skip to main content
10.1145/3308558.3313604acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Genre Differences of Song Lyrics and Artist Wikis: An Analysis of Popularity, Length, Repetitiveness, and Readability

Authors Info & Claims
Published:13 May 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Music is known to exhibit different characteristics, depending on genre and style. While most research that studies such differences takes a musicological perspective and analyzes acoustic properties of individual pieces or artists, we conduct a large-scale analysis using various web resources. Exploiting content information from song lyrics, contextual information reflected in music artists' Wikipedia articles, and listening information, we particularly study the aspects of popularity, length, repetitiveness, and readability of lyrics and Wikipedia articles. We measure popularity in terms of song play count (PC) and listener count (LC), length in terms of character and word count, repetitiveness in terms of text compression ratio, and readability in terms of the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Extending datasets of music listening histories and genre annotations from Last.fm, we extract and analyze 424,476 song lyrics by 18,724 artists from LyricWiki.

We set out to answer whether there exist significant genre differences in song lyrics (RQ1) and artist Wikipedia articles (RQ2) in terms of repetitiveness and readability. We also assess whether we can find evidence to support the cliche´ that lyrics of very popular artists are particularly simple and repetitive (RQ3). We further investigate whether the characteristics of popularity, length, repetitiveness, and readability correlate within and between lyrics and Wikipedia articles (RQ4).

We identify substantial differences in repetitiveness and readability of lyrics between music genres. In contrast, no significant differences between genres are found for artists' Wikipedia pages. Also, we find that lyrics of highly popular artists are repetitive but not necessarily simple in terms of readability. Furthermore, we uncover weak correlations between length of lyrics and of Wikipedia pages of the same artist, weak correlations between lyrics' reading difficulty and their length, and moderate correlations between artists' popularity and length of their lyrics.

References

  1. C. Nathan DeWall, Richard S. Pond Jr., W. Keith Campbell, and Jean M. Twenge. 2011. Tuning in to psychological change: Linguistic markers of psychological traits and emotions over time in popular U.S. song lyrics. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 5, 3 (March 2011), 200-207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Cecilia Conrath Doak, Leonard G. Doak, and Jane H. Root. 1996. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. Lippincott Philadelphia, USA. 36-59 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Thomas Krismayer, Markus Schedl, Peter Knees, and Rick Rabiser. 2018. Predicting User Demographics from Music Listening Information. Multimedia Tools and Applications (May 2018). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Paul Lamere. 2008. Social Tagging and Music Information Retrieval. Journal of New Music Research: Special Issue: From Genres to Tags - Music Information Retrieval in the Age of Social Tagging 37, 2 (2008), 101-114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Harry Mc Laughlin. 1969. SMOG Grading-A New Readability Formula. Journal of Reading 12, 8 (1969), 639-646. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40011226Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Matthias Mauch, Robert M. MacCallum, Mark Levy, and Armand M. Leroi. 2015. The Evolution of Popular Music: USA 1960-2010. Royal Society Open Science 2, 5 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Colin Morris. 2017. Are Pop Lyrics Getting More Repetitive?(2017). https://pudding.cool/2017/05/song-repetition(accessed: October 2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Sergio Oramas, L. Espinosa-Anke, A. Lawlor, Xavier Serra, and H. Saggion. 2016. Exploring Customer Reviews for Music Genre Classification and Evolutionary Studies. In Proceedings of the 17th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2016). New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Markus Schedl. 2016. The LFM-1b Dataset for Music Retrieval and Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Multimedia Retrieval (ICMR 2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 103-110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Markus Schedl. 2017. Investigating country-specific music preferences and music recommendation algorithms with the LFM-1b dataset. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 6, 1(2017), 71-84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Markus Schedl and Christine Bauer. 2017. Introducing Global and Regional Mainstreaminess for Improving Personalized Music Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Multimedia (MoMM 2017). ACM, Salzburg, Austria, 74-81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Markus Schedl and Bruce Ferwerda. 2017. Large-Scale Analysis of Group-Specific Music Genre Taste from Collaborative Tags. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM). IEEE, Taichung, Taiwan, 479-482.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. E. Glenn Schellenberg and Christian von Scheve. 2012. Emotional cues in American popular music: Five decades of the Top 40. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 6, 3 (August 2012), 196-203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Joan Serrà, A. Corral, M. Bogu&ntiled;á, M. Haro, and Josep Lluis Arcos. 2012. Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music. Scientific Reports 2 (July 2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kevin Wong and Jessica R. Levi. 2017. Readability Trends of Online Information by the American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery 156, 1(2017), 96-102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Jacob Ziv and Abraham Lempel. 1977. A universal algorithm for sequential data compression. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 23, 3 (May 1977), 337-343. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference
    May 2019
    3620 pages
    ISBN:9781450366748
    DOI:10.1145/3308558

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 13 May 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format