Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Ask general music theory or songwriting questions, get feedback!

Moderators: khz, MattKingUSA

asbak
Established Member
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby asbak » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:18 pm

Not so sure....

Control societies are nothing new, there are plenty of examples of such states from the past and the present. East Germany, North Korea spring to mind but they are hardly the only ones. The EU is becoming increasingly dictatorial as is the US, Canada etc. One also shouldn't be fooled by the leftwing vs rightwing political paradigms. They're just constructs to confuse voters. The "leaders" on both sides have the same agendas, namely control & power. Supporting one side or the other is futile. Both are out to screw you.

Corporations are organised entities which exist to maximise profit and capture and take control of more and more markets. They achieve this by working in conjunction with Governments (in which case one more or less has a Fascist State) and in more extreme cases, Armies of Conquest.

In Western Countries these Corporations don't just become powerful and successful through their own efforts alone, or by random chance or by evolution. They become powerful and successful by infiltrating and eventually controlling and dominating most of the spectrum, from the media to the sociosphere to the economy to the Government, which is staffed by politicians and bureaucrats often on the payroll of these same corporations.

The system is rigged to suit them, and why wouldn't it be, it makes perfect sense. They have the financial means and the influence to buy politicians, to shape public opinion, to buy the loyalty of State bureaucrats, to own the media and to push their agendas. A large part of their agenda is to make as much easy money as possible. Nestle is a great example of this. They bribe corrupt administrations and councils around the world to gain access to local water supplies, pump out billions of liters of water for which they pay almost nothing and then sell that bottled water for enormous profits. Local people get ripped off. Nestle make a fortune at their expense.

The music industry isn't much different. It's much cheaper and more profitable to hire a few talentless clowns to make beats on a sequencer, throw in a couple of miming dancing girls and to push the ridiculous cacophony on the public via their own Industry Media Channels, TV, Magazines, the Internet etc than it is to invest in developing good music and artists. Remember, who controls, develops and finances the most popular and successful Internet Portals? Large Corporations of course!

That's one big reason why almost everything is becoming increasingly dumbed down. And the more dumbed down the public are, the better it suits the Corporations and Governments because brand-slaves and obedient consumer zombies are exactly what suits Corporations and Governments. They would have to be exceptionally foolish and naive to not realise this and not cash in (literally and figuratively) . Unlike the naive general public, Tycoons and Politicians realised these things long ago and therefore they take measures to encourage the dumbing down of society. Why? Because it is profitable to them and because it entrenches their power and their family dynasties' hold on power and it enables them to transfer more and more wealth from the rest of society into their own pockets.

No matter how "free" people think they are or how "free" they think the Internet supposedly is, much of this freedom is an illusion and the Corporations can and do drown out most smaller players with "noise".

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:46 pm

42low wrote:Can't refute 'officiel' research results though as i didn't study it myself over valid amounts.
:twisted: Although did look at about 30 songs for this answer. At least 90% was 4-8 counts intro's :wink: Won't go spending an hour and perhaps a half to reach the 344 songs :roll:


It would be more interesting to see the actual study published by the author and the details on the criteria he used to arrive to such a conclusion indeed. Still, the discussion is about trends. It is mentioned that there are many counter examples (old songs with short intros, new songs with long intros) but what one is interested in is in looking at how, as time passes, the overall intro length of the most successful songs varies overall, on average. Single uncorrelated examples out of context don't show an accurate enough picture of the last, say, 20 years; but for the same reason i agree that understanding the methodology of the research better would be advisable. Also because it is not truly straightforward: how we define what "most successful songs" means, for example? More sales? More shares? The definition might vary as well during history, and the choices made by the author might not be truly representative or appropriate.

asbak wrote:Not so sure....

...


Yes, that's true. I just don't think it is planned or deliberate to a very deep degree. I strongly doubt that 50 years ago people would have predicted any of this, and planned in advance. Especially considering that I see how those same big corporations struggle like crazy with injecting consumer copycat products into the market due to how unpredictable the actual far east manufacturers they work with (and their supply chains) are. Controlling actively, with a specific planned ahead goal, entire governments should be much more complex than controlling mass production of a consumer electronic device.

It just more sounds like alignment to me: people that have enough resources to run a big corporation also have enough resources to support politicians, hence politics and corporation end up being the same thing, or just related to the same groups and hence interests. In short, they end up supporting each other. Hence, politics and corporations become entangled in mutual interests. I doubt it was designed , planned or considered: it is where society converged to due to what the scheme of values has been. If it was planned, well, some serious genius was involved, because predicting social mass behavior is quite remarkably hard. How is society gonna look like in 20 years? What will be the impact of AI (not the sci-fi AI, the real AI), for example? The vast majority of this sort of predictions all failed when they were quantitative (using mathematical models) and only a handful of qualitative ones were found to have some relevance (most coming from literature, and not even very accurate, at least not in every aspect). Of course, to plan any action, the quantitative predictions are needed: if we do this, how much we will profit? If we do that, how many more consumers we will gain? And so on and so forth, so that cost/effects can be evaluated. Not even the biggest corps can afford wasting resources in things that end up bringing no effect. The fact is: reality always surpasses both prediction and imagination. The world is pretty chaotic, it is not the tidy organized playground of few influential people. Which is why we don't really know where we are headed to as a species, as we run into pretty worrisome overpopulation end ecologic problems.

Yes, control groups always existed, but real ones leak as soon as they become too big, becoming public as a consequence: think about all the NSA stuff leaked by Snowden as an example. In this regard, I find fascinating how real conspiracies, like those exposed by Snowden, just don't cause any strong public reaction but far fetched ones move tons of opinions and motivate a lot of action instead.

Totalitarian states are inherently different, as they spawn from the people. The vast majority of totalitarian regimes, like Nazism and Fascism, were born from the people truly and honestly believing in the revolutionary goal and agenda of the respective "rising new forces", which proposed themselves as the antagonists of what they defined the "actual enemies of the people". Most of the population supported them, truly believed in them with the top of their hearts. They genuinely though they were gonna restore their broken countries and honor, get rid of the "actual enemies" that made them miserable. Resistance against totalitarianism onsets at a later stage, when finally people becomes disillusioned with them... Or it isn't convenient anymore. Totalitarianism is much creepier than "unjust state imposed from above". It is "unjust state impose from the inside". More than an external infection, vectored and initiated by virulent external pathogens, it is more like a cancer, crated by the body itself.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

Jack Winter
Established Member
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 3:52 pm

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby Jack Winter » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:01 am

asbak wrote:Not so sure....


IMO a good post! ;)
Reaper/KDE/Archlinux. i7-2600k/16GB + i7-4700HQ/16GB, RME Multiface/Babyface, Behringer X32, WA273-EQ, 2 x WA-412, ADL-600, Tegeler TRC, etc 8) For REAPER on Linux information: https://wiki.cockos.com/wiki/index.php/REAPER_for_Linux

asbak
Established Member
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby asbak » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:31 am

CrocoDuck wrote:Yes, that's true. I just don't think it is planned or deliberate to a very deep degree. I strongly doubt that 50 years ago people would have predicted any
of this, and planned in advance.


For sure, everything is not planned 50 years in advance but the general basic principles of mentally controlling people have been understood by powerbrokers for millenia and ultimately that is what they always seek to do. The exact methods vary through the ages, which is where the details come in.

In the modern age, that control is exerted via (mostly) media. In the pre-information age, religious institutions often played a major role.

Especially considering that I see how those same big corporations struggle like crazy with injecting consumer copycat products into the market due to how unpredictable the actual far east manufacturers they work with (and their supply chains) are. Controlling actively, with a specific planned ahead goal, entire governments should be much more complex than controlling mass production of a consumer electronic device.


I don't think that the hardware is the issue here, so the Chinese factories aren't the determining factor. It's the software and content that drives and enables the Control State. Think Microsoft Corporation vs IBM back in the early days of the PC. The media device (or TV) is the delivery mechanism but the real poison is in the content being pushed.

Totalitarian states are inherently different, as they spawn from the people. The vast majority of totalitarian regimes, like Nazism and Fascism, were born from the people truly and honestly believing in the revolutionary goal and agenda of the respective "rising new forces", which proposed themselves as the antagonists of what they defined the "actual enemies of the people".


The lesson is that most people will believe whatever they are taught and conditioned to believe. Very few people have the ability (or the knowledge about these things) to discern fiction from reality and to understand how they are being manipulated and for what purposes.

The power to "teach" and condition people is largely held by small, extremely powerful, wealthy and influential groups of elites because they control the vast majority of the media, including much of the supposedly "alternative" media which isn't "alternative" at all. (It just pretends to be.)

Most folks are too naive to recognise this unfortunate fact.

The only cure against this kind of "education" (mis-education) is to read and ponder many good books, which were throughout the ages (there are lots of good old books on archive.org) that deals with these topics and to learn and understand how these systems work, who benefits from them and how the people who get themselves in charge usually manipulate the rest of the herd.

It is nothing new and has been done throughout the ages. The difference nowadays is that the general public are so distracted by and overloaded by banal media content that they are becoming increasingly incapable of absorbing, processing, distinguishing and understanding factual information from the never-ending stream of lies and deceptions which are now beamed at them 24/7 from their digital devices.

Whilst the exact mechanisms used for people control will evolve and change over time, the original goals and aims to achieve this have been around for millenia.

Therefore an improvement to the current sorry state of musicianship (in the true sense of the word) in pop music (and other forms of music) is to be encouraged as it represents a revolutionary act of defiance against the system, lol. :mrgreen:

It takes serious effort, hard work and dedication to become proficient at any kind of skill including music and playing an instrument. This idiotic modern culture of "we are all winners" and "equally talented and capable" nonsense needs to end. It sends the wrong message to people and it only encourages mediocrity and all around stupidity.

It drags society down to the lowest common denominator instead of striving to improve and build upon it.

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:06 pm

asbak wrote:In the modern age, that control is exerted via (mostly) media. In the pre-information age, religious institutions often played a major role.


Yes. I think that my point is that religion (in the past) and use in the media (today) were not exactly invented for this purpose, and with this plan. Although people in power clearly recognized the capabilities of those means, and used them to great extent, the vast majority of them believed in religion too.

The Vatican state, for example, controlled, throughout its history, huge territories through the use of religion in strategic ways. However, most of the officials and heads of state were truly Christians, including the inquisitors. They really believed in it. That is, they did not invent religion for their goal: in those centuries having that mentality aligned with being able to control the crowds. They realized it for sure... and exploited it.

asbak wrote:The lesson is that most people will believe whatever they are taught and conditioned to believe. Very few people have the ability (or the knowledge about these things) to discern fiction from reality and to understand how they are being manipulated and for what purposes.


Not only that. That's the lesson we get from "steady state" totalitarianism, that is when the state owns all media and all education. There is another lesson actually.

In Europe, Fascist-like totalitarianism, at the beginning, were ideologies embraced by minorities. Being minorities, they had no control over media, information and education. And the few people involved in those, as the inquisitors in the late middle ages, truly believed in that. The hardest thing to understand about totalitarianism is that it does not born from a minority controlling media and education, it is maintained by a majority controlling media and education. The reason why totalitarianism born, and spreads, is because it proposes a radically new ideology (or at least something that looks like it) that identifies clear "enemies of the state" against which anger and action should be performed, in opposition to the "passivity" of the current government. It gives to people a brutally simple (and unrealistic) system of values into which they think they will restore their community power and glory, the simplicity (Us VS Them) being a big seducing factor. Finally, totalitarian minorities, at first, get attacked on all sides by the establishment, growing the number of people that join in, as there is the a feeling of "persecuted because against the corrupt establishment" and "comradeship against our enemies" driving people in, as well as making feel those already in as "heroes". In all of this, maybe those at the very head of the totalitarian-fetus understand the power of their dumbed down, overly simplistic, ideology in term of crowd control and for sure they exploit it. But at the same time, they truly believe in it: that is, their ideology was not designed to drive the crowds, but in that moment of history it happened to be perfect for it. They realized it, and for sure used it, but after they gained control the paranoia they all developed in controlling people opinion shows how much they felt their power fragile: they could be overthrown in the same way they overthrown the establishment.

Totalitarian state is enforced by control of the media and education... but it spawns from the people: the people ask for it, and want it, and believe in it, initially. They want it before it controls them. That is the hardest lesson of history, and one that shows deeply the nature of mankind: we prefer passivity and blind leader following over independent though. We prefer overly simplistic world depictions of Heroes VS Enemies against even trying understand the real complexity.

So, I think we are pretty much saying the same thing really. We differ just on one thing: how deliberate and calculated all of this is by those in control. On the short term, they clearly seem to know what they are doing, but I think that the alignment with the boundary conditions of history is much more important, and the long term events all spawn from the necessity of history rather than the control of few.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

asbak
Established Member
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:04 pm

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby asbak » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:57 pm

Yeah I think it's more or less as you say, we differ in opinion on whether the herd drives policy or whether the policy is formulated by small groups of insiders who then manipulate the herd with it.

I subscribe to the insiders theory.
You subscribe to the herd theory.

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:45 pm

asbak wrote:Yeah I think it's more or less as you say, we differ in opinion on whether the herd drives policy or whether the policy is formulated by small groups of insiders who then manipulate the herd with it.

I subscribe to the insiders theory.
You subscribe to the herd theory.


Sort of, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a feedback loop in reality:

|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|
|>> insiders manipulate the herd according to how the heard reacts >> the herd reacts to policy >>|

Well, that was for an interesting sub-topic... Maybe not too out of topic though: this is what is happening to everything that gains a commercial value (hance, music as well).
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:35 pm

42low wrote:But we don't have to guess that much. It's quite easy to research it yourself. :mrgreen:


No. It isn't easy. It is never easy to analyze and verify a hypothesis. You cannot figure out numbers and trends from just wondering around YouTube. The sample of songs you select for the analysis must be representative as a start, otherwise your study will be biased. Don't underestimate how hard is to understand things properly.

For example, a study was made time ago to evaluate the effect of noise on factory workers productivity and well-being. It found that women workers were more sensitive to noise, determining more fatigue, stress and drop in productivity. Someone, however, noticed one thing: most of the women that were considered in the study were at late night shits, thus possibly skewing the results. Repeating the experiment by selecting samples of workers with the same amount of males and females for the same shifts shown that actually there was no correlation, and women are not more sensitive than males to background noise.

That is: you cannot analyze the whole of the data, so you select a sample. The question is: how good is the sample and how well is analyzed?

From the abstract (the whole article needs to be payed for):

In the first study, 303 U.S. top-10 singles from 1986 to 2015 were analyzed according to 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.


If one wants to understand how intro time correlates to market trends, then it makes sense to restrict the analysis to top selling singles. If you analyzed songs from progressive metal of course you would find a different trend, but that would reflect another, more niche market which is not pop or mass consumed music. That is why auditioning random songs would not give an answer to the question "is intro time correlated at all to pop music market trends?".

However, the study focused on U.S. songs (at least the first study). Which means that maybe it represents well the American market only (which would be bias). How about Europe? Russia? China? Same trend? Unknown.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:42 pm

42low wrote:Btw, there's nothing wrong doubting research and that quite normal in science. As long as it's done on content and accompanied by arguments for them to defend. That keeps scientists alert.


Yes, I know. I just don't think that you collected enough evidence to refute the conclusion. Also because we don't even know the details that brought to the conclusion in the first place. And I stand on my point that it isn't easy: statistics is a complex and refined art that is not easy to master, and full of pitfalls.

As an example (for anyone reading this) let's imagine that we thrown a coin 1000 times and we found 450 heads. Do you think that the coin is weighted for cheating?

There is another thing that it is worth to mention. Assuming that the correlation between length of the intro and increasing commercial success is real, it still doesn't mean that the two variables are connected by causality. It might as well be that the diminished attention span of the listeners is not the cause for the reduced intro time, if it is true that the intro time is reduced, but both might be caused by another unknown factor.

Finally, I was thinking that the time before the voice enters might not be a good metric. Probably, the number of bars or the the number of repeated chord progressions are a better metric. In fact, in music the feeling of anticipation we feel when listening to an intro could be due to the way the intro unrolls rather than the time it takes. As such, two songs with very different intro times, but very similar "intro organization" (for example, 2 full chord progressions) might give the same feeling to listeners, maybe driving the same attention. In this regard, I think psychoacoustics might not be included properly in the study, thus possibly invalidating the results. However, to answer this, one would need to repeat the experiment in a different way.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:28 pm

42low wrote:Done these kind of tests at school in the early day's with dices. I guess that if you try the result will be nearer to 500. But again, i ain't gonna flip a coin 100 times. :mrgreen:


That's exactly the point. If you flip a coin 100 times and find 54 heads, can you say the coin is a regular, not weighted, coin? If you flip it 1000000 times and find 500001 heads? Do you have evidence to claim the coin is a regular coin?

The fact is that the number of times you repeat the experiment is for sure important, but the numerical analysis of the result is more important than that. Without numerical analysis, 1000000 trials are as good as 10.

As for the question in the example, we can work something out. Without entering too much into details (don't wanna make a long post about maths) we proceed as following:

  • A regular coin has a probability of 0.5 to fall on the head side when flipped.
  • Hence, the probability is constant, and different flips of a coin are Independent.
  • So, the flipping of a coin is described by the binomial distribution, which is our reference distribution. We use this distribution to model a regular coin flipping experiment.
  • Based on our reference distribution, we calculate the expected mean and standard deviation of the flipping of an ideal coin for 1000 trials. These are 500 and 15.8 respectively.
  • With this result, we can calculate the value of the standard variable t: (500 - 450) / 15.8 = 3.16. This means that the observed result, 450 heads, is 3.16 standard deviations away from the expected mean of the model for regular coins.
  • Now, the binomial distribution converges quite fast to the Gaussian distribution, so we can associate Gaussian levels to t. If we integrate the Gaussian from t to infinity we can calculate, according to the model of regular coins, the probability of the experiment giving less than (or up to) 450 heads. This probability is 0.0008 and, again, it is the probability a regular coin has, by chance, to fall on less than or equal to 450 heads when thrown 1000 times.
  • This means the following: if we state that the coin is not described by the binomial model, valid for regular coins, the probability we have to do a mistake is less than 0.0008.
  • We conclude than that, with a very small probability of being wrong, our coin is not in agreement with the binomial model, which assumes the coin is regular and not weighted for cheating.

Now, in all of this we used: squared roots, factorials, continuous and discrete functions, integrals, powers and a whole lot of arithmetic. Forgive me if I am wrong, but this does not count as easy in my book: there is a lot of mathematics involved into this. In fact, this is called hypothesis testing, and usually the topic can only be introduced after the first 100 pages of an undergraduate statistics book, each single one of the 100 pages before being needed to comprehend it. It might be straightforward once you understand it, but if it was easy we wouldn't need maths at all. And the example of the coin is very remarkable: it is the simplest experiment possible in statistics. Things can get only more complicated from there.

Note that at any point we concluded that the coin is weighted, but just that the evidence we have is not in good agreement with a model, the agreement being quantified as a probability (0.0008).

Back to the main topic, we have many doubts about how legit the conclusions of the author are, and those are good doubts. I am not trusting its result too much as well honestly, as you read above. However, refuting a thesis in rigorous ways passes through analysing the data (which are not readily accessible to us, unfortunately). In fact, if you repeated the experiment of the coin by yourself, flipping it 1000 times, you wouldn't still know how to answer the question without analysis. The same goes for analysing intro time for pop songs.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:02 am

42low wrote:That's what this guy concludes. He concludes all songs have shorter intro's because his researched (only) hitsongs did. He then can only conclude that for the hitsongs and not for all songs.


He didn't actually researched only hit-songs. Also, I am not sure he is inferring the result for all songs. From the introduction:

In the second study, 60 popular songs from 2015 were paired with 60 less popular songs from the same artists. The same parameters were evaluated. The data were not consistent with any of the hypotheses regarding the relationship between attention economy principles within a comparison of popular and less popular music.


He did try to understand what happens with less popular music with that second study, by seeing if there is any difference between popular and less popular output of the same artist. I am having some difficulty in parsing what he means with the last sentence though.

But again, we should review the whole paper rather then just the introduction. It is very annoying for me when papers have a price... they should be public.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

User avatar
CrocoDuck
Established Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 6:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby CrocoDuck » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:10 am

42low wrote:How difficult can that be? I don't understand that this clear fact is part of the discussion yet. Either one sees it or not. I'm not going to repeat or discuss this anymore


Sorry, 42low, I think I wasn't particularly clear on what my points are.

I am not trying to demonstrate that the author is right and you are wrong, because I don't think it. I think you raised pretty good points, in fact. Please, don't take any critical thinking as an attack on you: it is not the point. The point here is trying to understand things properly.

Imagine you have a guitar teacher. You compose a song as an assignment and then he is like "It's bad, do it over". Well, that would be a bad teacher. You need him to make you understand what you are doing wrong, and why, and what you are doing good, and why.

Now, all your points are legit about this study, but imagine to go back to the study author and say:

"It's wrong, your sample is too small and you cannot infer your results as you do. And my decision is based on the introduction only of your article and an interview published somewhere else."

You might be very well correct in saying that the study is not valid, but we might be more specific, hence more helpful and constructive. For example:

  • Your sample is overly biased over the US hit-songs, thus it cannot be used to infer more general results.
  • You investigated correlations between attention grabbing models and market trends, but that still does not inform us on any causality relationship.
  • The introduction of the article doesn't state clearly the overall conclusion: does the second study invalidate the first study? What is the overall conclusion we should draw? Not giving a clear overall conclusion in the introduction of a scientific paper is bad practice.

All of the above is actually constructive criticism, as it pinpoints reasons why the study might be not satisfactory. On top of that, we would need to go deeper, to pinpoint even more. Chances are that the conclusions of the author will become clearer by reading the whole paper, and with that it will become clearer how correct they are.

My point is not "I am right and you are wrong". If it came across in this way, sorry, it was misunderstanding. However, I think that just saying "it's wrong and it is easy to say otherwise" is not constructive, it is dismissive. And this is not by any mean an attack on you: it is just what I think in general terms. Critical thinking helps getting better understanding when one goes deep into trying to understand something, rather than dismissing it entirely.

Finally, by reading the whole paper one might indeed find many reason why the conclusion don't hold properly, but also find many points that actually show a legit phenomenon. Many scientific results were achieved by people thinking they discovered something being actually reviewed to find that... instead they discovered something else entirely. There still might be something salvageable from whatever this researcher did.

I hope this makes my point clearer, sorry. And please, don't take confrontation personally. It is just a chance to become smarter in the process, for all the interlocutors involved.
Check my Linux audio experiments on my SoundCloud.
Browse my AUR packages.
Fancying a swim in the pond?

GraysonPeddie
Established Member
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:12 pm
Location: Altha, FL
Contact:

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby GraysonPeddie » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:46 am

I saw a mention of Zeitgeist in the first page of the thread and I thought I'd like to chime in.

For an alternative to Zeitgeist, have a look at some alternatives:

The Venus Project (Jacque Fresco and Roxanne Meadow co-founded the project): https://www.thevenusproject.com/
The Venus Project: Resource-Based Economy: https://www.thevenusproject.com/resource-based-economy/
The Free World Charter (Colin Turner): http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en

Anyway, I listened to lots of instrumental music that are new age in nature such as Yanni, David Arkenstone, 2002, Checkfield, and David Lanz, including Celtic music from the likes of Clannad, Enya, and Loreena McKennitt. I don't listen to mainstream music that much. One popular song I despise the most is "I Love You, I Hate You" but my favorite song is 24K Magic by Bruno Mars (I'm able to synthesize the bass patch using ZynAddSubFX).

As for music creation, my songs have been written tu support a cause -- to support The Venus Project and Free World Charter. I'm an advocate for both of them that strive for alternatives to money and the hopes for a better future for all of us, but then people from all over the world would downplay both The Venus Project and Free World Charter as being "utopian," but neither me, Jacque Fresco, Roxanne Meadow, and Colin Turner are considered "utopian." Even a city full of utopia has flaws.

If you listen to my songs, I hope you'll have a look at The Venus Project and The Free World Charter as that is what my music is for.
https://soundcloud.com/grayson-peddie

I hope I can contribute to the thread here, but I realize my post might be out of topic considering the mentioning of Zeitgeist earlier in the thread.

Update after a minute later: Strange... I get "a submitted form is invalid" message while submitting my post. At least my post got through a second try. Anyway, it's late. Good night.
--Grayson Peddie

Music Interest: New Age w/ a mix of modern smooth jazz, light techno/trance & downtempo -- something Epcot Future World/Tomorrowland-flavored.

jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby jonetsu » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:52 pm

Of interest can be the analysis of Taylor Swift pop songs by Friedmann Findeisen (Holistic Songwriting). I do not agree with everything, but he has a few good points on modern pop and how it is made in this and other analysis:

8 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=damt9eQ_2Js
Last edited by jonetsu on Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 1450
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am

Re: Decline of the instrumental intro in pop music

Postby jonetsu » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:00 pm

And of course, a classic on how money works is the 30-minute cartoon 'The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM


Return to “Music Theory/Songwriting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest