6. the songs I wrote using the data ; index ; 8. bonus features

conclusion

  1. Conclusion
  2. Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

This project has been a lot of fun. It's forced me to think in new ways about the songwriting and arranging process, and I was encouraged to make music that is very different from the music that I usually make, so I think this compositional method is an effective one. I also didn't feel too creatively restrained by the compositional guidelines. The only bad part is that it's been a lot of work. I'm proud of the music that I've made, so it's been worth it.

I've refrained from making sweeping statements about the nature of popular music criticism in this project, and that's because my interests lie in making music, not criticizing critics. My database remains open to the public, and others are welcome to study the wordlists, concordances, word classes, and songs and come to their own conclusions.

All that said, it's much harder for me to read the Pitchfork website and other music review publications now, since words from my word lists keep popping up in positive reviews. Perhaps that's a testament to the validity or thoroughness of my project...I'm not sure.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. Why did you do this project?

    It's my final project for a BA in Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities at the University of Chicago. My program is a self-designed combination of computer science and music, and I'm very interested in finding new ways to make music using computers, hence the nature of this project. I have no background in statistics or content analysis, but I learned a lot about them along the way.

    I'm doing this project because I find it entertaining, and I'm interested in the results of the study more as trivia than anything else. I'm also doing it to demonstrate alternative ways to spark musical creativity using computers, and after writing these songs I can safely say that this compositional method is flexible, stimulating, and a lot of fun.

  2. Who are you working with at the University of Chicago?

    My BA advisor is William Sterner in the Computer Science department. I've also been working with Matthew Hofer from the English department, who served as the BA preceptor for ISHUM during the 2003-04 school year. David Bevington, the Director of ISHUM's inclusive option, and Lewis Fortner, the ISHUM college advisor, have both helped a lot in hooking me up with the right people.

  3. Don't you think that applying statistics to music is boring?

    Yes, all the statistical analysis is really dry. But that's why the main goal of the project was to write new songs based on the data. You can download and listen to the songs I wrote in chapter 6.

  4. Are you trying to become a Pitchfork writer or what?

    No. I have a good full-time job that I enjoy, and I spend all of my free time making music and running a label. I don't have time to write reviews of other people's music. Also, I don't really like to write. That's why it took me a year to write this paper you're reading. :)

  5. Are you trying to get famous by doing this?

    No. I'm just trying to graduate from college. I've had the idea for this project for a long time, and it's been very exciting to see it through to completion. I don't want or need “the fame.”

  6. Do you honestly think that writing music using this method can get you good reviews?

    No, I'm not convinced that this process (or any process) is a surefire way to make music that Pitchfork critics (or any critics) actually like. All that's provided by my project is a set of compositional guidelines tied to past Pitchfork reviews. You can make a lot of different-sounding music using those same guidelines depending on how you apply them to your music, but will all of it be good? No, of course it won't.

    There's no such thing as “perfect” pop music, and you couldn't generate it using a computer if there were. Music is a very human thing, and that's what makes it great.

  7. Did you steal this idea from the KLF's book where they show you how to have a number one pop single in 1988?

    No...I actually didn't find out about that band or their book until somebody at WHPK told me about it (he brought it up after I told him about this project). I'm a big fan of the KLF now, though. Their book is an interesting read and they did a very different kind of study from my own; I highly recommend reading it if you can find a copy online. (The KLF book is called The Manual: How to Have a Number One—The Easy Way, and I'm pretty sure it's out of print.)

    The KLF's music is fantastic. Go pick up a copy of their album called "The White Room"...I bought mine from the dollar bin at a used CD store that I stopped at while driving down the coast of California. The KLF had no day jobs and a large budget to make their album, and so far I haven't had the opportunity to make music under similar circumstances. Any established record labels out there want to take a chance on me? ;)

  8. Are you aware of all of the other projects that are similar to this one?

    I'm slowly becoming aware of similar projects as people send them to me. Here's what I know about already:

  9. Are you trying to make Pitchfork writers look bad by doing this project? Do you hate music critics?

    No. I read Pitchfork from time to time and find it a useful place to learn about new music. I'm also a big fan of Epitonic because you can actually download and listen to samples of music there, and I like Dusted too. I don't hate Pitchfork at all, and I don't think less of them after doing this project (although honestly I wish female pronouns got better wordscores... look at the end of chapter 4 for that).

  10. Why would you try to generate pop music? Are you trying to suggest that pop music is an inferior art form or easy to fake?

    Of course not. Popular music is an extraordinarily complex cultural phenomenon, and it's hard to write and produce a good song—some people spend their whole lives trying to do it right. If pop music weren't as complex as it is, then this project wouldn't be as interesting as it is. A few thousand lines of code could never master such an intricate art form; so far, the best pop songs have all been written by people, with computers serving a supporting role at best.

  11. Are the songs that you wrote really based on scientific data, or did you just throw them together?

    In chapter 6, I discuss in detail the compositional decisions that I made as a result of the data that I collected. The music that I normally make is very different from the music I made for this project in a number of key ways. In particular, the data made me do these things that I wouldn't otherwise consider doing:

    1. heavy use of sampling and loops
    2. heavy use of electronic beats/breakbeats
    3. emphasis on danceable rhythms
    4. heavy use of processing and effects
    5. distortion on vocals, guitar, and drums
    6. heavier than usual emphasis on vocals and top-line melody
    7. use of acoustic guitars
    8. use of strings (violin, cello)
    9. use of piano
    10. depressing/dark subject matter and mood

    I also found it very disorienting to be forced into compositional decisions against my will, and that disorientation probably affected the songs (and my relationship to and feelings towards the songs during the writing process) as well.

  12. Can I use your data to write my own songs?

    Yes, please do! And send them to me so I can hear them. I'll make an area on this webpage and post them there if you don't mind.

6. the songs I wrote using the data ; index ; 8. bonus features