Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Sunday May 17 2015, @12:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the nevermind-the-bollocks dept.

As reported in The Economist, scientists at the University of London have analyzed fifty years of pop music, and have used statistical techniques to identify three musical "revolutions" of lasting impact.

These revolutions do all correspond with times musical critics would have said change was happening (classic rock, new wave, and hip-hop respectively), but this analysis suggests other apparent novelties, such as the punk of the 1970s, were not the revolutions that their fans might like to believe.

From the article (well worth reading):

They used Last.fm, a music-streaming service, to collect 30-second clips from 17,094 songs (86% of the total) that were (on the Billboard) chart between 1960 and 2010. Then they attacked each clip with sonic analysis and statistics.

They found that they could extract what they describe as “topics” from the music. These were coherent harmonic and timbral themes which were either present in or absent from a clip. Harmonic topics, of which there were eight, captured classes of chord change, or their absence (eg, “dominant 7th-chord changes” and “major chords without changes”). Timbral topics, of which there were also eight, were things like “drums, aggressive, percussive” and “female voice, melodic, vocal.”

The comment thread below the article is also highly recommended, and the dismissal of punk is certainly egregious.

The evolution of popular music: USA 1960–2010, published by the Royal Society, is found here.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday May 17 2015, @06:22PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday May 17 2015, @06:22PM (#184127)

    It also wasn't necessarily that popular at the time, especially if they're getting their data from the charts.

    Well, TFA does say this is about "pop music revolutions". If punk was never very popular, then by definition, it wasn't "pop music". This appears to me to be an analysis of where/when the big changes happened in what was popular: when did the audiences' tastes change, and to what? The roots of where new styles came from is a tangential discussion from that. You can write lots of theses about the roots of any kind of music, and like any family tree, trace things back centuries or more. That doesn't seem to be the objective here.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3