Machine Learning Unlocks the Secret to Hit Songs
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/6aa0b944-8272-4ab5-9345-674fd0f64701.jpeg)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/c0e83ceb-b7e5-41b4-9b76-bfd152dd8d00.png)
![Machine Learning Unlocks the Secret to Hit Songs](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/45402e6e-571f-4f7c-96b8-680b60338eef.webp?format=jpg&thumbnail=256)
nexlumina.com
Why it matters: A recent study at Claremont Graduate University has applied machine learning to neurophysiological data, identifying hit songs with an astonishing 97% accuracy.
Read more: 'Neuroforecasting': How science can predict the next hit song with 97% accuracy.
Read the Research article.
Discussion on Hacker News.
This is very preliminary. The samples were songs that were already hits at the time of the study, with no way to account for contamination. It's highly plausible that the subjects had heard the "hit" songs before the study, and they were just measuring recognition.
Full paper is here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1154663/full
I still think your concern is legitimate.
Memory is funny. Stuff can play in the background and become familiar without you being consciously aware of it.
It would be possible to do this study without contamination by using completely unknown and newly-released songs as a dataset, and checking against future chart data regarding the popularity, or by examining the reaction of an isolated group of people without constant musical bombardment.
When writing songs, I always wondered if that genius idea is actually just something I heard 10 years ago, but don't remember consciously. Similarly, I wonder if I like a catchy tune because it is catchy in itself, or because it reminds me of something which I cannot recall consciously right now.
Sometimes, I had these moments later when the dots connect, sometimes not. With what confidence could I conclude something is new and original?
I guess that's just another task for future AI.
I'm increasingly convinced that the pop music of the future will consist entirely of mediocre or terrible songs written by real people -- that the flaws and fuck-ups of lousy artists will suddenly seem like magic when compared to an endless stream of algorithmically generated, pristine computer bullshit.
It seems likely to me that 'pop' music won't be created by people. As a result, people won't be made famous through music anymore, the cult of celebrity will move on to be more era-appropriate.
I mean, this only happened in the first place because it was extremely profitable to sell lots of records/concert tickets. That doesn't seem to be the case now.
So, if pop music has been manufactured to sell an image to impressionable people, there's little incentive to do that these days. It's surely more lucrative to fund an influencer than a 'musician'.
You might like Wesley Willis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jTPbcnqPxQ
Cool, you posted the original with the Tim Minchin callout.
This has been solved already.
4 chord song...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
"Prisencolinensinainciusol", but with vocal pitch-shifting applied for a modern twist.
undefined> Prisencolinensinainciusol
i dont know what that means... but sounds fancy!
Abstract
So they use synthetic data to both train and test their model, this is because the original dataset contains only 24 songs.
So the 97.2% accuracy is reported on the synthetic data. On the original one, it is 95.8%. But the authors do acknowledge the limitations.
Fuck yeah, that was my go-to app for like a decade right up until the great reddit migration. I'll very gladly pay for Pro all over again!
I'm assuming lemmy's bug is acting up again lol. Anyway, I am also very excited about Sync.
Oh, huh. Came here to ask which bug but I see now lol. I had no knowledge of this post's existence beforehand so yup, probably.
the sweet summer machine learning child is 35 years behind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual