Research suggests that repeated exposure is a much more
surefire way of getting the general public to like a song than writing
one that suits their taste. Based on an fMRI study in 2011,
we now know that the emotional centers of the brain — including the
reward centers — are more active when people hear songs they've been
played before. In fact, those brain areas are more active even than when
people hear unfamiliar songs that are far better fits with their
musical taste.
This happens more often than you might think. After a
couple dozen unintentional listens, many of us may find ourselves
changing our initial opinions about a song — eventually admitting that,
really, Katy Perry's "Dark Horse" isn't as awful as it sounds. PBS' Idea Channel's Mike Rugnetta explains, it's akin to a musical "Stockholm syndrome," a term used originally by criminologist Nils Bejerot to describe a phenomenon in which victims of kidnapping may begin to sympathize with their captors over time.
Most people assume that they hear a song everywhere because
it's popular. That's not the case — a song is popular because it's
played everywhere. It is technically illegal for major labels to pay
radio stations directly to play certain songs, but that doesn't mean it
doesn't happen. The phenomenon is called "payola" (an amalgam of the
words pay and Victrola), and it was rampant in the 1960s up through the
'80s, during which period the music industry was literally run by the mob. It still happens today, even though it isn't as blatant. Labels pay independent promoters to "incentivize" radio stations to play their music, or create program caps
to make sure a song gets enough plays to have its effect. There's real
neuroscience behind the strategy: If you hear something enough, you'll
start to like it.
That Stockholm effect happens with culture, too. The scientific term for this phenomenon is the "mere exposure effect,"
discovered in the '60s by Robert Zajonc, and it can apply to anything —
images, shapes, songs or people. In his study, participants reported
liking songs more the second and third times they were exposed to them.
This same response occurred even when participants weren't aware of any
previous exposure. It seems then that people can easily mistake the fluidity
of their ability to identify and fully comprehend a song with actually
liking it. So once a song gets stuck in your head it may quickly
transition from being irritating to being beloved. A good example of
this is the inexplicable popularity of ear worms like the Black Eyed
Peas' truly heinous "I Gotta Feeling."
Other scientific factors matter just as much, though. The context in
which you hear a song is often just as important as the qualities of
the song itself in communicating meaning, and the more times it's forced
upon us the more opportunities we have to make positive associations.
If someone hears Ariana Grande's smash hit "Problem" every time they're
out with their friends, they will likely start to associate it with good
times and good feelings regardless of the song's actual lyrics. Songs
that the industry foists upon us constantly, then, have a far better
shot at becoming popular than ones without the machine behind them.
Ultimately, we have way less of an idea of why we like the things we do.
Numerous social and cognitive factors make it very easy for the pop
music industry to gather an audience for artists they decide are worth
promoting, and once we've been initiated to those artists, there's no
turning back. The industry knows that well, and they manipulate it
constantly. But even amidst all that science and big business
maneuvering, there's one truth: If you play a really bad song too much, people will still figure it out for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment