Slashdot Mirror


Genetic Data Analysis Tools Reveal How US Pop Music Evolved

KentuckyFC writes: The history of pop music is rich in anecdotes, folklore and controversy. But despite the keen interest, there is little in the form of hard evidence to back up most claims about the evolution of music. Now a group of researchers have used data analysis tools developed for genomic number crunching to study the evolution of U.S. pop music. The team studied 30-second segments of more than 17,000 songs that appeared on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 between 1960 and 2010. Their tools categorized the songs according to harmonic features such as chord changes as well as the quality of timbre such as whether guitar-based, piano-based orchestra-based and so on. They then used a standard algorithm for discovering clusters within networks of data to group the songs into 13 different types, which turned out to correspond with well known genres such as rap, rock, country and so on. Finally, they plotted the change in popularity of these musical types over time.

The results show a clear decline in the popularity of jazz and blues since 1960. During the same period, rock-related music has ebbed and flowed in popularity. By contrast, rap was rare before 1980 before becoming the dominant musical style for 30 years until declining in the late 2000s. The work answers several important question about the evolution of pop music, such as whether music industry practices have led to a decline in the cultural variety of new music, and whether British bands such as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones triggered the 1964 American music revolution [spoiler: no in both cases].

2 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. They worked out an algorithm to define genre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Quite a neat little trick. But making grandiose claims about defining the "evolution of music" is ridiculous.

    If tracking genre popularity had been their goal, they could have just picked up the sales figures for each year between 1960-2010 and pasted them into an Excel sheet. The people selling records already know what genre each record belongs to.

    1. Re:They worked out an algorithm to define genre by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it's not just popularity; it's relationships, and still the data used is flawed.

              Last FM genre tags aren't the most comprehensive (hence music nerds can get into endless debates about whether a band represents this genre or that genre), and it also assumes influence comes within the realm of popular music, and not less popular forms that get co-opted into pop music, and how those less popular lineages developed (as the trope goes, someone like the Sex Pistols never sold many albums, but what albums they did sell ended up in the hands of people who started more popular bands).

              More importantly, this study shows the flaws with quantitative vs. qualitative analysis; using the less descriptive measure as definitive just because it is supposedly "objective", and basically ignoring all other data that doesn't fit the model. They've proved they can measure what they set out to measure, nothing more. This has been most egregious in the soft sciences, like psychology, that tries so very hard to quantify data in an attempt at being definitive, and end up making absurd associations as that isn't the most useful analysis of the data on hand. Some music historians would have been able to point out the obvious flaws (like the progression of the Beatles throughout their history. Twist and Shout is miles away from Revolution #9).