Is there such a thing as an objectively 'bad' song?

August 13, 2018 by Alan Marsden, The Conversation
Credit: Estrada Anton via Shutterstock

Everyone has a song which irritates the hell out of them – but Achy Breaky Heart by Billy Ray Cyrus was found by one 2005 study to have been nominated most often as "the worst song ever". The authors, academics from New Zealand and the US, listed a few reasons: awful lyrics, an overly simple melody, negative personal associations, but they also found that their respondents "wrestled – unsuccessfully – with the problem of providing a reasoned, rational analysis of a visceral response".

In other words, they found it hard to put in to words just why, or how much, they hated the song.

From songs and films to universities, baking and mortgages, it seems as though everything is now ranked and rated. Consumers want to know what to choose, and organisations want to know what to back. Getting the rating right is important, so can we objectively distinguish the good from the bad?

In some cases there is a clear, objective criterion. When two football teams play each other, the better one scores more goals. When choosing between two mortgages, the better one costs less money. Sometimes we want to know which will be better in the future. Which football team is going to win next weekend, and which mortgage will cost less in ten years? We can guess, or we can make an objective prediction based on past data. So, for example, we can usually say with some confidence that Manchester City will probably beat Southampton.

The science of songs

So, how about songs? There have been claims that can use data from past chart performances to predict, from its acoustic characteristics, a song's likelihood of success. Tests have yielded mixed results. Research which has been successful in predicting success has mostly been in limited domains. A larger study found machine learning methods could not distinguish what acoustic characteristics led to success.

This is hardly surprising. Although many hit songs have characteristics in common, there are always oddities that succeed when in theory they should not – remember Crazy Frog? In the wider world of music, acoustic characteristics seem to have little impact on whether a piece classes as music at all, let alone whether or not it is successful. There is the John Cage piece, Organ²/ASLSP (As Slow as Possible), which is scheduled to last 639 years, Gÿorgy Ligeti's Poème Symphonique which solely constitutes sounds from ticking metronomes, and an entire composition – once again from John Cage – in which no sounds are played at all. All three of them regularly bring in audiences (including me).

It is clearly difficult to predict musical popularity, but judging the characteristics of a song – such as mood or "danceability" – has been much more successful. As with most things we choose different types of music for particular purposes. The tunes that ease the morning commute may not help you get your groove on in the evening.

Specific characteristics of a song contribute to its effectiveness for certain uses: a clear beat around 120 beats per minute if you want to dance – or something with no sudden changes in tempo if relaxation is what you want. The most successful song ever, by number of times it has been performed, is almost certainly Happy Birthday by Patty and Mildred J Hill. It is superbly suited to its sole purpose: a public and often spontaneous celebration. It is short, easy to remember and easy to sing. I doubt, however, that anyone would claim Happy Birthday was the best song ever.

No accounting for taste

Although objective characteristics can teach us something about how suitable a song is for a given situation, the notion of a song being "good" or "bad" in an absolute sense is much more problematic. But anyone who has ever switched off Radio 1 in disgust – or wrenched the sound system away from a friend playing just the wrong part of Madonna's early work – has had the experience of recognising whether a song is good or bad.

How is it that we can be so confident in our own judgement and yet incapable of designing an objective means of explaining why? "Ultimately", concluded the 2005 study, "the songs that we dislike depend as much upon ourselves as upon characteristics of the songs." The characteristics of the songs are fixed. The characteristics of the listeners can change.

So here is my hypothesis. Really great songs are those which transcend the purpose for which they seem intended and make a change in us. On hearing a song like Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" (performed well) we become a different person, a person who loves that song. Bad songs are not those which just leave us cold and unchanged, they make us actively hate them.

And bad songs are no use for anything except annoying our friends. Remember Crazy Frog again?

Explore further: People find comfort listening to the same songs over and over, study finds

Related Stories

Creating a (synthetic) song from a zebra finch's muscle

July 31, 2018

Birds create songs by moving muscles in their vocal organs to vibrate air passing through their tissues. While previous research reported that each of the different muscles controls one acoustic feature, new research shows ...

Linguistics researcher uses pop music to teach vocabulary

December 16, 2015

Friederike Tegge, who has taught German and English, was inspired to conduct research on pop music when she observed that many of her students showed a surprising memory for song lyrics in a foreign language and could repeat ...

Recommended for you

Fat from 558 million years ago reveals earliest known animal

September 20, 2018

Scientists from The Australian National University (ANU) and overseas have discovered molecules of fat in an ancient fossil to reveal the earliest confirmed animal in the geological record that lived on Earth 558 million ...

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Aug 13, 2018
If any person can enjoy a piece of music then you can also enjoy it as long as you listen in the same way that they do.

This sounds easier than it is. Obvious examples is the comparison between music that stimulates physically compared to emotional and intellectual stimulation. If you are listening to rock music with a classical music ear then you are going to be greatly disappointed.

The other dimensions are repartition, cultural dimensions including what is popular or what close friends and colleagues enjoy and a person's age and lifestyle.

But you can change any of these to listen to John Cage, Sousa, rap, Baroque chamber music, Stockhausen or a dripping tap and enjoy them as I do.
snoosebaum
not rated yet Aug 13, 2018
bad '' is undefined ,
BendBob
not rated yet Aug 13, 2018
"Tiny Bubbles" => please pull the plug from the jukebox, please!

@RKS don't forget, most songs have lyrics that contribute to the dislike.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.