|
Platinum Blue,
a “Music Intelligence” consulting firm, has developed software to help record industry
big wigs and aspiring chart toppers alike identify tomorrow’s huge hit
singles. Before you get too cynical
about the commercialism of mainstream music, the homogenizing affect this
technology (if it works) might have on the art form, or the inability of
machines to perceive the underlying quality of music, consider this: All music is math.
For music lovers and the math-phobic such as myself, that
might be a scary, ugly fact. But even
the biggest purist among us has to admit that virtually every musical element
can be dissected using mathematical principles, translating tone, rhythm, meter
and melody into raw numerical data.
Musical notation is merely one method for interpreting music’s
underlying mathematics.
Platinum Blue claims
to have identified 60 distinct mathematical patterns to which all hits –
regardless of genre – conform. According
to the company’s CEO, Mike McReady,
their methodology accurately predicts hits 80 to 85 percent of the time. For example, he claims that his consulting
firm accurately predicted the viability of Gnarls Barkley’s single “Crazy” for
a U.K.-based radio group. So, in part,
you may have McReady and his consultants to thank (or blame) for the
proliferation of that infectious tune.
However, despite the sophistication and supposed accuracy of
Platinum Blue’s product, even McReady admits the human ear is still an important part of the equation
in determining a hit. Wannabe hits must
first pass the initial filter of discerning Artist and Repertoire specialists,
or “Golden Ears.” But without Platinum
Blue’s help, the record industry supposedly is only able to accurately predict
hits about 10 percent of the time compared to Platinum Blue’s 80 to 85 percent
accuracy.
If Platinum Blue’s claims are true, there seems to be an
innate appreciation for a particular combination of musical elements we find
pleasing. This revelation would be both
fascinating and troubling for a variety of reasons.
However, this formulaic approach only has the ability to
predict the forms or structures of
future hit singles. It doesn’t have the
ability to quantify the craft, personality, timeliness, cultural relevance or
attitude behind the music. How do you assign a numeric value to Elvis’
swinging pelvis, Billy Idol’s wrenched lip and bleach blonde hair, the
I-wanna-kill-myself melancholy of Joy Division, the “f-you” attitude of Guns
& Roses, the inherent anger of Rage Against the Machine, the groundbreaking
rap stylings of Eminem, or the sex appeal of Beyonce?
All music is math.
But obviously not all math is music.
You can have all of the empirical data in the world telling you a song
has the structure and form of a hit, but if the cultural relevance and ultimate
quality of the interaction between
the piece and its audience aren’t there, where does that leave you?
I can’t help but think there are a few lessons here for
marketers and our apparent obsession with quantifying brands and how we
experience them. What do you think?
 |
