The Rest Is Science - Is Music Getting Worse?

Episode Date: December 9, 2025

Has music really been getting worse… or is it just shifting in ways we don’t always notice? And why does the soundtrack to your teenage years feel like the single greatest playlist ever made? Hannah and Michael explore music’s strange grip on our minds. They trace why certain lyrics feel simpler than they used to, and what gives our formative songs lasting emotional charge. And what exactly is the reminiscence bump, that curious memory quirk that makes certain songs feel unforgettable? Join Hannah and Michael as they unravel the personal, subjective and surprisingly enigmatic story of why our musical tastes tug at us so powerfully, and what they reveal about how we learn, remember and feel. ------------------- For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research, breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit ⁠⁠https://cancerresearchuk.org/restisscience⁠⁠ Cancer Research UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (1089464), Scotland (SC041666), the Isle of Man (1103) and Jersey (247). A company limited by guarantee. Registered company in England and Wales (4325234) and the Isle of Man (5713F). Registered address: 2 Redman Place, London, E20 1JQ. EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/restisscience Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee 🌍 ------------------- Find The Rest Is Science all over the internet by ⁠⁠clicking here.⁠⁠ ------------------- Video Producer: Adam Thornton Video & Social: Bex Tyrrell Assistant Producer: Imee Marriott Producer: Becki Hills Senior Producer: Lauren Armstrong-Carter Head Of Digital: Samuel Oakley Exec Producer: Neil Fearn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK. Imagine this. Inside all of us, billions of cells follow millions of instructions written in microscopic code. And when a new cell grows, it copies those instructions, but the smallest error can lead cancer to develop. Right. And this is the reason why there isn't a single cure for cancer, because, you know, there are more than 200 different types. Each of them have got different distinct characteristics, you know, different challenges, different mysteries. And that means that trying to cure cancer isn't like following a single path. It's like trying to map out an entire

forest. That's right. And Cancer Research UK is the world's largest charitable funder of cancer research. I mean, their work spans more than 20 countries with over 4,000 scientists, doctors and nurses pushing knowledge forward to save and improve lives worldwide. You know, over the last 50 years, the work that this charity has done has helped to double cancer survival in the UK. And you have to think about that is more parents at the dinner table, right? That is more friends at their birthday parties. That is more people who are living longer, better lives. For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research, breakthroughs, and how you can support them, visit cancerresearch.uk.org forward slash rest of science.

Every Olympic dream starts somewhere. At first, it's just potential. But over time with the right support and a few breakthroughs, it becomes something more. Make RBC Training Ground your breakthrough moment. Start your journey to Team Canada today at rBC trainingground.ca. There's something else here now. Something new. From exclusively on Paramount Plus, it's the series Stephen King calls Scarious Hell. Everything here is impossible, but it's also real. Sci-fi vision calls it the best show streaming right now.

We're running out of time and we still don't know the rules. Don't miss what the movie blog calls something you need to watch. Saving those children is how we all go home. From binge all episodes exclusively on Paramount Plus. Hello and welcome to The Rest is Science. I'm Michael Stevens. And I'm Hannah Fry. Hannah, in your opinion, when was the best era for music?

This can be completely subjective, right? I mean, you've given me complete free reign. I have, but I have not said that it's subjective. there may be an answer. Oh, well, now I feel like the pressure is on. You could be wrong. Oh. Of all the infinite world of possible answers that I could give,

it feels like there's only one that you're looking for. Okay, here's my opinion, right? The first album I ever bought, I got £10 out of my bank. I was 11 years old. I was extremely excited. I went down to Woolworths, something that is American you will not know about. And I bought a cassette of PJ and Duncan,

and I think that the album was called Syke. Now, Michael, let me just... Say no more. That's exactly the answer I was looking for. Just kidding, I've never heard of that. Okay, this is any international listeners will not have had the full unadulterated joy of Biker Grove, which was a kids TV program in around about the 1990s. There was some amazing characters in it, Anton Dek,

who are now big, hot-shot TV presenters. Wait, are they in? Ant and Deck. They used to be known as PJN Duncan. I bet most international viewers, meaning not from the UK, won't even know who Ant & Deck are. Do you think so? Are they not internationally renowned? I can't speak for the non-British humans on the planet, but I didn't know who they were until I lived here. And even then, it was hard to find them because I didn't have television. I was streaming. And so I wasn't tuning into, you know, pops of the month or whatever they were doing.

The pops of the month. You know, they're kind of a big deal. They, how can I describe them? They're from Newcastle. So they're like cheeky, jordy lads. They're just extremely likeable, extremely funny. They've spent their entire lives next to each other to the point where they appear on screen in order and is always on the left-hand side. Deck is always on the right.

I didn't know that. So that you read them alphabetically. It's great to know because now I can see them and I can know who is who. Absolutely, which I think is something that people genuinely struggle with. But they started their career. as actors in this kids' TV show and their characters, PJ and Duncan, went on to release a rap album. Oh, no.

Okay? Now, I want you to imagine the whitest rappers you've ever seen, right? Make them whiter, younger, and with worse lyrics. That was the peak of music, in my opinion. So I would not give the same answer. Oh. You're saying my answer was wrong? I would say music peaked when the source.

Spice Girls released wannabe. That's a similar era. You know what? You think you might be right. I might be right. And I think, I think jewel pieces of you, I think Alanis Morissette,

ironic. Oh, no, I've never liked that song. Why? Because none of the things that she's describing are actually ironic. Let me tell you something. She never once in that song claims that any of the situations

she sings about are. ironic. Look at the lyrics. I am. She says, a black fly in your chardonnay. It's rain on your wedding day and isn't it ironic? It depends on where you put that part of the sentence. If you're saying, yeah, okay, it's a free ride and when you've already paid and isn't it ironic, fine, I agree with you. But she doesn't. She says it other way around. She says, isn't it ironic? It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is right? You are one of those Alanis misunderstanders. She's She says it's like rain on your wedding day, 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife. And isn't it ironic?

What is it? It is the fact that life has a funny way of helping you out. I'm sorry. When things go wrong. Right. Our episode plan is cancelled. We're going to do a solid 30 minutes on this topic and nothing else. As I say that, I'm starting to think everyone's going to have their own personal answer.

This is all subjective. Okay. I mean, yeah. I would just a counter-argument to your argument, if I may, because during the 90s, the middle of the 90s, there were, I mean, of course, there was a major era for music, right? It's like got so much money to be made. It was like a growth industry. And there were two British music producers who were fully aware of this fact, who were like, is the stuff we're making actually good? Or are people just buying it because we tell them to?

And so what they did is they had a bet between them to try and get the worst possible song into the British. British charts. The result of this, supposedly, was this bet was a girl group called Vanilla and their debut song was No Way No Way Manah Manah, sort of based on the Muppets. So we're talking same ear as wannabe. Also I should tell you that the music video was them standing next to a pool which was I think Brockwell Lido, just standing around. Okay. All right. Well, I got to number 14 in the charts, I should say. Number 14. I mean, look, I don't hate that song. I see a time and place for it. For example, right now, right? They made something that is a conversation starter, which is one of the many things we ask music to help us do. So they succeeded there. It's objectively bad, though. I mean, come on, Michael. I know you're a philosopher, but that's what I'm proving wrong. It can't be objectively bad. It has value in that it's a great story. It's pretty funny, especially when you give it the content.

if they tried to make the worst song and that hit number 14 on the charts. I love hearing that. It's improved my life. You're welcome. Today, I want us to talk about this. I want us to talk about the science and the psychology of good music about whether or not music has been getting worse since I was 10. Oh, what an absolute treat. I'm buckling up. Let's go. Let's go. All right. So obviously the first thing I did is I looked to see if there had been any

objective attempts to rank musical decades or moments in music history. Right. And there have been a lot that claim to use data from the popularity of songs, from the words that are used, the complications and the melodies. But none of them agree with each other. If you Google, when was the best era for music? And you search like Google Scholar even. You get this study said it's the age. It was the 70s. It was 1992. It was 1847. And it's like, wow, you can warp the data to give you any answer you want.

But I do sort of wonder, though, I mean, without picking holes in your argument before you've even started, I sort of wonder what you mean by best here. That's the thing that I'm really questioning. This is like something that philosophers have worried about, I mean, for centuries, right? I mean, and they don't agree. So there's people like Godfried Liebnitz who, like, he argued that. if there are things that we can all agree on that are very beautiful, like high quality, like, I don't know, Michelangelo's ceiling in the Sistine Chapel or some motes up, then surely there should be some like definable, measurable quality that we can latch on to that says like this is the thing that makes one thing objectively better than the other. You sort of need that as a grounding before you can go in and decide what decade or what era was better.

But any attempts that they've been to try and find that kind of measure, I mean, they sort of fail, right? There was a violinist, Joshua Bell. Do you remember this happening? He's like this incredible violinist. Is this the guy who played down in like the subway? Yes. As a busker, yeah.

Exactly. So he had a three and a half million dollar violin, Stradivarius, and he basically was at the top of an escalator on the metro. And he started playing. And he's literally one of the finest classical musicians in the entire world. Like the night before he was playing as part of the Philharmonic people were paying, you know, hundreds of pounds, hundreds of dollars in order to go and see him. And here he was just standing there in the subway and no one even stopped to look, right? I think by the end of the day, he had managed like $32 in his hat.

That's how much he'd collected. So if there was this objective measure of like the best in the world playing the best instrument, then surely people would at least notice. It doesn't surprise me at all. Yeah. Because the contexts are so different that what I want to hear when I'm waiting for the subway is very different than what I expect when I've bought tickets to see the New York Philharmonic. And if you put the best violinist ever down in the subway, I'll be like, hey, I'm just trying to get to work. That's kind of annoying. If you put the worst busker on stage at the New York Philharmonic, I'll know.

notice that too. But it doesn't mean that one's better than the other, in my opinion. One's better for different contexts. A really bad violinist, just being ridiculous on the subway, that's actually pretty cool. I would record that. I'd tell my friends, I'd say, you got to come and see this. I can't believe it. But if I bought $600 tickets to see a concert and that happened, it would actually be pretty amusing as well, but I might be more upset. Bad violinists are always good. Actually, that is kind of what I just said. Whereas good ones, they got to be careful. Don't be good in the wrong place or you'll be bad.

You'll be forgettable. And so pinning down some objective this applies all the time rubric to music is going to always leave people feeling disappointed or frustrated. But then if you don't have an objective measure of quality, if it's dependent on the context, Then how do you measure what counts as better music? Well, you could agree that it's okay to choose certain properties of songs and measure from there. So, for example, last year there was a study published in nature showing that songs, music, had indeed become more simple over time. Beginning from the 1970s to today, music had increasingly become more simple in terms of the lyrics and the vocabulary and the readability. It had become less complexly structured.

Okay. So there were more repetitions of phrases. Okay, for example. Since the 1970s? I mean, I can think of a lot of repetitive songs in the 1970s. I know. but they looked at 12,000 songs over 40 years. They also found that the negativity of the lyrics increased.

And they found that the egotisticalness increased, meaning the usages of the word me, mine, I went up. So, as you can imagine, a lot of grumpy old people loved that study. They knew it. They knew it. Music was better when I was a kid, which happens to be, you know, right when they started this, and it's all gotten worse since. I want to tell you about some other studies, though, before we discuss all of them.

Okay, deal. Another, there's been a lot of studies that have found that pop music very closely tracks with the socioeconomic status of a society at a time. So when times are tough, pop music gets sadder. When times are great, when people are happy with the direction of their lives in their country, pop music gets much more optimistic. Not country music. Hold on, though. I've got some questions on that. Yeah.

So are we saying here is the conclusion that I should draw that people are sort of upset about their jobs, upset about, you know, how the economy, how far their money goes, whatever it might be, and are writing more morrow songs. Or is it? Because how much do people actually really pay attention to and recognize sort of macroeconomic conditions, which is effectively what these studies are comparing against.

Or how much is it that, I don't know, like, I sort of think that when you saw the emergence of laptops as ubiquitous, which was around the same time as the financial crisis, you just saw not just different types of songs, but you saw more people making music, right? People who didn't have access to generating whole entire tracks from their home before. I'm glad you're going there because that's where I would go first. And I read the whole study about music getting simpler. My first thought was, okay, what songs did they analyze? And they analyzed 12,000 songs across 40 years.

And I thought, okay, that's both not enough songs and too many. 40 years is not enough to really tell me how music connects with any kind of pattern. Because that's like two generations tops. That's basically just a couple cohorts growing up. You need to at least analyze music for 100 years or more, in my opinion, to really track what's happening to it. To music specifically rather than technology around making music and who's making it and so on. And especially if you're looking at these were songs in English. So you're looking specifically at the Western English-speaking world.

you're almost really just tracking how music changes at a time when boomers are going from middle age or younger up to being senior citizens because they were the biggest part of the population. They were the main engine of what music was being made to be sold to. So you're not really looking at humanity as a whole. But then also you're still looking at too much music because 12,000 songs. That's 300 songs. a year. It's like almost a song, a brand new song every day. Can you name a brand new song every single day that was made that day? Can you name 12,000 songs? I think that by the time you analyze that many songs, you're looking at songs that do not represent the state of

music in popular culture. They're not the zeitgeist. And as you mentioned with laptops and the democratization of not just music production, but music distribution, it's not even a laptop story. That happened back in 1977 when the New York blackout meant that you could kind of just like go into a store and take a stereo and now you're a DJ and suddenly remixing. Being an

MC is something that way more people can do. Wait, I don't know this story. What happened in 1977? There was a giant blackout in New York City. The power goes out. How long for? It was just one day. No power and that means that

it's dark. People can't see what you're doing. Suddenly all those instruments, all that stereo equipment that's in that store, it's a little easier. So was there mass looting on that day? Really? Yeah. But so the sort of oral history goes, the next day, there were musicians everywhere.

Wow. And that happened again with digital technologies, allowing people to open up garage band and throw in a drum loop. And then, well, there's a microphone built into my laptop. I'm doing all of this suddenly. And then I can upload it to YouTube. I can upload it to, I don't know, back then you'd be putting it up on iffilm.com or so, you know, like you could share your music. And when a study looks at a lot of songs, they're going to be dipping into songs made by all kinds of people, songs that were not made for mass consumption.

Well, that does feel like the biggest difference from the 1970s to now is that the gatekeepers of music have changed, right? It used to be that you had to have a record deal, you had to persuade people that you were sellable. And now, literally anyone can make stuff and put it online and find a route to an audience. Yeah. So to make an analogy, I'd say it's kind of like, okay, we used to just taste food at this great restaurant. then we started sampling food from the great restaurant and all the restaurants nearby and even like the dump and all the trash cans and we found that on average food doesn't taste as good anymore it's like well yeah because like most of what you're eating is the garbage or it's the songs that were just made for someone for their 10 friends like you know but in 1970 you couldn't pick up a whole bunch of songs from every soundcloud artist in their bedroom because that didn't exist.

Well, hold on in a second, right? So I buy you argument. I like the sampling from the dump. I think that really rings true, especially now with AI-generated music. But anyway, but then why does everybody think that their era was the era when music was better? If the 1970s wasn't this objective peak in music for the entire history of humanity, then why does everyone sort of claim that it was? Yeah, no, it's a great question because we could talk forever about what studies have said

and what their methodologies are. But at the end of the day, this is not an alien concept to us that music used to be better. This is particularly coincidentally better when I was a kid. Why does that happen? Well, it's a well-known piece of human behavior. And there are a lot of different names for what I think is involved in all of this. You've got, for example, Rosie Retrospection. That's a name used to describe our tendency to remember things better than we experience the

the time. In fact, experience is kind of this little, let's see, the shape. The shape is kind of a like a little dip. Okay. We anticipate things being really great. And then while we're experiencing them, we're like kind of disappointed. But then later on, we remember it and we're like, it's pretty cool. My favorite example of that is the impact of having children on your life satisfaction. Because children make you much happier until they're born. at which point you suffer very greatly in terms of your happiness. And that continues until they leave home, at which point, at which point you're way happier again. It's the most beautiful thing you ever did in your life.

Yeah, exactly. And this happens with all kinds of things in the past. On top of that, our brains are wired to remember more from our 20s, specifically. This is known as the reminiscence bump. If you interview people who are over 40, you just ask them to list out memories, they will have an overwhelming glut of memories from between 10 and 30 that is called the reminiscence bump because it's this like sudden, like I've got a lot of things to say from that era and then I don't know. Now I don't have much. Now I don't know if that's

totally genetically wired into our brains or if it's sort of a thing that our societies impose on us. Well, I also wonder whether it's something that's like physically going on with your right? You have the plasticity of your brain which I mean never goes away but it decreases with age I mean when you're experiencing things and remember them you are like quite literally rewiring your brain yeah exactly you are and we know that that the biology of a brain is still changing

up until like 25 I mean it's always changing sure but it doesn't really reach maturity almost a kind of maturity until the 20s so I'm just not ready to say that I think that it's a genetic thing that you'll find in all human societies. Because we are particularly prejudiced against old people. We, which isn't true around the world. Which isn't true around the world. But I think it's also possible that just wants people to reach 40, they just think, I'm not supposed to live a life that creates all these memories and stories to tell because that's what you do when you're young. we need to be careful about exactly what conclusion we draw there.

I also wonder though, I mean, I think there is another aspect to this too, which is about novelty and about how our brains are like constantly searching for differences, right? I mean, we're like change detectors effectively. And the thing is that when you've had, when your life experiences are limited and you sort of have a new memory, a new experience, it's like it feels very fresh. It feels valuable and important for your brain to remember it. But as you get a bit older, I mean, I've already been to this club a thousand times before. You've been around the block a few times.

This is less surprising. You know what? Yeah. I like that too because that reminds me of consensus bias. And it is our tendency to think that other people think the way we do. It is most predominant with old people. It is the least predominant with young people. Like college students will say, here's what I believe. Do I think that's a common belief? Probably not. But once you're 60, you think this is how it is. Yeah. And that's what everyone thinks. Because you have experienced more of life. You've been young. You've been old. You've been in college. You've been a graduate. You've had a job. You've been fired. You know people who have lost their jobs. You just you feel like you can make a better estimation of what's common and what's not. You can't as it turns out. But you feel like you feel like you can make a better estimation of what's common and what's not. You can't, as it turns out. But you feel like.

like you can. So all of these psychological things, I think, conspire to make us prefer the music that our brains matured to that happened while our brains were maturing and then makes us think that things in the past were better and that everyone should agree on it. But then also I guess there's something here about those songs that you grew up to and had your most exciting experiences too because they were the new experiences, right? You know, your first kiss, your first car, your first, I don't know, like time in a club, right? All of those things will have had a soundtrack to them that really is physically etched into your brain. That's right, that's right.

And so, like, for me, I recently watched this little musical mashup of like breakthrough artists from 1980 to today. And it was a really great sort of history of what was the most popular thing. And when it hit that period of time when I was nine to ten years old, the way the songs made me feel shifted so dramatically. Instead of just being a really great song, it became a song that represented this feeling of like my eyes getting wider, entering the world and listening to the radio and to popular music and being part of the world. Like not an adult, but I felt like I was approaching adulthood. What is this? It was so different. So Alanis Morissette's ironic, and I'm bringing her up a lot.

I remember being in fifth grade, and we had a talent show, and a couple of girls sang ironic. And I was like, what is this song? And I went home and I turned on MTV, which I had never watched before. And the music video was playing. And I'm like, I'm peeking through the crack of childhood into the real world. And that kind of experience, of course it imprints onto my mind forever. And it's hard for me to ever communicate that feeling to someone who might not like the song. Because they didn't have the same experience with it.

Or think that the lyrics of it are nonsense. This episode is brought to you by NordVPN. VPNs are an incredible invention. Short for virtual private network. A VPN, it works to shield your IP address it. It virtually connects you to any network in the world and protects your information from prying eyes. Yeah, no more worrying. that that public network you joined that, like, didn't even require a password,

will end in disaster. No, just fire up NordVPN, and its encryption software will keep your data safe. And NordVPN's unique threat protection pro, it blocks malicious links, it scans downloads for viruses for up to 10 devices for your whole house when attached to your router. NordVPN even protects your wallet. How? Great question.

You see, some online retailers will charge you a different price depending on where you are. That's a great way to ruin Christmas. Fortunately, using NordVPN means you will never be subjected to algorithmic pricing again. To get the best discount off your NordVPN plan, go to NordVPN.com forward slash rest is science. And our link will also give you four extra months on their two-year plan. There is no risk either with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee. The link is in the podcast episode description box. This episode is brought to you by Cancer Research UK.

We often think of beating cancer as treatment, but imagine stopping it before it begins. After years of work, cancer research UK scientists are launching a clinical trial of lung Vax, the first vaccine designed to prevent lung cancer. It builds on TracerX, the world's largest cancer evolution study, which tracked lung cancer cells over many years to uncover the disease's earliest warning signs. Lung Vax is designed to train the immune system to spot these. signs early on, destroying 40 cells before cancer develops. So it's not treatment, but preventative, with the potential to stop lung cancer before it starts. The first stage of the trial starts this

year focusing on people at higher risk. It shows what long-term research makes possible. For more information about Cancer Research UK, their research breakthroughs and how you can support them, visit cancer research UK.org forward slash the rest is science. Amazon presents Jeff versus Taco Truck Salsa, whether it's Verde, Roja, or the orange one. For Jeff, trying any salsa is like playing Russian roulette with a flame thrower. Luckily, Jeff saved with Amazon and stocked up on antacids, ginger tea, and milk. Habaniero, More like Habinier, yes.

Save the everyday with Amazon. This episode is brought to you by Defender. With its 626 horsepower twin turbo V8 engine, the Defender Octa is taking on the Dakar rally. The ultimate off-road challenge. Learn more at landrover.ca. Welcome back. We have been talking about whether music is getting worse,

and I think that we can probably agree on a few things. We can agree on, The fruitlessness of trying to find some kind of always applies in every context measure of objective worth of a song. Okay. I think we can also agree that there's more going on than just the talent of artists or their creativity, that we also have a tendency to have a lot more memories from when we were teenagers and when we were in our 20s. We remember things from the past being better than maybe they really were at the time. We mature and come of age in Western societies around that time and music imprints on us as part of that journey, a journey we will never have again.

It's almost like the most important time in our lives because it's the first important time in our lives. I want to even add to that two other things. I think that specifically in the 20th and 21st century, we have come under this spell of, progress in innovation and creativity is a thing. We think that, well, yeah, you know, you start with an acoustic guitar and then someone invents an electric guitar and then Jimmy Hendricks does the Star-Spangled banner and it changes everything. And that's going to keep happening. But I think that's a bit of a fiction as well.

I think that we've become obsessed with defining the present as made out of the past. Like today, this artist is influenced by this one and that one and this is what genre they're in and we're pulling everyone back into these defining categories from the past. And that's where the value of the music comes from. And if we can't see that the same pattern continues in the same direction that we used to feel, we think the music is getting worse. Does that make any sense? I think so.

I mean, I think I recognize it in more subjects than music, to be honest. I think, like, we had this obsession in the past of categorizing things. Like the sciences, right? Like this is biology, this is chemistry, whatever. This is like these straight silos that don't, I mean, they were separate, right? Like biology and chemistry were separate from one another. And as time has gone on, actually those boundaries don't really apply anymore. Right.

And I think that you're right that it's like, but in music the differences is that we are absolutely determined to kind of hold onto them in a way that is actually perhaps quite destructive. I have a feeling that we look back at events and musical genres and songs and not just remember them as being better and better now, but also is more important. Where I'm coming from here is that when we look back at the Wright Brothers First Flight or the moon landing, we think, wow, imagine witnessing both of those in your life. What would that have been like? Well, we know what it was like because those people told us. When humans landed on the moon, there was this old woman in New York who was interviewed. Like, what do you think? Like, you have memories from before airplanes.

And she said, I don't know, it's kind of cool, but it was a much bigger deal when they built the Brooklyn Bridge. And you could walk from Brooklyn to Manhattan. It was incredible. The moon, not as impressive to me. But that was because of her worldview, right, of like the things that were important to her life at that moment. it's because of everything we've discussed so far on this podcast. It's that she was giving us another version of back in my day, they built bridges. Now they just go to the moon.

And that's how we feel today. We think, oh, man, today I can have a burrito delivered to me in a little taxi whenever I want. And that's nothing. But back in my day, we had cassette tapes, which were better. And it's like things keep getting surprisingly. advanced, but we just don't accept it. We keep thinking, we have a tendency to see the past as being more of a change and more important than what's happening now. So I also think that there's this, I mean, there's a very big cultural aspect to this, right? Because while she might have said

they built bridges, you could walk from Brooklyn to Manhattan, I imagine that actually that was specifically important to her because of where she was and where she lived. And I think that you see this in music too, right? So there was a recent study by some MIT people. They were circling around this idea that there are some sounds, some musical sounds that we prefer over others, even if they couldn't quite get to an objective measure of what makes them nice. But they took things like a chord of a C and a G, which I think to almost everybody who is listening to this will be like, yeah, that's a pleasant sound. And then they took a grating combination of like a C and an F sharp, which historically has been nicknamed as the devil in music.

And so for Western ears, this is, obviously one sounds much nicer than the other. And then what they did is they went to this very remote Amazonian tribe who had had very little exposure to Western music. They played them these chords, the ones that clashed and the ones that didn't. And were like, which do you prefer? And they were basically like, yeah, don't mind. Just noise. It's just noise. And what's intriguing about that is that like it's not just about whether the past.

was better. It's about like what you are accustomed to listening to. There's like this sweet spot of novelty, right? We are very put off by the banal, but we're also really put off by the radically unfamiliar. And actually, if you don't have experience of like what culturally is considered to sound good, there is nothing objective about even those sounds clashing at all. It's just what we've kind of been trained on. There's this other study that I really love by Matt Salgonick, who's this like computational social scientist, right? And he had this genius idea when he was doing his PhD, which was to try and work out how much of an impact the sort of cultural perception of particular bits of music were to how much

people liked it, right? Like how much does social proof it's called, right? How much does everybody saying that this is the thing that matters change you into thinking, this is the thing that matters? So what he did is he set up this I mean you can sort of imagine it like Spotify Like a sort of a very simplified version of Spotify Where he put up a number of different songs

And people could go on and they could listen to certain bits of music And they could kind of like them And there was a billboard effectively Like what the top songs were Which is very particularly clever Right And essentially what he found was that Lots of people would be sharing the same system

But he had like different universes where he would try out different experiments. So we're the same songs, but sometimes he would like start off the ranking in a slightly different way. Sometimes he would let the ranking evolve based on what people were really listening to and then he would flip it upside down for new people. And essentially what he discovered was that every now and then

there would be a song that was so good, so inherently full of quality that it would always rise to the top. But beyond that, it was just junk. People would listen to over and over again songs that other people thought were good, And that was it. That was sort of the end of it. That's the thing that we like. What we like isn't about the noise itself. It's about what we think other people think is important. Yeah. You know, and I think that in a lot of ways, if you think that music is getting worse, you think that everything's getting worse. You think that society's getting worse. For example, I think that in that study that found that like negativity in songs has gone up. And personal first person pronouns have gone up. It's more egotistical. I think that in a way, it's true that it's just much more socially acceptable to be negative, to criticize and to speak how

you feel. It's more acceptable to talk about yourself and your own journey. So in a way, music changes because we already did. Music is just following what we're all doing. I also think that that point that you made earlier about how like you're now listening directly to the creator is important, right? And it's like if I feel if I'm having a rubbish time, I could just make a song about it. I don't have to convince a panel of executives that this is a song that would connect with other people. That's right. Yeah. So I wanted to talk about another study which found that pop music very closely matches the zeitgeist of the times. So when people in general feel like the economy and the government isn't working for them, when they're not happy with the direction of their life or the direction of the country they live in, pop music tends to get pessimistic, darker, more minor chords.

And we see the reverse when people are happy. When there's an economic boom, pop music gets really optimistic. That's a pattern that's sort of possible to see. But we don't see it in country music. We see the opposite effect. Go on. When national optimism is higher, country songs are sadder. And vice versa.

When everyone's really sad, that's when the country song is about, let's have a party. But when everyone is saying they're happy with the country, that's when the songs are all like, my dog daddy. It's almost like a homeostasis between the world and country music. And it's trying to say, whoa, come back down. Hey, get back up. And I don't know how to explain it. I wish I could come on today and give you some great analysis of that. But I think the seed I want to plant is that pop music to me, I think, is more of a like, yeah, this is the socially acceptable way to feel right now.

It's the trend. It's trendy. But country music is more of a like confirming this is how you should feel. The thing about music and science in particular, those two together, is that all. Of course, there is an enormous amount of money involved in trying to like grip on to statistical definitions of what people like, of what counts as good, of what will sell. And so many people have tried to do this. And actually it turns out that it is just, as you said, right at the very beginning,

so much more about context that it is about the actual sounds or the actual notes. So much more about the experience that you are having as an individual. that, you know, there's like nice studies like the one you're describing. But, you know, ultimately, I think just listen to a landless morassette and be happy. Yeah. Yeah, it's too complicated. You can do studies and figure out what people want. Yeah.

For sure. But you know what decides what people want? Them? But also what the artists tell them they want, right? That's my favorite thing about the show, Madman. It was Don Draper being like, no, our job isn't to give people what they want. it's to tell them what they want. And so what I'm saying is that algorithms can never really predict what's going to happen.

Ultimately, they run into a problem, which is that someone's going to make something that shouldn't work, but they do it so convincingly that it does and now the algorithm has to learn that everything should be like that. And this, I think, is actually, I'm going to finish on a note of optimism about AI and music. Because, okay, there's certain types of music, right, where it's like wallpaper, you know, like elevator music, just stuff that's going on in the background. And I think that that can very easily be replicated by artificial intelligence algorithms. But the key point of what we're saying here is that you cannot grab onto what makes something good. And so the only thing that really people are looking for universally is something that connects them with another human.

And that is something that cannot be replaced. That's right. Yeah. I think AI could help you connect to another person. but there'll always be another person there. It's a conversation, and sometimes conversations might be boring to one of the people listening, but it doesn't mean the conversation has gotten worse. It means that person has become irrelevant and old. And that's how I feel sometimes that I'm entering that era where it's like, hey, dude, music is just not made for you.

Movies aren't made for you anymore. And that's fine. I think I owe it to the young people of the world to just stop trying to. fit in and be cool. Step aside, Michael. Step aside with my smash mouth CD. I am okay with that. So given everything we've discussed,

let me ask you the same question again. Maybe your answer has changed. When was the best era for music? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind now. I've spent half an hour talking to you, listening to you, and I've never been more sure about anything. PJ and Duncan, psych. Wow, it's just confirmed it.

And I think that we have. We've given all the reasons people like the music that they do. And PJ Duncan and the biker balls, they fit the bill. I'm going to make you listen to it now. I'm going to change my answer. I think the best era was 250 million BC. The bird songs happening then really achieved perfection sonically. Okay, well, on that note, I think we are going to leave things here for today.

Thank you for watching. I had a great time. I hope you did too. Be sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts. You can like and subscribe on YouTube as ever, or you can send us a good old-fashioned email like the old days when everything was better. The rest of science at goalhanger.com. See you next time.