Everyone Agree?

>>69854946
i actually do...
but what if it is GREAT pop
you seem close minded
needs a bit of a tweak
otherwise p accurate

File: top1percent.png (28KB, 475x650px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 475x650px

I don't but that's because I almost exclusivley listen to pop

>>69854946
What if it's great but inaccessible

>>69854965
Great pop would follow the same trend as "great", but with a higher starting point. Yeah, that "pop" trend was more for kinda shit pop(the most popular pop). These are just general trends, there's obviously an infinite number of possibilities for different patterns.

>>69854986
Then it would be the "inaccessible" trend, but plateau higher at the same point as "great".

>>69854946
No, some great music is inaccessible, not all good inaccessible music sounds good just by repeated listening, and I honestly have no idea why "pop" is listed here because some of it's great and has staying power, and while pop is accessible it's not synonymous with accessibility

>>69854980
Anon, you have the most patrician taste on /mu/. Have a wonderful Christmas

>>69855023
These are just general trends. I'm aware there's plenty of music that doesn't fit any of these trends exactly.

File: topgenres.png (33KB, 473x625px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 473x625px

>>69855035
thanks, you too

>>69855041
General trends in what? What is this chart measuring? It seems like you're saying "this is what it means for a song to be great, except when a great song doesn't follow this rule" which is pretty fucking stupid for a few reasons

Or are you saying "great songs tend to be this enjoyable over time, except when they're not" in which case how are you defining a great song, and what'sthe point of the chart?

General trends my ass, this is dumb as shit and yes I'm mad.

>>69854980
same here desu

File: 1439020814795.jpg (14KB, 222x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 222x300px

>>69855123
For me a great song is one that achieves the highest level of pleasure/emotional resonance and also holds up over time. So really where a song starts on the graph doesn't matter in determining whether it's great. But I had to start it somewhere and so I put it at the point where I believe most great songs generally start at.

The graph doesn't really have a point, and wasn't made to be analysed this deeply. The main point which I was getting at with it(or the basis of it) is the idea of a song having a life-cycle. A song reaches peak enjoyment when we are somewhat familiar with its structure, but not to the point of complete familiarity. At that point a song becomes too predictable and boring. I guess the key to longevity of a song is its complexity. Complex songs will linger in that "somewhat familiar" period the longest. Whereas pop songs(or perhaps more accurately, accessible songs) begin at that somewhat familiar state, and because of that they usually become stale quite quickly.

File: 562.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x600px

>>69854980
Here's a rec

File: tumblr_lzhx52Rmqf1r5wijo.jpg (174KB, 450x528px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 450x528px

>>69855123
To define each of the categories:

Great - high enjoyment and longevity.

Pop(or accessible, if you prefer) - high starting point for enjoyment.

Inaccessible - takes a lot of listens before enjoyment reaches its peak.

Okay - doesn't achieve the highest level of enjoyment, but has decent longevity OR achieves high level of enjoyment, but doesn't have longevity.

extra:
Bad - awful longevity OR is never particularly enjoyable.

File: Untitled.png (35KB, 1555x888px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1555x888px

>>69854946
great music is more like this

>>69855089
Indietronica is pretty shit m80

File: 1389062301087.jpg (18KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 320x320px

>>69855089
>Post-Teen Pop
This is a thing?

>>69854946
what the fuck is this why did you make it its bad

>>69854980
>Green Day

Kill yourself

>>69854980
anon,
you are brave and I respect you

>>69856119
it's teen pop for people in their twenties (basically bieber, selena gomez)
spotify makes up a lot of genres
>>69856131
American Idiot is a masterpiece

>>69856131
If you can't respect the positive impact green day has had on american culture then you seriously need to consider a lobotomy

>>69856202
You still can't forget and Green Day output of the last few years, terrible, also Billie joe Armstrong is a 40-something teenager its embarrassing

>>69856202
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adq49rK0atQ

>>69854980
a sincere "well done" to you

>>69856068
Why would it dip in the middle?

File: 1453018913111.png (82KB, 265x265px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 265x265px

>>69856130
>what the fuck is this
A graph of how I experience my enjoyment of different types of music.

>why did you make it
I have stuff to do and I'm procrastinating.

>its bad
I appreciate your feedback, but constructive feedback would be even more appreciated.

>>69854946
This is scientifically and factually wrong.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027241

>>69857138
Your categories do not make sense.
This graph would be much more interesting if it was a template and you could fill in and compare experiences with albums.
Like TMR would be an exponential curve that then settles high.

Of course pop requires familiarity to be enjoyed, as much as any music does.
The difference between pop and all other music is that pop music is shoved in your face so much that familiarity is inevitable.

>>69857100
cause /mu/ said it's shit

>>69857206
I can't be bothered reading that entire study, so can you summarise why the graph is wrong?

>>69857229
Pop is very much so hook based, rather than complexity based. Simple hook based music is inherently easier/quicker to become familiar with. The fact that it is "shoved in your face"(i.e. so popular) adds to its familiarity, means it would already become familiar much quicker. That's also why pop music often has a lot of repetition in it.

>>69857287
Yeah good point, formal familiarity also matters
This is why TMR is so divisive

>>69854946
what genre is "great"?

>>69857329
Vaporwave

>>69857221
>Your categories do not make sense.
What doesn't make sense about them? I get that they're overly simplistic, but that doesn't mean they're senseless.

>This graph would be much more interesting if it was a template and you could fill in and compare experiences with albums.
Probably, but very few people would have the patience to produce their own graphs.

>Like TMR would be an exponential curve that then settles high.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you know what an exponential graph looks like? It never settles. It just gets bigger and bigger by greater and greater orders of magnitude for infinity.

>>69857329
They're not genres at all. The only genre there is "pop" and all I really meant by that was accessible.

>>69854946
This is a terrible chart
You have music listed as great, okay, inaccessible, and pop
This makes no fucking sense
You have 3 opinions and a genre
And like other people said this chart serves no purpose if it can't show a wider variety of music
In short, please look into killing yourself

>>69857400
change "pop" to "accessible". Does it make sense now?

>this chart serves no purpose if it can't show a wider variety of music
But it can. Every song has a unique enjoyment curve that can be plotted onto this graph. My example curves were just there to demonstrate how the graph works. A lot of people here seem genuinely quite autistic, and that's coming from a guy who tries to plot his enjoyment of music on a graph...

>>69857253
>I can't be bothered reading that entire study, so can you summarise why the graph is wrong?
How surprising... Here's the conclusion:
>In this study, we used pop/rock songs that people listen to in everyday life [38] to investigate how musical preferences and familiarity modulate the activity of brain regions recruited during music listening and appreciation. We found that musical preferences had only a marginal effect on the activation of limbic, paralimbic and reward system areas. On the contrary, familiarity with the music was the key factor to trigger increased blood oxygen level dependence (BOLD) response in these emotion-related regions, namely in the putamen, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex and thalamus.

>>69857652
This study was also cited by 177 peers.

File: LOCAS_4892694745_6c033887fe_z.jpg (164KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 640x427px

>>69857652
>On the contrary, familiarity with the music was the key factor to trigger increased blood oxygen level dependence (BOLD) response in these emotion-related regions, namely in the putamen, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, anterior cingulate cortex and thalamus.
That's exactly what I said here>>69855289 and this>>69857287 is me explaining why "pop" and "familiarity" are linked.

As I've already explained elsewhere in this thread, what I meant by "pop" was actually "accessible".