Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm actually kind of going to agree with you.

First of all, I don't like the term "bland", because it implies a judgement. I think a better word is "sparse".

But now, the question, and the thing the researchers got fatally wrong is: does sparseness really mean less complexity? When you phrase it like that, it sounds obviously silly, to me at least. You wouldn't judge say Picasso for not using enough colors, and complain about it being so bland. To continue on that path, Picasso only works because you know what things actually look like. Instead of having to painfully spell out every last facial hair, he relies on you knowing what a human looks like, and uses the space gained to express his intent more clearly. In comparison, older art might seem boring and predictable. I already know what a face looks like, why waste space showing me?

Modern music works on a similar principle. The sparseness of modern music is enabled by listeners familiarity with other music, which enables composers to simply sufficiently imply their intent, letting our brains fill in the rest, making space to innovate in other areas of the music.




Very interesting. I probably should have clarified that I was talking about popular music and not niche genres. I actually think the effect is often less about sparseness bringing the composer's vision to light and more to do with the trend toward group songwriting.

For instance Beyonce had 72 songwriters [1] listed on her Lemonade album. Compare that with Madonna [2] (and other contemporaries) who often write their own music or co-write a song with one other person.

1. https://www.thedailybeast.com/does-beyonce-write-her-own-mus...

2. https://www.quora.com/How-much-of-her-music-does-Madonna-act...




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: