What say ye, my fellow audiosexuals?

-----------
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/official-study-shows-songs-getting-133327890.html

We’ve all heard the moans from parents and elderly relatives: music is getting worse, it’s dumbing down, becoming more stupid. Not like it was ‘in their day’. Oh no.

Not so, according to a new study issued by the US-based crossword solver website, Crossword Tips. Analysing the lyrics from over half a century of the Billboard charts, from 1970 to 2023, it has found that, on average, songs in the 2020s have 169 unique words per 1000. In the 1980s, that figure was only 136 unique words per 1000.

Interestingly, the least lyrically diverse year was 1979, the height of the disco era, with only 117 unique words per 1000.

The rise of hip hop has undoubtedly contributed to this flourishing of language in music. Indeed, it’s T-Wayne’s Nasty Freestyle from 2015 which holds the honour of being the most lyrically diverse hit of the 21st Century, with 81.52% of words being used just the once.

Using an AI algorithm, the study also worked out whether a song is positive, negative or neutral in subject matter, and on this measure, the evidence is that music is getting both sadder and more negative.

The average probability that a song is negative has gone up from 35.4% in the carefree 1970s, rising steadily until the present day where that probability is 48.1%.

The most ‘positive’ song of this century was Selena Gomez & The Scene’s Love You Like A Love Song from 2012. The most ‘negative’? That’ll be Gwen Stefani’s Hollaback Girl. However, the appearance of Taylor Swift’s Shake It Off as fifth on the negative list would suggest that AI doesn’t really understand the human concept of irony. Not yet, anyway.

In one respect, the survey does back up boomer moans: pop music is getting more sweary. In the 1970s the average number of profanities - sh*ts, f*cks, b**ches, asses and damns - was just 0.6 words per 1000. Now that figure is a whopping 25.3. You can put that down to hip-hop again. Or lax morals. Either way, it’s a rise of 4,117%, and proof if proof were needed that those Parental Advisory Labels have had no effect in curbing profanity in pop.

Of course, the survey just looked at the Billboard charts so it doesn’t contain data from musical trends that didn’t cross the Atlantic first time around: glam rock, punk and post-punk, Britpop and large swathes of the post-1988 explosion in dance music.

 

I suppose you could set the special theory of relativity to music, or the Magna Carta, but if the melody isn't good who really cares?
Ever so has it been, The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face and My Ding-A-Ling both came out the same year

 

that version of 'the first time I ever saw your face' was a cover, the original is from 1957

 

Yeah the study is too limited, and I don't think using more unique words makes music automatically smarter. That's just silly imo. I think what matters is what you're saying and how.

 

I'll be danged, I did not know that. Hey well at least 1972 was a time when it could still make it on the radio...

 

For those who are interested, here's the track that is touted as being the most lyrically diverse of this century so far (mentioned in the article).

 

Exactly.

More unique words, does not mean necessarily imply that the quality of a song is improved. I can write a lyrics with gibberish, consisting of no repeating words, and make the same claim, but no human would define that as "smart", or "smarter".

Without more specific intelligence defining metrics, (or basis for defining lyrical quality), these metrics only tell us about unique word count, not about the quality of usage of the same words.

 

Na.

And further more, na na na, nana nanana, na na na.

 

Can't get you out of my head? or Jazz Batman?

 

This is normal. New words are being added to the lexicon regularly, a lot of those words being the latest trendy thing to say exclusively for people of one particular age. When words are in vogue, they get used in mainstream music. In a lot of cases, using the latest import words is squarely related with making the song "popular" with more people in that age group. Absolutely doesn't mean qualitative improvements. Definitely doesn't make anything "smarter". One can even argue that this study, in an unintentional way, kind of confirms the theory that OP wants to refute.

 

Related: https://pudding.cool/projects/vocabulary/index.html

Ok, it's about hip hop vocab and lyrics specifically but a lot of it applies to all music, from the article:

I think the point is clear, if you want to be popular, fuck the smart and aim for the lowest common denominator, pop music is either all about sex or heartbreak.

While hey, who doesn't enjoy clever wordplay? I do, but I'm kinda also in the Zappa school of lyrics: they're pitched mouth noises. His music is ultrasmart but the lyrics are dumb as fuck.

 

Word of advice. if a tabloid news outlet like Yahoo, Daily Mail, New York Post etc is talking about the outcomes of study, that study is junk and they are being hyperbolic about the outcomes because it makes for a catchy headline. you cannot quantify if music has gotten "smarter"or not. there's no way to accurately control for something like that. just like "studies that suggest that walking makes you 40% less depressed"what is 40% less depressed. how do you quantify and trivialise something like depression. i don't even need to read this study to know that it was probably a complete waste of money and tells you absolutely nothing of value. it certainly wont tell you if you music is more "smart or dumb"these days either. got no dog in this fight. just calling out junk science when i see it

 

A study not commissioned by a crossword website begs to differ.

 

Hey Jude?

 

if we compare this with the aforementioned my ding-a-ling (that seems to fit the same musical space), there's an argument to be made for increasing sophistication. but damn