The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
My LANDR Test Multi-Ef­fects Plugins
Old 3 weeks ago
  #91
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by miscend View Post
But have you noticed how modern popular music masters all sound homogenised? Music you hear on the radio or Spotify pretty much all sounds the same.
No, does not compute. Especially since Spotify has opened up to more independent artists publishing their music.

You're only going to find homogenized music if that's all you're looking for. You're recycling the same stale argument and it doesn't translate to reality.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #92
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosajjao View Post
No, does not compute. Especially since Spotify has opened up to more independent artists publishing their music.

You're only going to find homogenized music if that's all you're looking for. You're recycling the same stale argument and it doesn't translate to reality.
Maybe you only listen to really niche music?

Anyway I think you’d have to be very naive if you thought this didn’t translate into reality. There is much published research in this field. For example here is a few below:

2014: Can science predict a hit song? | Faculty of Engineering | University of Bristol

How Shazam Can Predict the Next Big Hit Song – Rolling Stone

Basically there are definite measurable patterns in the top selling and most popular music. Music has
gotten louder over time and is more homogenised compared to 30-40 years ago. Companies like Hyperlive and Shazam have algorithms that can predict with good accuracy if a song is going to be a hit a full month before it charts. Record companies use metrics provided by data firms in the decisions they make.

And independents could always publish their own music on streaming services usually via a distributor. Whether they chart well and generate meaningful revenue on Spotify is an entirely different story. But I’d say if your song is made a certain way, it is more likely to be picked up by Spotify’s playlist algorithms therefore more likely to do well.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #93
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by miscend View Post
Maybe you only listen to really niche music?

Anyway I think you’d have to be very naive if you thought this didn’t translate into reality. There is much published research in this field. For example here is a few below:

2014: Can science predict a hit song? | Faculty of Engineering | University of Bristol

How Shazam Can Predict the Next Big Hit Song – Rolling Stone

Basically there are definite measurable patterns in the top selling and most popular music. Music has
gotten louder over time and is more homogenised compared to 30-40 years ago. Companies like Hyperlive and Shazam have algorithms that can predict with good accuracy if a song is going to be a hit a full month before it charts. Record companies use metrics provided by data firms in the decisions they make.

And independents could always publish their own music on streaming services usually via a distributor. Whether they chart well and generate meaningful revenue on Spotify is an entirely different story. But I’d say if your song is made a certain way, it is more likely to be picked up by Spotify’s playlist algorithms therefore more likely to do well.
Okay, considering the box you want to place this dispute in, yes most popular top 40s radio played songs sound the same. You misunderstand why that is though.

Car Companies A, B, and C all pay billions to market their red cars, all which sell like hotcakes. Car Company D comes along and releases a blue car, and despite the quality, it doesn't sell very well. More likely than not, it was because they didn't have much of a marketing budget.

A $100 million dollar budget movie will pay nearly that same amount (100 mil) just to market the movie, or risk losing box office income.

These are examples of why talent and quality too frequently sell like ****e in the music industry for independent artists. Those artists don't have the money to spend on marketing advisors, lawyers, licensing agents, and A&R representation. I know this because my friend and I are working through this right now. If you record some decent music, you can pay your way onto some hit Spotify playlists, the ones with millions of subscribers. You can pay your way onto the radio, which that's all you can do now without a major label. You can pay someone to organize and to the groundwork to license your music to the commercial industry. That's what it takes to get ears on it, that's what it takes to get your music out there, outside of building a massive following on your own.

People are receptive to great music that breaks the mold, but the system is designed so that it doesn't just happen automatically. The system is designed so that advertising markets you to fame. A great deal of the famous pop stars these days only got to their current level because of marketing, the formulaic music is just a symptom of them trying to keep their sales at a particular level.

Believing that the system is broken simply because of repetitive pop music formulas, is like believing that Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster is real.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #94
I find it funny that people complaining about top 40 music sounding the same are the same people, who want to mix like another CLA, Serban Ghenea, Manny Marroquin etc.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #95
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by miscend View Post
Maybe you only listen to really niche music?

Anyway I think you’d have to be very naive if you thought this didn’t translate into reality. There is much published research in this field. For example here is a few below:

2014: Can science predict a hit song? | Faculty of Engineering | University of Bristol
This isn't published in a peer review journal and there really are not enough details (on their site) to make much of this research. Also it doesn't actually support your argument. For instance on their site they say:

"In early decades, hits tended to be harmonically simpler than non-hits. However, nowadays the opposite is true, shown by the red line dominating towards the right of the graph."

This increase in relative complexity could perhaps be explained by the rise of new genres and subgenres, increasing the diversity of popular music through the ages."

This has nothing at all to do with your argument. They are not predicting hits by analysing the music. They are predicting hits by the number of queries for a particular song. This says absolutely nothing about the complexity of the music.

There are a couple of papers that claim that music is becoming less complex but they both make a huge mistake: They equate tonal complexity to the number of instruments used but they lump ALL electronic instruments into synths and drum machines which obviously says absolutely nothing about the tonal complexity of the sounds. As electronic music has become a very big part of popular music, either as purely electronic music or as backing for vocals, this will completely skew these numbers.

Basically these papers just mirror the preconceptions of the researchers and show how out of touch with modern music they really are and probably says something about their agendas. (Basically the age old "The music of my generation is better than the music of new generations").

Quote:
Basically there are definite measurable patterns in the top selling and most popular music. Music has gotten louder over time and is more homogenised compared to 30-40 years ago.
The two links you gave do not support your argument. (Well except for loudness but we don't need a research paper to tell us that).

Quote:
Companies like Hyperlive and Shazam have algorithms that can predict with good accuracy if a song is going to be a hit a full month before it charts.
Yes based on search queries. Not based on analysing the music.

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #96
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
This isn't published in a peer review journal and there really are not enough details (on their site) to make much of this research. Also it doesn't actually support your argument. For instance on their site they say:

"In early decades, hits tended to be harmonically simpler than non-hits. However, nowadays the opposite is true, shown by the red line dominating towards the right of the graph."

This increase in relative complexity could perhaps be explained by the rise of new genres and subgenres, increasing the diversity of popular music through the ages."
I said modern music is louder and sounds the same. I did not say it was harmonically inferior.

The Bristol University stuff is not a Peer Reviewed Journal but is an early and growing field of active research. I really don't have time to produce an exhaustive list of all the best journal sources out there. Here's a bit more from them:


Results | Score a Hit!
Quote:
Below is a detailed graph of our system running from the 1960's until 2010.
Performance Overview

In the graph below, time increases along the x-axis, and performance (measured by number of correct examples over number of examples) up the y-axis. The dark blue line shows the performance over the years.

Although we made sure that the number of songs in the 'hit' class was nearly equal to the 'flop' class over the entire dataset by choosing the classes to be 1-5 vs 30-40, note that it might be imbalanced in certain periods. To check that the performance of our equation can't be explained by just predicting the most common class more commonly than the less common class, the light blue line shows the performance we'd expect if we used this tactic. The dark green and light green lines show the predicted class proportion and actual class proportion, which we used to assess how well this tactic would work (i.e. to compute the light blue line).



When the light green line (actual class proportion) is far from 0.5, there are more hits than flops or vice-versa, in which case preferably (even if randomly) predicting the majority class would already lead to an accuracy higher than 50%. The dark green line (predicted class proportion) shows that our equation is indeed trying to take advantage of this to a certain extent. However, the fact that the dark blue line is above the light blue line means our equation is doing better than if it only exploited this varying class imbalance over time. Good! This means our equation is also picking up a signal actually differentiating between the hits and the flops.



Finally, the cumulative performance is shown as the black line. As you can see, the most recent cumulative performance is around 60%.

"the late Seventies and early Eighties were particularly creative and innovative periods of pop music".

Although the early Eighties are often dismissed as a time of tinny, vacuous music, the researchers argue that "the late Seventies and early Eighties were particularly creative and innovative periods of pop music".


Hits changed in the Nineties as the "simpler, binary, rhythms such as 4/4 time", the mechanised DNA of House music, became dominant. Cheaper technology meant that anyone could construct a hit record in their bedroom.

"On average all songs on the chart are becoming louder," the team found. "Additionally, the hits are relatively louder than the songs that dangle at the bottom of the charts, reflected by a strong weight for the loudness feature."
Your parents are right, modern music is getting louder and more repetitive | The Independent

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
The two links you gave do not support your argument. (Well except for loudness but we don't need a research paper to tell us that).



Yes based on search queries. Not based on analysing the music.

Alistair
Companies like Hyperlive claim they can predict hit songs using science to analyse the music. The University of Bristol claim their "The Hit Equation" can accurately predict whether songs have hit potential by analysing features of songs - the results of that analysis are the data points of the graph posted above. Shazam being a music search engine works differently from the others - they use their huge search database and claim their data accurately predicts if a song will be a hit in advance of the song charting.

Additionally here's a quote from a paper from the Journal of New Music Research entitled "Dance Hit Song Prediction"
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...15.2014.881888

Quote:
7 Conclusion
Multiple models were built that can successfully predict if a dance song is going to be a top 10 hit versus a lower positioned dance song. In order to do this, hit listings from two chart magazines were collected and mapped to audio features provided by The Echo Nest. Standard audio features were used, as well as more advanced features that capture the temporal aspect. This resulted in a model that could accurately predict top 10 dance hits. This research proves that popularity of dance songs can be learnt from the analysis of music signals. Previous less successful results in this field speculate that their results could be due to features that are not informative enough [Pachet and Roy, 2008]. The positive results from this paper could indeed be due to the use of more advanced temporal features. A second cause might be the use of “recent” songs only, which eliminates the fact that hit music evolves over time. It might also be due to the nature of dance music or that by focussing on one particular style of music, any noise created by classifying hits of different genres is reduced. Finally, by comparing different classifiers that have significantly different results in performance, the best model could be selected. This model was implemented in an online application where users can upload their audio data and get the probability of it being a hit6. An interesting future expansion would be to improve the accuracy of the model by including more features such as lyrics, social network information and others. The model could also be expanded to predict hits of other musical styles. In the line of research being done with automatic composition systems [Herremans and S¨orensen, 2013], it is also interesting to see if the classification models from this paper could be included in an optimization function (e.g., a type of fitness function) and used to generate new dance hits or improve existing ones.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #97
Lives for gear
 
mbvoxx's Avatar
I once dubbed a tape down 5 times and the results were amazingly degenerative with each layer. Shocking.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #98
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbvoxx View Post
I once dubbed a tape down 5 times and the results were amazingly degenerative with each layer. Shocking.
This is why sometimes I use my Ampex ATR plugin with great delight, trying to squeeze some crazy degraded tape sounds out of a track. It reminds me of my first year of recording music, by using a early 90's karaoke cassette machine to record overdubs until I had about a 4 track song. Tape is technically inferior yet that's why it's so adored in mixing today still. I would never go back to physical tape though, not when the plugins do such an amazing job.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #99
Lives for gear
 
mbvoxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosajjao View Post
This is why sometimes I use my Ampex ATR plugin with great delight, trying to squeeze some crazy degraded tape sounds out of a track. It reminds me of my first year of recording music, by using a early 90's karaoke cassette machine to record overdubs until I had about a 4 track song. Tape is technically inferior yet that's why it's so adored in mixing today still. I would never go back to physical tape though, not when the plugins do such an amazing job.
I still have a lifetime supply of single edged razor blades left over from the tape editing days!
They come in handy for scraping dried bugs off my windshield.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump