The Secret Science of Pop

[drakula63]

Now then, THIS programme MIGHT be worth watching...


The Secret Science of Pop. BBC FOUR. TUESDAY. 9 PM.

Top scientist insists the Beatles had virtually no influence on pop... and offers a bizarre diagram as his proof
Academic, Professor Armand Leroi, says the band did little to change music
His findings come not from a music background, but from evolutionary biology
The academic, from Imperial College London, used computer algorithms

They are the biggest band in pop music history and usually credited with being the most influential.
But in reality The Beatles were an average group who did little to change the musical landscape – at least according to one academic, who claims to have the science to back it up.
Despite the Fab Four’s 600 million record sales, Professor Armand Leroi dismisses their output as ‘ditties for prepubescent girls’ and claims they ‘sat out’ the musical revolution of the 1960s.


His findings come not from a background in music, but from evolutionary biology. ‘As fruit flies evolve, so too does pop,’ he says.
‘Every new song comes with its own burden of mutations. Some of them bad, but a few of them flourish and get passed on to future generations. Listen carefully, and you can hear the music evolve.’

Not surprisingly, the heretical suggestions have drawn the ire of Beatles fans, including music expert Paul Gambaccini who blasts Prof Leroi as ‘preposterous’, threatening to ‘dissect him like a fly’ in a head-to-head debate.



The academic, from Imperial College London, used computer algorithms to analyse singles from every major band between 1960 and 2010 to see how they deviated from the musical norm.

And he plotted each on a vastly complex network diagram, with each band linked to who they influenced and colour-coded by genre.
After crunching the data, Dr Leroi concluded that the creators of Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby and I Am The Walrus, ‘musically weren’t that important’.
Instead, he said it was The Kinks, The Who and The Rolling Stones who had the most influence, paving the way for punk. He said: ‘The London bands dragged aggression [levels] up and transformed the musical landscape. Meanwhile, Lennon and McCartney were writing ditties for prepubescent girls. The Beatles sat out the British revolution.’
He will be presenting his controversial findings in The Secret Science Of Pop, to be aired on BBC4 at 9pm on Tuesday.



Hmmm.... It will be interesting to see what he has come up with. However, for what it's worth, my view is that although music COULD be said to 'evolve', I don't think it's a natural form of evolution, as per the fruit fly comparison. Rather pop music evolves due to a conscious effort on the part of those writing, performing and producing it. For example, a group or producer might say "We don't want to sound like any of them. Mind you, they sounded OK so let's pinch a little bit from them anyway." So, in a way, it's REVOLUTION not EVOLUTION.

I shall be interested to see where/if the Shadows feature in all of this. After all, one of the Beatles said "No Shadows - no Beatles", so this seems to suggest an influence. Also, have you ever noticed how Pretty Vacant, by the Sex Pistols, starts with a guitar riff not unlike a riff to be found in The Frightened City.

Still, as Bruce Welch once said, "We were the Sex Pistols of 1958!"

[362436]

Whatever our esteemed academic's qualifications may happen to be I know that I have no trouble in recognizing talent when I hear it!

[Uncle Fiesta]

Strangely enough I remember reading some years ago a book on the music of the '60s whose author claimed that rather than being innovators, the Beatles' talents lay instead in identifying the latest trends and adapting their output to suit.

I will watch the programme with interest, but probably also a large dose of scepticism.

[drakula63]

Well that was a waste of time and licence payer's money.

All it proved was something we already know... music and science don't mix. The song the girl wrote was actually pretty good, but the more they tinkered with it to make it a success, the further away it got from what they wanted. Trevor Horn looked like he was barely tolerating the scientist.

Oh and the other thing we learned was that Pop music didn't really begin until 1964 - before that it was all mundane dross for dinosaurs. There was no aggressive music and no musical revolution before '64. So that's Elvis and the Shadows rendered worthless.

As I say, what a waste of money and time.

[Tigerdaisy]

Is this so called clueless 'Professor' the type that runs our world, the BBC or a typical A&R man who appears to have no idea about the musical taste of the buying public. He admits at the start he does not like pop music or indeed have any idea about it, and so very cynically posits that a hit song could be churned out by collecting certain parameters together on a computer. His parameters whilst seeming totally insufficient also don't allow for those other unseen effects that may exist at the time of release such as the current fashion, the level of marketing, and what other songs may also be competing for the number one spot.

Amusingly, the fact that most 'pop' music is total crap or indifferent at best also shows that most of the rest of music world also don't have a clue as to the basic requirements of a hit song. At the end of the program this professor admits he has failed but he lives on in hope. You probably could get a computer to potentially predict a song with a chance IF it were able to identify the critical group of essential parameters, unfortunately most of today's songwriters are still struggling to identify these parameters.

[Tigerdaisy]

Well that was a waste of time and licence payer's money.

All it proved was something we already know... music and science don't mix. The song the girl wrote was actually pretty good, but the more they tinkered with it to make it a success, the further away it got from what they wanted. Trevor Horn looked like he was barely tolerating the scientist.

Oh and the other thing we learned was that Pop music didn't really begin until 1964 - before that it was all mundane dross for dinosaurs. The was no aggressive music and no musical revolution before '64. So that's Elvis and the Shadows rendered worthless.

As I say, what a waste of money and time.

Yes, you could argue that a huge chunk of the most successful songwriters created their works before 1964.

[Uncle Fiesta]

Well I've just watched this and I did find it interesting. I agreed with the points he made about evolution and mutations.

I really sat up and listened though when he explained why he hadn't mentioned the Beatles yet. It was because the elements of the 'aggression' that he said started in 1964 - lots of rhythm, crunching guitars and an absence of harmony - weren't represented in the Beatles music. Well that rather shot his whole theory down in flames didn't it? Yet still he ploughed on to the inevitable conclusion that we could see coming a mile off; that computers can't quantify human emotion so are useless at predicting chart success.

I also found the version of the song that the music producers came up with, much less objectionable than anything the scientist did to it.

[dave robinson]

A total waste of TV time and more importantly to me, an hour of my life wasted.
in plain speak it was a load of b*****ks.

[Pat Seaman]

I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching it.
The aforementioned fruit flies could have come to a similar conclusion.
I find it difficult to understand why the media in general continue to assume that nothing of note happened before 1964, when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
Were most journalists borne in the 70s, or later, perhaps?
Pat.

[bazmusicman]

I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching it.
The aforementioned fruit flies could have come to a similar conclusion.
I find it difficult to understand why the media in general continue to assume that nothing of note happened before 1964, when there is so much evidence to the contrary.
Were most journalists borne in the 70s, or later, perhaps?
Pat.

Sadly it appears so............Glad I didn't waste time watching it!

Baz.