Music Popularity and intelligence?

The Coffee Shop
1

I’m wondering if anyone has seen any type of study and or comparison between the popularity of music and the intelligence of the musicians that make the music?

Seems to me that typically music goes thru “phases”. Someone comes out with something “fresh” and “New”, it becomes popular, copy cats follow and the popularity fades over time until the next person comes along until the next “New” thing comes along.

Also seems to me that you would find higher intelligence among the “Pioneers” of any trend than in the “Copy cats”.

Just curious if anyone has seen any type of studies or articles on the subject.

~Matt

2

I’ll tell you what little I’ve learned from my experiences as a musician.

You don’t have to be particularly smart to be a successful musician. There are three things you need:

  1. A moderate degree of artistic talent

  2. The ability and desire to write music for the audience

  3. A very strong work ethic

The industry has changed a lot in modern times, so I’m not really certain how a sound gets made anymore. Up until the new century, scenes developed in certain loacales. Kurt Cobain didn’t invent the Seatle sound. When Smells Like Teen Spirit hit the radio, the other bands in Seatle didn’t all of the sudden start writing grunge music. They all did it together, each influencing each other, with a whole lot of influences in their scene that never got big.

Grunge came out of Seatle, hair bands came from L.A., Death Metal came from Tampa, rap came from NYC, the british invasion came from…well…you get the point.

However, I will agree that what happens is that once a raw scene hits it big, you end up with a lot of over produced vanilla sounding copy cat bands that follow for year and years until the next sound hits. As an example, the music of the late 90s sounded like very generic raido friendly souless pop-grunge.

So to answer your OP, I don’t think you need to necessarily be “smart,” but its difficult to work the business side of the industry if you are dumb. By and large, you need to be smart enough.

3

I will just throw out this … Good music and music that sells can be very different things .
I doubt much intelligence is required for non-electric tunes .

The core of an artists writing
skills are hard to destroy ,even in heavy drug and booze years . Muscle memory is hard
to forget .

Don H. from the Eagles says you need to be able to suffer through repetitive playing .
They pay to hear the old songs , over , and over . Some people can’t handle that .

4

**1) A moderate degree of artistic talent **

So to answer your OP, I don’t think you need to necessarily be “smart,”

Let’s ignore the “Premade”…well…crap. The stuff that some guy goes out, grabs some half talented guys off the street, “Trains them” and then spends millions marketing them, paying people off to play their stuff on the radio etc…

I don’t think I’m necessarily looking at “Smart” as much as “Intelligence”. A real “Artist” isn’t necessarily “Smart”, as in “Book smart” or even “Quick on the uptake in math, science etc”. But on a musical level they may be “Brilliant” which I would think would play into over all intelligence in someway.

(Wanted to edit and add in here that a lot of my position here is based on other artists. I’ve not meet many artists, sculptor, painter or other that was “Truly talented” that wasn’t “Intelligent”. Some of them haven’t the foggiest idea about math, science or even current event’s, but clearly are intelligent in “Another manner” that is tough to put a finger on. Many are also clearly intelligent in the “Standard” way as well.)

As far as a “Moderate degree of artistic talent” do you mean people that really aren’t that good can create, compose and play something that will become “Popular”? If so that would be interested. If I’m understanding that correctly that would mean that making music that is “Pleasing to the ear” isn’t all that difficult to do. If that is in fact the case then you likely wouldn’t find much of a connection between “Intelligence” and “Music popularity”.

I guess I was under the assumption that people could inherently pick out “Good music”, I.E. complex, well played, intriguing, etc music from the opposite of that.

I also suspect there may be a “Breaking point”. People don’t want to listen to “Bad music”, but sometimes a song that is not all that complex, but “Strikes a chord” with the audience can become very popular.

~Matt

5

I will just throw out this … Good music and music that sells can be very different things .
I doubt much intelligence is required for non-electric tunes .

Yes I think we’d have to throw out the “Pre-made” stuff from the discussion. I was thinking of the string of “Boy bands” where a couple of people “Created them” and then short of stuffed them down the throats of the public.

I would think you might find a connection between intelligence and the “Organicly grown” groups.

~Matt

6

I doubt much intelligence is required for non-electric tunes.

Good point. Bach and Mozart must have been real morons.

7

Good point. Bach and Mozart must have been real morons.

Funny, I actually read that exactly the opposite thinking it said “I doubt much intelligence is required for **electric **tunes.”, which I agree with to a point. I would think it would be more possible to compose and play music using electronics than without. Like the difference between taking a picture and painting one. Sure an artist will take a much better picture than Joe schmoe with a camera, but the difference will be far more noticeable if an artist paints a picture and then Joe schmoe does.

~Matt

8

I would think you might find a connection between intelligence and the “Organicly grown” groups.

~Matt

Back in the day local groups may have one member with skills .
Without all the tech to keep a bad band going . Old motown and
Rock bands members could play multiple instruments ,read music .
Having suffered through piano lessons as kids . This would be an
un-welcomed boost to their skills ,till it was a rewarding pay off later in
life . These kids shined as band stars .

That being said , Musical skills don’t correlate with general accademic knowledge .

9

I have been trying to write the proverbial “ear worm” for many, many years. I thought I had something with “Holla (fo a Dolla)”. I got half of the town I work in to not be able to get it out of their heads. I even sold a few units worldwide (and thusly probably have made more money than your typical one hit wonder, as I paid as I went ).

However, this “ear worm” would have probably been much more popular had I not been the guy to promote it.

I think there is a modicum of cleverness when an ear worm is written. But it is the combination of clever melody and catchy lyrics. And these days, the optic content is so much bigger, though people are starting to get over that.

Is it intellect? Possibly. Are intellect and talent interchangeable? No. Cleverness and wit are more of a factor, as some phrases would never be used by “intelligent” people who are well-educated. But a smart person knows who to put in the puzzle (lyricists, song writers and performers) for that magical top 40 hit.

People are tired of pre-packaged “crap”. While the corporate music companies are fighting tooth and nail to keep the current business model in place, I see more independent artists who are self-supported actually selling more music as a collective than the corporate music companies. But don’t let any independent musician say they don’t want to sell out, as their wildest dream is to trade places with Lady Gaga.

10

I doubt much intelligence is required for non-electric tunes.

Good point. Bach and Mozart must have been real morons.

*I meant it more as running the system , setting up gear , sound tuning . *
*Sure the blues guy with a harmonica on the street could figure that out . *

11

do you mean people that really aren’t that good can create, compose and play something that will become “Popular”?

ABSOLUTELY.

One of the problems with your questions is the ambiguity of “intelligence.”
I think one of the traditional points of view is that people of average intelligence produce largely successful music, whereas the intelligent people produce “better” perhaps more complex music that is not as successful. These would be classical and jazz.

But, taking classical as an example, are classical musicians really more intelligent? They probably have higher scores on the SAT, IQ and the like, but what do those tests really measure? Do they measure natural thinking ability or do they measure the ability to “be taught” and to repeat facts.

For an example, I have played with quite a few classically trained musicians who cannot “create.” You can say, “improvise in a C- major scale to a 4/4 beat at 120 bpm.” They know what all of these terms mean, yet the problem that confounds them is the concept of “improvise.”

12

Mashing up sounds and making them into something totally original is an art to itself. What I don’t get is taking the music from one song and rapping over it. It’s one thing to take the beats and sample them, but it’s another thing to take the musical track (sans vocals), for example “Every Breath You Take” and do some rap crap over it. That is just stupid.

13

As far as a “Moderate degree of artistic talent” do you mean people that really aren’t that good can create, compose and play something that will become "Popular"? If so that would be interested. If I’m understanding that correctly that would mean that making music that is “Pleasing to the ear” isn’t all that difficult to do. If that is in fact the case then you likely wouldn’t find much of a connection between “Intelligence” and “Music popularity”.

I guess I was under the assumption that people could inherently pick out “Good music”, I.E. complex, well played, intriguing, etc music from the opposite of that.

I also suspect there may be a “Breaking point”. People don’t want to listen to “Bad music”, but sometimes a song that is not all that complex, but “Strikes a chord” with the audience can become very popular.

~Matt

^This. I’ve played guitar and saxophone for 13 years, and minored in music in college. What it boils down to is, there are certain chord progressions that almost always sound good, from Bach to Adele. I can’t get Youtube at work, but watch this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/the-only-four-chords-need_n_543025.html

People are amazed that I can hear a song on the radio, then play it instantly on a guitar. That’s because ~75% of popular, radio-friendly songs follow one of three or four chord progressions. If you practice your scales, you can play any song, in any key, with almost zero “thinking” involved.

It gets more confusing when you listen to jazz tunes, but they still very much follow time-tested formulas that are pleasing to the ear. The best jazz musicians just find new ways to alter chords and melodies, and can do it on command. That’s why I can play “standard” jazz songs OK, because I have a good ear and a pretty high level of intelligence. But the guys I studied with who mastered their instruments at a higher level – they all have that “brilliance” that you can’t put a finger on, even if my GPA was higher.

So you don’t have to be “smart” to write a pleasing tune. But I would argue that you do have to be savvy, to do it in a way that separates yourself. I haven’t written many songs since I realized this. I’m stuck in a gray area: I know that what I hear on the radio is the musical equivalent of McDonald’s – but I can’t exactly prepare food like the Iron Chef. So instead I settle for Chili’s.

14

Good explanation.

15

Why do these 4 chords resonate so strongly with westerners?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ&ob=av3n

does it work on other cultures too?

will it ever change?

what does this mean about brains?

16

Interesting, so from what I’m gathering here is that what becomes “Popular”, sounds nice, etc may indeed be similar to Mcdonalds. IOW it doesn’t take a whole lot of musical brilliance to create it, yet a large enough portion of the populous enjoy it to make it “Popular”.

Even more interesting is that a “Brilliant musician” might create something that is far superior to the “Mcdonalds Musics”, yet, like a really fancy/complex meal, much of the populous simply won’t like the taste, so a “Brilliant musician” may in fact never break into “Popular music”.

~Matt

17

how about this:

are there some songs that use those 4 chords, that still manage to be terrible?

18

Why do these 4 chords resonate so strongly with westerners?

http://www.youtube.com/...DewpCfZQ&ob=av3n

does it work on other cultures too?

will it ever change?

what does this mean about brains?

I started a thread on this a couple years back HERE.

I find it a fascinating question.

(Edit to add I’ve often wondered how much this plays into the whole “Natural order of things” and how we find “Natural patterns” nearly everywhere. I was REALLY hoping that SG universe would stay on the air because this was actually the basis for that entire series. Of course, as with most series, I’m sure they would have completely ruined it.)

~Matt

19

Nailed it.

However, that doesn’t mean that popular music is “bad” (I’m guilty of chowing down on a sausage biscuit occasionally) or that unpopular music is necessarily good. Those chords sound good in a way that really can’t be explained, much like the attractiveness of certain women or the taste of certain food combinations. If you moved Angelina Jolie’s eyes 1mm farther apart, she might very well be toiling in a community theatre with her CPA husband.

One thing that’s hard for me is learning to like new music. It’s not that I don’t have access to “indie” music. I’m very aware of Fleet Foxes, who many music critics think are the saviors of modern music. But I just don’t really like listening to them. I’ve taken recommendations for jazz artists directly from people like Wynton Marsalis – but when I bought the album he suggested, it didn’t do anything for me. I recognize that it was brilliant, and that the level of musicianship was beyond my capabilities…but I still returned to the Chicken McNuggets.

20

Equating “intelligence” with pioneering music is sort of amusing to me. Musical pioneers may or may not be “intelligent,” but they are, almost always, extremely artistic and independent thinkers. Some might argue that this represents “intelligence,” but that depends greatly on what you think of as such. I think a good argument can be made that, if you want to be successful/make money in the music industry, but are not particularly artistic or independent or gifted musically, it is likely far more “intelligent” to follow the latest trends and innovate/improve slightly on them rather than “pioneering” them.

Now, if you’re talking about technical music ability, then you’re generally just talking about people that are math geniuses (who may or may not be able to apply the mathematics they use in music (either instinctively or otherwise) to more mundate math matters).