What he said. I disliked everything, some (Hendrix, Guns and Roses) extremely, most just moderately (Joni Mitchell, Neil Young). I got "balanced."
The way this is supposed to work is you have some previous test that you know to be good. Then, you try your new test against it. Just polling 15,000 people is not sufficient. Moreover, using well-known works by famous artists is contaminated by time and place of learning. "That was our favorite song..." It would have been better to have less well-known examples. I do not know all of Beethoven (or Tschaikowsky or Wagner, ...) I get some of them confused - not across composers, of course, but within the corpus. But even if I hear something new to me, I am pretty good at the composer, if it is a composer I know. However, in this generation, the musicologists have been unearthing many ignored works and composers. That's just for "classical." So, those lesser known works would have been better examples. Of course, there was no "classical" just pop and rock. On that basis, this "test" could have been done as a True-False survey, without the sound bites.
Like Steve said: Astrology.
I went back and followed the link and took the "Musical Engagement Style" of the Musical Universe Test. It was not much better. In my comments I called it "flawed." When at a performance, I am not emotionally engaged with the audience. At a concert (or movie) I tend to dislike the people around me whose shallow responses are noise. However, I do respond to the musicians. The Musical Universe Test asked if you play an instrument. I do not (now). It also asks about formal musical training. I said 3 years, but it was more like 6, really. My point is that I can relate to the musicians, but not the audience. I scored a perfect 20 on that scale.
(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/03, 9:56am)