# Novelty and Cultural Evolution in Modern Popular Music

KOKatherine O’Toole  EÁHEmőke-Ágnes Horvát  Northwestern University, 2240
Campus Drive, 60208 Evanston, USA

###### Abstract

The ubiquity of digital music consumption has made it possible to extract
information about modern music that allows us to perform large scale analysis
of stylistic change over time. In order to uncover underlying patterns in
cultural evolution, we examine the relationship between the established
characteristics of different genres and styles, and the introduction of novel
ideas that fuel this ongoing creative evolution. To understand how this
dynamic plays out and shapes the cultural ecosystem, we compare musical
artifacts to their contemporaries to identify novel artifacts, study the
relationship between novelty and commercial success, and connect this to the
changes in musical content that we can observe over time. Using Music
Information Retrieval (MIR) data and lyrics from Billboard Hot 100 songs
between 1974-2013, we calculate a novelty score for each song’s aural
attributes and lyrics. Comparing both scores to the popularity of the song
following its release, we uncover key patterns in the relationship between
novelty and audience reception. Additionally, we look at the link between
novelty and the likelihood that a song was influential given where its MIR and
lyrical features fit within the larger trends we observed.

Cultural Novelty,

Computational Methods,

Quantitative Analysis,

Computational Social Science,

###### keywords:

Research

##  1 Introduction

When NWA dropped their hit song, ‘Straight Outta Compton’, it was one of the
hottest new tracks of 1988, but in fact, a key component of the song hearkened
all the way back to 1969. By incorporating a sample of the famous ‘Amen Break’
drum solo from The Winstons’ song ‘Amen Brother’, the song is an example of
the way that musical traits can persist even as they undergo change and
reinvention. This juxtaposition highlights the paradox that make culture so
fascinating; it provides us with a foundation of established aesthetics and
practices to draw from, even as it continues to change and evolve. This
dynamic balance between established norms, and the introduction of novelty
provides a rich area of inquiry for cultural analysis that looks not only at
the impact of novelty on patterns of commercial production and consumption,
but also at how the introduction of novel creative artifacts drives cultural
evolution [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. With the rise of digital media, information
about the consumption and production of cultural artifacts is available to us
at unprecedented scale. In addition, the digitization of artifacts allows us
to apply computational analyses to better understand the often nebulous
concepts of creativity and novelty, and unlock insights into their effects on
cultural change. With music in particular, the availability of digital data,
and advances in computational methods of audio analysis have made it possible
to investigate these questions at scale. The ubiquity of popular music also
means that established markers of success, such as Billboard charts, are based
on the opinions of a large population. Additionally, while music styles vary
across different genres and cultures, music is a ‘human universal’ found in
virtually all societies, and displays organizational properties that we can
track over time in order to analyze patterns of cultural change [1, 3].

Currently it is possible to extract quantitative metrics from large music data
sets using Music Information Retrieval (MIR) software. This data, referred to
as audio features, or audio descriptors, is information that can be extracted
from audio signals, and can be roughly classified as low-level and high-level
features. Low-level features directly describe the audio signal data, for
example spectral descriptors, while high-level features typically describe
more holistic information about the song such as key, energy level, or
danceability [7, 8]. Previous work has demonstrated that these high level MIR
features provide accurate and robust data for modeling musical preference [7,
9], along with comparisons of content similarity that inform automatic genre
classification [10, 11]. This has enabled researchers to contextualize songs
within the larger musical ecosystem they exist in, and to identify long term
trends in how genres and styles evolve over time [1, 3, 2, 4, 5, 12]. This
data is also used by streaming services such as Spotify to develop music
discovery tools and generate recommendations for users. In addition to MIR
data, word and document embeddings of lyrics have also been shown to be a rich
source of data for music content analysis, including genre and mood
classification [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. As with MIR features, these vector
embeddings can be used to evaluate the similarity between lyrics of different
songs [18, 19, 20].

In combination with data on commercial success and popularity, MIR and lyric
data has enabled researchers to examine how the novelty of songs correlates
with their success. For both MIR features and lyrics, the novelty of a song
relative to its peers has been found to play a role in determining its
cultural success, with the most popular songs demonstrating an optimal level
of differentiation that allows them to stand out without being perceived as
too dissimilar [21, 22, 23]. Identifying these patterns of optimal
differentiation in consumer preferences is important for both the music
industry at large, and for development of recommender systems [24]. However,
previous work has still looked at MIR and lyrical novelty separately, and
there is a lack of understanding as to how the relationship between these two
dimensions of novelty might affect listeners perception of overall song
novelty, and the success of the song. Work in genre and mood classification
has shown MIR and lyric data to be complementary, with the inclusion of both
sets of features having a positive impact on classification accuracy [13, 16,
25, 26]. Since both of these components contribute to the overall perception
of the song’s mood and genre, we propose to study whether there is also a
relationship between a song’s MIR novelty and its lyrical novelty, and if that
relationship influences its performance on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.
Additionally, we consider an alternative definition of success in terms of how
likely it was that the song exerted some degree of stylistic influence on the
cultural ecosystem. This has been done in previous studies with classical
music by tracking the reappearance of specific motifs or harmonic patterns,
however the granularity required in this type of analysis makes it difficult
to scale [4]. By using MIR and lyric features though, it is possible to
perform this type of analysis at scale by using the similarity measures
between a song and later releases to determine the likelihood that the song in
question was influential [27]. In doing so, we can examine whether a song’s
novelty and initial success affect its likelihood of being influential in the
long term, and gain insight into how the introduction of novel attributes
fuels ongoing creative evolution in modern popular music.

In this paper, using MIR and lyric feature data from Billboard Hot 100 songs
between 1974-2013, we calculated novelty scores for each song relative to its
genre and release year, and compared these to the total number of weeks the
song spent on the Hot 100 chart. We found that the novelty scores at which
optimal differentiation occurred were quite similar for both MIR and lyrics,
and the most successful songs where those that were optimally differentiated
for both. When looking at the probability of a song being influential, we also
observed optimal differentiation occurring with respect to the novelty scores.
Additionally, we found that there was no correlation between the time the song
spent on the chart, and its probability of being influential. Rather, we found
that for different novelty scores, the amount of time the song spent on the
chart affected its likelihood of being influential. By utilizing computational
data and methodology to extract high level patterns of change within the
musical ecosystem, this research highlights the importance of considering
alternate metrics for evaluating success when studying cultural artifacts by
providing insight into how novelty affects both short and long term
performance of cultural artifacts.

##  2 Related Literature

###  2.1 Novelty Metrics

The word novelty is used to describe ideas or artifacts which are new,
original, and in some way dissimilar and different to what came before [28,
29].The production of novelty is important for innovation. Thus, understanding
how novelty occurs is a salient question across many domains [30], including
the sciences [29, 31, 32], and creative industries such as music [33], film
[34], fashion [6], and literature [35]. Novelty can be evaluated in terms of
how similar or dissimilar an artifact is when compared to other artifacts
within the larger cultural context, which allows examining its relationship to
the cultural space it is embedded in [36].

One way this can be achieved is by constructing feature representations that
capture information about the key attributes of the artifacts. By representing
each artifact based on set of features, this allows us to map individual
artifacts to a shared multidimensional feature space and compare them to one
another based on their relative positioning. It is then possible to use a
distance metric as a way of measuring how similar or dissimilar artifacts are
from one another [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35, 37].

Previous work with music similarity has utilized MIR features to model
individual songs as feature vectors due to the ability of MIR features to
capture perceptually relevant audio information that has been validated
against human perceptions of audio similarity [21, 22, 38].

This feature representation approach can also be applied to textual data.
Previous research into lyrical novelty used Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)
to identify latent topics based on word co-occurence, and represent individual
songs based on their topic composition [23]. A similar approach using LDA has
also been applied to research into fan fiction, with the Jensen-Shannon
Distance between the topic representations of artifact being used to calculate
their relative similarity [35]. The development of word embedding models means
that text can also be represented as a feature vector. These models use
textual training data to analyze word usage and map each word to a position in
multidimensional feature space based on the context in which they are used,
allowing us to compare the similarity of words by compare the relative
positions of their vectors to one another [19].

For example, the vectors for the words ‘sad’ and ‘morose’ would be closer to
one another in the vector space than the vectors for the words ‘sad’ and
‘happy’. This can also be extended to map longer text inputs such as
paragraphs or entire documents to single vectors. This approach has been
leveraged in previous work on the analysis of patent novelty, where document
embedding models have been used to generate feature vector representations for
patents, allowing the cosine similarity between them to be calculated [20].
There are also domain specific models that can be used for document
embeddings, such as BioBERT, which as has similarly been used to assess the
relative novelty of PubMed Articles by generating document feature vectors
[37].

The benefit of this approach to calculating novelty is that mapping artifacts
to a shared feature space allows us to contextualize our measurement of
novelty within the larger domain context. A challenge with measuring novelty
is that what is considered novel is always changing, and to assess whether or
not an artifact is novel, we must contextualize it by comparing it to its
contemporaries [12, 39, 40]. By mapping artifacts to a shared feature space
and using distance metrics to evaluate similarity, we are able to identify
novel artifacts that are informed by this context, without first needing to
identify specific markers of novelty.

###  2.2 Novelty and Success

Previous research from psychological studies of culture has suggested that the
novelty of cultural artifacts impacts how favorably they will be perceived by
audiences [23]. At the individual level, the relationship between subjective
novelty and enjoyment has been modeled as an inverse U-curve [41, 42]. In this
model, objects that are too familiar or too novel will be less successful,
with there being a ‘comfort zone’ that describes the desired amount of
novelty. When considering large scale consumption, we also see that
competition for audience attention means that artifacts needs some degree of
novelty to stand out, however audiences are also shown to be averse to very
high levels of novelty as well [43]. In studies of scientific research, a bias
against highly novel work has been observed, with very novel work being less
likely to be initially recognized and successful, even in cases where high
levels of success are achieved in the long term [44]. Multiple sociological
studies exploring this idea across other domains have also found that there
appears to be a certain degree of novelty that allows individual artifacts to
stand out from their peers, referred to as ‘optimal differentiation’ [21, 22].
The idea behind optimal differentiation in the music industry is that although
songs must be similar enough to previous work to maintain cohesion in the
cultural schema, there must be the introduction of new elements that innovates
on the established genre norms and sets them apart, without straying too far
out of that comfort zone.

Within the music industry, there are of course many factors that influence the
likelihood of a song’s success. While it is impossible to control for all of
these, previous work has demonstrated that the relationship between an
artifact’s novelty and their likelihood of success is still significant.
Previous research on lyric differentiation found that the degree of
differentiation had a significant effect on the ranking of a song on the
Billboard digital downloads list even when controlling for amount of radio
airplay, artist, and specific lyrical topics [23]. Additionally, research on
MIR feature differentiation also found that the effect of differentiation on
the amount of time a song spent on the Billboard Hot 100 chart remained
significant when controlling for artist popularity in terms of how many times
the artist had previously charted, genre preferences, and variations in amount
of institutional support that artist received based on whether there were with
a major or independent music label [21, 22]. In this paper, we build on this
previous research to examine whether we can observe a relationship between
lyric novelty and MIR novelty at the individual song level, as well as whether
the relationship between these different types of novelty also correlates with
patterns of commercial success.

###  2.3 Cultural Evolution

We can also think of success from the perspective of impacting cultural
evolution. We know that over time, musical styles and genres evolve, and their
defining characteristics change. As novel artifacts are introduced into the
wider cultural ecosystem, they bring new ideas and creative perspectives,
which may or may not be incorporated into the existing stylistic norms [36].
Studies have shown that we can quantitatively track this evolution over time
by analyzing changes to the presence and frequency of musical features over
time [1, 2, 3, 4]. We can therefore see whether the features of a given
artifact become more or less prominent in the style as a whole over time. If
later artifacts are very similar to the artifact in question, this tells us
that many of the artifact’s features have been incorporated into the stylistic
norms, and therefore the artifact is more likely to have been stylistically
influential. Although it is not possible to prove a causal relationship,
measuring the degree of similarity between a cultural artifact and other
artifacts produced at a later time is a standard approach for inferring
potential influence [27]. Although novelty plays an important role in fueling
stylistic evolution, we are lacking empirical evidence about the correlation
between the degree of novelty in an artifact, and how likely it is that the
artifact will be influential.

##  3 Research Questions

Based on the above gaps in the literature, we aimed to answer the following
research questions:

  * •

RQ 1: What is the relationship between a song’s MIR novelty and its lyric
novelty?

  * •

RQ 2: Does the relationship between a song’s MIR novelty and lyric novelty
impact its likelihood of success?

  * •

RQ 3: Does the MIR novelty and/or lyric novelty of a song impact the
probability of the song being influential?

  * •

RQ 4: How does the amount of change over time to the average MIR features
compare to the amount of change over time to the average lyric features?

##  4 Data

Our data comprises songs from the Billboard Hot 100 chart, which tracks the
100 most popular songs in the United States for each week based on Nielsen
radio play scores, physical and digital music sales, along with streaming
figures. It therefore serves to track the commercial success of individual
songs. For the purposes of our analysis, we measured the success of each song
at the time of their initial release based on how many weeks it had been
included on the Hot 100 Chart. More time spent on the chart was therefore
indicative of higher degrees of success. The Billboard Hot 100 chart is an
industry standard for measuring song popularity, and has been used in numerous
studies on popular music due to their reliable insight into the most popular
American music at a given time [22]. This data set allowed us to limit our
analysis to only popular music that was most representative of the prevailing
cultural space at each point in time. The data set included song genre from
Discogs.com, the total number of weeks each song spent on the chart, and MIR
feature data. We acquired text of the lyrics for each song from a variety of
online sources with our custom scraping tools. The subset of the data used in
our analysis consisted of 14,248 songs that were on the Billboard Hot 100
chart between 1974-2013, encompassing 3,973 unique artists and bands across
643 different record labels and 17 genres.

##  5 Methodology

In Figure 1 we have included an illustration of the data processing pipeline
used to generate the metrics used for our analyses.

Figure 1: Each of the steps in our data processing pipeline used to generate
the MIR and lyric song novelty metrics used in our analyses.

  1. 1.

Extract MIR and Lyric Features: MIR and lyric features represent dimensions
that define an MIR feature space and a lyric feature space, respectively. The
feature values we derived for each song provide us with a vector that maps
that song to these multi-dimensional feature spaces. This allows us to compare
the aural and lyrical similarity of sets of songs based on the relative
positions of their MIR feature vectors, and the relative positions of their
lyric feature vectors.

  2. 2.

Calculate Song Novelty: Since the novelty of a song is assessed relative to
the other songs released in the same time period, we can group the songs based
on the year they were released. We also choose to only generate within-genre
novelty comparisons, as the stylistic variation between genres means that
cross-genre comparisons would not give us a good measure of novelty. We can
then group the songs by genre and release year and calculate an MIR novelty
score and a lyric novelty score for each individual song, based on the average
distance between the song’s vector and the other song vectors that were
released in the same year and genre. For example, when calculating the novelty
of a rock song released in 1985, we would compare it to the other rock songs
that were also released in 1985. The farther away an individual song’s vector
is from the average position of the song vectors in that subset, the more
novel that song is.

  3. 3.

Calculate Song Relative Novelty: Once we have computed the initial novelty
score of a song, relative to the year and genre it was released in, we can
calculate how novel it is compared to songs that are in the same genre, but
were released in a later year. This gives us a score which shows the relative
novelty of the song when compared to a given year. For example, if a Rock song
was released in 1982, we could calculate its relative novelty with respect to
1985 by finding the average distance between its feature vectors, and the
feature vectors of all the Rock songs that were released in 1985.

  4. 4.

Calculate Influence Probability: We can calculate the change in relative
novelty by subtracting the song’s relative novelty score from its initial
novelty score. If there is an increase in relative novelty, it is not likely
that the song was influential. If there is a decrease in relative novelty, it
is more likely the song was influential.

###  5.1 Feature Extraction

The MIR features used in our analysis consisted of quantitative data for 13
high level MIR features which were derived from The Echo Nest using their
Music Information Retrieval (MIR) system. A description of the MIR features
can be found in Table 5 in the Appendix.

The lyrics features were generated using a document embedding system. We
cleaned, preprocessed, and tokenized the lyrics using the Gensim simple
preprocessing utility [45]. We then trained a Doc2Vec model which had a vector
of 100 dimensions and iterated over the training corpus 40 times [19]. The
minimum word count was set to 2 in order to discard words with a single
occurrence. This model was then used to generate a 100 length feature vector
for the lyrics of each individual song. Unlike the MIR features, the lyric
features do not map to concrete concepts, however all together they define a
feature space where we can compare how relatively similar the contents of two
documents are by looking at how close their vectors are.

###  5.2 Novelty Scores

To generate our novelty scores, we calculated the distance between each
individual song vector, and the other song vectors within the same genre and
release year. We opted to use a distance metric when quantifying the change in
average genre positioning, and the individual song novelty scores, as opposed
to cosine similarity which was used in previous studies. This allows us to
track how much the average position of a genre’s feature vectors is changing
over time for both MIR features and lyric features, in addition to measuring
the individual song novelty scores.

For the lyric vector distances, we used Euclidean distance, as there was no
significant covariance between any of the individual features that comprised
the feature vectors. For each song, the lyric feature vector can be written
as:

${\displaystyle{\vec{l}}=(l_{1},l_{2},l_{3},\dots,l_{100})}$

For each genre-year group of songs, we can then take the component-wise
average across all the individual song vectors to calculate the average
feature vector for that genre-year group, which can be written as:

${\displaystyle{\vec{\mu}}=(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3},\dots,\mu_{100})}$

We then calculate the Euclidean distance between this average vector, and the
individual song vectors for each song within the genre-year group:

${\displaystyle
d({\vec{l}},{\vec{\mu}})={\sqrt{(l_{1}-{\mu_{1})^{2}+(l_{2}-{\mu_{2})^{2}+\dots+(l_{100}-{\mu_{100})^{2}}}}}}.}$

For the MIR vector distances, we followed a similar approach. With MIR data
however, some feature values are used as input for determining the values of
other features, which means that there are covariances between the features.
For example when calculating the danceability of a song, tempo and valence
values are included. As a result, we cannot use the Euclidean distance, and
instead need to use the Mahalanobis distance. The Mahalanobis distance is
similar to Euclidean distance, but is calculated using the covariance matrix
of all of the feature vectors, so that it can account for any dependencies
between the features, and scale the distance accordingly.

For each song, the MIR feature vector can be written as:

${\displaystyle{\vec{m}}=(m_{1},m_{2},m_{3},\dots,m_{13})}$

We again take the average of all the song vectors within the genre-year group
in order to yield the average MIR feature vector:

${\displaystyle{\vec{\mu}}=(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\mu_{3},\dots,\mu_{13})}$

We then calculate the covariance matrix, $C$ for the MIR feature vectors,
which gives us the covariance between each pair of MIR features included in
our feature vectors. In order to be consistent when calculating the within-
genre distances for different years, a covariance matrix was generated for
each genre using data from all years, and used in the distance calculations,
rather than generating a covariance matrix for each genre-year subset. Because
covariances between MIR features mainly vary across genres, but are fairly
consistent within genre over time, this allowed us to make sure that the
normalization applied by the Mahalanobis distance calculation was consistent
across all the subsets of a genre, allowing us to compare different time
periods.

The Mahalanobis distance $D_{M}$ between an individual song song ${\vec{m}}$
and the rest of the song vectors in the same genre-year group can then be
calculated as follows:

${\displaystyle
D_{M}({\vec{m}})={\sqrt{({\vec{m}}-{\vec{\mu}})^{T}C^{-1}({\vec{m}}-{\vec{\mu}})}}.}$

Calculating the individual song distances yields a distribution of MIR vector
distances and a distribution of lyric vector distances for each of the genre-
year subsets. In Table 1 we have included the total number of songs for each
year, as well as the average MIR and lyric vector distances across all genres
for each year.

Table 1: Number of songs per year and average MIR and lyric vector distances across all genres Year | # of Songs | Avg. MIR Vector Distance | Avg. Lyric Vector Distance
---|---|---|---
1974 | 464 | 3.45 | 13.45
1975 | 495 | 3.39 | 13.11
1976 | 468 | 3.47 | 13.51
1977 | 412 | 3.42 | 13.27
1978 | 422 | 3.33 | 13.78
1979 | 435 | 3.30 | 14.18
1980 | 428 | 3.36 | 13.52
1981 | 376 | 3.25 | 13.40
1982 | 397 | 3.32 | 13.62
1983 | 427 | 3.23 | 13.83
1984 | 414 | 3.23 | 14.24
1985 | 391 | 3.09 | 14.20
1986 | 384 | 3.11 | 13.99
1987 | 381 | 3.06 | 14.04
1988 | 371 | 3.03 | 13.86
1989 | 382 | 3.08 | 14.09
1990 | 353 | 3.03 | 14.06
1991 | 353 | 3.15 | 13.95
1992 | 344 | 3.21 | 14.12
1993 | 331 | 3.23 | 14.64
1994 | 318 | 3.33 | 14.36
1995 | 339 | 3.18 | 14.38
1996 | 304 | 3.22 | 14.06
1997 | 329 | 3.27 | 14.10
1998 | 330 | 3.36 | 14.23
1999 | 313 | 3.38 | 14.40
2000 | 313 | 3.28 | 14.57
2001 | 297 | 3.34 | 14.86
2002 | 291 | 3.29 | 14.68
2003 | 302 | 3.41 | 14.60
2004 | 303 | 3.36 | 14.68
2005 | 341 | 3.41 | 14.28
2006 | 361 | 3.31 | 14.52
2007 | 337 | 3.38 | 14.88
2008 | 387 | 3.31 | 14.76
2009 | 429 | 3.30 | 14.71
2010 | 474 | 3.34 | 14.71
2011 | 487 | 3.27 | 14.65
2012 | 369 | 3.17 | 14.75
2013 | 174 | 3.08 | 14.38

In order to compare song novelty between songs from different years and
genres, we then normalize each song’s vector distance relative to the mean
distance and standard deviation of the distances for all the songs within the
same genre-year subset. This allows us account for variations in the
distributions of distances within each genre-year subset. We do this by
calculating the z-score for each individual vector distance. The z-score tells
us the relative positioning of a vector distance within a distribution by
subtracting the mean distance of the distribution, and then dividing the
difference by the standard deviation of the distribution. In doing so, the
z-score tells us how many standard deviations from the mean that particular
value is, which indicates how novel the vector distance is, and allows us to
compare it to novelty scores drawn from different distributions.

###  5.3 Relative Novelty Scores

In order to evaluate the likelihood that a song was influential, we have to
compare it to the cultural ecosystem at later points in time. To compare a
song’s similarity to songs released in later years, we can use the same
approach that we took for calculating the novelty scores, but instead of
comparing the song to songs in the same genre-year subset, we compare it to
songs in the same genre, but released in a later year.

Not all of the genres in our dataset had songs included on the Hot100 chart
for every year within the time period we looked at, meaning there were a large
number of relative novelty scores that could not be calculated. Because of
this, we limited our analysis to the 6 genres with the greatest number of
songs; Rock, R&B, Rap, Country, Pop, and Electronica. For each song within
these genres, we compared it to the genre-year subsets of the subsequent ten
years following the song’s release. For example, if a Rock song was released
in 1982, we would compare its feature vector to the average feature vector of
Rock songs that were released in 1983, 1984, 1985 and so on. Using the same
process as we used for calculating the initial novelty scores, we calculated
the Euclidean distance for the lyric vector distances, and the Mahalanobis
distance for the MIR vector distances. Again, in order to account for
variations in the mean distance and total range of distances within different
genre-year distributions, we calculated the z-score for each of the 10
relative vector distances that had been calculated for each song. For each
relative vector distance, this was done using the mean and standard deviation
of the distances in the genre-year subset that had been used for that specific
relative comparison. This yielded relative novelty scores that we could then
compare to the relative novelty scores for other years, and to the initial
novelty score.

###  5.4 Influence Probability

Figure 2: The two plots in the left column show the magnitude of year over
year change in the average relative novelty score as songs are compared to
later release years. For both MIR relative novelty and lyric relative novelty,
we see that the rate of change is steep for the first two years after release,
then stabilizes. The vertical lines indicate the inflection points where this
occurs, which for MIR relative novelty is after two years, and for lyric
relative novelty is after 3 years. The plot in the right column shows the
distributions of relative novelty change for MIR novelty, and lyric novelty,
which are calculated by taking the average change in relative novelty which
occurred in the first three years after the song’s release.

We can determine whether or not it was probable that a song was influential or
not based on whether its relative novelty score had increased or decreased in
relation to its initial novelty score. Since we evaluate the relative
likelihood that a song was influential by calculating the change in both its
MIR and lyric relative novelty, we first determined whether the rate at which
relative novelty changed was consistent over time. Taking the average change
in relative song novelty in the years following its initial release, we found
that the rate of change for MIR relative novelty plateaued after 2 years, and
the rate of change for lyric relative novelty plateaued after 3 years (see
Figure 2 left plots). Because of this, we decided to only consider the
relative novelty change that occurred in the 3 years following a song’s
release by taking the average of the relative novelty scores for those first
three years, and subtracting the song’s initial novelty score. Songs released
in 2011 or later were excluded since we did not have data for the full three
years following those release years. For example, for Prince’s, ‘When Doves
Cry’, the average change in MIR relative novelty was an increase of 0.15, and
for lyric relative novelty it was an increase of 0.12. Because the relative
novelty increased, this tells us that between 1985 and 1987, the average MIR
and lyric features of the Rock genre became more dissimilar to the features
seen in ‘When Doves Cry’.

###  5.5 Average Feature Change Over Time

In addition to the initial novelty and relative novelty of individual songs,
we also consider the magnitude of both MIR and lyric stylistic change over
time. Within our data set, this can be understood as changes to the average
position of the genre’s feature vectors in feature space over time. Since a
snapshot of a genre’s position at a given time is represented by a
distribution of song feature vectors, to consider the novelty score within a
broader context of the genre’s movement in feature space, we examined the
amount of feature variance seen within an individual genre over time for both
MIR and lyric features. To perform this analysis, we assigned each song to a
decade based on their release years, grouping them into ten-year intervals of
1974-1983, 1984-1993 and so on. Since the MIR and lyric feature vectors for
each song provide us with an attribute-based representation of our data, we
can compare how distinct the feature distributions of each class are from one
another by training a decision tree classifier to predict the temporal class
of a given song based on its feature values. Using the training data, a
decision tree learns how to partition the feature space to best predict the
temporal class of a song. The more distinct the area of feature space that
each class inhabits, and the less overlap each has with other classes, the
more accurate the decision tree. As a result, a higher accuracy tells us that
there is less similarity between the feature distributions of different
decades.

For our classifier, we used the random forest classifier model from the
scikit-learn library [46]. A random forest works by fitting multiple decision
trees to the data, and averaging results to improve accuracy and avoid
overfitting. For our model, we used 500 trees with no depth limit. For
individual genres, we then compared the accuracy of the classifier in
predicting the temporal class of individual songs when trained using the MIR
features versus when trained using the lyric features. For each set of
features, a cross-validation was run using a repeated K-fold with 5 splits and
5 repeats, allowing us to generate the distribution of accuracy scores across
different train-test splits of the data.

##  6 Results

###  6.1 Relationship Between MIR Novelty and Lyric Novelty

In comparing the MIR and lyric novelty score distributions across all years
and genres, we found that the MIR novelty distribution had a greater positive
kurtosis and a greater positive skew than the lyric novelty distribution (see
Fig. 3 top plot and Table 2). This tells us that there is a greater range in
the above average novelty scores occurring within the MIR distribution.
Although we can observe that the median value for the MIR novelty
distribution, -0.21, is slightly lower than the median value for the lyric
novelty distribution, -0.09, a one-way ANOVA test confirms no significant
difference between the MIR novelty distribution and the lyrics novelty
distribution (F=6.11e-30, p=1.0). These trends held true when analyzing the
novelty distributions within individual genres (Fig. 3 bottom plots and Table
2).

Figure 3: Distribution of MIR novelty scores and lyric novelty scores. Top plot displays the distributions for all songs within the dataset. The bottom two plots display the distributions for all songs within the Rock genre and Electronica genre, respectively. Table 2: Novelty Score Distributions Modality | Skew | Kurtosis
---|---|---
MIR Novelty - All Genres | 1.88 | 6.53
Lyric Novelty - All Genres | 0.60 | 1.13
MIR Novelty - Rock | 2.21 | 8.88
Lyric Novelty - Rock | 0.69 | 1.48
MIR Novelty - Electronica | 1.32 | 2.82
Lyric Novelty - Electronica | 0.33 | -0.05

When examining the relationship between MIR novelty and lyric novelty of
individual songs, we did not find a significant correlation between the two
(Pearson correlation test r=-0.01, p=0.10). They appear to be independent of
one another, with no consistent patterns found in the relationship between the
MIR novelty score and the lyric novelty score of a given song. As a result, a
set of songs with the same MIR novelty score might have a wide variation in
their lyric novelty scores, and vice versa.

###  6.2 Initial Success

We incorporated song commercial success data to determine whether these
variations in the novelty distributions of the two modalities were indicative
of differences in how they impacted the likelihood of a song becoming popular.
Using total number of weeks on chart as the metric for song success, we looked
at the success of individual songs in relation to their MIR novelty score and
the lyric novelty score. For example, Prince’s 1984 song, ‘When Doves Cry’,
spent 21 weeks on the chart, and had an MIR novelty score of -0.63, putting it
at the 26th percentile, and a lyric novelty score of 0.48, putting it at the
68th percentile. This tells us that the MIR features of the song were less
novel when compared to other rock songs in 1984, but that the lyric features
were more novel.

We found that similar to previous findings, the most popular songs had a
degree of optimal differentiation both for MIR novelty, and for lyric novelty
[22, 23] (see Fig. 4 top row). We looked at the relationship between novelty
and success for each modality separately, and using the Hotelling T2 test,
found no statistically significant difference between the joint distribution
of total weeks on chart with respect to MIR novelty, and the joint
distribution of total weeks on chart with respect to lyrics novelty
(F=3.07e-30, p=1.0). This was also found to be the case at the genre level as
well (Figure 4 bottom row). Specifically, Hotelling T2 test found no
significant difference between the MIR joint distribution and the lyrics joint
distribution for either Rock (F=7.03e-30, p=1.0) or Electronica (F=5.44e-31,
p=1.0).

Given that the songs with the most success fell into a rather narrow range of
novelty values, we performed a Kernel Density Estimation analysis to estimate
both the MIR novelty score and lyric novelty score which had the highest
probability of being in the top 85th, 90th, and 95th percentile of total weeks
on chart.For both the MIR-total weeks joint distribution and lyrics-total
weeks joint distribution, the Python library scikit-learn was used to generate
a Kernel Density Estimation using a Gaussian mixture model and a bandwidth of
0.3. [46] The KDE was used to generate probability scores for hypothetical
pairings of novelty scores and total weeks on chart, which indicated the
likelihood that a song with the given novelty score would be on the chart for
the given number of weeks. This was done for 250,000 individual generated data
points that were equally distributed across 500 unique values in the range of
-1 to 1, which represented novelty values, and across 500 unique values in the
range of 20 to 76, which represented the top 85th percentile of total weeks on
chart. For each novelty value, we took the summation of the generated
probability scores to calculate the relative probability that a song with that
amount of novelty would reach anywhere within the top 85th percentile of total
weeks on chart. This process was then repeated for the top 90th percentile of
total weeks on chart, and the top 95th percentile of total weeks on chart.

Figure 4: Joint distributions of song novelty scores and total number of weeks
the song spent on the chart. Top row shows the joint distributions for all
genres. Bottom row shows the overlay of MIR-total weeks joint distribution and
lyrics-total weeks joint distribution for Rock, and Electronica. In each
distribution we can see that the highest number of total weeks on chart occur
within a certain range of novelty scores.

For each of these, we can see in Fig. 5 that for both MIR novelty and lyric
novelty, the probability of success increases as the novelty score increases,
until a certain point at which it peaks and then because to decrease again.
The novelty score for this peak value that we have estimated in our analysis
indicates the degree of optimal differentiation that is most likely to help
them succeed. Below this, the song is likely to be too similar to stand out
from other songs, while above this, it starts to diverge too much from what
the audience expects. While the novelty scores of a song cannot be used to
predict exactly how successful it will be, songs with novelty scores close to
our estimates will have a greater chance of achieving high levels of success
than songs with novelty scores that are higher or lower.

We found that for both lyrics and MIR, the novelty scores which had the
highest probabilities of success for each of these performance tiers was just
slightly lower than the mean novelty scores of the population. We also found
that across the three total week ranges we tested, the MIR novelty score was
consistently slightly lower than the lyric novelty score (see Fig. 5 and Table
3). Additionally, as the analysis narrows from the top 85th percentile to only
the top 95th percentile, we also see that that the MIR novelty score
increases, while the lyric novelty score decreases, causing the difference
between them to grow smaller.

Figure 5: Relative probability of success in reaching the 85th, 90th, and 95th percentile of total weeks on chart across a range of MIR novelty scores, and across a range of lyric novelty scores. Since the relative probability values are a summation of probability estimates of a generated data set, they are dependent on the total number of data points generated for our sample, and should not be treated as an absolute probability value. Table 3: Novelty Score with Highest Success Probability Total Weeks Range | 85th Percentile | 90th Percentile | 95th Percentile
---|---|---|---
MIR Novelty Score | -0.35 | -0.33 | -0.27
Lyric Novelty Score | -0.14 | -0.17 | -0.18

Given that we did not find any consistent patterns in the relationship between
the MIR novelty and lyric novelty of individual songs, we wanted to explore
whether different combinations of MIR novelty scores and lyric novelty scores
would impact a song’s probability of success. For this, we generated a Kernel
Density Estimation for the joint distribution which included both lyric
novelty and MIR novelty, along with total weeks on chart. This was then used
to calculate the probability scores for 1,000,000 equally distributed
generated data points having lyric novelty scores between -1 to 1, MIR novelty
scores between -1 to 1, total weeks on chart in the 90th percentile, between
22 to 76. For each unique pair of MIR and lyric novelty scores, we took the
summation of the generated probability scores to calculate the relative
probability of a song with those scores being in the top 90th percentile of
total weeks on chart.

We see in Fig. 6 that the highest relative probability of success occurs when
a song is close to the optimal novelty values for both lyrics and MIR. As we
move outward from this area where both novelty scores are close to optimal,
the radial pattern of the gradient indicates that variance in the probability
of success is equally affected by both variance in the MIR novelty score, and
variance in the lyric novelty score. Additionally, given that the gradient is
roughly equal for points that have the same distance from this optimal center
point, this tells us that the proportional relationship of MIR novelty to
lyric novelty is not an explanatory variable, but rather it is the combined
total distance from the optimal center that impacts a songs probability of
success.

Figure 6: Relative probability of success in reaching the 90th percentile of
total weeks on chart for different combinations of MIR and lyric novelty
scores. We see that the probability decreases as either score moves away from
the value that provides the optimal degree of differentiation within its
modality. Since the relative probability values are a summation of probability
estimates of a generated data set, they are dependent on the total number of
data points generated for our sample, and should not be treated as an absolute
probability value.

Whether the point lies above or below the optimal value for either novelty
score does not change the relationship, which tells us that having a higher
than optimal novelty score for one modality can’t be ’balanced out’ by a lower
than optimal novelty score for the other modality. If that were the case, and
it were only about reaching an optimal value for the average of the the two
novelty scores, then we would expect to see, for instance, a song with an MIR
novelty score of -0.22, 0.1 higher than optimal, and a lyric novelty score of
-0.27, 0.1 less than optimal, to have an equal probability of success as a
song with the optimal values of an MIR novelty score of -0.32 and a lyric
novelty score of -0.17. In the contour map we see that the MRI novelty score
that optimizes success probability does not change for different values of
lyric novelty, and vice versa, the lyric novelty score that optimizes success
does not change for different values of MIR novelty. However, we also observe
that the combined distance of both novelty scores from their respective
optimal values will impact a song’s probability of success, indicating that
even though a song’s lyric novelty and MIR novelty are independent of one
another, their deviations from the optimal values will have an additive effect
on the overall perception of song novelty as it relates to optimal
differentiation.

###  6.3 Influence Probability

It is worth noting that when looking at the inflection points in Figure 2 that
indicate a plateau in the rate of change of relative novelty, the average year
over year change in relative novelty for MIR stays positive, meaning that on
average, the MIR features of a genre will tend to become less similar to those
in previous years as the gap in time increases. The average year over year
change in relative novelty for lyrics, however, is for the most part negative,
suggesting that song lyrics within a genre tend to be more similar to those of
songs released in previous years. When comparing the distribution relative
novelty change for both modalities, we see that both follow a normal
distribution, with a one-way ANOVA test showing no statistically significant
difference between them (F=0.05, p=0.83). However, the distribution of lyric
relative novelty change shows a larger positive kurtosis and skew than that of
the MIR relative novelty change distribution, which is the opposite of the
trend we observed between MIR and lyrics in the initial novelty score
distributions (see Fig. 2 right plot and Table 4). Additionally, while the
difference is not statistically significant, we observe greater variance
between the two relative novelty change distributions than we do between the
initial MIR and lyric novelty score distributions.

Table 4: Relative Novelty Change Distributions Modality | Skew | Kurtosis
---|---|---
MIR Relative Novelty | 6.77 | 123.95
Lyric Relative Novelty | 15.18 | 450.16

Since a greater decrease in a song’s relative novelty indicates a higher
likelihood that the song was influential, scores in the bottom 10th percentile
represent high performers for this metric. To determine whether a song’s
initial novelty scores had any correlation with how its relative novelty
changed over time, we generated a Kernel Density Estimation for the joint
distribution between MIR novelty scores and MIR relative novelty change, as
well as for the joint distribution between lyric novelty scores and lyric
relative novelty change. Using the same procedure as for the initial success
KDE, we found that for both lyrics and MIR, the novelty scores that correlated
with the highest probabilities of seeing a large decrease in relative novelty
were below the average novelty score of the population, and slightly lower
than than the optimal differentiation novelty values we estimated for initial
success (see Fig. 7). Again, we see that the optimal MIR novelty score is
slightly lower than the optimal lyric novelty score.

Figure 7: Relative probability of a song being in the bottom 10th percentile
for relative novelty change based on initial novelty scores. We see that the
probability decreases as either score moves away from the value that provides
the optimal degree of differentiation within its modality. Since the relative
probability values are a summation of probability estimates of a generated
data set, they are dependent on the total number of data points generated for
our sample, and should not be treated as an absolute probability value.

Because optimal differentiation is about the relationship between cultural
artifacts and their contemporaries, the fact that we see a degree of optimal
differentiation in the relationship between artifacts released at different
points in time is a new finding. While one possible explanation is that the
initial popularity of songs that are optimally differentiated makes them more
likely to be influential, we did not find any correlation between total number
of weeks on chart, and either lyric or MIR relative novelty change. For
example, while both the 1998 Janet Jackson song ‘Together Again’ and the 2005
Kelly Clarkson song ‘Since U Been Gone’ were on the chart for a total of 46
weeks, the relative MIR novelty for ‘Together Again’ decreased by -0.21, while
the relative MIR novelty for ‘Since U Been Gone’ increased by 0.22. These
results suggest that the amount of time a song has spent on the chart cannot
be used to predict its likelihood of being influential.

To investigate this, we ran an analysis to examine the relationship between
total weeks on chart and influence probability when controlling for limited
ranges of novelty scores. Running two analyses, one for MIR novelty and MIR
relative novelty change, and one for lyric novelty and lyric relative novelty
change, we considered songs that fell within three different ranges of novelty
scores; the bottom 10th percentile, the top 10th percentile, and the 10th
percentile centered around the novelty score with the highest probability of
maximizing total weeks on chart. Within each range, the songs were then
grouped by the number of weeks they had spent on the chart. An aggregated
influence probability was calculated for each week in the range of 0 to 35 by
calculating the percentage of songs in that grouping whose relative novelty
had decreased. Additional details for this process can be found in the
Appendix.

We found that, relative to the song’s novelty score, the influence probability
varied with increases in the amount of time the song spent on the chart. In
Fig. 8 we see that regardless of the modality or the novelty grouping,
influence probability initially increases with more time spent on chart, then
at a certain point, peaks and starts to decrease. For lyric novelty, we see a
peak occurs at the same time for all three novelty bins, at roughly 10-15
weeks. Beyond that, both the bottom 10th percentile and the top 10th
percentile see a decrease, although the rate of decrease for influence
probability appears to be more pronounced for the songs in the top 90th
novelty percentile. For lyric novelty in the optimal range, we do see a second
peak around 25-30 weeks, however beyond that the influence probability again
drops. We see that regardless of the total amount of time on chart, higher
lyric novelty scores are correlated with lower influence probability. For MIR
novelty, we see in Fig. 8 that the relationship between the influence
probability and additional weeks on the chart varies depending on the song’s
novelty score. Songs in the bottom 10th percentile see influence probability
peak at 10 weeks, and then consistently decrease with additional time on the
chart. For songs in the optimal zone, however, there is a consistent increase
in influence probability until roughly 26-7 weeks, at which point the
influence probability quickly decreases. For songs in the top 90th percentile,
we see a steeper increase in influence probability which lasts until roughly
30 weeks before hitting the peak and then decreasing. Here we also see that in
contrast to the pattern observed for lyric novelty scores, higher MIR novelty
scores are correlated with higher influence probability regardless of the
number of weeks spent on the chart. We typically associate increased exposure
with greater success, for both short term commercial success, and also for
being influential within the creative space. It would seem intuitive that
greater exposure would lead to a greater probability of exerting influence, as
more people hear and become familiar with the cultural artifact in question.
However these results suggest that while that is sometimes the case, there is
also an optimal amount of exposure, which can vary depending on the novelty
and modality of the attributes being considered.

Figure 8: Controlling for initial novelty, the influence probability increases
at first with additional weeks on chart, then after a certain amount of time
it peaks and begins decreasing. For lyric novelty, the peak occurs at roughly
10 weeks. For MIR novelty, the change in influence probability relative to
time on chart varies depending on the initial novelty score. For higher
initial novelty scores, we see the peak influence probability occur after a
longer period of time on the chart.

Although we previously found no correlation between individual songs’ initial
lyric novelty and initial MIR novelty, we did find that there was a small but
significant correlation (r=0.22, p$<$ 0.001) between the average change in
lyric relative novelty and the average change in MIR relative novelty (see
Fig. 9). Additionally, we observed that for songs with low lyric novelty
scores, higher MIR novelty scores had a slight positive correlation with
influence probability, while for songs with high MIR novelty scores, higher
lyric novelty scores also had a slight positive correlation with influence
probability. A possible explanation is that these combinations of high and low
novelty scores impact how memorable a song is, even if they are more likely to
hurt the songs initial success probability. However, it is not clear why we
observe these interaction patterns only for songs at the extreme ends of the
novelty score ranges, and these findings highlight an avenue for further
research into how the attributes of cultural artifacts impact their likelihood
of influencing the larger cultural ecosystem.

Figure 9: Controlling for initial novelty, we see that different combinations
of high and low MIR and lyric novelty scores have different associations with
changes in influence probability.

###  6.4 Feature Variance Over Time

Figure 10: Distributions of accuracies for a random forest classifier when
trained on each genre’s MIR and lyric features, respectively. The difference
between each pair of distributions is statistically significant (p$<$ 0.001),
with MIR features resulting in higher accuracy scores from cross-validation.

In order to delve into why the effect of exposure was so different for lyric
novelty than for MIR novelty, we examine the differences in the amount of
change over time for the average MIR features compared to the amount of change
over time for the average lyric features. In Fig. 10, we compare the
distribution of accuracy scores when using our random forest classifier to
predict the temporal class of individual songs using the MIR features versus
when using the lyric features. For each of the largest genres, we observed a
statistically significant difference (p$<$ 0.001) between the predictive power
of the two distributions, with the MIR features consistently resulting in more
accurate predictions. Given that the overall accuracy scores are fairly low,
with the model trained on lyric features ranging between 42% and 48% accuracy
and the model trained on MIR features ranging between 52% and 60% accuracy,
this indicates that there is still overlap in the feature distributions of
different decades. However, since our analysis demonstrates that there is more
predictive power in the MIR features, this tells us that the distributions of
MIR features from different decades are more distinct from one another in the
feature space than are the distributions of lyric vectors for different
decades. Given that we also found that the average year-over-year change in
relative novelty for MIR stays positive, indicating that the average distance
between old and new songs in MIR feature space is always increasing, we can
infer that within the individual genres, there is long-term directionality to
the genre’s movement through MIR feature space. In contrast, the average year-
over-year change in relative novelty for lyrics is, for the most part,
negative, which when taken in conjunction with the lower classification
accuracy scores when using lyric features, suggests that there is not a
significant amount of directionality to the movement occurring within the
lyric feature space.

##  7 Discussion

By utilizing computational methods to analyze cultural data at scale, this
research contributes to our understanding of the relationship between novelty
impacts the dynamics of cultural change within the context of the larger
cultural ecosystem. Our results highlight the ways in which we perceive and
evaluate different degrees of novelty and differentiation. Although the high-
level and aggregate nature of our data does not enable us to create a
prediction model for identifying hit songs in their unique context, or
causally attribute stylistic changes within a genre to the influence of
specific songs, our results contribute to understanding overarching patterns
of novelty.

###  7.1 Novelty and Music Cognition

Our finding that there is no relationship between the lyric and MIR novelty
scores of individual songs, and that the optimal novelty scores for each
modality are also independent of one another is supported by previous work in
music cognition, which finds evidence that music and lyrics are processed
independently [47, 48]. This explains why the negative impact on success
probability of an above optimal novelty score for one modality cannot be
mitigated by the song having a below optimal score in the other modality. Our
results do not provide any information which would allow us to evaluate the
possibility of a causal relationship between the aforementioned music
cognition data and the trends we have observed, however the observation of
these connections between large scale phenomenon and cognitive processes that
occur at the individual level suggest that this could be a productive area of
interdisciplinary study. It is possible that research in the field of
cognitive science could provide insights into cognitive perceptual processing,
which could inform potential avenues of inquiry when investigating cultural
trends and evolution.

###  7.2 Novelty and Exposure Effects

Although our data is not sufficient to investigate any possible causal
relationship between initial novelty and influence probability, we observed
that the relationship between a song’s initial novelty score and its influence
probability varies relative to how many weeks it has spent on the chart. For
songs with higher MIR novelty scores, we see that an increase in time on chart
has a positive correlation with influence probability within the time range we
analyzed. This potentially explains why the distribution of MIR novelty scores
is more heavily right-tailed than the distribution of lyric novelty scores, as
the positive impact of increased exposure may cause more variation and range
in the MIR novelty scores that end up being successful enough to reach the
Billboard Hot 100 chart.

Previous work exploring the impact of repeated exposure to unfamiliar music
and subsequent music preferences have found that this additional exposure
increases the likelihood that the listeners will enjoy the music when they
hear it again [49]. Additional research has also found that repeated exposure
in the context of collective attention to news stories shared online, leads to
novelty decay over time [50]. It is possible, then, that for high-novelty
songs, the increased exposure due to more time spent on the chart may decrease
the perceived novelty of the song, leading audiences to experience it as being
closer to the optimal level of differentiation. For low-novelty artifacts,
however, this decrease in perceived novelty could make them seem too familiar,
hence we see that the amount of exposure which was beneficial varied depending
on the initial novelty scores. For lyric novelty, we saw that increased time
on the chart correlated with a decrease in influence probability, regardless
of whether the lyric novelty score was lower or higher than optimal. Given
that we observed significantly less variance over time for lyric features than
we did for MIR features, it is possible that even songs with very high lyric
novelty scores are not distinct enough to benefit from higher levels of
exposure.

For lyric novelty, we saw that increased time on the chart correlated with a
decrease in influence probability, regardless of whether the lyric novelty
score was lower or higher than optimal. Given that we observed significantly
less variance over time for lyric features than we did for MIR features, it is
possible that even songs with very high lyric novelty scores are not distinct
enough to benefit from higher levels of exposure. This suggests that when
analyzing differences between cultural artifacts and their relationship to
various metrics of success, it is important to draw a distinction between
differentiation, which measures the amount of variation between the artifact
and the other artifacts it is being compared to, and ‘true’ novelty, which
would consider the degree to which the artifact is introducing new material
into the canon of its domain.

Our findings suggest that it is possible for an artifact to be ‘overexposed’,
at which point in time the perception of novelty drops below an optimal level.
Our results indicate that the amount of exposure it takes for this to occur is
going to vary depending on the initial novelty of the artifact. This is an
important consideration when modeling and predicting the dissemination of
creative ideas and products, both in theoretical research, and in the
development of practical applications, such as recommender systems.
Additionally, this highlights the importance of considering the potential
effect of social influence on not only the initial popularity of cultural
artifacts, but also the longer term evolution of the cultural ecosystem. In
Salganik et al’s study on social influence in cultural markets, different
social behaviors led to different patterns of success within an artificial
music market, demonstrating the significant impact of social influence on what
songs become popular [51]. While the effect of social influence was shown to
be largely independent of the specific attributes of the individual songs, by
impacting which songs become popular this will also impact the relative amount
of exposure those songs will receive. As our analysis suggests that patterns
of exposure may potentially impact the likelihood of an artifact exerting
stylistic influence, suggests a possible mechanism by which the impact of
social influence has a downstream effect on the stylistic evolution of the
musical ecosystem.

###  7.3 Implications for Recommender Systems

Understanding the degree to which the defining characteristics of musical
genres change over time has applications for music recommendation software.
There are limitations to traditional approaches of using historical data in
predictions [52], and in order to avoid static behavior it is important for us
to be able to identify what are the indicators that can help predict a
preference shift [40]. If we can determine the degree to which more novel
outliers indicate the evolution of a subset of music, we can take that into
account when tracking an individual’s music preferences, and better predict
what they might like as their taste evolves. This is especially relevant for
increasing the efficiency of recommender systems incorporating exploratory
algorithms, as it can inform more directed exploration, as well as the ideal
degree of novelty to incorporate with each round of exploration [53].

###  7.4 Limitations

It is important to note that there are many external factors that can affect
whether or not a song become successful, which are unfortunately not captured
in the scope of this data set. As a result, we cannot draw any inferences
about direct causal relationships between novelty and the success metrics we
examined. Additionally, our data is lacking important controls that could be
correlated with novelty and influence, due to the currently unavailability of
such comprehensive data.

As the Hot 100 data contains only a partial view of popular music, and its
selection criteria has changed over time, future work could involve gathering
a larger data set that would encompass a broader representation of modern
music. For the purposes of this analysis, the Hot 100 songs served as a sample
of the prevailing mainstream cultural trends in music. However, it is still a
small sample of all the potential songs that could be included in the umbrella
of modern popular music. Additionally when grouping music by genre, we must
acknowledge that genre classifications are inherently subjective. Genre
labeling for this data set came from Discogs.com, which provides crowd-sourced
data for songs, so the groupings provided do not necessarily represent an
objective ground truth [54].

##  8 Conclusion

Utilizing MIR data to perform analysis at scale, we compared musical
artifacts’ relative novelty over time to identify consistent patterns in the
dynamics of cultural change. Our results showed evidence for both optimal
differentiation in successful songs, and the conditioning effect of prior
artifacts on stylistic change. By bringing in findings from sociology,
cognitive science, and musicology to provide further insight into the impact
of novelty on modern music evolution, our research provides quantitative
methods that will enable media systems to track this organic evolution in a
more informed manner.

## Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

## Author’s contributions

KO designed the study, ran all data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. EÁH
provided feedback on study design and revised and edited the manuscript. All
authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Miriam Alex for her assistance with data
collection and cleaning, and would like to thank Michael Mauskapf and Noah
Askin for sharing their unique data set.

## Abbreviations

MIR, Music Information Retrieval

## Availability of data and materials

The code that supports the findings of this study are available at:
https://github.com/LINK-NU/Billboard-Hot-100-Music-Novelty. Data available on
request.

## References

  * [1] Mauch, M., MacCallum, R.M., Levy, M., Leroi, A.M.: The evolution of popular music: USA 1960–2010. Royal Society Open Science 2(5), 150081 (2015). doi:10.1098/rsos.150081. Publisher: Royal Society
  * [2] Weiß, C., Mauch, M., Dixon, S., Müller, M.: Investigating style evolution of Western classical music: A computational approach. Musicae Scientiae 23(4), 486–507 (2019). doi:10.1177/1029864918757595
  * [3] Serrà, J., Corral, A., Boguñá, M., Haro, M., Arcos, J.L.: Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music. Scientific Reports 2(1), 521 (2012). doi:10.1038/srep00521. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
  * [4] Bomin, S.L., Lecointre, G., Heyer, E.: The Evolution of Musical Diversity: The Key Role of Vertical Transmission. PLOS ONE 11(3), 0151570 (2016). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151570. Publisher: Public Library of Science
  * [5] Prockup, M., Ehmann, A.F., Gouyon, F., Schmidt, E.M., Celma, O., Kim, Y.E.: Modeling Genre with the Music Genome Project: Comparing Human-Labeled Attributes and Audio Features. In: Proceedings of the 16th ISMIR Conference, Malaga, Spain, p. 7 (2015)
  * [6] Klimek, P., Kreuzbauer, R., Thurner, S.: Fashion and art cycles are driven by counter-dominance signals of elite competition: quantitative evidence from music styles. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 16(151), 20180731 (2019). doi:10.1098/rsif.2018.0731
  * [7] Magron, P., Févotte, C.: Leveraging the structure of musical preference in content-aware music recommendation. CoRR abs/2010.10276 (2020). arXiv: 2010.10276
  * [8] Moffat, D., Ronan, D., Reiss, J.D.: An Evaluation of Audio Feature Extraction Toolboxes. In: Proc. of the 18th Int. Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFx-15), Trondheim, Norway, p. 7 (2015)
  * [9] Friberg, A., Schoonderwaldt, E., Hedblad, A., Fabiani, M., Elowsson, A.: Using perceptually defined music features in music information retrieval. arXiv:1403.7923 [cs] (2014). doi:10.48550/arXiv.1403.7923
  * [10] Bertin-Mahieux, T.: Large-Scale Pattern Discovery in Music. PhD thesis, Columbia University (2013). doi:10.7916/D8NC67CT. https://doi.org/10.7916/D8NC67CT
  * [11] Lippens, S., Martens, J.P., De Mulder, T.: A comparison of human and automatic musical genre classification. In: 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Montreal, QC, Canada, p. (2004). doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2004.1326806. ISSN: 1520-6149
  * [12] Interiano, M., Kazemi, K., Wang, L., Yang, J., Yu, Z., Komarova, N.L.: Musical trends and predictability of success in contemporary songs in and out of the top charts. Royal Society Open Science 5(5), 171274 (2018). doi:10.1098/rsos.171274. Publisher: Royal Society
  * [13] Mayerl, M., Votter, M., Zangerle, M.M.E.: Comparing Lyrics Features for Genre Recognition. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for Music and Audio (NLP4MusA), pp. 73–77. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online (2020). https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.nlp4musa-1.15.pdf
  * [14] Mayer, R., Neumayer, R., Rauber, A.: Combination of audio and lyrics features for genre classification in digital audio collections. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. MM ’08, pp. 159–168. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2008). doi:10.1145/1459359.1459382. https://doi.org/10.1145/1459359.1459382
  * [15] Hu, X., Downie, J.S., Ehmann, A.F.: Lyric Text Mining in Music Mood Classification. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, Kobe International Conference Center, Kobe, Japan, p. 6 (2009)
  * [16] Hu, X., Downie, J.S.: Improving mood classification in music digital libraries by combining lyrics and audio. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. JCDL ’10, pp. 159–168. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2010). doi:10.1145/1816123.1816146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1816123.1816146
  * [17] McVicar, M., Giorgi, B.D., Dundar, B., Mauch, M.: Lyric document embeddings for music tagging. In: Proc. of the 15th International Symposium On CMMR, Online, p. 10 (2021)
  * [18] Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J.: Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv:1301.3781 [cs] (2013). arXiv: 1301.3781
  * [19] Le, Q.V., Mikolov, T.: Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. arXiv:1405.4053 [cs] (2014). arXiv: 1405.4053
  * [20] Whalen, R., Lungeanu, A., DeChurch, L., Contractor, N.: Patent Similarity Data and Innovation Metrics. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17(3), 615–639 (2020). doi:10.1111/jels.12261. eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jels.12261
  * [21] Askin, N., Mauskapf, M.: What Makes Popular Culture Popular? Product Features and Optimal Differentiation in Music. American Sociological Review 82(5), 910–944 (2017). doi:10.1177/0003122417728662
  * [22] Askin, N., Mauskapf, M.: Cultural Attributes and their Influence on Consumption Patterns in Popular Music. In: Aiello, L.M., McFarland, D. (eds.) (eds) Social Informatics. SocInfo 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8851, pp. 508–530. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13734-6$\\_$36
  * [23] Berger, J., Packard, G.: Are Atypical Things More Popular? Psychological Science 29(7), 1178–1184 (2018). doi:10.1177/0956797618759465. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc
  * [24] Anderson, A., Maystre, L., Anderson, I., Mehrotra, R., Lalmas, M.: Algorithmic Effects on the Diversity of Consumption on Spotify. In: Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020, pp. 2155–2165. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3366423.3380281
  * [25] Laurier, C., Grivolla, J., Herrera, P.: Multimodal Music Mood Classification Using Audio and Lyrics. In: 2008 Seventh International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, pp. 688–693 (2008). doi:10.1109/ICMLA.2008.96
  * [26] Neumayer, R., Rauber, A.: Integration of Text and Audio Features for Genre Classification in Music Information Retrieval. In: Amati, G., Carpineto, C., Romano, G. (eds.) Advances in Information Retrieval. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4425, pp. 724–727. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-540-71496-5$\\_$78
  * [27] Saleh, B., Abe, K., Arora, R.S., Elgammal, A.: Toward automated discovery of artistic influence. Multimedia Tools and Applications 75(7), 3565–3591 (2016). doi:10.1007/s11042-014-2193-x
  * [28] Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., Jones, B.: Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact. Science 342(6157), 468–472 (2013). doi:10.1126/science.1240474
  * [29] Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Capra, R.: Analyzing information resources that support the creative process. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction And Retrieval. CHIIR ’22, pp. 180–190. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2022). doi:10.1145/3498366.3505817. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505817 Accessed 2022-04-01
  * [30] Liu, L., Wang, Y., Sinatra, R., Giles, C.L., Song, C., Wang, D.: Hot streaks in artistic, cultural, and scientific careers. Nature 559(7714), 396–399 (2018). doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0315-8. Number: 7714 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group. Accessed 2020-10-14
  * [31] Shin, H., Kim, K., Kogler, D.F.: Scientific collaboration, research funding, and novelty in scientific knowledge. PLOS ONE 17(7), 0271678 (2022). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271678. Publisher: Public Library of Science. Accessed 2022-08-02
  * [32] Shi, F., Foster, J.G., Evans, J.A.: Weaving the fabric of science: Dynamic network models of science’s unfolding structure. Social Networks 43, 73–85 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2015.02.006. Accessed 2021-01-26
  * [33] Miles, S.A., Rosen, D.S., Barry, S., Grunberg, D., Grzywacz, N.: What to Expect When the Unexpected Becomes Expected: Harmonic Surprise and Preference Over Time in Popular Music. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15 (2021). Accessed 2022-05-06
  * [34] Sreenivasan, S.: Quantitative analysis of the evolution of novelty in cinema through crowdsourced keywords. Scientific Reports 3(1), 2758 (2013). doi:10.1038/srep02758. Number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group
  * [35] Jing, E., DeDeo, S., Ahn, Y.-Y.: Sameness Attracts, Novelty Disturbs, but Outliers Flourish in Fanfiction Online. arXiv:1904.07741 [cs] (2019). arXiv: 1904.07741
  * [36] Park, D., Nam, J., Park, J.: Novelty and influence of creative works, and quantifying patterns of advances based on probabilistic references networks. EPJ Data Science 9(1), 1–15 (2020). doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0214-8. Number: 1 Publisher: SpringerOpen. Accessed 2020-10-12
  * [37] Liu, M., Bu, Y., Chen, C., Xu, J., Li, D., Leng, Y., Freeman, R.B., Meyer, E.T., Yoon, W., Sung, M., Jeong, M., Lee, J., Kang, J., Min, C., Song, M., Zhai, Y., Ding, Y.: Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID-19. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73(8), 1065–1078 (2022). doi:10.1002/asi.24612. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.24612
  * [38] Cheng, D., Joachims, T., Turnbull, D.: Exploring Acoustic Similartiy for Novel Music Recommendation, 7 (2020)
  * [39] Zangerle, E., Huber, R., Vötter, M., Yang, Y.H.: Hit song prediction: Leveraging low- and high-level audio features. Proceedings of the 20th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR 2019, 319–326 (2019). doi:10.5281/zenodo.3258042. Accessed 2020-11-01
  * [40] Moore, J.L., Chen, S., Joachims, T., Turnbull, D.: Taste Over Time: The Temporal Dynamics of User Preferences. Proceedings of the 14th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR 2013, 6 (2013)
  * [41] Berlyne, D.E.: Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics 8(5), 279–286 (1970). doi:10.3758/BF03212593. Accessed 2021-03-19
  * [42] Chmiel, A., Schubert, E.: Back to the inverted-U for music preference: A review of the literature. Psychology of Music 45(6), 886–909 (2017). doi:10.1177/0305735617697507
  * [43] Chai, S., Menon, A.: Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention. Research Policy 48(3), 733–747 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.006
  * [44] Wang, J., Veugelers, R., Stephan, P.: Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy 46(8), 1416–1436 (2017). Publisher: Elsevier
  * [45] Radim Řehůřek, Sojka, P.: Gensim: topic modelling for humans. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks, pp. 45–50. ELRA, Valletta, Malta (2010). https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/models/doc2vec.html
  * [46] Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12(85), 2825–2830 (2011)
  * [47] Besson, M., Faïta, F., Peretz, I., Bonnel, A.-M., Requin, J.: Singing in the Brain: Independence of Lyrics and Tunes. Psychological Science 9(6), 494–498 (1998). doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00091. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc
  * [48] Rigoulot, S., Armony, J.L.: Early selectivity for vocal and musical sounds: electrophysiological evidence from an adaptation paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience 44(10), 2786–2794 (2016). doi:10.1111/ejn.13391. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ejn.13391
  * [49] Peretz, I., Gaudreau, D., Bonnel, A.-M.: Exposure effects on music preference and recognition. Memory & Cognition 26(5), 884–902 (1998). doi:10.3758/BF03201171
  * [50] Wu, F., Huberman, B.A.: Novelty and collective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(45), 17599–17601 (2007). doi:10.1073/pnas.0704916104. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  * [51] Salganik, M.J., Dodds, P.S., Watts, D.J.: Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market. Science 311(5762), 854–856 (2006). doi:10.1126/science.1121066. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science Section: Report
  * [52] Jung, S.-G., Salminen, J., Chowdhury, S.A., Ramirez Robillos, D., Jansen, B.J.: Things Change: Comparing Results Using Historical Data and User Testing for Evaluating a Recommendation Task. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI EA ’20, pp. 1–7. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2020). doi:10.1145/3334480.3382945. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382945
  * [53] Xing, Z., Wang, X., Wang, Y.: Enhancing Collaborative Filtering Music Recommendation by Balancing Exploration and Exploitation. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, Taipei, Taiwan (2014)
  * [54] Lorince, J., Zorowitz, S., Murdock, J., Todd, P.M.: The Wisdom of the Few? “Supertaggers” in Collaborative Tagging Systems. The Journal of Web Science 1 (2015). doi:10.1561/106.00000002

## Appendix

Table 5: MIR extracted audio features provided by The Echo Nest API Audio Feature |  Value Description
---|---
duration_ms |  The duration of the track in milliseconds.
key |  The estimated overall key of the track. Integers map to pitches using standard Pitch Class notation . E.g. 0 = C, 1 = C$\sharp$/D$\flat$, 2 = D, and so on. If no key was detected, the value is -1.
mode |  Mode indicates the modality (major or minor) of a track. Major is represented by 1 and minor is 0.
time_signature |  An estimated overall time signature of a track.
acousticness |  A confidence measure from 0.0 to 1.0 of whether the track is acoustic. 1.0 represents high confidence the track is acoustic.
danceability |  Danceability describes how suitable a track is for dancing based on a combination of musical elements.
energy |  Energy is a measure from 0.0 to 1.0 and represents a perceptual measure of intensity and activity.
instrumentalness |  Predicts whether a track contains no vocals. The closer the instrumentalness value is to 1.0, the greater likelihood the track contains no vocal content.
liveness |  Higher liveness values represent an increased probability that the track was performed live.
loudness |  The overall loudness of a track in decibels (dB).
speechiness |  Speechiness detects the presence of spoken words in a track. The more exclusively speech-like the recording (e.g. talk show, audio book, poetry), the closer to 1.0 the attribute value.
valence |  A measure from 0.0 to 1.0 describing the musical positiveness conveyed by a track.
tempo |  The overall estimated tempo of a track in beats per minute (BPM).

### Influence Probability Calculations

For the sake of reducing noise, we did not use the overall average of the
relative novelty change for the aggregated influence probability value.
Instead, two dummy variables were created, one corresponding with lyric
relative novelty change, and one with MIR relative novelty change. For each
song, if its change in lyric relative novelty was negative, the corresponding
dummy variable was assigned a 1, and if positive, a 0. The same was done for
MIR relative novelty change. When grouping the songs by novelty range and
total weeks on chart, we then took the average of the appropriate dummy
variable to calculate the probability that a song with those parameters would
have a decrease in relative novelty, indicating a higher likelihood of being
influential. Because the distribution of data meant that the size of each
sample varied for the different numbers of total weeks on chart, the influence
probability over the range of total weeks was calculated using a weighted
rolling window average, with a window size of 8. Additionally, because there
are a relatively few songs that spend more than 40 weeks on the chart, almost
all of which fall into the optimal novelty bin for both modalities, we limited
our analysis to the 0-35 week range.