Darwin Can Dance! The Evolution Of Pop Music

Why do most people over 40 hate today’s music? Why do your grandparents keep playing their “Malt Shop Memories” CDs? Why does your mom start dancing when she hears Wham! and your dad start nodding his head wildly when he hears Motley Crue? Why does your Uncle never shut up about how Nirvana was the greatest band ever because they "changed everything"? 

As evidenced by their song, "Do The Evolution", Pearl Jam appears to be well-versed in evolutionary theory. But was the advent of grunge the most radical change in the course of modern music history?

Despite the cliché, the song does not remain the same. Just like biological organisms, music evolves - and where there is evolution, there is science. The modern rock band, As I Lay Dying, sings it best: “The Only Constant Is Change”. 

As I Lay Dying is not the kind of music your parents are going to understand. You can hear them now as they cover their ears, “Turn off that racket! My ears are bleeding! You call that singing? He’s just screaming! Back in my day…” and so on.

Elvis Presley is commonly known as “The King of Rock and Roll” for popularizing a groundbreaking style of music in the 1950s that fused rockabilly, country, and rhythm & blues. To this day, he remains the best selling musical artist of all time, having sold in excess of 600 million records.

With this extraordinary popularity, you’d think that his type of music would still be going strong, but one look at today’s pop music chart and you’ll quickly see that there is little on there that resembles the music Elvis brought to the world. On the contrary, there are styles of music on the charts now that Elvis never could have imagined. At the time this article was written, the #1 song on the Top 100 Billboard chart is “See You Again”, which sounds nothing like the music that was popular prior to the 1990s.

While the reason remains debatable, there’s no question that music changes over time. However, our favorite music tends to be what was popular during the most impressionable years of our youth, between ages 12 and 22. Music heard during that window in our lives appears to get hardwired into our brain, forever serving as a powerful stimulus for dopamine release, a neurotransmitter that makes us feel pleasantly satisfied (perhaps "comfortably numb").

In a new study published in Royal Society Open Science, evolutionary biologists and computer scientists “come together” to advance our understanding of pop music’s evolution. The researchers analyzed 17,000 songs from the US Billboard Hot 100 charts from 1960 to 2010 in order to identify the greatest musical revolution in recent US music history. Was it the famous “British Invasion” led by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the 1960s?

Was it the rise of disco in the 1970s, led by the Bee Gees, Village People, and KC & the Sunshine Band, or maybe the earth-shattering hard rock of Led Zeppelin?

Could it be the rise of synth-pop and electronic music by the likes of Madonna, Duran Duran, or Howard Jones in the 1980s?

How about the meteoric rise of those late 80s hairbands like Bon Jovi, Poison, or Warrant?

Or maybe it was the gritty angst of grunge that blasted onto the scene with Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden?

None of the above is correct, at least according to the criteria used by the authors of the study, which employed “cutting edge methods from signal processing and text-mining to analyze the musical properties of songs. Their system automatically grouped the thousands of songs by patterns of chord changes and tone allowing researchers to statistically identify trends with an unprecedented degree of consistency.”

The biggest upheaval occurred in 1991, but not with grunge…it was with hip-hop. Starting in the mid-80s, rap and hip-hop began climbing a steady ladder to the mainstream, with the help of artists like Run-DMC, Beastie Boys, Salt-N-Pepa, and LL Cool J. But 1991 was a watershed year with huge breakthroughs for hip-hop artists like N.W.A., Ice Cube, Ice-T, 2Pac, TLC, and Public Enemy. The radical changes in lyrical content and delivery, arrangement, and the diversity of sounds culminated to make hip-hop one of the most innovative changes to music in recent history.

With these powerful tools to analyze how music has evolved over the past 50 years, one has to wonder if it is possible to predict how music might sound in 2065.

Contributed by:  Bill Sullivan

Follow Bill on Twitter.

References: 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150506084811.htm

Matthias Mauch, Robert M. Maccallum, Mark Levy, Armand M. Leroi. The evolution of popular music: USA 1960–2010. Royal Society Open Science, May 2015 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150081

Salimpoor, V., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. (2011). Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music Nature Neuroscience, 14 (2), 257-262 DOI: 10.1038/nn.2726

I’ll Wager That You Bet On Football, Or Maybe Football

Opera diva Renee Fleming (left) sang the national anthem

at the 2014 Super Bowl. Millions of dollars were

wagered on just how long it would take her to get through

the Star Spangled Banner. Pop star Kelly Clarkson (top) took

only 1:34, so the smart bettors went with a longer time for

an opera singer. The over/under was 2:25, but she came in

a solid 35 seconds under that line. Alicia Keys (bottom), on

the other hand, took almost three minutes!

It’s fall again. The NFL season just began and across the pond the English Premier League soccer season has a few games under its belt. You know what that means – lots and lots of gambling.

Between American football and football proper, literally trillions of dollars are wagered each year. And that just counts the games, not the fantasy leagues. For all the readers in the US - yes there are indeed fantasy leagues for the English Premier League.

Each sport is the top betting sport in its respective country, unless you count the massive gamble that NBC took signing a contract to show the EPL in the United States. You can bet on just about anything that concerns the games; who'll get hurt, who'll score first, even the coin toss. In 2014, betting on the Super Bowl surpassed 100 million dollars, and only 42% of that was bet on who would actually win the game!

About 4% of those people who bet on at least a semi-regular basis will go on to develop a gambling addiction, or a “pathologic gambling” problem. There have been lots of study in recent years as to why people gamble, and why only some people develop an addiction. As with most things, it comes down to which is the chicken and which is the egg.

A recent study in Thai students showed that 20% of teenagers gambled, mostly on cards, but only slightly less popular was football (soccer). Ten percent of those who gambled were considered to be addicted. Since only 4% of adults become addicted, does this mean that children are more susceptible? Maybe, but it could be other things as well.

The authors found a strong negative correlation between education and gambling. As GPA went down or the level of education stayed low, the chance of pathologic gambling went up. But which is the cart and which is the horse? Do people with poor grades or education have more chance to become problem gamblers, or does problem gambling lead to poor grades?

More betting on World Cup and other football games has led

to an increase in Chinese, Russian, and North Vietnamese

hacking syndicates that prey on gamblers. Match fixing is also

becoming a big problem as more criminal enterprises try to

make a killing on the beautiful game.

The take home lesson, beyond that Thai kids apparently have too much spending money, is that correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things occur together, it doesn’t mean that the first causes the second or that the second causes the first. One or the other might be causative, but it doesn’t follow that one must cause the other.

So why do they gamble? Is it thrill seeking, for potential monetary gain, for social reasons? There may be as many reasons for gambling as there are gamblers, but some common issues crop up in pathologic gamblers.

Two terms used in the study of gambling are “illusion of control” and “near miss.” These seem to be especially important in football and football. Illusion of control is the feeling that knowing more about the game and being up on the latest data and statistics make a tangible difference in the outcomes of wagers. It ain’t so.

A couple of recent studies give us evidence to the futility of extensive studying. A 2012 study compared the result of choosing 10 soccer games. Professional football gamblers were compared to people who knew nothing about the game and to amateurs who followed the game casually. They all succeeded at comparable rates – knowing more about the game made no difference whatsoever.

This result was supported by a 2013 study that picked the round of 16 games in the European Champions League. Again, people who were ignorant of the game bet just as successfully as the pros. Nevertheless, pathologic gamblers do seem to believe that they have more control over the outcome of wagers, and this is one of the justifications they use to continue. The more they continue to study and bet, the more likely they will develop a problem.

A recent series of experiments shows that it is more complicated than this, at least for football (or football). Gamblers of many ages and betting frequency range were queried as to whether they believed in their luck or their skill for gambling. For football, frequency of betting related more to a belief in luck than their image of themselves as “in the know.” The results were different for casino games, where a sense of skill led to more frequent betting. So football betting isn't always about thinking you have an information edge.

These are MRI scans of the brain while betting on a slot

machine. The left image is a scan of the reward center activity

in a win, but they have subtracted the activity that occurs with

a loss. On the right, the signal during a win was subtracted

from the signal in a near miss situation. There is actually more

activity in a near miss than in an actual win! No wonder

people get hooked on betting.

The “near miss” is more interesting. Having your team lose by one point, or on a fluke play (something like the Fail Mary in the Seahawks/Packers game of 2012) is excruciating – but it's also more exciting, especially for pathologic gamblers. The feeling of excitement and payoff is bigger in these games than even in games that they might win.

In the above study, rats who were trained to press a lever for food after a random press light three lights, pressed the food bar just as often when only two lights were lit – even though pressing it for a non-win (three lights was a win) induced a time penalty during which they couldn’t play again. They knew it would bring a penalty, but the near miss still had some irresistable appeal for the brain’s reward center.

It’s a dopamine thing. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter in the brain that has a lot to do with reward – things that give our brains pleasure. About ten years ago, scientists noticed that people that were started on medicine for Parkinson’s disease (a disease in which motor coordination is impaired due to the loss of dopamine producing neurons in the substantia nigra of the brain) developed gambling addictions at much higher rates than the general population.

Dopamine works in different ways for different parts of the brain. When treating the basal ganglia (BG) that controls muscle movements with dopamine (the dopamine in the BG is low in Parkinson's), you are also increasing the dopamine levels in other parts of the brain. It isn't the treatment of the tremor that causes people to gamble, it's the inadvertent actions of the dopamine on some other part of the brain that leads to gambling problems.

For example, the “near miss” releases just as much dopamine in the reward centers of the brain as does a win and correlates highly with development of gambling addiction. Does too little dopamine mean that they have to gamble more than other people in order to get the same effect, and this is exacerbated by dopamine containing medicines? Maybe. Pathologic gamblers do seem to release more dopamine in the mesolimbic area of the brain (motivation control) when gambling than do healthy control subjects.

This cartoon illustrates just how difficult it is to prove a causal

relationship between dopamine and pathologic gambling. The

different areas of the brain use different combinations of

dopamine receptors, and these can change with disease or

trauma. Each are will react differently to too much or too little

dopamine, or to changes in other neurotransmitters that affect

dopamine activity or release. But scientists are good at isolating

variables, I bet we get it sooner rather than later.

However, a 2013 study showed that the motivational area dopamine areas had more dopamine when the reward (winning the bet) was uncertain as opposed to after it was won. This leads to the idea that there is more of a thrill in uncertainty and is itself the reward. When dopamine drugs enter the brain indiscriminately, these feelings are exacerbated, and more gambling is needed to keep the reward (pleasurable feeling) going.

Unfortunately, it's much more complicated than this. There are different types of receptors for dopamine on the different types of neurons. Too much or too little dopamine can over time change the number and types of dopamine receptors found on the neurons, so dopamine activity in a healthy brain isn’t exactly the same as dopamine activity on a previously dopamine starved brain. This is exemplified by a case report in 2013 of a patient who quickly developed a strong and uncontrolled gambling problem after beginning drugs to lower the dopamine levels in his brain.

So once again, we see that just correlating dopamine levels with gambling on football (or anything else) isn’t enough to say that it causes the gambling addiction. We know dopamine is playing a role, but is it too little or too much that leads to gambling addiction? Your bet is as good as mine.

contributed by
Mark E. Lasbury, MS, MSEd, PhD
As Many Exceptions As Rules




Anselme P, & Robinson MJ (2013). What motivates gambling behavior? Insight into dopamine's role. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 7 PMID: 24348355

Huberfeld R, Gersner R, Rosenberg O, Kotler M, & Dannon PN (2013). Football gambling three arm-controlled study: gamblers, amateurs and laypersons. Psychopathology, 46 (1), 28-33 PMID: 22890307

Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Billieux J, Bizzini L, Monney G, Fresard E, Thorens G, Bondolfi G, El-Guebaly N, Zullino D, & Khan R (2012). Effects of expertise on football betting. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 7 PMID: 22578101

Zhou K, Tang H, Sun Y, Huang GH, Rao LL, Liang ZY, & Li S (2012). Belief in luck or in skill: which locks people into gambling? Journal of gambling studies / co-sponsored by the National Council on Problem Gambling and Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, 28 (3), 379-91 PMID: 21894576

Grötsch P, Lange C, Wiesbeck GA, & Lang U (2013). Pathological Gambling Induced by Dopamine Antagonists: A Case Report. Journal of gambling studies / co-sponsored by the National Council on Problem Gambling and Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming PMID: 24356928