Slashdot Mirror
Decoding the Algorithm for Pop Music
fb4f writes "Over at Modplug, they have an article describing a mathematical algorithm to predict if a given song will become a hit or not. Paraphrasing the article, a Spanish company called Polyphonic HMI has made a business out of analyzing song submissions and predicting their "hitability". Here's their description of the algorithm and here's their FAQ. They claim to have predicted the commercial success of Norah Jones through this method. Here's my question (which is not fully answered in their FAQ): if they (music company executives) are currently using the algorithm to screen submissions for their "hitability", can we (people who listen to music) use the same algorithm to reject recycled tunes and encourage originality? I for one, still like the fresh talent and community feel of the tracking scene."
Us deciding what is good or the music industry telling us what is good?
This company's stuff doesn't do much good when society is bombarded by what the industry wants us to hear.
It becomes a hit because we don't get much of a choice. ClearChannel plays no variety, the non conclomorate channels don't play variety but instead endlessly repeat that they are not owned by ClearChannel and Infinity...
The only way hits can be decided is through freedom of music.
Support those artists that support the free distribution, copying, and playing of their music. Start your searchs at Sharing the Groove and FuthurNET
Mapping the higher order functions (if there are any) of the teenage and prepubescent female brain is nigh impossible.
On the other hand, predicting what will be popular might be very easy.
Next big pop hit = whatever the record companies tell them it will be.
Witness the last American Idol. Who did the sheeple choose? The large black guy, Rueben. Months later, who do you hear the most about? The Howdy Doody lookalike who came in second place, Clay.
"you vill like vhat ve vant, not what you vant!"
Okay, so far, so good; it sounds like they're saying "good music is good music, and here's a tool for telling whether something is good or not." I'm still skeptical at this point, but it's certainly an interesting idea, and one worthy of study.
But then they completely lose me with this one:
IOW, our algorithm says music is good if it sounds like everything else people think is good right now, and if it's different from current Top 40, it's crap.
They make a high-flown reference to the 36 Plots and other serious attempts at artistic analysis, but that's not what they're actually doing. I do believe that good music is good music, good stories are good stories, etc. I can at least consider seriously the hypothesis that all good art has certain qualities in common, and that by analyzing those qualities we can evaluate a new work's chance of lasting success. But the idea that musicians (or writers, or whatever) can keep pumping out stuff exactly like What's Hot Now and be guaranteed a blockbuster is just stupid.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
one person's "real" band is another person's manufactured corporate rock. Excess ain't rebellion, you're drinking what they're sellin.
Those of us who were listening to pop music during the 60s enjoyed continuous creativity from many different directions, all going directly into widely popular stuff. Then the music marketing business got its formulas - its algorithms - together in the early 70s and there hasn't been a similar sustained wave of pop culture creativity since. The difference in the 60s, in large part, was that the record companies had seen their old formulas largely stop working about when the 60s began, and so were left to their resourcefulness in finding good stuff beyond their former formulaic sensibilities. By the time the 70s came, a younger generation of music executives had come in who could distill formulas from the prior decade of experience and render rock-based pop largely morbid, as swing-based pop tunes had become by the 50s.
Those of us who live by algorithms should recognize that there are some sorts of human creative intelligence which cannot be captured by formulas, or replaced by them (see physicist Roger Penrose's books on this). If something like this firm's algorithm is really accurate, it should be possible to evolve a neural net to compose pop songs simply by having the success of its efforts defined by feedback from the formula. Would you find living in that world inspiring?
Much of the best of 60s pop music was haunted and quirky. That's what happens when the creative is in the lead, rather than the formulaic. Compare the Elizabethan stage. Human expression triumphs when the formulas, while still there for reference, cease to have a stranglehold over production.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
As a younger listener, I was well aware of rap music, but it sort of cornered its own market and stayed there. I don't think anyone was prepared for, or could of predicted the massive influx of rap/hip-hop into the mainstream. Personally, it's not my bag of tea (little music is these days). And personally, I don't see what's so prolific about it, other than the fact that a good portion of it has a *very* raw, rebellious overtone that is, for whatever reason, favored by youth. But it's there, it has a huge market, and I find it interesting, if for no other reason than to admire the degree of influence it has had.
Given this, I'm not sure there is any algorithm that can predict what people will decide they like at any given point, as there are so many dynamics at work. As others have pointed out, there is definitely the chance that our music-buying preferences are being manipulated by those at the top telling us what we like. But there are also others - the infamous "what are my friends listening to" I-gotta-be-like-everyone-else mentality. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention another significant consideration, at least with respect to the most of the popular artists: Is there any money in it?