Wednesday, 3 December 2014

Survey results and some interpretation and thoughts

So, I am back again. I thought I would take this chance to share the results from both the initial, and the follow up survey with everyone. It should be noted I won't share the actual comments people made since I don't have permission to do such, but I will give a brief summary of the results.

First here are the results to the initial survey,
It is noted below that the results do not "add up" this is explained and corrected below.

For those keeping track the second survey began to explore the topic a bit more in depth. It should be noted as all data was collected anonymously it is not possible to know if respondents were consistent between the two. In hind sight this may have been something to consider, but, at the time since no controllable database was used, and anonymity was sought after this was the route that I had to follow. Here are the results to the second survey:


So where does this put us? First I would have liked to get a larger sample size, but that is not really in my control, that being said I will open up a form that will be linked below if you want to anonymously leave your thoughts on the subject matter. If you want to comment directly feel free to comment here, or e-mail me your thoughts. OR GUEST BLOG. These things are very important when developing an article in my opinion, since often in music we rely on the objective comments of the author to express an idea. I would like a great blend of objective and subjectivity towards the overall product.

Second, If we look at the totals there is an error in the initial survey, there were 55 logged respondents, but of that 55, 5 submitted a form with no data, so the adjusted percentages are as follows:
  • Have performed: 40%
  • Studied/would like to: 8%
  • Interested: 32%
  • No interest: 20%
Now an initial comparison of the data provides some points of interest. The first area, which could be very coincidental is that 20% of people have no interest in this style of music, and 18% have never seen a work like this. We can go one step further to consider that of the 14% of respondents (second survey) 80% of them (or 11% of overall) have no interest in exploring this kind, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened with a larger sample source. Though, there are some consistencies, though they are hard to infer from a small sample.

Looking again at the responses in the second survey we can observe that the OVERALL negative impression that would lead to not wanting to explore this music is a total of 25% (11% have not seen chart, 14% have seen). This is again close to the results (+5%) of the original survey. Both of these are positive as the initial survey had no inquiry in to exposure beyond personal performance.

Now a few key points of the written responses are as follows:
  • The success of the music seen appears to rely heavily on a few key points,
    • First, the actual composition itself, is it effective and is there an inherit purpose to the piece.
    • Level of the performer, there seems, based on responses, a lot less room for "faking" as the inherent style of the music requires a very active performer. 
      • Not full of melodies, something needs to be there.
    • Is it cohesive (compositionally and as a performance) unless the goal is to be not. Clarity in architecture.
    • How well are the electronics used. The multimedia, when well done is full of  virtuosity, not an afterthought, or perceived therein to be one.
  • Equipment used NEEDS to be high quality, and all bugs sorted out.
  • Audience involvement, not necessarily in a cheesy educational way, but tools are needed to engage the listeners, especially those who are new, and could feel overwhelmed.
These highlight reoccurring themes in the survey responses, there are many other ideas, and thoughts that are all appreciated and will have great use. What struck me the most is the complexity of reception of this music. This is something I myself am trying to figure out as much as I can so it is good to see it is an active element of the environment that surrounds the field.

So, more will come as I interpret data, if you want to add anything feel free as I said to do it in the comments, or e-mail. If you want it to be anonymous, follow the link below.

Link to form

Again, thank you to all those who took time to fill these out they are serving me greatly towards constructing an article that should hopefully apply to the interests of many and not be self serving ;)