From another blog, check out this Radiohead promotion summary post here:
The public no longer respects the duty and role musicians and other artists fulfill in society. They don’t see the need to pay us for our work, just like the industry didn’t when it started ripping us off decades ago.
And that is why out of all Radiohead’s fans, only 38% didn’t steal from the band, and just because they offered the choice doesn’t make it right.
Then I remembered a Jonathan Savage post that you probably missed and thought it would be appropriate here:
Creativity - in the form of the arts, music and thinking more imaginatively about subjects - are an important part of an all-round education, says the select committee report. But there have been fears that schools, under pressure to focus on academic standards, could be neglecting such areas. And the report by MPs concludes that more should be done to protect these areas of creativity.’
A full report of their deliberations can be downloaded here.
Creativity gets no respect unless its marketed; if we continue to give it away, we devalue it. Conversely, if it is in short supply, there will be high demand. This is generally described as “law” in the field of economics. Remember when people give away things at grand openings? Radiohead is a marketing experiment. At least I hope that’s all it is.
But can you imagine a world when music is no more appreciated than a 2nd grade art show? Jeff’s post reminds me to ask:
What is the role and duty of the musician in today’s society?
If you believe these guys, musicians are the stylists and fashionista’s of todays’ clique-oriented culture. There’s a video from the Newyorker Conference for the Near Future that details a computer from company Platinum Blue that mathematically compares music and maps them, i.e. categorizes them by patterns. They have nice scattergraphs that demonstrate that the musical universe has about 60 galaxies of hits. Think about this.
Statistical analyses already drive most industry. This sort of lab-coat dissection of music is scary and you can probably guess how interested the bean-counters are in this technology. Not only is Big Brother watching, but he’s trying to figure out how to engineer the next hit in a testtube.
From the Platinum Blue website:
It has long been known that music and math are closely related and that in a sense, music IS math. Recent research has shown strong evidence that most hit songs conform to a limited number of mathematical patterns. These patterns cannot be detected by the human ear much in the same way the doctor cannot be see with the naked eye that which the medical Xray reveals.
More than 90% of singles that are released and promoted by music labels do not chart and do not provide the labels with a return on their investment in spite of sounding and feeling like potential hits. This leaves label executives, producers and musicians themselves scratching their heads wondering what went wrong. Now, we are able to point to the mathematical properties of the song as a strong indicator of potential success.
So why are musicians still here? Are they important?
Think you know? Tell me about it!
3 Comments
Comments feed for this article
November 27th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Hey Dr. J, good article thanks for the read and the information, particularly about the corporate move to statistically analyze music. That’s scary stuff on one level, as you imply, but not on others. I’m sure something useful will come out of this study, but not I think in the way the corporates may be hoping and that you mention, or allude to.
You ask, “Are musicians important and why are they still here?” Great questions. To the first I’ll say, “Yes.” To the second I’ll say “because we love the effect of music and song on who we are and creativity is one of the most satisfying of all human experiences.”
I don’t think it is possible to automate creativity through software because you’re talking about the ineffable and unique nature of the human spirit; that combination of intellect, emotion, personality and intuition that approaches the divine (in a spiritual sense, not a religious one).
“Music IS math” is a nice assertion, but also a rather limited pseudo-scientific definition of what music is, created and selected as part of a marketing phrase to sell a product/service, so somewhat suspicious and limited in its viewpoint.
“Music IS math” is not completely and only true and ignores everything else that music actually is. Music IS NOT math. That’s not how it is perceived by people or musicians and trying to tell them that it is as part of a means to market a service/product is kind of dumb really. I could write much better copy to sell what the service Music XRay really is, given the budget and the product service to test and evaluate it.
We don’t say “Let’s play math, man.” We don’t say “Let’s go to a math concert.” Or “Let’s listen to math, man.”
We just don’t do that. Its inhuman and trying to sell an inhuman idea to humans who think and feel using something as intangible and abstract as math is not going to generate the correct emotional response that leads to a purchasing decision.
However, there is a relationship between music and mathematics, but that doesn’t make music mathematics. Music is music, a form of artistic communication that relies on mathematical relationships and functions to communicate audio signals to the human ear for an emotional experience. Music is not math. Musicians however, could be likened to intuitive practical mathematicians, who utilize the laws of physics and mathetmatics to create meaningful human communication (These are my words and they are copyright me).
As for pattern recognition…this is all well and good, but Creative Artists create patterns, not just read them. Creativity does not have limitations, it cannot have them and work hand in glove with the imagination.
The site itself indicates that “There’s another factor: humans want to be entertained by humans, not machines.
Art is about human communication. Aliens maybe, soon as they have landed a gig for us to go to, let’s go man! Who knows what new patterns we could pick up.”
“Music Xray™ does not tell you if a song sounds like a hit. That’s an evaluation for the human ear and mind.”
Damn straight. So it’s a pattern analysis.
“It also doesn’t tell you if the artist is appealing or if the label knows how to get a single into the market.”
Important factors, but you know there are singers and performers who are not appealing and yet they are magnificent and extremely talented and gifted.
“It does tell you however, if the song has the “optimal mathematical patterns” to become a success, a necessary but not singly sufficient condition for having a hit.”
Hmmm…it’s that ‘optimal mathematical patterns’ bit that gets me msot. Optimal according to what? I’ve looked at the site and there doesn’t appear to be anything to substantiate this claim. There are no charts displaying patterns and though research is alluded to and links provided to see it, you can’t; the links don’t work and this just leaves one feeling rather doubtful about the claims.
The way to find out if songs work is to play them to people. The way to find out if a band playing those songs has the ability to build an audience is to get the band out there in front of an audience and see if the audience responds. If they like the band and the songs they will work and this is one of the prime ways an audience is built, by getting out there in front of them and delivering a knock out performance of good songs.
I don’t see that Platinum Blue or M.I.S., is doing any audience response testing, and this is the crucial test.
There are no testimonials as to the success of this product/service either. So, really hard to determine if this works as stated.
This being the case, I wouldn’t be too worried about it at this point.
November 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Excellent points, and I looked at the Platinum Blue site and found this evidence that it works:
Last year, Music Xray™ predicted the success of Gnarles Barkley’s Crazy. When founding Platinum Blue’s executives were at their former company working with a similar technology called Hit Song Science the success of Norah Jones was predicted before she was on anyone’s radar. The service also helped Lee Ryan have a hit song in the summer of 2006 called Turn Your Car Around. These technologies have been used on countless other occasions. In accordance with confidentiality agreements, many of the success stories are not made public.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
@anonymous: Well that’s a bit odd, a success you cannot promote, because of confidentiality agreements? A bit like carrying out a successful burglary, I guess. (chuckle)
If this is as successful as you say, then I don’t see any reason why it can’t be promoted. Where is the stuff on the site that substantiates. Would be good to provide a link. But still if it is buried, then it’s not very effective. That’s not evidence, btw, that’s a claim of workability and I did read it. I read the whole site. I was looking for and commenting upon the fact that there is Nothing to substantiate the claims. Therefore they are just words that may or may not be true.
If there is such evidence, if there are people who have experienced this success, then that’s fantastic. If there is not, then this is just more “We’re the best thing since Mozart sliced bread with piano wire.”
I’m genuinely interested in this and if it is good and does work as claimed, then I’d like to see some evidence and not just marketing-speak.