(no subject)
One thing I hate about the internet (number #53895):
People post articles that have sensational hooks. One such article:
http://mic.com/articles/98310/scientists-prove-that-pop-music-is-literally-ruining-our-brains
Of course, to get any actual info, you'll want to see what study they sourced. The article uses two primary sources. One of a guy asking a lot of people what music they like and what qualities they see in themselves.(psychmag.com) The other a link to an article in smithsonianmag.com. The linked text, which is what I assume they're trying to prove with the link is "modern pop music really is worse than older pop music"
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/?no-ist
The slightly less ranting personal opinion article in smithsonian wasn't even the original source however. It was a requote of a different article. They described the other article as "Scientific American reports on a study"
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/26/is-pop-music-evolving-or-is-it-just-getting-louder/
However, scientific American was not reporting directly on a study, they were summarizing a article from another source:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html
This article is about new methods of analyzing music. It is not a study. It does cite several studies to build an interesting conclusion however. Some of the works it uses are as old as 1983.
The original article concludes that a lot of the qualities of music have not changed in 50 years, however tones are simpler, vocal pitch uses less variation, and overall music is louder (with no judgment against this) and states that if you modify these qualities using an old song, it can sound new and novel. That's it.
So. From original article, we go from pitch variation was popular in the 70s and loudness is more popular now to the final article of pop music rots your brain. Good job, internet.
People post articles that have sensational hooks. One such article:
http://mic.com/articles/98310/scientists-prove-that-pop-music-is-literally-ruining-our-brains
Of course, to get any actual info, you'll want to see what study they sourced. The article uses two primary sources. One of a guy asking a lot of people what music they like and what qualities they see in themselves.(psychmag.com) The other a link to an article in smithsonianmag.com. The linked text, which is what I assume they're trying to prove with the link is "modern pop music really is worse than older pop music"
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/?no-ist
The slightly less ranting personal opinion article in smithsonian wasn't even the original source however. It was a requote of a different article. They described the other article as "Scientific American reports on a study"
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/07/26/is-pop-music-evolving-or-is-it-just-getting-louder/
However, scientific American was not reporting directly on a study, they were summarizing a article from another source:
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120726/srep00521/full/srep00521.html
This article is about new methods of analyzing music. It is not a study. It does cite several studies to build an interesting conclusion however. Some of the works it uses are as old as 1983.
The original article concludes that a lot of the qualities of music have not changed in 50 years, however tones are simpler, vocal pitch uses less variation, and overall music is louder (with no judgment against this) and states that if you modify these qualities using an old song, it can sound new and novel. That's it.
So. From original article, we go from pitch variation was popular in the 70s and loudness is more popular now to the final article of pop music rots your brain. Good job, internet.