically' what are the
chances of "everyone ranking the same 4 songs as their 4 favorites" *and* "those
4 songs meeting in one round". And many (not all) nominators will rank their own
nominations ahead of all other nominations.
Post by Rick Schubert
There are problems with this method. Bill and Bob face each other 3 times and don't face 9 other
people at all. Also, if the order of people were known in advance, people might try to order their
songs to try to anticipate how their "opponents" might order their songs (I agree that this is
fairly weak).
Okay, then we need to prioritize nominator matchups - by allocating 4 nominators
in the first instance (rather than songs) to each of 11 prelim matchups
(assuming 44 nominations) such that a nominator appears 4 times in total *and*
nominator pair matchups are minimized. This exercise is no longer trivial (or
perhaps it is, Rick?), but, once the 'pattern' of 11 groups of 4 songs (using
song numbers 1 - 44) has been worked out, this pattern can be used by the
tournament organizer. Of course there would need to be patterns for other
nomination quantities (eg 40 and 48), and these patterns would be made public.

Using shuffle in Musicmatch Jukebox is much simpler and quicker, but it's not
transparent and there's no control over nominator pair matchups - Musicmatch
could have Bill and Bob facing each other 3 times...

Surely there's more at stake with this tournament transparency issue than with
Trump winning the election in 2016 or with the downfall of democracy in the UK
- neither Trump nor Brexit keeps me awake at night...

:-)
Loading...