Who cares if I listen? A study of dodecaphonic music enjoyment

As promised in the other thread, I share with you the results of the «Dodecaphonic survey». A brief summary:

• Quote

   

  • take a brief dodecaphonic piece, let us call it D;
  • modify 10% of the notes in D by changing their pitch. Let us call this new piece DM;
  • have an audience of people who appreciate dodecaphonic music listen to D and DM;
  • there is no evidence that the listener’s enjoyment is lowered from D to DM. In other words, dodecaphonic enthusiasts seem not to care that the notes being played are “wrong”.

   

   

Here is the full article: Who cares if I listen? A study of dodecaphonic music enjoyment.
Thanks to everyone who took some time to fill in the answers, I really appreciate.

Fascinating! There are obvious limitations to your study as you mentioned in the article, but I always find this stuff so interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions, if that's okay.

3 minutes ago, Tónskáld said:

Fascinating! There are obvious limitations to your study as you mentioned in the article, but I always find this stuff so interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I'll let you know if I have any follow-up questions, if that's okay.

 

Of course it is okay, nice to see that there are other poeple interested in these experiments!

As now I need a drink, those hours staring at the monitor gave me a headache! 😆

Forgive me if I'm overlooking this in the article...

You said your study had 80% power to determine a statistical difference with an N of 30 for DOD-appreciating listeners. Did you meet that? I couldn't find it in the article. I realize you were testing the null hypothesis (that there will be no difference), but if you didn't meet your predetermined sample size, doesn't that call into question whether a difference really does exist, you just weren't able to find it?

Also:

Should the first column read "DOD1" and "DOD2?" (This is under the results section for the Dodecaphonic Pieces.)

7 minutes ago, Tónskáld said:

Should the first column read "DOD1" and "DOD2?" (This is under the results section for the Dodecaphonic Pieces.)
 

Excellent find, corrected now!

8 minutes ago, Tónskáld said:

Forgive me if I'm overlooking this in the article...

You said your study had 80% power to determine a statistical difference with an N of 30 for DOD-appreciating listeners. Did you meet that? I couldn't find it in the article. I realize you were testing the null hypothesis (that there will be no difference), but if you didn't meet your predetermined sample size, doesn't that call into question whether a difference really does exist, you just weren't able to find it?

The sample size was met! In both DOD1 and DOD2 we have N₁ + N₂ (so the sample listening to the original track plus the sample listening to the corrupted one) = 34. Having posted this here and on other forums and on IRC I expected a bit more — though dodecaphonic lovers are not easy to come by — but we reached the threshold. The ‘N’s are in the «descriptive statistics» tables, I will edit the article to make it clearer!

A minor correction: we didn’t test Hₒ≠H₁, but Hₒ>H₁ (abusing notation, I should have said P(X>Y)). This is of course for efficiency reason (again, fewer observation needed for the same power!); you can check it in the ‘p’ of DOD2, which is extremely high despite the original/corrupted piece having a somewhat different distribution, because the corrupted version was rated higher!

Thanks for the comments, if you have any more don’t be shy!

5 hours ago, accmacmusic said:

Excellent find, corrected now!

The sample size was met! In both DOD1 and DOD2 we have N₁ + N₂ (so the sample listening to the original track plus the sample listening to the corrupted one) = 34. Having posted this here and on other forums and on IRC I expected a bit more — though dodecaphonic lovers are not easy to come by — but we reached the threshold. The ‘N’s are in the «descriptive statistics» tables, I will edit the article to make it clearer!

A minor correction: we didn’t test Hₒ≠H₁, but Hₒ>H₁ (abusing notation, I should have said P(X>Y)). This is of course for efficiency reason (again, fewer observation needed for the same power!); you can check it in the ‘p’ of DOD2, which is extremely high despite the original/corrupted piece having a somewhat different distribution, because the corrupted version was rated higher!

Thanks for the comments, if you have any more don’t be shy!

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain! I hope you're able to seek publication with this.