3 ms·
According to the main chart, songs in the top 10 are more likely to be repetitive, and that discrepancy has been growing. That raises the question, is there a c
by twiss 9y ago
According to the main chart, songs in the top 10 are more likely to be repetitive, and that discrepancy has been growing. That raises the question, is there a causal link between being repetitive and reaching the top 10? If so, the answer to "Who's responsible for this madness?" is: the listeners.
- marzell 9y agoI think this is partly true. However, there is a significant phenomenon where there is financial/political pressure to play songs (pay to play) which then creates demand for songs since they are then familiar to listeners. So companies/firms can pay stations to play otherwise unremarkable music (perhaps simple songs or those with the highest profit margins/potential available to stakeholders) and in a general sense this influences listeners to want to keep hearing those now familiar tunes. The whole pop-ephemerality of music-as-a-commodity feels like the new opiate of the masses - in general people are more content as long as they have a meaningless tune as the background soundtrack for their day-to-day repetitive tasks. I wonder what the correlation is between acceptance of repetitive music and the repetitiveness of a listener's daily tasks.
- anigbrowl 9y agoWell of course it's the listeners. The most popular product in any market is virtually guaranteed to be a lowest common denominator because that's what will have the broadest appeal.