Optimism is about emotional states of being including hope, wishful thinking, and at its worse fairy-tale views of the world that its always getting better.

Pessimism is its opposite, which includes hopelessness, despondency, and at its worse fatalism that the world is going to get worse.

Both lead to paralysis since at their most extreme, the world is just fine as it if you are optimist so why worry about it, or its going to hell if you are pessimist and there is nothing that can be done about it.

As soon as one accepts optimism or pessimism as their worldview, they shut themselves off from asking questions. I used to consider myself pessimistic and a cynic but after finally reading those definitions, I realized that this was not me.

My blog is about asking questions, hopefully relevant and rational questions. My goal is to find solutions, not preach optimism or pressimism. I realized that I am a skeptic.

So, perhaps this is the political philosophy that I am waiting for, one based on the principles of skepticism. Interestingly, some people have gone ahead and done just that with a new political party being formed in Australia challenging one of environmentalism’s holy cows, global warming, under the banner of The Climate Sceptics Party. Its a bold move and is sure to cause huge controversy but good skepticism is necessary for all political philosophies, including the Greens and their conviction in global warming.

I am pleased that they have been established. They have provided to the world a small but important step towards embracing skepticism as a way of viewing the political world. Perhaps, with persistence the political manifestation of skepticism can be the cure of the mental diseases of optimism and pessimism, and ultimately help us better understand our human nature.

Based on my experience with Socialism, Green Politics, and Anti-ideology thinking, I have arrived at a conclusion that the problem with politics, political philosophy, and philosophy in general is that humans fail to understand human nature.

Absurd isn’t it? To be human and yet not understand what human nature is…

Yet, that is exactly what I think is the problem. Let me illustrate:

I have argued for quite some time that ideology is a human disease that creates wars and immense human suffering. Yet, ideology is just the dogma of political philosophy, which in turn is just a world view that claims to understand what human nature and life is.

All political and general philosophies are about understanding what our human nature is. General philosophy will be about our relationship with the world, purpose of life, etc. but it is political philosophy that deals with social relationships and the use of power within society including how to manage the economy and the government’s role in the lives of its citizens. Since governments and economies are fundamentally tools that represent parts of our humanity, political philosophies that focus on economics still make fundamental assumptions about human nature.

So, it is all about understanding what our Human Nature is, or as inspired by a past U.S.A. Presidential campaign, “Its Our Human Nature, Stupid”.

Now I am going to argue that the reason why all political philosophies are inherently limited and ultimately very dangerous is because they have limited and inhuman understandings of human nature. You will see that their definition of Human Nature is so distorted with blind, stupid ideology, it is little surprise we have the problems we see in the world today.

The largest political philosophies/ideologies can be generally summarized to believe the following about human nature.

• The Socialists and Communists believe that humans deserve equality of economic outcomes. Nature (human and mother nature) can be improved upon and perfected. It is natural for humans to share and be egalitarian. The weakness of Socialist and Communist thought is that they do not recognize humanity’s inherent inequality and the freedom to allow gifted elites to evolve the species.
• Libertarians and Anarchists believe that humans deserve equality of opportunity and freedom from coercion. Human nature can be improved upon if a person chooses it and people need to be given the opportunity to figure out their own way of happiness. The weakness of Libertarian and Anarchists thought is that they do not recognize that many people require authority in their lives and believe in Utopian societies where consequences do not exist.
• Welfare Liberals believe that humans deserve protection and opportunity to be contented. They do not believe in the free market, but tolerate it because it allows them to fund their government programs.  Human nature is perfectible when society provides everything that is needed. The weakness of Welfare Liberal thought is that they want to provide a perfect world where imperfect outcomes is natural.
• Conservatives believe that humans need to be ruled so that society can function. They believe that society functions best when the elites of society are properly ruling. Human nature is imperfect, but the best (through birth, connections, knowledge, or something else) will rise above the masses to be an example for the rest. The weakness of Conservative thinking is that it creates institutional thinking and thereby weakens society.
• Fascists and Nationalists believe that humans are tools to be used for the needs of the nation. They believe that human nature is only perfect if it serves the nation, otherwise it will degenerate into selfish and aimless behaviors. The weakness of Fascist and Nationalist thought is that it falls prey to xenophobia and racism.
• Populists believe that humans (‘the people’) need to be consulted with matters that affect them. Human nature is presumed for everyone who one of the folk and you continue to possess this human nature so long as you remain part of the group. The weakness of Populist thought is that it falls prey to mob mentality and tends to be reactionary.
• Humanists believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution. Because humans are able to think, create technology, and communicate with advances symbols, the natural world and the universe is its oyster. The weakness of Humanist thinking is that it tends to be materialistic, expansionist, and insular.
• Greens believe that humans need to live in balance with the natural world. They want human society to be smaller, more peaceful, and egalitarian so that humanity can be happier. The weakness of Green thinking is that it falls prey to employing scare tactics, self-extinction, and scarcity thinking.

Can you see how each of the political philosophies has a rigid understanding of Human Nature? It is one thing, and one thing only, not being allowed to change. Political philosophy and its bulldog, ideology, tell us only they they understand human nature and there are no other interpretations. Sounds just like most religions.

So, what exactly is Human Nature? It is generally described as “the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.”  While this definition is accurate, it is far too vague and does not list the qualities that makes up human nature.

Based on my own insights and a brief peruse of the internet, I think Human Nature possesses at least the following qualities:

• It is complex, and is made up of multiple factors.
• One of the most overt factors was all share is that we are physical beings that depends on our physical environment to survive.
• It is dynamic, possessing the ability to change and evolve.  See blog post ‘Are Most People Good?’. This is direct contrast with those philosophies that see human nature as being inherently good or evil.
• It possesses the ability to self-regulate, initiate action, but also be influenced by its environment. The question of Free Will vs Determinism or Nature vs Nurture is a needless distraction. See blog post ‘A Continuum of Human Nature’. We possess the ability to make choices, but also appear to generally prefer to have choices made for us.
• It is prone to solidifying and measuring things. This is done in an effort to exert control over its environment. We tend to spend lots of energy understanding and organizing our environment using symbols and technology. We create mental constructions and memes that encompass concepts such as Self, Human Nature, and Life. (This blog post is an example of this manifestation)
• It experiences a wide range of sensations, emotions, and thoughts which are intensely felt but rarely understood.
• Is is governed by what appears to be dilemma inducing laws such of Supply vs Demand, Freedom vs Safety, Time vs Money, Happy vs Right, Justice vs Peace, Familiarity vs Contempt, Mastery vs Ease.
• It resorts to past behaviors that worked, even if the problem and solution has changed.
• It possesses expectations and desires that are always changing and rarely satisfied.
• Is is easily led and suggestible where broken windows and littering can lead to increased vice and crime (as taken from the Economist article Can the Can).
• It has immense capacity for inflicting, experiencing, and tolerating suffering.
• It learns by making mistakes before getting it right.

I do not believe this is an exhaustive list of qualities, but is just a starting point. But what is listed provides a stark contrast to the political philosophies I listed above. It is now little wonder to me why I find those political philosophies to be inadequate.

Yet, I once too believed that ideology was the solution. And even when I realized that ideology is the problem, I did not understand the subtlety of the matter. I was wrong when I wrote in my 2005 resignation letter to the Green Party that the personal is more important that policies. While the the essential spirit of the letter still resonates for me, I now understand that the continued understanding of human nature is the solution.

And so, I continue to wait for a political philosophy that fully recognizes the potential and scope of Human Nature, instead of limiting it. I wait for a new political philosophy that tries to understand and support Human Nature. One that is prepared to ask questions, receive answers, and then ask more questions. It needs to be always open to learning.

With such a political philosophy we can finally become free of the dehumanizing yoke of ideology.

One of the things I appreciate about iTunes is the fields you can use to add extra tags to your songs.

As we discussed earlier most people use Genre as their default sorting system, but that is just tapping the surface of what you could get out of your music collection. If you have an extensive library, it would be worth your while to ‘polish’ these song tags so that you can create some great play-lists. Here are some essential tags you might want to consider using:

• Date – Should be the date of the song’s release, not the date of the album release. This is especially important when it comes to greatest hit compilations. Having the correct date allows you to listen to an artist’s evolution as a musician.
• Location – I put this in the Grouping header. I put the city, state/province, and country that the artists/band was born/formed in. Having a location can allow me to listen to bands from California or from Scotland.
• Other Info such as Member of XXX Band – I put this in the Comments header. When I do a search for the Police, I will also see my albums by Sting, Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland. Again, it allows me to listen to an artist evolve as a musician.

Do you see what this creates? It becomes possible to sort music in a new way. You can create a play-list of your Australian Rock Bands from the 1980s. You will see new trends develop and your music will become more interesting.

Where do you find this information? My favorite site for this kind of information is AllMusic.com. Check it out.

As one of the younger people at my office, I belong to the Baby Bust / Generation X cohort. which is in contrast with most of my colleagues who are in their mid to late 50s and are part of the Baby Boom.

It has been my experience that Baby Boomers are generally a positive group who believe that the world is always getting better. In contrast, I am pretty cynical about the future, particularly the Health Care industry I work in where the future challenges are being solved with more bureaucracy and institutional thinking. While I see us being faced with a very negative future, my older colleagues see lots of strengths. Who is right? I don’t know, since the correct answer depends on the question being asked. A big part of my perspective is my fiscal conservatism which which asks, “How are we going to pay for all of this?”

What I do worry about is that the Baby Boom in their enthusiasm, rose-colored view of the world, and breaking of social rules will leave the younger generations with a huge financial and social headache. I don’t see them as a group asking any of the hard questions, nor even caring how things are being run. This is demonstrated in Europe’s debt crisis with Greece not being able to afford its government programs. I am worried that this is what we will face in the future, especially as the Baby Boomers retire and begin drawing on government programs yet contribute less to the tax coffers. The problem is that the Baby Boomers are spending the money now, and it won’t really be there for them (or the following generations) when they need it.

What is interesting is that this all seems to be part of a natural cycle expressed by an interesting website I stumbled upon. The website combines mythology and generation gap issues into a thoroughly researched perspective called the Lifecourse Insight. Check it out.

I never asked her, but I am sure the presenter thought that all of the evil acts of the world are committed by a small number of bad or misunderstood people. She saw people themselves being valued as good or bad. For her, the world is made up mostly of good people whose lives get ruined by a small number of bad people. The value is placed on the person, not on the behavior.

My experience tells me otherwise. Instead of seeing human nature being inherently good or bad, I would instead that it being imbued with potential for both. Across time and place people have struggled to avoid suffering and find happiness in life.  It is the limitless ways of finding happiness that makes human nature appear so complex. Yet this complexity does not mean that we have to leave our ability to judge at the door. The value judgment of whether a particular pursuit of happiness is good or bad can be judged by the actions undertaken. The continuum between good and bad would be based around how one pursues happiness. “Good” behavior would be demonstrated when one enjoys putting the needs of others before their own needs and/or taking happiness in another’s happiness, while “Bad” behavior would see a person putting their own needs before others or having to harm/kill others to be happy.

By becoming aware of the distinction between these different kinds of happiness we can stop labeling the person or our human nature as inherently bad or good. We will find that there is no original sin or inherent angelic quality in us, just dynamic potentialities. We can then judge the actions and not the person. Awareness of this subtle but critical distinction will lead us to a healthier place as captured by Ropbert Pop in his quote: “Awareness is the first step towards healing”.

With awareness we can leave the fairy-tale worldview that human nature is inherently good and toward a more complete view of ourselves.

WHO? Every topic needs a subject.
WHAT? Every subject needs an event.
WHEN? Every event needs a time.
WHERE? Every event needs a place.
WHY? The existentialist question. There is a reason behind the subject experiencing the event, at the time and place it happened.

That’s five W’s… but there is actually a sixth, forgotten one. I will argue that the sixth W is found at the end of the question and word: “HOW?”.

HOW is the most forgotten and subtle question. It is the only future-looking or solution-focused question. After we have answers to the first five questions, we need to ask HOW so we can re-frame the entire situation to consider change and solutions.

HOW do we create peace?

HOW do we reduce suffering?

HOW do we find happiness?

Perhaps problems remain unsolved because we stop short of asking the forgotten ‘W’ question of HOW.

This is a book written for the non-academic, acting almost like a Reader’s Digest version of a business history course. The book enthuses how the revolutionary idea known as the Company is one of the single greatest contributions to civilization’s development. This enthusiasm does not mean that they ignore the negative aspects of the Company, namely the grotesque pursuit of profit and company goals over human needs such as in the Belgian Congo, but the tone of the book is fan-boyish.

Tone aside, the authors do accomplish what they set out to do. They illustrate how the idea of the Company is pretty revolutionary. Basically a government body grants a charter for a collective of disperse individuals to work together by pooling their capital and resources for the purpose of wealth accumulation. The book talks how the different national governments dealt with the rise of the Company (limited-liability joint-share corporations), and how in places like Britain they were treated with suspicion and animosity. In contrast the citizens of the United States they were seen as vehicles towards greater autonomy from government.

So what is so revolutionary about the Company? Simply that it is the manifestation of economic and personal liberty. In granting corporations to exist, governments are saying to its citizens that they have the freedom to associate and work together for common gain. It is little wonder why the Western liberal democracies not only are the most free societies, but also the wealthiest per capita. Government simply cannot duplicate the diversity and creativity of its citizens.While this book does not outright state this, it is clear that they are implying it through their examples and enthusiasm.

The authors illustrate how Anglo-American “shareholder” corporations (operated for the benefit of owners) and German-style “stakeholder” corporations (which include workers and community representatives on their governing boards) are different from each other, and are even further removed from Japanese family-companies. We are provided numerous examples where the tension and cooperation between between society and company inspires human dynamism; the Virginia Company, for example, effectively introduced democracy in America in 1619.

Understanding the rise of corporations helps understand why they are so successful and pervasive in human culture. They have become more influential than churches, ethnic societies, and even some of the world’s weaker governments, though the authors do point out that no company has actual hard power since they can pass no laws nor command any armies.

The Company is a fun read. It helps the reader understand the basis of wealth creation in the modern world. The anti-Company / socialist camp will find lots lacking in this book to contrast their position with, as this book is not a theoretical treatise, but an enthusiastic historical summary. The Company is not a defense of capitalism, but an explanation why capitalism has been as successful as it has been. And that is a point that no critic will be able to dispute.

Rating:

(3 stars out of 5 – an entertaining and short introduction to how business companies have changed the modern world.)

The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea
Price: —

12 used & new available from CAD 8.00

In contrast to the Leftist/Communist understanding of Class Conflict, the Creative Class is a term given to what is considered to be an expanding and powerful socioeconomic class which cuts across nations. Its a concept that is heavily promoted by Richard Florida with books and websites.

While his use of ‘class’ is problematic for me, because class implies group-consciousness, I do think that he is identifying a clear socioeconomic transformation of our societies. Whether this leads to a creative class consciousness or not, there is no doubt that we are seeing a large amount of wealth generation coming from intellectual property, new business models, and the arts. Here are some interesting links about the rise of a new creative/entertainment class.

Check them out:

Creative Class

Time Magazine’s article on America’s New Class System

New Stateman’s article on Replacing One Social Class System with Another

Huntington does not believe that nation states are the basic building blocks of human society. He argues that it is Civilizations, which represent a shared human experience influenced by culture, religion, language, and philosophy which are now the most important players on the human stage. Huntington says that at present (1990s to now) there exists at least nine different Civilizations, each possessing different values that puts them in potential and actual conflict with each other. It is not about nations fighting over land or resources, but about the fundamental clash of values between Civilizations.

Huntington’s use of Civilizations does provide a fresh way to look at historical and current events. His paradigm of human development and conflict becomes epic which inspired the imagination of his most ardent supporters who see Huntington as nothing less than a prophet. He is seen as accurately foretelling the current conflict that is taking place between the The West and Islam. The 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers becomes a crystallized moment representing this inter-Civilization conflict.

And conflict is where Huntington focuses his book on, going on to describe how the West needs to be prepared for eventual outright conflict with China and Islam. Economic warfare is not below Huntingon in his advocacy that The West should restrict trade with China and other potential enemies. Because China and Islam make up over two billion people and continue to grow, The West is vastly outnumbered and needs to prepare for the worst. He calls for America to reject multiculturalism (which weakens the American spirit), and align itself fully with Europe so that The West can present a unified front. Huntington is so convinced about our inevitable collision course that he ends the book with a chilling tale of a future World War between The West and China. His message is cynical and possesses a prophetic/apocalyptic flavor.

But zeal is not all that Huntington brings to the table. He brings forward enough meticulous research, statistics, and facts to support his case. Huntington’s scope is grand and his message is powerful, but is it accurate or valid?

I don’t think so. While its fascinating to think of epic conflict between Civilizations, I think he is mislead. The problem is fundamentally a programming one of Garbage In Garbage Out. I believe that Huntington has made fundamentally incorrect assumptions that gives wrong outcomes despite an abundance of facts and data. Just because he proves his answer does not mean that he has asked the right question.

Huntington believes that Civilizations exist and are the basis of all future human strife, yet this his concept of Civilization is contradicted by four fundamental weaknesses.

1) Huntington takes entirely diverse regions such as the West which includes U.S.A., Canada, Australia, and Europe and treats them as a whole. It becomes difficult to accept his assumption that such diverse groups are acting in concert together and against other diverse collectives. He sees World War I & II as little more than  ‘civil-wars’ because they were largely fought in The West. Wars fought during the Cold War in Korea and Vietnam are treated as inconsequential internal Civilization strife, despite immense loss of life and capital expenditures. Such conflicts are just a prelude to the epic Clash of Civilizations that is going to come. To downplay such tragic human events because they do not fit within his proposed model, smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

2) Huntington is ignorant about human nature. Just like how Karl Marx believed that the natural evolution of civilization was towards class conflict and the eventual establishment of a classless society, Huntington too is convinced that Civilization conflict is inevitable. Marx has been proven wrong because he fundamentally misunderstood human nature and Huntington makes the same mistake. He sets out to challenge Fukuyama, yet fails to address the fundamental question of human nature. Fukuyama tied his entire theory back to human nature’s desire for happiness and liberty, yet Huntington completely fails to mention the topic. Human nature is inconsequential when it comes to such epic affairs as Civilization conflict and this assumption betrays a unforgivable ignorance.

3) He is unable to cleanly define what a Civilization is. His collective of nine Civilizations are based on diverse societal characteristics. For a few it is religion (Islam, Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist), for others it is language (Sino, Latin America, Japanese), and again for others it is geographic (The West, Africa). What exactly is a Civilization if it can be any one of three things? If the Civilizations were such viable entities, how does he explain the constant political and ethnic conflict that take place within each of these Civilizations. If most conflict takes place internally, should that not be the source of focus instead of developing a fascinating concept of ‘Civilizations’ that simply does not exist?

4) He ignores the fundamental human invention of ideology, and how most conflict occurs because of ideology, not due to conflicting Civilization values. Culturally, the Jewish and Islamic religions have more in common with each other than they would with Indian or Chinese thought, yet there is little overt conflict between Israel and India or China. Why is it that all of the largest wars have been fought based around ideology such as Catholicism vs Protestantism, Christianity vs Islam, and Capitalism vs Communism. None of these conflicts had anything to do with conflicting Civilization values. Huntington does not ask why the three Biblical religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have such a war-torn history. If Huntington’s theory was correct, then the Bible-based religions should be joining to war against the Confuscists in China, the Buddhists in Asia, and the Hindus in India. Ideological conflict better explains why wars exist within and between nations and societies, while Huntington’s theory of Civlization does not.

The Clash of Civilizations is fascinating and riveting reading that possesses conviction, facts, and inspiration, but remains very, very wrong.

Rating:

(2 stars out of 5 – introduces an interesting, but fundamentally flawed concept of Civilization as a geopolitical unit. Meticulous research cannot fix misdirected theory)

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Price: CAD 16.79

37 used & new available from CAD 4.69

Okay, we have imported, rated, and ran statistics on iTunes. But as your library gets bigger, it becomes more and more difficult to find artists and songs. Thankfully, iTunes uses the Music Genre as its basic sorting system which makes it easier to find the style of music you want to listen to.

Default Music Genres include: Classical, R&B, Rock, Jazz, etc. These are fine if you have 40-50 artists from diverse musical backgrounds, but what happens if you listen primarily to one genre of music? What do you do if you are a serious collector and listener of music and are frustrated with the standard labels? What do you do when you have over 100 artists and 10,000 songs? This blog post is meant to address that challenge.

To start with there are have been three approaches to what a Music Genre is:

1) People Ignore It. Some people say that Musical Genres are too presumptuous of a field to use. They are indignant that the label  ‘pigeon holes’ artists unfairly. That is partially true. Led Zeppelin is considered to be the earliest hard rock/metal band even though they played some folk inspired music. Are they British-Blues? Hard Rock? Something else? Some people will give up and just ignore the use of Music Genres which is to lose out on the benefits of having a proper sorting system. The fact is that Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd have more in common with each other than Louis Armstrong means that these similarities and differences should not be ignored. A label such as Music Genre is a tool, an imperfect one, but a necessary one to help you enjoy your music.

2) People Simplify It. For example, there has been past (failed) attempts to create a unified Genre Tree. The hope is that by finding the links between the different Music Genres we would then decide how to label a particular artist. Its a noble goal, but one that will never work because it operates on the mistaken assumption that Music Genres are linear things. It is the conventional wisdom that the Blues created Jazz which created R&B which created Rock & Roll which created Rock. Its nice and tidy, but makes a fundamental error of judgment.

While Artists and Music Genres do influence each other, this does not mean that one creates the other. Music Genres are very dynamic. We will find Artists influencing each other almost immediately. It happens too fast to say that there is a single lineage that all music comes from.  Instead, it seems more reasonable to think of Musical Genres as evolving alongside each other. This kind of thinking is what we find in Convergent Evolution, where species can evolve similar traits despite not being directly related as we see with the appearance of wings amongst birds and bats. We see the same thing in Music Genres with Traditional, Art, and Popular music forms all developing  independently in each nation. There is no evidence that a single nation gave all of the music traditions to the rest of the world.

3) People Confuse It. Some people think that a Music Genre is the same thing as the mood of the music. They believe that Chill Music is a Music Genre. Sorry, but it isn’t. Its a style that can be found across multiple Genres such as Jazz, Pop, Rock,  and Electronica. ‘Break-up songs’ and ‘Love songs’ are also not Genres. While mood or song intent is important, it is not the same as a Music Genre. That will be a topic for a future blog post.

Another pet peeve of mine is when Genres are labeled with biased terms like “Classic Rock” or “Contemporary Pop”. Who decides if something is classic or not? The word ‘contemporary’ is just as problematic. When Bing Crosby performed in the 1930s it was considered to be contemporary at that time. Yet now we call it Classic Pop making the term ‘Conteporary’ too relative to be helpful. Labels should be accurate and objective enough that they stand for something.

So what is proper way to work with Music Genres? Let’s start with a definition I came up with: “A Musical Genre is a combination of historical and social conditions that dynamically influences a collective musical interpretation of the world.”

My point is to stop thinking of Music Genre as a static, catch-all term to slot artists and bands into. Its an error I originally made as I started working with the concept of Music Genre. I have since discovered that instead we should think of Music Genre as a world view shared by a collective of artists. It is about how they make sense of what is happening around them. For example, the African American experience in the American South show at least two different ways of understanding life though music. The first was Gospel music and the second was the Blues. One was religious and the other was secular and each provided different interpretations about how life was treating them. The same can be same of Rock music in the late 1960s, where we see artists interpret life in different ways through heavy metal (Black Sabbath), power-pop (The Who), and progressive rock (Pink Floyd). All were British bands, but with very different ways of looking at and interpreting life.

Music Genres are dynamic. They are born and die, and sometimes are reborn. New ones are being created all of the time because life and society is dynamic and always changing. So, what should you label your genres? Whatever you want. Its your collection, but allow me to to suggest a Music Genre system based on the excellent resource at AllMusic.com:

List of AllMusic.com’s Music Genres

AllMusic.com not only possesses an extensive list of Genres, but also breaks them down into descriptive Sub-Genres. I use the Sub-Genres to create my own Music Genre labels for iTunes. Instead of iTunes standard labels of “Rock” or “Alternative and Punk”, I adopted  labels such as: “Rock: Mainstream”, “Rock: Punk”, “Rock: Metal”, etc.  Jazz music would  have labels like “Jazz: Dixie”, “Jazz: Swing”, “Jazz: Big Band”, etc. The Sub-Genres becomes a way to capture distinct eras of a Music Genre. My early 1960s British bands would be labeled “Rock: British Invasion”; while my 1970s bands that looked like hippies and preached peace would be my “Rock: Folk” bands.

Since I personally have very few Jazz or Blues artists, I don’t have any Sub-Genres for those artists. The dynamic is that the more artists of a particular Music Genre I collect, the more Sub-Genres I will need to better organize them. As soon as I start collecting 20+ artists of a particular Music Genre, I will employ Sub-Genres labels as a way to better organize my music library. Listening to more artists expands my musical tastes and knowledge which is captured in a more diverse list of Music Genres in iTunes.

Finally, there is no right way to label your music in iTunes. Its flexibility allows you to create as many different labels you want, but to be useful, your system should have just enough detail to allow you to find what is the same and what is different between your artists and songs. The purpose of iTunes’s Music Genre is one of utility, not about being right.

The Origin of Brands by Al & Laurie Ries is a contrarian argument against conventional wisdom that the battle in the marketplace takes place between brands. Examples of some battles would be Dodge Caravan vs Chevy Uplander, Domino’s Pizza vs Pizza Hut, or for those in the game industry: World of Warcraft vs Guild Wars or Supreme Commander vs Command & Conquer 3.

The book argues in 295 pages that people think category first and then brand. Their explicit example: “I’m thirsty and feel like having a beer.” The 2nd thought is: “Which beer? I think I will have Bud.” Beer is a category of drink that is popularly perceived to quench thirst. Within milliseconds the brand is invoked, but it is critical to understand that the category is the first thing that is thought about. The category address the need, while the brand address the want.

Conventional marketing will ignore the entire question of category and instead focus on brand development. “It is all about building brand name!” they say. The authors argue pretty successfully that there are hundreds of thousands of brands, most of them worthless because they belong to categories that are not useful.

Mimicking Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” to justify their position they talk about how marketplaces are no different than any natural environment. A successful species (or brand) must carve out its niche. If they are part of niche that is dying then their time as a species is very limited. So they either adapt or die. For example Wang was first in the line of Word Processors which took off during the 1970s but were soon eclipsed by personal computers. The Wang name was so strongly associated with Word Processors that they failed to enter the PC market as Wang Computers. Being first is meaningless if the niche you are first in is dying.

For those in computer game development, computer games is a niche that is growing. So we need to worry about how to carve out a sub-niche that we can be first in. The authors argues that every brand needs to be either first or opposite in their niche in order to thrive. It does not mean first chronologically, but first in the mind of the target market. If you can’t be first, then you need to be different from the dominant brand. This difference will allow you to carve out your own niche. Think how Guild Wars has distinguished itself by being an Online Competitive Game and not a MMORPG like World of Warcraft. They are both fantasy worlds, but how they approach their markets is very different.

New brands are less important than new categories. These new categories arise because of divergence – the further splitting of categories. Witness the rise of “hidden object games” as a diverging category within the casual-puzzle games category. New categories arise from refinement or finer branches of categories. Just like a tree, branches get thinner and thinner, they rarely if ever converge.

Yet that is what most companies do! They hope to find financial success by combining categories in an effort to do something different. I can’t think of a better example then the game Odama, a GameCube game that combines real time strategy, voice command, and pinball. Innovative? Sure. Fun? Not really. Obviously the developers thought to themselves – let’s take this and this and this and we’ll make a million. The problem was not the talent of the developers. Heck, Odama is the probably the best ever Pinball-RTS game ever made (if its not the only one). But customers don’t think “I want to play Pinball Strategy”. They are thinking “I want an action strategy game”. Odama has a category that is completely unknown and misses why customers like established genres – they are categories that meet a need in the customer’s mind. Odama is not meeting a need.

Just like evolution, innovation or mutation does take place but it happens infrequently and only when the time is right. Being in the right place at the right time is very critical. What does this mean for Independent Game Developers? They have their work cut out for them to be successful. The “casual game” category has been in effect for the past 5 years. It has its top company “Pop-Cap” and a host of copy-cat companies. Pop-Cap is the 900 pound gorilla of casual games marketplace. They are “first” and will only be toppled by a collective failure to hold onto their spot. To compete with them would be to take what they do well, but create a different brand or identity.

The lesson that I think is relevant is the need to “Think Category” first. What is the person thinking when they are looking to play a game that you created? “Gee, I want a mindless pixel hunt or a lulling match-3 game. What should I play?” This is where your brand/game may rise to be first in their mind depending on your game’s quality, market reach, and the customer’s perception. I personally find it easier to “Think Category” instead of “find your target market”. It re-frames the question better about what the customer is looking for when you are developing your game, selling your product or promoting your service.

Asking the right questions will lead to higher rates of survival for your brand in the marketplace.

Rating:

(4 stars out of 5 – possesses some very fresh ideas and creatively combines marketing with evolutionary theory)

The Origin of Brands: Discover the Natural Laws of Product Innovation and Business Survival
Price: CAD 25.20

33 used & new available from CAD 2.39

…

Middle of the Muddle: A Poem About Mid-Life

by Christopher Billows

…

I have learned,

that facts and theory,

found in degrees and libraries,

do not grow or touch our psyche.

…

I have met many,

the brilliant and the dull,

and the rich and the poor,

and found happiness being the pursuit of all.

…

I have worked for years,

seen the capable abhorred,

found leaders be the first to hide,

and watched justice be ignored.

…

I pursued self-actualization,

and have always been stung,

that the pursuit of the perfect,

is the cause of all wrong.

…

I have loved and adored,

witnessed another’s death,

fathered and seen birth,

and now ponder the drama of a final breath.

…

Yet, there is a second Golden Rule which is just as relevant but quite a bit more cynical. The second Golden Rule is, “The one with the gold, makes the rules.”

On one hand you have a succinct summary of good ethical and moral conduct, on the second you have a summary of how most political, economic, and sociological conduct takes place.

I personally think that both Golden Rules are relevant and are actually compatible. The first one deals with the idealistic and religious realm of human beings, the second deals with the conventional truth of human relations and history. Some people operate exclusively in one realm and ignore the other realm. History has shown that idealism alone does not work, while misused power is destructive.

A balance between both Golden Rules is quite possibly the real Golden Rule to follow…

My in-laws are living examples of people who took full advantage of what Canada offers them. They are immigrants who worked very hard and created wealth through their industry which appears to be lost of many native-born Canadians. Technically they have always been “poor” as far as annual earnings are concerned, yet the life they lead is as far away from poverty as can be. Their example tells me that that poverty is not a state of physical or financial want, but a psychological one. These are people who don’t think of themselves as poor and in terms of how they live, they are not. They have more than enough money because they are content to live within their means.

Yet there is nothing simply psychological about the poverty experienced by Canada’s aboriginal people. I can only conclude that what they have experienced collectively is a poverty due to systemic discrimination, learned helplessness, welfare mentality, isolation, familial dissolution, and a culture of victimization. Looking at their situation, there is no doublt that what they are experiencing is psychological, but the roots behind it are due to social and political forces. In their situation poverty is a political issue, not a personal one.

So I would say that Poverty has two manifestations:

1) Personal Poverty is about the individual psychology behind being poor. It is all about personal expectations and financial competency. It is how a person defines himself/herself when it comes to wealth or lack of same.

2) Systemic Poverty is about how government programs and social pressures (internal and external) impact on people. It is not about how much money you keep, but how a system, government, or collective defines what poverty is and how to fix it. Using the aboriginal people as an example, the Canadian government has consistently undermined that group’s ability to be self-sufficient through its paternalistic, welfare policies.

A individual can experience both kinds of poverty, one of them, or none of them, which would provide us with a broader spectrum and hopefully more insightful way of understanding what poverty is. Perhaps with better understanding, comes the possibility to deal with the problem.

What will the new year bring for me at BilLOGs? Well, I think my posting frequency will remain about one post every week or two. (There were 54 posts in 2009; 81 in 2008). I need to spend more time reading other people’s blogs and commenting, but have been too busy.

The positive behind that busyness is that my business (note how they are similar words) had some nice developments at the end of 2009.

My company Promaginy has been assisting partner Complex Games with marketing of their two iPhone titles and is helping with the marketing launch of two, possibly three titles in 2010. It will be a crucible of a year for Complex Games and Promaginy. I also need to do some asset divesting for Copia Enterprises. I bit off more than I could chew and in order to maximize my time and focus I will look to amalgamate my two companies to reduce duplication.

I anticipate that my blogging will become even more introspective since I am reaching mid-age (40 years old) in 2010. Appropriately I was recently introduced by a friend to the theories of Carl Jung which really resonates with me. Although Jung did not describe midlife crisis as it is popularly conceived of, the midlife integration of thinking, sensation, feeling, and intuition that he describes has me questioning my life and goals to date and into the future. Gone are the happy-go-lucky-days of youth.

To your happiness. CB

The game is called Cyber Circuit and more information can be found here and here.

Congratulations to Complex Games on announcing the release of their second game.

This next post is not as much a lesson as a confessional. Did you know you can combine music and statistics? iTunes has so many labels and tags that can be added to your music and the database that it is possible to evaluate this music with statistics. (Whatever that can be labeled can be measured and whatever that can be measured can be tracked with statistics).

I am a huge statistical geek (an obscure soccer league, political elections, band ratings, etc) so the idea of analyzing the music I listen to in new ways is like combining peanut butter and chocolate.

First of all here is the best page with links to great software that can help analyze your iTunes library. It is located at TuneQuest. Check it out…

I have tried two different programs. The most polished one is called SuperAnalzyer and it is pretty super. It creates some wonderful statistics and graphs.

SuperAnalzyer PDF Document

The other program is not listed on that page but is courtesy of a fabulous little script written by Scott Yanff.

iTunes Statistics Text Document

Now these statistics were taken late December 26, 2009 of my personal library. It is a snapshot of a year of iTunes use and listening. I was using iTunes before December 27, 2008 but it was on that date I decided to make a concerted effort to begin organizing my entire music collection after that date. I began reimporting everything with a deeper bit-rate and deleted my old, original collection. I did not use iTunes to listen to music, instead using it to create MP3 CDs to listen to at work and in the car. That all changed July 21, 2009 when I purchase an 8GB iPod Touch. Now I started using it to not only listen to music but to track my listening habits. A new OCD habit was formed and geekdom attained. 

I am listening to and then rating music in the same order I imported it. It is not a reflection of a particular bias. I love the New Wave stuff of the 1970s and 1980s but I imported that stuff much later and it is in my queue to listen to and rate. What is great about this method is that I am (re)discovering some great artists and songs. Creating new favorite lists of songs, albums, and artists is a brand new way to enjoy and appreciate music.

I am thinking that I will make it an annual ritual to do a statistical update of my listening habits with these two programs. It will be interesting to see how my musical tastes evolve.

I am not going to provide a book review, except summarize it by saying it is an entertaining memoir from a person from my generational cohort (so that means its full of Piss and Vinegar) who talks about his devotion to the Alternative Rock scene. What Sellers does in his Appendix that had my geek-senses all aflutter is create an elaborate, pretentious, but all so tasty combination of math and music fandom.

With John’s permission, I am pleased to make my own contribution to his formula by enshrining it in an Excel speadsheet. Now you too can see how your favorite artists align (or don’t) with John’s passion for the abrasive world of Alternative Rock. I would hope that John’s formula could become a template for others to tweak and create their own formulas.

Check it out…

John Sellars Formula

I am releasing for free ( hey, you get what you pay for ) my first album of Electronica music. I originally composed this music for a computer game that I had in development between 2004 and 2007, but that game has now been shelved and the music was good enough to still be shared.

So without further ado…

DJ Crsb is pleased to release his debut album called “Never Mind The Billogs Here’s Chris Billows”.

Yes, corny is what I aim for, but you will find the music not reflecting that tone. I might not be taking myself too seriously as far as the album name and sleeve is concerned, but I did work pretty diligently on this stuff and am proud of it.

Check it out and Merry Christmas to you.

Presents

(1) Standoff 2:31

(2) Duel 1:54

(3) Rising 1:51

(4) Chalk Shock 2:06

(5) Crystal Lullaby 2:12

(6) Fairy Tale Down 2:53

(7) It’s Never Too Late To Rewind 2:46

(8) Soft Space Scrap 3:11

The response of the government has been the same as a wise parent would have with misbehaving children. When highly-paid and highly-educated bank executives act as stupid as they have been, it appears completely rational to  provide oversight and limitations on their behavior. We are told that free market capitalism has been wholly discredited. Governments need to cut the roots of the problem, just like how Jack cut down the beanstalk in the fairytale.

Governments see themselves as having a role to protect citizens from harm including protecting the integrity of the economic system. They have a duty to the businesses and citizens who were hapless victims to the financial crisis just like how Jack had to defeat the evil Giant by by cutting down the beanstalk.

So we see an interesting parallel between the Jack and the Beanstalk fairytale and what took place in the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis. With a bit of play, we could suggest a parallel casting of:

Jack = Government
The Giant = The Large Financial Corporations who created the financial crisis
The Beanstalk = The Free Market
The Golden Goose = Corporate Profits, Employee Taxes, and Tax Revenues

As most people know, the fairy tale ends with Jack owning the Giant’s treasures after the Giant is killed. The fact that the Giant was systematically targeted, stolen from, and then killed calls into question the moral fibre of Jack. And in the same way, I also think that governments stepping in to save the economic system is wrong for the following reasons:

1) Jack Should Have Stayed Home = Government Needs To Mind Its Own Business

If you recall, Jack was the initiator of the entire story as it was he who went looking for mischief. Jack takes a marked non-heroic path by essentially breaking into the Giant’s home, stealing his most prized possessions, and ends up killing the Giant who rightfully pursues him at the end of the story. Jack intervened into the Giant’s life for his own benefit.

In the same way, the government is doing the same thing now. It is directly supporting certain businesses, yet letting others die. Because of its immense size, governments should not get involved with deciding which companies live or die. The free market works because it is dynamic and responsive. If a company makes too many mistakes, they go out of business. Yet the government is creating moral hazards in the marketplace by rewarding business mistakes with corporate welfare. This ends up tainting the benefits of the free market system.

Jack should have stayed home and not climbed the Beanstalk just like Governments should not get involved with rescuing companies.

2) Jack Depends on the Golden Goose = Government Depends on Taxes

Jack takes the Golden Goose from the Giant for himself. He has now acquired a means to secure his financial future because this magical creature lays precious golden eggs. Hooray for the hero but too bad for the Giant.

In the same way, Governments are dependent on the profits and wealth generated by the private sector. Governments need to pay for all of the employees, politicians, and public services, so they need a Golden Goose of their own. And in our world it is called Taxation. And it is not just the taxes that paid by public sector employees that counts here, since only true wealth generation and industry comes from the private sector as I had blogged before.

Jack claims the Golden Goose for himself just like how Government dependence on private wealth generation (including international trade) has it claiming ownership over the the marketplace.

3) Jack Does Not Know How to Care For the Golden Goose = Government Will Harm Itself By Intervening In The Marketplace

The Fairy Tale leaves us with the assumption that Jack lives happily ever after. He has the Golden Goose, the Magic Harp, etc. Yet what if the Golden Goose required a particular diet to help lay those golden eggs? How can we be sure Jack will know how to care for the Goose? The Giant who had been able to care for the Goose is now dead and cannot teach Jack how to care for the Goose.

In the same way, we see the Government intervening in the marketplace by punishing or saving certain Giants, they end up compromsing the results. Instead of allowing the market to decide who wins or loses, they are intervening in an attempt to change the outcome. This ends up doing more harm than good as evidenced by governments propping up capitalist/state-funded monstrosities such as General Motors.

Jack is not capable of caring for the special needs of the Golden Goose just as Governments are not capable of controlling the marketplace.

4) Killing the Giant Requires Killing the Beanstalk = Neutering or Propping Companies will eventually Poison the Marketplace

According to the story, Jack kills the Giant by cutting down the Beanstalk. He has to basically destroy the Beanstalk in order to topple the Giant to his death.

In the same way, we see the government intervening in the markeplace to stop the capitalists from making more mistakes. But by too strongly intervening into the economy they end up harming it. Governments fail to understand that business entities will be born, rise in power, and will one day end, but others will be there to replace them.

It is the way the natural world works and it is the way the marketplace works.

The problem is not that the Giant died, but that it was killed by Jack. The Giant, like the capitalists, is not evil, but is very dumb at times. They will over extend themselves and when they fall down, will leave quite a mess. But they will be replaced by another who will need to learn from its own mistakes in order to survive. Its an imperfect process that is a reflection of humanity’s own imperfection. It continues to astound me that as an imperfect species we hope to create a perfect system.

5) Jack Created the Mischief = Government Created the Roots of the Financial Crisis

Jack trades his cow for the magic beans and we know how the rest of the story unfolds, which is all set in motion by Jack’s mischief-making. Instead of minding his own business and doing what was asked of him, Jack gambled away the cow for something shiny.

In the same way, the governments contributed to the financial crisis by doing more than was asked of them. By creating an artificially low inflation/low-interest economy (they are the controllers of the interest rates) they encouraged a large number of investors to park their money in the more speculative investments. You can see how this all take place  in the brilliant video here.

Governments have now ran up huge budget deficits to save the economy because they were just as responsible for its collapse as the greedy and speculative investors. Like Jack, the Governments are not the hero of the story, but the cause of it.

I would end off by saying that Jack and the Beanstalk would have an entirely different meaning as a fairy tale if we saw it written from the Giant’s perspective and was called: Jack the Thief and Giant Killer. In the same way, holding people responsible for our financial crisis must not be isolated to greedy capitalists, but also to arrogant politicians that seek perfect outcomes.

The rational response to the global financial crisis needs to be the same as a wise parent would have with children.

If the highly-paid, highly-educated executives of the banks are as stupid as they have been, then yes we need to legislate them. Ideologically, we shoud move towards more freedom and independence, but it is a virtue that needs to be earned. Like a kid who learns to be an adult.

Governments have a role to protect people from other's stupidity and short-sightedness. Protection of the integrity of the economic system. Let people make their own mistakes, but mistakes that have the effect of ruining the lives of others who have no control over the circumstances is wrong and unethical.

A person gambles his family's life savings away. His wife and children and himself are left destitute. It is tragic and horrible. Who is responsible? The individual, but also the spouse. She had control over her choice. She also had as much right to know what he was doing with their money. If she does not take that responsibilty because that is her mistake to trust the wrong person. It is all about learning to trust the right people.

The fundamental assumption is that people are greedy and need to have legislated protection to protect them from themselves. This assumption has borne out to be true. This is a black eye in those who believe in a free market like myself. How do I resolve the two?

Its really about maturity. Its about milestones. Would a bank rationally give a startup millions of dollars if the business was entering a saturated market or had no experience? No. They might give a lot less. It is about graduated freedom.

The free market is the ideal system to adopt, but it needs to be graduated to. As a firm demonstrate maturity and responsibility, it should be given more and more freedoms. Like a child. 

Its one thing to assume that all adults are competent to make their own decisions, but it is another stretch if we assume that educated, trained, and experienced banking professionals know how to run their business yet end up harming the rest of the economy because of it. It is unethical for the rest of the population to suffer the stupidity of a few fools.

I would argue that the lending power of banks be controlled, but gradually and reasonably expanded as they demonstrate greater competence with it. When a bank goes over its lending restrictions, then there needs to be a citizen focused group that is picked by government that fines the bank for same.

Government should not be delivering services or oversight. They just need to fund it. Ultimately if government picks the wrong people to provide the oversight, then they would suffer the consequence. 

Yes, the free market the way to go. It is the most natural system that makes sense, but freedom is something that is earned, not blindly given. It is time we demonstrated this in our economy.

The game is called Skipping Stones and more information can be found here and here.

The guys at Complex Games are very talented and determined. I have no doubt that they will succeed.

Congratulations to Complex Games on announcing the release of their first game.

Here they are:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

“The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.”

“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

Each one of these gave me a chuckle, but what floored me was that they were all quotes from Ronald Reagan. I remember severely disliking the man because of my socialist leanings that I held at the time. How times have changed and so have I.

I can now see why Mr. Reagan was as vilified as he was by the Left. This is from a man who represented the state and called its limitations accurately. How refreshing.

But is all generosity the same? Is giving to a charity that buys books for disadvantaged children as beneficial as giving to a charity that prevents children from becoming disadvantaged? What about charities that protect our environment or those that promote particular religious perspectives?

The problems of modern society is overwhelming and the charitable response is just as confusing. While I commend people to give to a cause they believe in, I also think that some things are not as high a priority as others. A blogger named “Gates” posted a bold and insightful blog that helped me develop a rationale method on prioritizing which charities I should give to.

For example, I will be excluding charitable organizations from most of my future donations based on the following criteria:

1) Charities that have high administration and fund-raising expenses. What’s the point giving to a charity if a large portion of your donation is not even reaching the people the charity is intending to service? Unfortunately, there is no clearing house for information on Management Expense Ratios for Canadian charities, but there is one called the Charity Navigator which does a good job of providing reviews on U.S. based charities. A brief review of some Canadian charties indicates that MERs run between 5%-8%.

2) Charities that have goals that are unrealistic, which puts them at the risk to becoming little more than institutions that do little good. A group like Make Poverty History possesses a laudable but unattainable goal to fix global poverty. How are they going to do what the United Nations and national governments are not already doing? I am fine with interest groups promoting their perspective, but they should not be allowed to be charities. Poverty is a political issue and not about charity.

The goals must be attainable since in my way of thinking most charities should be in the business to put itself out of business. It should only exist to meet an attainable goal and once done so, then be dissolved.

3) Organizations that partially duplicate what the taxpayer is already funding. There are a multitude of member-based disease societies such as the MS Society, MD Society, etc. whose members receive most of their medical and physical care by our taxpayer funded health system. Same thing with Literacy and Poverty organizations whose targeted populations are mostly supported through the education and welfare systems funded by taxes. Our tax dollars are already a form of charity, the biggest problem being the huge MER that comes with government run programs, but that’s content for another post.

4) Charities that promote ‘civil society’ like Historical and Art societies. I would happily support an Arts Council or a Museum if I knew that the other concerns I have about our society was addressed. As long as there are people living in deplorable circumstances (the old bread vs circuses debate), my donations to these types of charities will be minimal or nil.

So who does this leave to give to? Well, this is my short list:

• Organizations that help reduce abject poverty (such as UNESCO)
• Organizations that are provide societal harm-reduction (such MADD or John Howard Society)
• Organizations that help animals and natural ecosystems (Top Environmental Organizations)
• Organizations that help people to help themselves (such as Kiva or FINCA or United Way)

If the purpose of generosity is to help fellow persons, then the giver needs to think how best to help others. While any form of generosity is good, the benefit is less if those dollars are given blindly. Hopefully, this post will prompt you think about where to place your generosity and dollars to maximum affect, since it is not possible to both be everywhere and be effective.

In 1968, distinguished personality theorist Walter Mischel pointed out that correlations between a person’s behavior in one setting and another are often surprisingly low.

Mischel’s analysis revealed that the individual’s behavior, when closely examined, was highly dependent upon situational cues, rather than expressed consistently across diverse situations that differed in meaning. For example, people we label very talkative may hardly talk at all at a formal gathering. If personality is measured by one’s behavior, then we find that personality is indeed more fluid.

Another theorist, Richard Nisbett, took this argument farther and argued that personality traits are merely cognitive delusions people create regarding their friends and family in order to give their worlds and their relationships an artificial aura of predictability. Thus the personality becomes little more than a mirage that gives us a sense of comfort. Pretty harsh!

Its a jarring message that rips apart a mostly universal understanding of ourselves. It does away with the ’sacred cow’ of the personal which I find both unnerving and compelling. Its a message that is found in various mystical traditions and certain introspective philosophies, where we are encouraged to move past who we think we are to discover a deeper understanding to our lives.

I am now inclined to the think of the traditional notion of personality is akin to a pacifier. An object that eventually needs to be done away with as one truly matures.

Once you begin importing all of your music, what do you do next? Rate them! iTunes has a robust 5 star rating system that allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Since rating music is considered to be a personal matter, there are some who think that it does not matter how these ratings are arrived at. Personally I believe in having some standards or rules when it comes to deciding how to rate music. Here are some suggested standards:

1) Don’t confuse bad music as being the same as music you don’t like. Good and bad is pretty relative (though not completely) when it comes to music. Strive to be objective about what you are rating for. Is  it about how the music makes you feel? Do you like the instrumentals? The lyrics? Is it what the artist stands for? The production values?

2) Rate only music that you honestly can appreciate. If you don’t like Rap music, then don’t rate it until you have given it an honest try and can appreciate what it trying to do. I think its an form of intellectual dishonesty to rate something you don’t understand. The challenge is to blend personal opinion with some kind of objective criteria.

3) Don’t be lazy and rate everything 5 Stars or 3 Stars or whatever. Yep, I’m judgmental. Giving every song 5 stars is making the rating function useless and why even don’t bother using it?

4) You will likely rate different kinds of musical moods or themes more favorably than others. It is normal to have a natural bias. I personally have a low tolerance for sappy love songs from the 50’s. I find they are just too syrupy for me. Instead, I am attracted to artists who have a dark, ironic, and melancholy sound. According to my 5 star rating system, if the song is competently delivered, even if it is a theme / mood that I do not like then I will rate it the minimum of 2 Stars. Objectively the song is competent and fine, but it simply does not appeal to me.

5) You should listen a few times before rating the music. I have found myself changing some of my ratings higher or lower because I hear the song differently the next time I hear them. I tend to listen to the CDs three to four times, before importing it into iTunes. Once in iTunes, I then will listen to it a few more times before rating it. It is rigorous, but somebody has to too it.

6) The purpose of rating music is to help you find out more about what you like. Its a process of discovery. Music is a fantastic thing that always offers something new as long as you are looking for it. A diligent rating system will organically and even magically create a personal stream of favorite artists / moods / and genres. Its almost like a form of self-discovery.

It takes work to do this, but if there is one quality that I possess, it is an almost obsessive need to complete things. Its a bit of my OCD coming out . And like anything that requires effort, the rewards reflect the energy you put into it. The question is what does a 1 Star song mean in contrast to a 3 Star song? I have created a rating system for iTunes that is a variation on the BilLOGs Rating System:

1 Star = A song better not released. To get labeled the same as a steaming pile is ironically not done from an emotional perspective, but from an attempted objective perspective. 1 Star songs are those cursed with terrible sound, usually due to poor production choices and/or technical problems. It signifies an amateur effort which should rarely happen in professionally released music. Another way of thinking about this: I listened to it and don’t want to ever hear it again since the poor production or recording issues gets in the way of enjoying the music.

2 Stars = A song that is okay/fine but does not appeal to me. This is where music genres that I might not fully appreciate or enjoy would go. A 2 Star rating is not an indication of bad music, but just a genre/theme that does not do much for me. This is where aesthetics or taste comes in in contrast to the 1 Star rating. Another way of thinking about this:  I listened to it and would consider listening to it again if I was bored and had nothing else to listen to (which is highly unlikely).

3 Stars = A song that I liked and appeals to me. This is music that I would consider to be good music (from a personal perspective). These songs will be in a genre / mood / theme that resonates with me. Another way of thinking about this: I listened to it and would want to hear it about once a month, would hum along, and consider it to capture a particular mood.

4 Stars = A song that I am really fond of and have become attached to. This is music I would consider to be great music that best represents a particular artist or genre. Another way of thinking about this: I listened to it and would want to hear it again every week. This song would get me humming and moving along to it. It would be the best example of a particular mood or theme.

5 Stars = A song that I love. This is music that spans genres and generations. It is the best example of music. The stuff that reaches into my gut, gives me goosebumps, makes my hair stand on end, puts me into convulsions… alright I am exaggerating but you get the idea Another way of  thinking about this is: I can listen to this song multiple times in a row, every hour, and every day. This is the best of music that cuts across time and place for me. It is not defined by a mood, but instead defines a mood.