Rhitu Chatterjee

Rhitu Chatterjee

Rhitu Chatterjee is a science correspondent for The World.

  • |
  • ALL POSTS

Musical Evolution Shaped by Consumers

DarwinTunes participants learning about averaging. (Photo: DarwinTunes)

DarwinTunes participants learning about averaging. (Photo: DarwinTunes)

Musical styles have a way of evolving. They change with the times.

But who drives that process? Composers? Musicians?

The answer, says a team of British scientists, is consumers.

The scientists conducted an unusual experiment using what the researchers call a Darwinian Music Machine. It is a computer program designed by evolutionary biologist Armand Leroi of Imperial College London and his colleagues.

The program creates a population of short medleys, each about eight seconds long. “They’re just random bits of noise,” says Leroi.

Click below to hear what one of these noisy medleys sounds like.

Leroi says the program started off with a population of about a hundred such tunes. He and his colleagues then posted those tunes on a website and invited people to rate each tune on a five-point scale, ranging from “I can’t stand it” to “I love it.”

As people rated the music, the program picked the most popular medleys and allowed them to procreate.

“These songs – they get together, they have sex, as it were,” says Leroi. “The code gets mixed up, and then they have baby songs.”

The “baby” songs sound similar to their parents and yet are distinct musical entities.

In the experiment, those babies were then sent back online to be rated by the public. The process continued for generation after generation.

“So you have a system that is directly analogous to natural selection in organisms,” says Leroi. “The population evolves.”

In organisms, natural selection drives evolution. In this case, consumer choice was the selective force. Leroi says that the striking thing is how quickly the noise turned into music.

“Even within a couple dozen generations, we found that they were already much more musical,” he says. “By 500 to 600 generations, they were sounding really good.”

Take for example, the cacophonous medley you heard earlier.

Here’s how it sounded after a 150 generations.

At 400 generations, it evolved into this.

And here’s the tune after 600 generations of selection and reproduction.

“In effect, we’re evolving music out of noise, but there’s no creator there, there’s no composer,” says Leroi. “It’s just pure market forces there, or pure consumer choice that is doing it.”

So what’s the point of this experiment?

Leroi says people generally think that musical styles are determined by composers and musicians.

“You know, there’s the Beatles and there’s Nirvana,” he says. “It’s all one bunch of musical geniuses handing the baton down to the next set of musical geniuses. But what we forget is that the public are exerting a choice upon this, and that choice itself is a creative force.”

In other words, it’s the public that chooses which songs succeed in the marketplace and go on to influence the next generation of artists.

McGill University neuroscientist Daniel Levitin, author of The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature, says the new study offers a compelling illustration of the role consumers play in shaping music.

But he says the experiment doesn’t represent the real world because musicians also shape what the audience finds pleasing.

“In the real world, the composer may just draw a line and say, ‘No, I think this is better, and I’m going to stick with it,’” he says. “‘And maybe people don’t like it now, but maybe they’ll come around.’”

Take, for example, the American rock band the Talking Heads.

“Their first few records didn’t do very well,” says Levitin. “And they didn’t change anything. They just kept doing what they were doing. And suddenly, the whole world comes around to them, and says, ‘Yea, you were right. That’s a good sound. We love it now.’”

So, says Levitin, when it comes to musical evolution, natural selection is important. But you can’t dismiss the role of the creator.


Here is something I didn’t get to include in the broadcast version of my story about musical evolution.

Neuroscientist Daniel Levitin, who I spoke to for this story says the new study illustrates something that scientists have known for a while—that music evolved out of noise, and we human beings shaped the direction of musical evolution.

However, he notes that the distinction between the artist, or the composer and the audience is a relatively new one in the history of music.

Click below to listen to Levitin’s thoughts about evolution of music.

Discussion

5 comments for “Musical Evolution Shaped by Consumers”

  • sleepyowl

    I think this could be a good starting point for looking into the role of music not just in the Pleistocene evolution of humans, but into its ongoing evolution – since evolution never stops and the internet has created a whole new environment for us to adapt to.  However, the article makes it seem like we are working with a very small population of tunes, here, which would be subject to genetic drift (or would it be melodic drift?).

  • http://twitter.com/jazztao Brian Harris

    As a musician and composer — and fan of avant garde music to boot! — I found this piece so interesting and enjoyable! And, I find the theories evolving to explain the phenomenon interesting as well.

    I do, however, have a VERY strong aversion to one aspect of this piece: the notion that “consumers” are acting in some kind of “market”. If I’m not mistaken, a market is a place where there is actual trade going on. Goods are acquired after the handing over of some agreed upon medium of exchange. No such thing is happening here. At all. People hear the music, and voice their opinion. They don’t have to pay for it; they just enjoy it, or they don’t.

    As for labeling the participants of this experiment “consumers”, I suppose there’s an argument to be made for it. But, that argument is only a strong one if they are indeed functioning within a marketplace, as they clearly are not.

    How about the “audience” affects what the music becomes? After all, the tagline of “The World” isn’t “Global Perspectives for American Consumers”, but “…for an American Audience”. Hmm.. I wonder why…

  • burtnidge

    The music sounded more interesting before it evolved in a “consumerist market place”.
    And any how ..who decided what was listenable and what was not….what areas of the world were they living in..there’s a far more interesting study to be had out of this one.Why do we need to dumb down music for the masses?As we did with tempered intonation.So that every instrument would fit into the restrictions of the concert grand piano.This study is so typical of the English….and their desire to conform all their colonies to their culturally narrow view of the arts….etc…Viva micro-tonality…..long live random music…..see what happens to that music when it’s left alone to fuck with out the interference of humans. 

  • Jim McCall

    Maybe Chicken Little and Eeyore need a hug? If y’all haven’t jumped over the brink in despair, perhaps step back a little to think about what their main point might be: that out of chaos is born melody and more and more organized complexity. I don’t think they are claiming that they are creating art, but rather modeling how music evolves via the market – oops audience. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/dylanhs Dylan Hirsch-Shell

    While this study employs a clever technique to search through the space of musical compositions and find the optimal stimulus for the average human listener, it proves nothing other than that selective breeding for certain traits leads to directed evolution toward desirable outcomes—something we’ve known as a species since humans first started practicing agriculture and domesticating animals more than 15,000 years ago.

    In fact, it does nothing to address the underlying biological driver of this “musical evolution”—the pleasure evoked by the sound pressure waves activating–with particular combinations of frequencies at certain intensities and arranged in particular temporal patterns–parts of the brain responsible for interpreting sounds. The universal appeal of the finished products of this “musical evolution” seem to point to a universal capacity to feel this pleasure and a universal set of musical features that will elicit it. And yet simultaneously this study would seem to contradict incontrovertible empirical evidence of the capricious nature of the public’s musical tastes (disco music at its height in the late 1970s was considered enjoyable by the vast majority of music listeners, yet now it is considered unlistenable by a vast majority of music listeners and even scorned). Furthermore, and closely related to this, the study does not consider in any way the impact of social pressures to like musical forms that are currently popular.

    What would be interesting would be to figure out why our brains like *any* kind of music at all. Is it a mere byproduct of our own biological evolution, or does it serve some useful evolutionary purpose?

    What would be interesting would be to figure out where this musical evolution ends. Is it truly approaching some global maximum for eliciting musical pleasure, as I’ve surmised, or is it chasing a moving target that changes with the times? Either way, it would doubtless be interesting and informative to study the elements of the compositions that percolate to the top, either permanently or at least persistently.

    And how would letting the subjects discuss the pieces before each round of rating affect the products of the evolutionary process?