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].
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].
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.
As they are now using techniques from DNA analysis, it could be interesting if they took it a bit further and looked for 'chromosomes'.
What if they expanded the actual tune analysis to the whole tune, and not just 30sec, and searched for parts of tunes that had been used in later tunes, or close enough to be thought of as heavy inspiration?
A segment could then evolve, and perhaps even leap from one style to another, and after a few generations sound totally different from the original, but by this it could be traced back to where it came from.
I think it is common knowledge that blues evolved to jazz and then to rock, but it could be interesting to know in more detail where styles came from, and perhaps where some popular tunes had their actual roots.
I like these kinds of questions, but one thing researchers have difficulty accounting for is the difference between the music people listen to and what the Billboard Top 100 chart says.
Defining "pop music" as whatever is on the Billboard Top 100, especially now, is reductive. I understand it's quantifiable and that's the best idea they had for a quantitative definition of pop. However, Billboard's charts are virtually irrelevant when trying to ascertain what people **actually listen to by choice**
Obviously, record companies try to game the system but in the last 30 years they using NASA level science (or attempting to) to control every aspect of the music in ways no one thought of before.
Also: digital music production and software has made "pop" music so mass produced and generic you get things like the Nickleback debacle
I'm not trying to be over-critical of the researcher's methods. I'm sure they did the best they could, but these points are important to understand when investigating this kind of thing.
Thank you Dave Raggett
----
If I don't respond to replies it's not that I'm ignoring them, it's because for some reason Slashdot doesn't permit it. I also can't change my sig, thus this tacked-on text.
The American Pie album said it all. The core of rock music transferred from the east coast to the west coast and not for the better. The type of music played by the Beach boys was an assault on Rock&Roll. You know us good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye the day the music died. Further, the three men I love the most the Father, Son and Holy Ghost packed their bags and headed for the coast, the day the music died. For decades Memphis was the music center of the US. There is a clear path towards Memphis from New Orleans and from Chicago. If one drew a radius with a 100 mile length from Memphis almost all noteworthy music in America would have been covered whether it was country and western, rythem and blues, rockabilly or rock and roll Memphis is the center of it all. From the Grand ole Opera to Elvis Presley to Dollie Memphis is the center.
Well, their methodology was crap to begin with. There's no weighing of each song based on sales, airplay, etc. And with the volume of crap hip-hip and rap out there from every self-proclaimed "gangsta", it was inevitable that the study would be biased towards the most produced, not the most popular.
For those who don't quite follow, say you have 10 rock songs you really like, and 20 rap songs that you listened once and were tempted to delete. According to their methodology, you prefer rap because you've got twice as much of it.
Same garbage wrt their comments about the British Invasion's effect on music.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I have heard and seen numerous bands that don't get contracts or played on the radio because they don't fit the image and message that record companies "want", or don't play the games to get the contracts. That radio play time is what causes popularity, people know what they hear and can't know anything they don't hear. Take their title example "pop". The top female pop stars would not have become popular without a massive budget to advertise them and get their names out (telling everyone how it's a big star in the intro message). Until the VMA/MTV/(other award show) put up Miley Cyris and told everyone what a great artist she was who heard of her in the Music industry? Ariana Grande? Most of these people are only performers (actresses/actors) and purchase songs written for them that the producers tell them to play.
Read up on what most bands have had to do to gain popularity and the advertising required to make it big. Most bands, regardless of genre, have to give up control of just about everything. Producers change lyrics, change music, change production and the artists have no say. Smart musicians may build some elements of control into their contracts, but if they do the wrong things they receive no air time or advertising.
The study is wrong, because it negates the biggest reason for popularity. Advertising. The game is rigged, and most musicians know and admit as much.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It just smells funny.
- F. Zappa
Have gnu, will travel.
American rock was doing pretty good until 1959 when Booper, Holly and Valens died in the place crash, 'the day the music died'. For the next couple years the top music reverted back to lightweight pop crap. I'm not sure why and I am researching it some. I suspect rock music had a 'rocky' start in the US partly because of racism and religion. Once the British invasion started it wasn't black music any more, (at least you could pretend that).