5 ms·

I'm not sure they make the correct conclusion (ie that people necessarily prefer simpler music when facing options). I think it's more that... to be popular, y

by Rury 3y ago

I'm not sure they make the correct conclusion (ie that people necessarily prefer simpler music when facing options). I think it's more that... to be popular, you need to fit the tastes of many people, and the best way to do that is by being generic, rather than specialized or niche. So pop music is essentially about finding the common denominators in tastes, and sticking to only those features. Obviously that's going to lead to music which is simpler, more repetitive, and therefore broadly appealing. And it's the music industry which selects for this, as it's the most profitable formula (and the reason for the trend of things getting simpler over time). But as individuals, I'm not sure that's what people necessarily prefer.

binary132 3y ago
Surely you’re not suggesting that the common denominator is continually getting lower and lower.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  If the market was mainly national and now it's increasingly global, why wouldn't it?
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  As there's more sources exposed to the public all around (not just a few radios and a few tv shows) and tastes diverge, that would be the natural outcome. Also people can seek their better targeted, more appealing music elsewhere so pop doesn't need to fill these shoes.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Also pop is now more global than ever and intentionally targeting more global audiences, and so there’s a lot more to average about.
- contravariant 3y ago
  If the audience grows that is precisely what this hypothesis would predict.
- Rury 3y ago
  That is not quite what I was thinking. More like the industry is selecting for the optimum combination of common factors. For an overly simple example: - person A likes musical features W,X,Y,Z - person B likes musical features I,J,K,Z - person C likes musical features A,B,K,Z Z is a common feature they all like, so it's very popular. K is the next most common feature, but not quite as popular as Z. Making a song that only has features K+Z is bound to be more popular than one that is solely made of Q+D (which no one likes). Mind you, features could be anything from rhythm, time, timbre, melodies, as well as other emergent stuff. But having song with features K+Z is not Person C's favorite music, and rather a song which has features A+B+K+Z would be Person C's preferred music, but the industry doesn't select for that since A+B aren't common features everyone likes. And a song consisting solely of K+Z is simpler than one which has A+B+K+Z. However, making a song of solely of feature Z is too simple, and hence doesn't work. As if there's a minimum complexity requirement to meet in order to be a song. Hence K+Z works but a song solely of Z doesn't. And K+Z isn't necessarily anyone's ideal/preferred music, even though it's popular. Also, making a song of A+Z would probably stand to be somewhat popular, but not as much as K+Z. And so, a lot of popular songs seem repetitive, because they all use common features, such as feature Z in this example.
  - binary132 3y ago
    Then the cardinality of the marketable featureset is inversely proportional to the feature diversity of market preferences, yeah?
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Similar/related theory I have is that humans have just gotten much better at optimization in the past 5 decades, and as a consequence we've lost a lot of variety present in decades past due to the fact that it's easier to recognize and attain the "optimal" configuration. I see this not just in music, but in tons of different artistic areas. I think interior design most notably for me - SNL recently did a great send up of this with their "AirBnB Designers" skit, https://youtu.be/H5E5DkBXyfw https://youtu.be/H5E5DkBXyfw Back on the music front, I see this with annoyingly repetitive Spotify recommendations that I find nearly infuriating. My music tastes may be "pop-basic and bland", and at first I liked how I could just start with one song and then Spotify would create a playlist of related songs that I would (usually) like. Except it was always like the same 30-60 related songs. After a while I started hating using Spotify recommendations, they were always so incredibly annoyingly repetitive. Perhaps I'm just dumb and missed something, but I wish there was a way to tell Spotify "Please, for the love of God, just scramble your algorithm a bit and give me new recommended songs in the same genre!"
- binary132 3y ago
  I’ve always wondered why they don’t do this already, it seems like a natural design feature to build around. Pandora had the same problem, if not worse. YouTube has it too, perhaps not as badly, but they’re kind of also their own SSP. If I had to guess, they don’t want to go making a lot of bad recommendations so they stay in a safe lane, and they probably also (more importantly?) have some contractual quotas to hit with big publishing partners.
lenkite 3y ago
Popular music is not decided by the public anyways. The music that becomes popular is a sub-set of the music that is decided on by the overlords - the folks who decide what should play on the radio, on television, in movies, or on the internet. There are hidden weights and biases to the algorithms that select the songs put for display by your popular media service providers. It is not truly decided by the public, nor neutral in any way.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  Why would Spotify use those weights?
  - thecrash 3y ago
    Because they are paid to, or rather because those who curate popular Spotify playlists are paid to. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
    - gardenhedge 3y ago
      The Wikipedia article you linked does not back what you're saying..
      - StockHuman 3y ago
        The “also” implies relatedness. It is a broader trend in the music industry. For a specific example with Spotify, you might recall the Drake promo debacle from 2018; where “Scorpion” was so thoroughly pushed on to users that refunds for Spotify Premium were demanded on the grounds that the degree of promotion crossed a threshold into outright advertising, which premium was to be free of.
    - costco 3y ago
      Payola is illegal now, and it's funny that you even bring it up in this context because there was a time when payola was one of the only ways that independent labels could actually get music on air. It circumvented the overlords. The "respected" institutions didn't want to go near rock.
tbrownaw 3y ago
"Muzak is music which has nothing wrong with it. But because it has nothing wrong with it, it also has nothing right with it. And that is what makes muzak so horrifying." No, I don't remember where that's from. But it seems to fit. Also, TIL that's actually a proper name rather than only a generic term.

by Rury 3y ago

binary132 3y ago

Surely you’re not suggesting that the common denominator is continually getting lower and lower.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
If the market was mainly national and now it's increasingly global, why wouldn't it?
makeitdouble 3y ago
As there's more sources exposed to the public all around (not just a few radios and a few tv shows) and tastes diverge, that would be the natural outcome. Also people can seek their better targeted, more appealing music elsewhere so pop doesn't need to fill these shoes.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Also pop is now more global than ever and intentionally targeting more global audiences, and so there’s a lot more to average about.
contravariant 3y ago
If the audience grows that is precisely what this hypothesis would predict.
Rury 3y ago
That is not quite what I was thinking. More like the industry is selecting for the optimum combination of common factors. For an overly simple example: - person A likes musical features W,X,Y,Z - person B likes musical features I,J,K,Z - person C likes musical features A,B,K,Z Z is a common feature they all like, so it's very popular. K is the next most common feature, but not quite as popular as Z. Making a song that only has features K+Z is bound to be more popular than one that is solely made of Q+D (which no one likes). Mind you, features could be anything from rhythm, time, timbre, melodies, as well as other emergent stuff. But having song with features K+Z is not Person C's favorite music, and rather a song which has features A+B+K+Z would be Person C's preferred music, but the industry doesn't select for that since A+B aren't common features everyone likes. And a song consisting solely of K+Z is simpler than one which has A+B+K+Z. However, making a song of solely of feature Z is too simple, and hence doesn't work. As if there's a minimum complexity requirement to meet in order to be a song. Hence K+Z works but a song solely of Z doesn't. And K+Z isn't necessarily anyone's ideal/preferred music, even though it's popular. Also, making a song of A+Z would probably stand to be somewhat popular, but not as much as K+Z. And so, a lot of popular songs seem repetitive, because they all use common features, such as feature Z in this example.
- binary132 3y ago
  Then the cardinality of the marketable featureset is inversely proportional to the feature diversity of market preferences, yeah?

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

Similar/related theory I have is that humans have just gotten much better at optimization in the past 5 decades, and as a consequence we've lost a lot of variety present in decades past due to the fact that it's easier to recognize and attain the "optimal" configuration. I see this not just in music, but in tons of different artistic areas. I think interior design most notably for me - SNL recently did a great send up of this with their "AirBnB Designers" skit, https://youtu.be/H5E5DkBXyfw https://youtu.be/H5E5DkBXyfw Back on the music front, I see this with annoyingly repetitive Spotify recommendations that I find nearly infuriating. My music tastes may be "pop-basic and bland", and at first I liked how I could just start with one song and then Spotify would create a playlist of related songs that I would (usually) like. Except it was always like the same 30-60 related songs. After a while I started hating using Spotify recommendations, they were always so incredibly annoyingly repetitive. Perhaps I'm just dumb and missed something, but I wish there was a way to tell Spotify "Please, for the love of God, just scramble your algorithm a bit and give me new recommended songs in the same genre!"

binary132 3y ago
I’ve always wondered why they don’t do this already, it seems like a natural design feature to build around. Pandora had the same problem, if not worse. YouTube has it too, perhaps not as badly, but they’re kind of also their own SSP. If I had to guess, they don’t want to go making a lot of bad recommendations so they stay in a safe lane, and they probably also (more importantly?) have some contractual quotas to hit with big publishing partners.

lenkite 3y ago

Popular music is not decided by the public anyways. The music that becomes popular is a sub-set of the music that is decided on by the overlords - the folks who decide what should play on the radio, on television, in movies, or on the internet. There are hidden weights and biases to the algorithms that select the songs put for display by your popular media service providers. It is not truly decided by the public, nor neutral in any way.

gardenhedge 3y ago
Why would Spotify use those weights?
- thecrash 3y ago
  Because they are paid to, or rather because those who curate popular Spotify playlists are paid to. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    The Wikipedia article you linked does not back what you're saying..
    - StockHuman 3y ago
      The “also” implies relatedness. It is a broader trend in the music industry. For a specific example with Spotify, you might recall the Drake promo debacle from 2018; where “Scorpion” was so thoroughly pushed on to users that refunds for Spotify Premium were demanded on the grounds that the degree of promotion crossed a threshold into outright advertising, which premium was to be free of.
  - costco 3y ago
    Payola is illegal now, and it's funny that you even bring it up in this context because there was a time when payola was one of the only ways that independent labels could actually get music on air. It circumvented the overlords. The "respected" institutions didn't want to go near rock.

tbrownaw 3y ago

"Muzak is music which has nothing wrong with it. But because it has nothing wrong with it, it also has nothing right with it. And that is what makes muzak so horrifying." No, I don't remember where that's from. But it seems to fit. Also, TIL that's actually a proper name rather than only a generic term.