Variations in GN'R's setlists

[bionic56]

So has "bbba" exposed SoulMonster to being a fraud, most of us knew that anyway

[bbbba]

So has "bbba" exposed SoulMonster to being a fraud, most of us knew that anyway

This isn't a unique problem that has never been solved before. I thought we wanted to get some proper results not an invented Heath Robinson approach that seeks to produce balloney and bullshit conclusions.

Edited October 12, 2012 by bbbba

[SoulMonster]

I answer you, but you don't appear to read beyond the first few words. Is this may be some form of attrition tactic? Anyway, AGAIN, if you avoid using conventional maths to solve an easy problem like this, then you won't get the right answers. If you don't know the conventional method, then ask someone or read up about it.

Haha, as soon as you point out how the methodology fail to result in numerical values that nicely represent list variation then I will jump on the work of adopting a new methodology. But if you are unable to point out how the methodology doesn't give numerical values that nicely represent list variation -- which I am afraid has become abundantly clear by now -- then there is no problem here that needs correcting

[bbbba]

I answer you, but you don't appear to read beyond the first few words. Is this may be some form of attrition tactic? Anyway, AGAIN, if you avoid using conventional maths to solve an easy problem like this, then you won't get the right answers. If you don't know the conventional method, then ask someone or read up about it.

Haha, as soon as you point out how the methodology fail to result in numerical values that nicely represent list variation then I will jump on the work of adopting a new methodology. But if you are unable to point out how the methodology doesn't give numerical values that nicely represent list variation -- which I am afraid has become abundantly clear by now -- then there is no problem here that needs correcting

If I sit on my calculator, my ass produces numbers too.

[SoulMonster]

I thought we wanted to get some proper results not an invented Heath Robinson approach that seeks to produce balloney and bullshit conclusions.

What is "baloney" or "bullshit" about the similarity scores calculated for the example lists a few posts ago?

You have claimed the methodology is wrong without explaining how it fails at giving scores that reflect variation in setlists.

You have insisted that another method should be used instead without explaining what is wrong with the results obtained with the current method.

You have claimed that my approach "seek to produce balloney [sic] and bullshit conclusions".

Pretty indecent of you, no?

I answer you, but you don't appear to read beyond the first few words. Is this may be some form of attrition tactic? Anyway, AGAIN, if you avoid using conventional maths to solve an easy problem like this, then you won't get the right answers. If you don't know the conventional method, then ask someone or read up about it.

Haha, as soon as you point out how the methodology fail to result in numerical values that nicely represent list variation then I will jump on the work of adopting a new methodology. But if you are unable to point out how the methodology doesn't give numerical values that nicely represent list variation -- which I am afraid has become abundantly clear by now -- then there is no problem here that needs correcting

If I sit on my calculator, my ass produces numbers too.

But surely not numbers that nicely reflect the amount of variation in two lists!

[bbbba]

I thought we wanted to get some proper results not an invented Heath Robinson approach that seeks to produce balloney and bullshit conclusions.

What is "baloney" or "bullshit" about the similarity scores calculated for the example lists a few posts ago?

You have claimed the methodology is wrong without explaining how it fails at giving scores that reflect variation in setlists.

You have insisted that another method should be used instead without explaining what is wrong with the results obtained with the current method.

You have claimed that my approach "seek to produce balloney [sic] and bullshit conclusions".

Pretty indecent of you, no?

I answer you, but you don't appear to read beyond the first few words. Is this may be some form of attrition tactic? Anyway, AGAIN, if you avoid using conventional maths to solve an easy problem like this, then you won't get the right answers. If you don't know the conventional method, then ask someone or read up about it.

Haha, as soon as you point out how the methodology fail to result in numerical values that nicely represent list variation then I will jump on the work of adopting a new methodology. But if you are unable to point out how the methodology doesn't give numerical values that nicely represent list variation -- which I am afraid has become abundantly clear by now -- then there is no problem here that needs correcting

If I sit on my calculator, my ass produces numbers too.

But surely not numbers that nicely reflect the amount of variation in two lists!

Do the maths properly - you don't have to invent a new method so that you can arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Just do the thing as any educated person would do it!

[SoulMonster]

I thought we wanted to get some proper results not an invented Heath Robinson approach that seeks to produce balloney and bullshit conclusions.

What is "baloney" or "bullshit" about the similarity scores calculated for the example lists a few posts ago?

You have claimed the methodology is wrong without explaining how it fails at giving scores that reflect variation in setlists.

You have insisted that another method should be used instead without explaining what is wrong with the results obtained with the current method.

You have claimed that my approach "seek to produce balloney [sic] and bullshit conclusions".

Pretty indecent of you, no?

I answer you, but you don't appear to read beyond the first few words. Is this may be some form of attrition tactic? Anyway, AGAIN, if you avoid using conventional maths to solve an easy problem like this, then you won't get the right answers. If you don't know the conventional method, then ask someone or read up about it.

Haha, as soon as you point out how the methodology fail to result in numerical values that nicely represent list variation then I will jump on the work of adopting a new methodology. But if you are unable to point out how the methodology doesn't give numerical values that nicely represent list variation -- which I am afraid has become abundantly clear by now -- then there is no problem here that needs correcting

If I sit on my calculator, my ass produces numbers too.

But surely not numbers that nicely reflect the amount of variation in two lists!

Do the maths properly - you don't have to invent a new method so that you can arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Just do the thing as any educated person would do it!

And now you claim I had "pre-determined conclusions". Haha

Go back to the few example lists which I have conveniently pasted below and tell me how the scores doesn't nicely reflect the variation, then come back and tell me I need to use another method. There's nothing wrong with the math used, and the fact that you don't get this nor are able to tell how the results doesn't correspond to set list variation, just means all of this is beyond you

List 1: A, B, C, D, E.

List 2, A, B, C, E, D.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 4.5.

List 1: A, B, C, D, E.

List 3: E, D, C, B, A.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 2.5

List 1: A, B, C, D, E.

List 4: A, B, F, G, H.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 2.0

List 1: A, B; C, D, E.

List 5: F, G, H, I, A.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 0.5.

Edited October 12, 2012 by SoulMonster

[bbbba]

I thought we wanted to get some proper results not an invented Heath Robinson approach that seeks to produce balloney and bullshit conclusions.

What is "baloney" or "bullshit" about the similarity scores calculated for the example lists a few posts ago?

You have claimed the methodology is wrong without explaining how it fails at giving scores that reflect variation in setlists.

You have insisted that another method should be used instead without explaining what is wrong with the results obtained with the current method.

You have claimed that my approach "seek to produce balloney [sic] and bullshit conclusions".

Pretty indecent of you, no?

I answer you, but you don't appear to read beyond the first few words. Is this may be some form of attrition tactic? Anyway, AGAIN, if you avoid using conventional maths to solve an easy problem like this, then you won't get the right answers. If you don't know the conventional method, then ask someone or read up about it.

Haha, as soon as you point out how the methodology fail to result in numerical values that nicely represent list variation then I will jump on the work of adopting a new methodology. But if you are unable to point out how the methodology doesn't give numerical values that nicely represent list variation -- which I am afraid has become abundantly clear by now -- then there is no problem here that needs correcting

If I sit on my calculator, my ass produces numbers too.

But surely not numbers that nicely reflect the amount of variation in two lists!

Do the maths properly - you don't have to invent a new method so that you can arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Just do the thing as any educated person would do it!

And now you claim I had "pre-determined conclusions". Haha

Go back to the few example lists which I have conveniently pasted below and tell me how the scores doesn't nicely reflect the variation, then come back and tell me I need to use another method. There's nothing wrong with the math used, and the fact that you don't get this nor are able to tell how the results doesn't correspond to set list variation, just means all of this is beyond you

List 1: A, B, C, D, E.

List 2, A, B, C, E, D.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 4.5.

List 1: A, B, C, D, E.

List 3: E, D, C, B, A.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 2.5

List 1: A, B, C, D, E.

List 4: A, B, F, G, H.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 2.0

List 1: A, B; C, D, E.

List 5: F, G, H, I, A.

Using my methodology the similarity score is 0.5.

Do the maths properly - you don't have to invent a new method so that you can arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Just do the thing as any educated person would do it!

[Apollo]

Clever man like you, should be able to read. How can we believe your facts if you can't read Sir ?

Most people will believe my "facts" because they are either intelligent enough to know I wouldn't make stuff up when it can easily be checked, or because they are intelligent enough to actually check for themselves. Are you in one of these two groups?

Mr SoulMonster i'm not in any group, I'm me , i do not follow like a sheep Thankyou Sir.

So it might be true that there isn't as much difference between consecutive gigs these days, at least not compared to early days and in the experimental start of the UYI tour, but the small changes that occur all the time accumulates to great differences over a larger scale. In other words, GN'R hasn't "been playing the same setlist for 10 years", or whatever some people claim, but at the same time each tour's setlists are more similar now than before.

Does it really matter when the audiences are treated to almost 3 hours of a great combination of the best from the whole era of GN'R? No, not really.

I'd say that those two paragraphs are all that need to be said.

GnR is clearly not playing the same set list as 10 years ago. But, each individual tour does not have much variation.

GnR is still putting on a great show.

All the arguing on here is basically just the anti-Axl people and the Axl Nutters having their typical battle, which they do regardless of what the topic is.

[bbbba]

Clever man like you, should be able to read. How can we believe your facts if you can't read Sir ?

Most people will believe my "facts" because they are either intelligent enough to know I wouldn't make stuff up when it can easily be checked, or because they are intelligent enough to actually check for themselves. Are you in one of these two groups?

Mr SoulMonster i'm not in any group, I'm me , i do not follow like a sheep Thankyou Sir.

So it might be true that there isn't as much difference between consecutive gigs these days, at least not compared to early days and in the experimental start of the UYI tour, but the small changes that occur all the time accumulates to great differences over a larger scale. In other words, GN'R hasn't "been playing the same setlist for 10 years", or whatever some people claim, but at the same time each tour's setlists are more similar now than before.

Does it really matter when the audiences are treated to almost 3 hours of a great combination of the best from the whole era of GN'R? No, not really.

I'd say that those two paragraphs are all that need to be said.

GnR is clearly not playing the same set list as 10 years ago. But, each individual tour does not have much variation.

GnR is still putting on a great show.

All the arguing on here is basically just the anti-Axl people and the Axl Nutters having their typical battle, which they do regardless of what the topic is.

Agreed. Why are they like this?

[SoulMonster]

Do the maths properly - you don't have to invent a new method so that you can arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Just do the thing as any educated person would do it!

I usually never heed the saying "if you argue with a fool, chances are you are one", but I will now. As soon as you point out how the similarity scores fail to give numerical values that reflect the variation in lists, then I will be more than happy to discuss this with you again, but if you continue to reject to explain how the results of my methodology fail at correlating with set list variation, then I won't waste more time on you.

[bbbba]

Do the maths properly - you don't have to invent a new method so that you can arrive at pre-determined conclusions. Just do the thing as any educated person would do it!

I usually never heed the saying "if you argue with a fool, chances are you are one", but I will now. As soon as you point out how the similarity scores fail to give numerical values that reflect the variation in lists, then I will be more than happy to discuss this with you again, but if you continue to reject to explain how the results of my methodology fail at correlating with set list variation, then I won't waste more time on you.

lol whatever... I'm trying to see things from your point of view, but I am struggling to get my head that far up my ass..

Edited October 12, 2012 by bbbba

[GnR Chris]

Interesting info, man. This on the heels of the other thread where DJ went on about how spontaneous their setlists have been. In the words of Lee Elia, "my fuckin' ass."

[Apollo]

Thank you for taking the time to do it and post is Soul