Nearing Completion of Evaluation of RS system (not)

I'll wait two more days and then publish ALL the possible answers of which I'm aware .

There are at least 18. I'll post them Monday night, so tomorrow is your last day to shine.

~FK

I'm looking at it from more of a sales or marking approach, but what is #1? It looks to be the most requested song based upon the criteria. How does that translate into dollars? I'd be more interested in the songs that generate the most revenue in record sales rather than just being popular one week, although I would expect some correlation. I would then look into the songs that sold the most and see what they had in common. Seeing a bunch of hits by a band called "The Beatles" I'd conclude that to be successful that you need four guys in a band and proceed to only play songs from bands with four guys.

A song can be most requested in a month without ever being most requested in a week. So the apparent objective was to create songs that would be popular for only one week.

It's possible, but unlikely, that no hit songs were anywhere near 3:05. E.g. half were 2:35 and the other half were 3:35.

The conclusion assumes the popularity of a song has some basis in its length, i.e. begging the question. I.e. the unpopular songs might have averaged 3:05 as well, and with less variance.

If one particular song of that exact length was popular for a few years, the result would probably be tainted by a single element of that single song that might have nothing to do with its popularity.

You're assuming that any song can be made more popular by altering its length. It's quite possible that some can, but the vast majority cannot, wasting investment in alterations that have no effect.

This isn't a good IQ test, in fact it's a bad IQ test, because smart people don't bother to prove that a bad idea is bad in 18 different ways.

It was actually an extra credit question in my high-school AT class.

BTW you are currently our answer leader. Good job!

DonDiego likes ballads. They're 'most always over 3:05. F'rinstance, one of DonDiego's favorites, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" is more than 6½ minutes.

"When suppertime came the old cook came on deck sayin'.
'Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya.'
At seven P.M. a main hatchway caved in; he said,
'Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!' "

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

Why, heckfire, . . . "Hotel California" is over 6 minutes. And "The House of the Rising Sun" was 4½ minutes until them darned radio folks cut it down to 2:58 !

So, it's wrong to cut tunes down for airplay. It's jes' wrong; . . . the length of a performance should be whatever the artists creates.

So, what happened to the analysis of the Singer system?

Let me make it easy for you, Frank. Unless Rob told you when he makes his "special plays" there can be no analysis. We just went through this on my forum.

If however Rob has revealed to you this (what I would call a moving target formula) his "system" cannot be proved or disproved. Rob's math is not in question as he admits all of his special plays are at a disadvantage to the conventional plays.

Like Colonel Sanders he has a secret ingredient. Did he reveal it to you?

See the thread called "Frank Kneeland on Rob Singer?". It's all there.

Well I thought we had decided to call it here, Rob has now indicated to me that he'd like to get together once more in person, middle of next month, to submit more info. He thinks email is a bad way to communicate and that things would be easier in person. I cannot dispute that at all, and so will be holding off until I see him to publish.

ETC is about one month.

I hope Friedmush can keep himself busy until then.

DonDiego is on a pin and a needle.

Oh, OH!
In the meantime, here's another question:

How far can one lower an infinite rope into a bottomless pit?

All the way ... assuming you have enough time