|
I'm just saying man, an artist citing an influence is still not a reliable data point. Self-report measures have a thousand flaws. The self-report bias is a thing!
Think about it, if I'm a guitar player in an indie band and I'm asked to list my influences, chances are I'm going to say a bunch of names that I think will make me sound cool. Ima be like, "yo, I'm all about Big Black, Shellac, Sonic Yourh, and this dude Glen Branca" even if my music sounds like Matchbox 20 compared to those artists. Even if I'm in the band Real Estate or some shit, I'm gonna say my influenced are super dope. I'm gonna name drop. (Not me as in Severian, but me as in the character I was playing for those two sentences.)
So I'm on board with connecting the dots statistically. Find a unique chord change in 1964, see it again in 1978 and 84 and 93... I get that that's a fairly valid way to observe and measure the impact of instance #1. *fairly* ...
But I don't think the self-testimonies can be taken at face value because there are a millions reasons why people say the things they say when they're asked questions.
I get what you're saying and I respect the amount of thought you've put into this. I hope you get where I'm coming from and don't think I'm just hating on you. Basically I think you're about 50-60% on point, but there has to be a more reliable measure than self report/testimony to flesh out the model if it's going to fall into the category of quantitative statistically sound research.
But I'm a science guy. That's my bias. As much as I love the arts and -- fuck, I WORK in the fucking arts now-- my education and training was predominantly in the experimental sciences. I have to remind myself sometimes that quantitative research has a ton of value and plays a huge role in the flow and development of theory and knowledge.
|