Starship Asterisk*

Are you old enough to feel grumpy about today's music? Do you feel that much of the popular music of today - the kind that tends to be played on the radio - is loud and repetitive?

Surprise! You're right! Joan Serrà, Álvaro Corral, Marián Boguñá, Martín Haro & Josep Ll. Arcos have written a paper, Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music, where they have used the Million Song Dataset to analyze pop music produced between 1955 and 2010. These are some of their conclusions:

[W]e find three important trends in the evolution of musical discourse: the restriction of pitch sequences (with metrics showing less variety in pitch progressions), the homogenization of the timbral palette (with frequent timbres becoming more frequent), and growing average loudness levels (threatening a dynamic richness that has been conserved until today).

Or, to put it more simple:

This suggests that our perception of the new would be essentially rooted on identifying simpler pitch sequences, fashionable timbral mixtures, and louder volumes.

Or to put it even simpler:

Hey! There's less TUNE today! And everything sounds just the same and everything is deafeningly loud!!!

There are definitely worse (louder!!) examples, but this will have to do:
Ann

Ann, you know there are free blogging services, yes?

owlice wrote:Ann, you know there are free blogging services, yes?

Starship Asterisk* is not one of them!

bystander wrote:

owlice wrote:Ann, you know there are free blogging services, yes?

Starship Asterisk* is not one of them!

Well. And here I thought that the entire point of the Open Space forum was to provide an opportunity for people who know each other through the APOD/Asterisk community to share completely off-topic thoughts with other members of this community.

(And I found the reference interesting; it's nice to know I'm on solid scientific ground in thinking that music has gone downhill, and that I'm not just turning into an old codger who thinks everything was better back in the day, and yelling at kids to get off my lawn!)

And here i thought that today's music just 'sucked!' I had no idea that there was actually science behind it.

Beyond wrote:And here i thought that today's music just 'sucked!' I had no idea that there was actually science behind it. :lol2:

I think the loss of tonality and dynamic range is better described by "blows" than "sucks".

I always knew it was so, but hesitated to say. After all, can somone from the generation that listened to Be-Bop-A-Lula or Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini really complain about modern music? But now there's a scientific paper, so now I can complain. I've got proof!

Rob

Chris Peterson wrote:

Beyond wrote:And here i thought that today's music just 'sucked!' I had no idea that there was actually science behind it.

I think the loss of tonality and dynamic range is better described by "blows" than "sucks".

The "blows" that hits your ears, really "sucks"!

Chris Peterson wrote:

bystander wrote:

owlice wrote:Ann, you know there are free blogging services, yes?

Starship Asterisk* is not one of them!

Well. And here I thought that the entire point of the Open Space forum was to provide an opportunity for people who know each other through the APOD/Asterisk community to share completely off-topic thoughts with other members of this community.

(And I found the reference interesting; it's nice to know I'm on solid scientific ground in thinking that music has gone downhill, and that I'm not just turning into an old codger who thinks everything was better back in the day, and yelling at kids to get off my lawn!)

This is true, but it bothers some of us that Ann writes articles instead of posts on the forums. Forums are like conversations in slow motion and Ann's posts are more like journal entries left for us to comment on. At least this one doesn't contain any Swedish.

geckzilla wrote:This is true, but it bothers some of us that Ann writes articles instead of posts on the forums.

Hah! And Art doesn't?

I just think we all have different posting styles. I'm not inclined to complain so long as the posts that get made are appropriate for the particular forum used.

I have encouraged Ann to start a blog in the past; I think she'd find a larger following than anything Asterisk can provide. She writes well, has a lot to say, a lot of ideas, and some topics she apparently likes to discuss she cannot discuss here; a blog would free her from the restrictions Asterisk imposes. I think she'd also get some folks who don't currently appreciate astronomy to appreciate it, which IMHO is always a good thing. Right now, the audience for her musings is limited to people who like astronomy; were she to start a blog, I think it would appeal to a wider, more diverse audience.

Hah! And Art doesn't?

No. Art rarely writes long original posts unless he is answering someone's question. Most of his long posts are supplemental, sometimes tangential, information on the topic at hand from other sources. These are not anything like journal entries.

owlice wrote:I have encouraged Ann to start a blog in the past; I think she'd find a larger following than anything Asterisk can provide. She writes well, has a lot to say, a lot of ideas, and some topics she apparently likes to discuss she cannot discuss here; a blog would free her from the restrictions Asterisk imposes. I think she'd also get some folks who don't currently appreciate astronomy to appreciate it, which IMHO is always a good thing. Right now, the audience for her musings is limited to people who like astronomy; were she to start a blog, I think it would appeal to a wider, more diverse audience.

Well, I can't argue with that. I maintain a site just to blog (really, more like posting occasional essays) on a subject unrelated to astronomy.

Still, I don't follow many blogs. I probably wouldn't follow one set up by Ann. But I do like hearing what other lovers of astronomy have to say about non-astronomical subjects. All of us here have astronomy in common, but we're far more than just that. It is astronomy that ties us together in this particular forum; without Open Space we'd be much more one-dimensional (which is really limiting in a four-dimensional universe).

No. Art rarely writes long original posts unless he is answering someone's question. Most of his long posts are supplemental, sometimes tangential, information on the topic at hand from other sources.

Sometimes tangential? There's the understatement of all time! <g>

I'm not commenting on Ann's method of posting; but I must say I don't care for loud Rap either! I don't think it's music; more like monotone poetry! I guess it's alright if you like it.

Chris Peterson wrote:But I do like hearing what other lovers of astronomy have to say about non-astronomical subjects. All of us here have astronomy in common, but we're far more than just that. It is astronomy that ties us together in this particular forum; without Open Space we'd be much more one-dimensional (which is really limiting in a four-dimensional universe).

Well, of course! I like conversations in Open Space, too. You maintain a blog for your essays, but you still converse here; there's no reason Ann wouldn't/couldn't do the same.

Chris Peterson wrote:Sometimes tangential? There's the understatement of all time! <g>

Sometimes it's not easy to pick out the connection, but there is always a connection.

To be fair, Art's posts sometimes annoy me in the same way. But I can't figure out if the lack of brevity which bothers me is laziness on my part or a flaws in their posting styles.

I listen to all kind of music, from classic, rock, metall, punk, pop, meditation, gregorian chants... music is like food, if it's one-sided, it will be somehow unhealthy.
There is still variety in today's music, but some are more pushed to the public and that's the annoying mainstream.
I liked to went to an Irish pub when there was a session!

About the forum rules:
When it comes to choose and judge, I am pro diversity!!! Diversity is an effect how human can show how creative each one of them is.
Diversity will safe survival.
Since there are not many active contributer in the forum, it's ok for being more tolerant about the forum rules.

The differences of post styles are impressing me. I also like Ann having her own blog so her thoughts have their own place and be honored. You are a great writer Ann!
Neufer is very subtle to me, maybe while he thinks he shows everything obvious with neon signs

Just my post number 100
I agree with Cris. I think that Open Space is a space open for other topics than Astronomy.
Someone exposes their topic.
It does not like, no comments.
But defends freedom of expression ( very important )
My vote for Ann.
A cordial greeting to all forum

Yes, Open Space is for discussing topics other than astronomy; no one said any differently.

Hi. Owlice
Very well. This is a discuss forum , it is not a space for to write about a topic.
The different also is in that the text is big or small ( I think )

I'd like to echo Chris Peterson's sentiments regarding this thread. In style it's really no different to the articles that Otto Posterman posts every day; surely it's up to those of us who want to, on the forum, to pick up on the subject-matter of the post (no matter who has posted it) and discuss it, and thereby run with it. And if you don't want to, then simply don't.

Well done to those that actually made an attempt to discuss the subject of the post, that it isn't just one's subjective view that some music seems less musical these days, but that it has been practically shown to be so. Yes, perhaps it's true for some "popular" radio music, but it's still not a view that I whole-heartedly agree with. My subjective view is that there is a lot of very interesting, varied, stimulating and melodic depth in music still being produced today. You just have to look for it (or listen for it!), but I think that has always been the case. How strange the change from major to minor.

starstruck wrote:Well done to those that actually made an attempt to discuss the subject of the post, that it isn't just one's subjective view that some music seems less musical these days, but that it has been practically shown to be so. Yes, perhaps it's true for some "popular" radio music, but it's still not a view that I whole-heartedly agree with. My subjective view is that there is a lot of very interesting, varied, stimulating and melodic depth in music still being produced today. You just have to look for it (or listen for it!), but I think that has always been the case.

I don't think that's in dispute. I listen to folk music and bluegrass, and the new material there is as good as it's ever been- and it doesn't just mimic older styles.

The analysis looked at a lot of music, and its conclusion was a statistical one. I think it is probably accurate when viewed that way. Certainly, because most music is evolving along these trends, it doesn't mean that all of it is. But the most popular music is where the effect is seen most strongly.

Chris Peterson wrote:I don't think that's in dispute. I listen to folk music and bluegrass, and the new material there is as good as it's ever been- and it doesn't just mimic older styles.

.

You like to listen the engines roaring?

I like banjo music!

Moonlady wrote:You like to listen the engines roaring?

I'll pass on that! (When I lived in Munich, I always thought the characterization by Bavarians of people from Baden-Württemberg as unsophisticated yokels was unfair. Seeing that this redneck phenomenon has reached that part of Germany, however, I'm now having second thoughts.)

I like banjo music!

It's great. I was at a concert last year that probably combined the most unusual set of instruments, including a banjo, accordion, and concert harp. Not a combination usually encountered!