BBC R3 test: How Musical Are You?

[tony yyy]

Never in a million years did I expect to see so many people proudly crowing about being unmoved, uncurious, apathetic, and amusical. The antisocial bias I could have predicted, but good grief! I was fully expecting to be subjected to a huge pile-on of people with perfect scores gloating and rubbing it in.

I thought we were just laughing at the test.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks for this suggestion. I had to trumpet as I'm rubbish at everything else.

My 80 year old father who plays the electronic keyboard and the ukelele banjo, both very well, albeit while wearing a variety of paper hats, wasn't very enthusiastic about taking the tests. However, he eventually did so.

He achieved 98% for perception, which he fully deserves, 59% for creativity, 28% for emotional connection and 14% for curiosity. He thought it was about right.

He didn't jot down his score for enthusiasm as he forgot that bit.

[Mary Chambers]

I thought the test was very funny, Tony, although I did quite well. Is tapping/clapping/singing along meant to be a sign of musicality or unmusicality, I wonder? (I know what I think.) How well can I remember/reproduce tunes? 'Tunes'? Do they mean a few seconds of a Beatles song or ten minutes of Webern? It's mostly nonsense, isn't it?

It says I can appreciate the finest compositions (thanks). It also says I would probably enjoy Freak Zone with Stuart Maconie and Jazz Record Requests. Sorry, I wouldn't :)

[french frank]

I thought we were just laughing at the test.

Another fascinating point about this test is that, although, judging from the publicity, Radio 3 is supposed to have commissioned it, it isn't primarily for Radio 3/classical music listeners: it's principally for the population at large who most of the time listen to rhythm-based popular/dance music.

I thought the Guardian comment was perhaps right that people who got 100% or near in certain areas, were probably those whose answers were in the Strongly agree/Strongly disagree categories (which some of us routinely exclude from answers, no matter what the subject). And, of course, the questions reflect, to a large extent, our own perception of our 'musicality'. (Were we 'penalised' for saying 'I think so' rather than 'I'm absolutely certain'?)

[VodkaDilc]

(Were we 'penalised' for saying 'I think so' rather than 'I'm absolutely certain'?)

I think we possibly were. Much the same as Associated Board examiners seem to penalise those who give less than immediate answers in their aural tests these days. When I took exams in the 1960s, I was always advised to think for a while before answering and to check that I was right; now that would be seen as hesitation.

[mercia]

I don't know hip-hop from hip pain

I believe one causes the other

[Anna]

My results were:
Enthusiasm 57%
Perception 11%
Emotion 76%
Creativity 5%
Curiosity 59%

I'd stay that was a fair summing up as I have never learnt an instrument and consider myself pretty much tone deaf! I also tend to listen on an emotional level. I did best on the tapping section, 8/9, the only genre I got completely right was Jazz but on the melody, etc., tests I only got 50% right although the majority of my answers were 'I think' rather than 'I'm certain' I also had very few 'strongly' answers.

[Eudaimonia]

I would have been very pleased, of course, but would never have announced it in public.

I actually hesitated before including my results because, as I said, I was fully expecting the majority of people here to have perfect scores--or at least, a tick or two higher than my own-- and that I would be subtly put down for it. In the most genteel, British way possible of course. Not that any of you know anything about that, oh heavens no.

Oh well. At least it's generating interest in the station, and hopefully researchers will find something useful in the correlations between the areas of study. Would it have been better if it were less subjective and more objective? Perhaps, but since we don't know exactly what they're aiming at, it's hard to say. Besides, there's no faking your melodic memory or rhythmic sense, is there.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, I always thought I was rather emotional, but 34% for this, with the rest in the 90s? It doesn't seem to fit.

But before we all take it too seriously, let us not forget that government report that classed Marmite as junk food because of its high salt content, but let Coca Cola off the hook because %wise its sugar and additives didn't amount to much. But there was no allowance made for the fact that Marmite is highly concentrated and eaten in small portions, whilt Coke is mostly water, but is drunk in larger quantities.

[mercia]

Marmite

Yum - must go and have some on toast right now.

(by the way, is this an example of "spamming" if one interrupts a serious discussion with irrelevant silliness?)

[french frank]

the majority of people here to have perfect scores--or at least, a tick or two higher than my own-- and that I would be subtly put down for it. In the most genteel, British way possible of course.

I was in an area of teaching where even a mark of 95% would have been totally unheard of ... so there would have been no put-down from me!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Yum - must go and have some on toast right now.

(by the way, is this an example of "spamming" if one interrupts a serious discussion with irrelevant silliness?)

Maybe, but I'm not a Host on Platform 3, so you're safe. :)

[Panjandrum]

I actually hesitated before including my results because, as I said, I was fully expecting the majority of people here to have perfect scores--or at least, a tick or two higher than my own-- and that I would be subtly put down for it. In the most genteel, British way possible of course. Not that any of you know anything about that, oh heavens no.

.

I'm not sure what I see there is to boast about anyway with one's "scores". After all, it takes little or no skill to "completely" agree or disagree with any of the statements made; which is all that one apparently needs to do to score highly on this soi-disant test.

The only mildly objective part of the test were the "musical" examples. Perhaps the OP would like to commission a test which required sight reading skills. For example, a piece of music could be played to a multiple choice of four discrete scores. Or, an original score could be played and contestants would be required to enter the key in which the piece was composed. That would at least be a step up from the ridiculous beat tapping exercise.

[Panjandrum]

Yes, this exercise is full of curiosity. I have to admit that I was surprised by my 99% for musical perception because while I was significantly above the halfway mark for correct answers in all the tests, I didn't get all the parts right by any means. And as more of a populist, I would have expected to score highest on genre and that wasn't the case.

Nevertheless, he says, in attempting a robust defence of a good result, the gold medal is currently with the initial poster who is undoubtedly a classical music person. If it turns out that said person was the designer of the exercise, I'm chomping at the bit to claim the winners prize. It will prove that writing the Top 30 out every week from the age of 7 to the age of 40 and seeking to memorize every record wasn't a sign of long-term disturbance after all.

Your 99% result was not caused by any inate skill I'm afraid but was generated from how you answered the questionnaire. Presumably, you answered that you were happy to sing at parties, could whistle a tune, and often sung to yourself. Nothing to gain my admiration Im afraid. As a matter of interest, what were your scores on the musical tests?

[3rd Viennese School]

No, they still wont let me join in the fun. I havent got Java Script or something.
What sort of questions do they ask?