Permalink for Comment #1378134508 by lysergic

, comment by lysergic
lysergic The fact that the model can explain 40% of variation in show rating is incredible. Think about it. That means 40% of the perceived quality of the show (as evaluated by .netters) can be explained purely by looking at the show on paper. You don't have to hear a single second. We are talking about a band famous for improvisation and fans who can tirelessly analyze the details distinguishing different live versions of the same song. More than that, we are talking about music and all of the emotions it invokes. To state the obvious: looking at a setlist on paper and listening to a show are completely different phenomena. Presumably the show ratings are based on the latter, not the former.

Looking at the model output, you can tell what the ideal 3.0 show looks like on paper:
--three sets, with only a few songs per set
--lots of segues
--major bustouts
--narration songs
--played on a weekend at a festival

...sounds like a good time to me!

Also the time trend indicates that either recent shows have biased ratings, or the band is improving over the course of 3.0. Probably both are true.
Support & Mbird is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.

This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.

Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA

© 1990-2020  The Mockingbird Foundation, Inc. | Hosted by Linode