(Reuters) - Comforting news for anyone over the age of 35, scientists have worked out that modern pop music really is louder and does all sound the same.

Researchers in Spain used a huge archive known as the Million Song Dataset, which breaks down audio and lyrical content into data that can be crunched, to study pop songs from 1955 to 2010.

A team led by artificial intelligence specialist Joan Serra at the Spanish National Research Council ran music from the last 50 years through some complex algorithms and found that pop songs have become intrinsically louder and more bland in terms of the chords, melodies and types of sound used.

"We found evidence of a progressive homogenization of the musical discourse," Serra told Reuters. "In particular, we obtained numerical indicators that the diversity of transitions between note combinations - roughly speaking chords plus melodies - has consistently diminished in the last 50 years."

They also found the so-called timbre palette has become poorer. The same note played at the same volume on, say, a piano and a guitar is said to have a different timbre, so the researchers found modern pop has a more limited variety of sounds.

Intrinsic loudness is the volume baked into a song when it is recorded, which can make it sound louder than others even at the same volume setting on an amplifier.

The music industry has long been accused of ramping up the volume at which songs are recorded in a 'loudness war' but Serra says this is the first time it has been properly measured using a large database.

The study, which appears in the journal Scientific Reports, offers a handy recipe for musicians in a creative drought.

Old tunes re-recorded with increased loudness, simpler chord progressions and different instruments could sound new and fashionable. The Rolling Stones in their 50th anniversary year should take note.

(Reporting by Chris Wickham)

http://www.reuters.com/ar...R820120726

[Edited 7/26/12 15:29pm]

aha Oh crap, I didn't even read that stuff. I thought it was about how music sounds the same musically.

[Edited 7/26/12 15:36pm]

Seriously they needed scientists for that?

Timmy84 said:

Seriously they needed scientists for that?

Right?

smoothcriminal12 said:

Timmy84 said:

Seriously they needed scientists for that?

Right?

It's sad people just don't go on instinct, they always want scientists' approval. It's like "god are you that dumb?"

Timmy84 said:

Seriously they needed scientists for that?

Seriously, the producers of these albums have been saying this for years now

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Right?

It's sad people just don't go on instinct, they always want scientists' approval. It's like "god are you that dumb?"

Anyways, this just sounds like regular org bullshit masked in "tests" and "scientists".

Still, it's true! Especially rock music. It sounds like static on the radio. It is a constant buzz of noise.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Timmy84 said:

It's sad people just don't go on instinct, they always want scientists' approval. It's like "god are you that dumb?"

Anyways, this just sounds like regular org bullshit masked in "tests" and "scientists".

I've been to a monster truck show, and I'd say it was too loud.

MickyDolenz said:

I've been to a monster truck show, and I'd say it was too loud.

Hell most sports events are too loud lol shit I knew music was "loud" when I entered my brother's car the first time and he played his boombox. Seriously how late are people to figure this out?!

When I first joined this board, a certain "DavidEye"( ) said something to the effect that the common denominator between most recent songs is the loud bass. I never forgot that, because the minute I put on the radio, what do I hear? Exactly what he said.

Mind you, this was during the org's "black & purple" era exactly 10 years ago. I guess its still the case today.

Thing is, the writer is saying the instrumentation(or lack of, in this case) plays a big part in this issue, and while I agree, I think the mixing process is also an equal dilemma. There're few albums today that are handled with care during the mixing process, I'm inclined to say that it took a back seat considering how fast people record/release their music nowadays? But mixing is and should always be a crucial aspect of presenting music IMO.

Timmy84 said:

Hell most sports events are too loud lol shit I knew music was "loud" when I entered my brother's car the first time and he played his boombox. Seriously how late are people to figure this out?!

Fortunately for me, my stereo has a volume knob on it.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Hell most sports events are too loud lol shit I knew music was "loud" when I entered my brother's car the first time and he played his boombox. Seriously how late are people to figure this out?!

Fortunately for me, my stereo has a volume knob on it.

Harlepolis said:

But mixing is and should always be a crucial aspect of presenting music IMO.

Music released today is mixed with a lot of bass for a reason that didn't really exist before the mid 1980's.

Yep, and the nightclubs.

Harlepolis said:

Yep, and the nightclubs.

Movie and home TV surround sound systems too. In the old days TVs were generally mono.

Timmy84 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Right?

It's sad people just don't go on instinct, they always want scientists' approval. It's like "god are you that dumb?"

It wasn't proven scientifically until about five years ago that drinking hot drinks might alleviate the symptoms when you have the flu.

To be honest, I'm not sure how seriously I can take a test that claims to have gone through "millions" or even "half a million" compositions. It also seems like the researches wanted to prove their own views by selecting the study criteria. That's not to say contemporary pop music would be terribly complicated. But I think you can do very interesting things by using rhythms and different types of sounds (or just by altering the nuances of a composition). Those type of things would probably go unnoticed by these type of studies.

I knew it!

I knew it!

I heard about this on the radio this morning and thought I'd post it as a preaching to the choir thread. Looks like sc12 already beat me to it.

I thought, "Hell they could have logged into any given thread at the org and came to that conclusion." Nothing new here except some scientific terminology for what we've all been saying for how many years now?

I still blame this dumbing down on the general public.

Musicslave said:

I heard about this on the radio this morning and thought I'd post it as a preaching to the choir thread. Looks like sc12 already beat me to it.

I thought, "Hell they could have logged into any given thread at the org and came to that conclusion." Nothing new here except some scientific terminology for what we've all been saying for how many years now?

I still blame this dumbing down on the general public.

You'd think it be common knowledge by now.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Timmy84 said:

Seriously they needed scientists for that?

Right?

Timmy84 said:

It's sad people just don't go on instinct, they always want scientists' approval. It's like "god are you that dumb?"

Musicslave said:

I heard about this on the radio this morning and thought I'd post it as a preaching to the choir thread. Looks like sc12 already beat me to it.

I thought, "Hell they could have logged into any given thread at the org and came to that conclusion." Nothing new here except some scientific terminology for what we've all been saying for how many years now?

I still blame this dumbing down on the general public.

To be honest, science is the language of "proof" these days (which is no different that asking for a "source" in reading), so i don't think it has anything to do with sheep needing approval to have an opinion of wack music (lol though there CERTAINLY are those), but i just think some researchers wanted to challenge themselves to see if they could prove quantitatively a common claim. i mean, what is pop short for? Popular music; and obviously a lot of popularity in songs come from a common like or trend (where IMO over the years, the trend has become more and more imposed on the listener as opposed to set by the listener. And what's funny is the number of companies that control our media are very quickly diminishing.....from about 50 in the 80s to only 6 in our current day: tell me that has nothing to do with what we hear as "pop". ) So yeah, shyt is obvious, but it never hurts to get another aspect of how "true" something is.

But i agree with yall on questioning the methodology.

Oh and speaking of music becoming too much louder, i think about that with live music especially, but part of it is our faults too, especially with headphones. i've worn headphones for so long now my hearing HAS to be affected, because an engineer friend of mines was trying to explain to me how different the effects he was adding sounded, the spacing in the room, etc. and it took a GOOD minute to notice anything. Other times i was like "i really can't hear no difference man." Even comparing these two headphones i bought; Sennheiser 280(?) and my current Sony XB700s (more bass) i couldn't tell the difference!! Although people claim you have to let the headphones break-in, my reaction isn't an instant one when i swtich between the more elaborate Sony headphones and my $30 cheaper version. Might have to stop wearing headphones so often....

[Edited 7/27/12 9:31am]

Hell, I don't know how it could be considered too loud since there's nothing in it such as drums or bass to make it loud. Unless they're talking about a bunch of idiots yelling a bunch of thuggish bullshit on top of it, other than that, it's as soft and dull as some damn classical music.

As for it all sounding the same, hell, any fool with ears can hear that. However, I am glad they wanted to do a scientific study on it though to prove that today's music actually IS a bunch of bullshit and it's not simply just a matter of "every generation hates the next generation's music" which is a favorite excuse of those that live in denial and don't want to accept that today's music actually IS bullshit.

Harlepolis said:

When I first joined this board, a certain "DavidEye"( ) said something to the effect that the common denominator between most recent songs is the loud bass. I never forgot that, because the minute I put on the radio, what do I hear? Exactly what he said.

Mind you, this was during the org's "black & purple" era exactly 10 years ago. I guess its still the case today.

Thing is, the writer is saying the instrumentation(or lack of, in this case) plays a big part in this issue, and while I agree, I think the mixing process is also an equal dilemma. There're few albums today that are handled with care during the mixing process, I'm inclined to say that it took a back seat considering how fast people record/release their music nowadays? But mixing is and should always be a crucial aspect of presenting music IMO.

David is still here. He's SoulAlive now. I think when he said loud bass, what he may have been referring to is the fake ass type of drum machines that are on a lot of songs these days and have been since the 1990s. If you're ever inside your house and you hear a passing car with a loud radio and all you hear is what sounds like to be a long lingering bass and you can't hear the rest of the song, just that bass. But when you hear the actual song they are listening to, it's seems to be some sort of drum machine that pounds once and the sound just lingers on for a long time before it pounds again. It reminds me of a damn fog horn and you can't hear the rest of the song because it overpowers it unless you turn your bass knob down. Hell, I think they use that type of drum machine that lingers because the song is so damn slow they need something to fill in the gaps before the rest of their fisher price instruments move on to the next verse.

vainandy said:

Harlepolis said:

When I first joined this board, a certain "DavidEye"( ) said something to the effect that the common denominator between most recent songs is the loud bass. I never forgot that, because the minute I put on the radio, what do I hear? Exactly what he said.

Mind you, this was during the org's "black & purple" era exactly 10 years ago. I guess its still the case today.

Thing is, the writer is saying the instrumentation(or lack of, in this case) plays a big part in this issue, and while I agree, I think the mixing process is also an equal dilemma. There're few albums today that are handled with care during the mixing process, I'm inclined to say that it took a back seat considering how fast people record/release their music nowadays? But mixing is and should always be a crucial aspect of presenting music IMO.

David is still here. He's SoulAlive now. I think when he said loud bass, what he may have been referring to is the fake ass type of drum machines that are on a lot of songs these days and have been since the 1990s. If you're ever inside your house and you hear a passing car with a loud radio and all you hear is what sounds like to be a long lingering bass and you can't hear the rest of the song, just that bass. But when you hear the actual song they are listening to, it's seems to be some sort of drum machine that pounds once and the sound just lingers on for a long time before it pounds again. It reminds me of a damn fog horn and you can't hear the rest of the song because it overpowers it unless you turn your bass knob down. Hell, I think they use that type of drum machine that lingers because the song is so damn slow they need something to fill in the gaps before the rest of their fisher price instruments move on to the next verse.

Harlepolis said:

vainandy said:

David is still here. He's SoulAlive now. I think when he said loud bass, what he may have been referring to is the fake ass type of drum machines that are on a lot of songs these days and have been since the 1990s. If you're ever inside your house and you hear a passing car with a loud radio and all you hear is what sounds like to be a long lingering bass and you can't hear the rest of the song, just that bass. But when you hear the actual song they are listening to, it's seems to be some sort of drum machine that pounds once and the sound just lingers on for a long time before it pounds again. It reminds me of a damn fog horn and you can't hear the rest of the song because it overpowers it unless you turn your bass knob down. Hell, I think they use that type of drum machine that lingers because the song is so damn slow they need something to fill in the gaps before the rest of their fisher price instruments move on to the next verse.

And if the rumours are true, he's also....nevermind.

I've heard several people who worked with Michael Jackson, say that he liked listening to music so loud that they had to either leave the room or wear earplugs.

MickyDolenz said:

I've heard several people who worked with Michael Jackson, say that he liked listening to music so loud that they had to either leave the room or wear earplugs.

The only thing I miss about living in a house is being able to get all the off and turn the volume up so loud you could blow the roof off the motherfucker. When I moved into my apartment, I bought a brand new receiver and opened it brand new straight out of the box the day I moved in. I've never gotten a chance to turn it up full volume and see how loud it goes. However, I don't miss having to worry about paying for maintenance and repairs myself or worrying about how the yard will get mowed. Andy does NOT do grass....ever. The day they figure out a way to air condition the outdoors, then maybe I'll consider it.