Tag Archives: Science

Deafened with. . .Science

A few years ago, my friend who is still insistent that there will be a Led Zeppelin reunion, and I had a business dinner with a client at a high-end restaurant in Chicago, a restaurant that essentially was serving molecular cuisine. That is, there were seemingly endless courses of things like what often amounted to nothing with flavor. Oh, there were foams and mousses and tiny little bits of things served on plates that were so small that they’d make amuse-bouche plates look gigantic. There were, of course, wine pairings for each of the courses, with the liquid coming in thimble-sized containers. It was a situation where the consumption probably burned more calories than were taken in.

Part of the meal included a tour of the kitchen (remember: this was going on an expense account, so we’re talking the sort of AmEx charge that no one would want to have show up on their personal accounting), which resembled more something that you could imagine at Sandia National Laboratories than, well, a place where food is prepared.

While it was certainly a memorable experience (obviously, I remember it), it strikes me that it was remarkable not because of the tastes (perhaps the textures), nor because of the satisfaction of the meal which was, at the end, rather unsatisfying.

It wasn’t that the chefs didn’t do some remarkable things with the ingredients. But it was that what they did with those ingredients was more akin to science or engineering than culinary arts.

It was calibration more than cooking. All recipes, of course, require things to be measured. But the difference here is like that between doing physics and playing pool. Yes, there are forces and angles and velocities and whatnot, but. . . .

Which brings me to an outfit named “Secret Chord Laboratories,” which provides something called “neuroscience-powered predictive music analytics.”

In a paper published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience written by members of said outfit, the researchers investigate two hypotheses, the Absolute-Surprise Hypothesis and the Contrastive-Surprise Hypothesis. The former “states that unexpected events in music directly lead to pleasure,” while the latter “proposes that the juxtaposition of unexpected events and subsequent expected events leads to an overall rewarding response.”

Why did they do it? They wanted to determine “how harmonic surprise might contribute to preference in popular music.”

Continue reading Deafened with. . .Science

No Intro

I’ll be brief.

I have to be.

Otherwise you’ll stop reading. Perhaps you already have.

A doctoral student at The Ohio State University, Hubert Léveillé Gauvin, has done a study (pdf, press release) on 303 U.S. top-10 singles from 1986 to 2015. He looked at five parameters: number of words in title, main tempo, time before the voice enters, time before the title is mentioned, and self-focus in lyrical content.

Léveillé Gauvin has determined that popular songs today get right to the point. Titles are short. And they’re mentioned in the song post-haste.

What’s more, whereas musical intros that were part and parcel of songs on the Big ’80s—which, on average, were greater than 20 seconds in duration—are gone. Now it’s a five-second intro and the lyrics begin.

And the tempo has accelerated, too, by about eight percent.

It seems music streaming is one of the causes.

As Léveillé Gauvin told a writer for OSU, “It’s survival-of-the-fittest: Songs that manage to grab and sustain listeners’ attention get played and others get skipped. There’s always another song. If people can skip so easily and at no cost, you have to do something to grab their attention.”

This has taken about 45 seconds to read.