Re: Fwd: Hit-song predictions get a scientific spin

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 13:02:04 GMT

  • Next message: Van oost Kenneth: "Re: latent mutation"

    >From: "Wade T. Smith" <>
    >To: Memetics Listserv <>
    >Subject: Fwd: Hit-song predictions get a scientific spin
    >Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 07:36:36 -0400
    >Hit-song predictions get a scientific spin
    >By Joan Anderman, Globe Staff, 5/9/2003
    >So you think you've written a hit song? Guess again. Perfect hooks, killer
    >beats, and powerhouse singing add up to nothing for many aspiring
    >songwriters -- and for ambitious record executives, who have historically
    >relied on good ears and gut instinct when it comes to finding talent. A new
    >company is trying to take some of the guesswork out of the artwork, with
    >help from science and supercomputers. Hit Song Science already is
    >generating controversy, with some artists and record-label insiders saying
    >it only highlights the desperation of a struggling music industry.
    >Hit Song Science is a high-tech music analysis system that compares new
    >songs to a massive database of chart-topping singles and predicts hit
    >potential based on shared attributes.
    >In other words, the more your song has in common with Usher's ''U Don't
    >Have To Call'' or Santana's ''Smooth,'' the better your prospects for
    >All five of the major record companies -- BMG, EMI, Sony, Universal, and
    >Warner Bros. -- are currently using the service founded last year by
    >Barcelona-based Polyphonic HMI. A modified online version, geared toward
    >songwriters, was launched this week at
    >''Our technology is to music what X-rays are to medicine,'' says Polyphonic
    >HMI CEO Mike McCready. ''We help the record industry see their market and
    >their music in a way they were previously unable to do.''
    >Hit Song Science technology isolates sonic patterns in a song, ranging from
    >tempo and chord progressions to melody, harmony, and pitch, and then
    >compares the song to ''hit clusters'' gleaned from its database of 3 1/2
    >million songs. The system is updated weekly with new releases in order to
    >effectively predict a song's potential for success in the current market.
    >Ironically, HSS arrives at a moment when those in the music business face
    >criticism that popular music is increasingly derivative and homogeneous.
    >''This is just another reason why the music industry is going down the
    >tubes,'' says singer-songwriter Ellis Paul. ''We need to think on the
    >edges, not down the middle.''
    >But McCready says his company isn't trying to encourage cookie-cutter
    >''We hope we can help labels look at music that doesn't sound formulaic but
    >will still return on their investment,'' he says. ''For example, we
    >predicted the success of Norah Jones's [Grammy winning] `Don't Know Why.'
    >Nothing in our data base actually sounded like it. Rather it was the
    >combinations of patterns and properties that indicated hit potential.''
    >But Jesse Harris, the New York songwriter who composed ''Don't Know Why,''
    >is skeptical. ''It sounds like a coincidence to me,'' says Harris. ''If
    >they tell the label it's got hit potential and then the label puts lots of
    >money into it, maybe that's why the song's a success.''
    >In addition to using HSS to choose album singles, labels are also utilizing
    >the technology to help screen music submissions from unsigned artists and
    >short-list those identified by HSS as worthy of a closer look.
    >Locally, the small label that's home to pop-rock band Elcodrive paid $3,000
    >for a 19-page analysis of songs on its debut indie album, which the band
    >includes in a detailed submission package when trying to lure major labels
    >to sign it. (Story, Page C1).
    >But plenty of industry insiders and observers are worried that Hit Song
    >Science reduces the artistic process to a stack of mathematical data,
    >sacrificing creativity in the name of profitability.
    >''I think it's terrible,'' says Leigh Lust, senior vice president of A&R at
    >Elektra Records. ''Look at the unique, inspiring artists that would never
    >pop through if every label adopted this. It will make labels
    >product-pushers even more than they already are.''
    >''It's a fascinating tool, and smart companies will use this as ancillary
    >information,'' counters Jeff Fenster, senior vice president of A&R for
    >Island/Def Jam Records. ''Especially in the present state of the
    >''But don't live by it,'' he warns. ''There's more involved in how music
    >connects than what can be read in lines on a graph.''
    >A Polyphonic album evaluation includes detailed analyses of each song as
    >well as a numerical grade between 1-10. A rating over 7 means a song has a
    >strong hit potential. The online service charges $49 per song and delivers
    >a less in-depth report to songwriters within three days.
    >Hit Song Science is hardly foolproof. It doesn't factor in such key
    >elements as a song's lyrics and an artist's personal charisma, or
    >intangibles like marketing and advertising campaigns.
    >''There are three requirements for a hit,'' says McCready. ''It has to
    >sound like a hit to human ears, it has to have the right promotion, and it
    >must have optimal mathematical patterns. That's where we come in.''
    I think this will result in making music more formulaic, going for patterns that worked in other hit songs and melding them into a commercially marketable hodgepodge of crap. I typically hate hit songs, because they sound like _hit to me. OTOH some of the hits that break the mold and become popular due to (or in spite of?) their originality are much less repulsive. I think Coldplay is a good example of a band which has become popular, yet isn't quite sounding like everybody else. I haven't heard that much piano in a rock song since Billy Joel, though they don't sound like Billy Joel.

    Could the success of much "alternative" music like Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots have been anticipated previous to the early 90's? What about hiphop in the early 80's? Once successful artists in these genres hit the charts I suppose the "biters" could copy them to ride on the coattails of their success.

    Thankfully there are bands that aren't out to top the charts for chart topping sake, regardless of what the exec's want, yet have loyal followings who like their bands to stick by their principles, even if they experiment with new styles a little.

    Meanwhile the bleating *hoi polloi* watch "American Idol" and try to emulate that dweeb from last season with the wild hair (whatever his name was) while keeping up with the latest gossip about Simon. Excuse me while I hurl.

    _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 09 May 2003 - 13:09:32 GMT