New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Computers Predict Pop Chart Success

An evolutionary analysis of pop tunes revealed that over the past 30 years songs have grown sadder—but the big hits buck that trend. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Many parents are no doubt familiar with their teenagers' musical tastes. Very few are probably inspired enough to launch an experiment into them.

"I listened to some of the music my oldest teenage daughter is listening to. And I was surprised at how different that music was from what I used to listen to." Natalia Komarova, an applied mathematician at U.C. Irvine. 

"Since I'm interested in evolution in general, and a mathematical description of evolution, I thought studying the evolution of music would be a good idea."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Komarova and her team analyzed half a million songs released in the U.K. between 1985 and 2015 using online databases that describe songs' musical characteristics, like rhythm, mood and danceability. "For example here's a song that was high on the charts in 2014 that has high danceability: "Shake It Off" by Taylor Swift. <>

"Here's a 2014 song that has a low happiness index:" Stay with Me," by Sam Smith." <

Overall, they found that songs had become less happy over the 30-year span; as well as more danceable, more relaxed—and more likely to have women behind the mic. 

But the big hits bucked a number of those trends. "The behavior of successful songs looked almost like a separate species of songs. They have quantifiably different features, their own little trends." 

The hit singles were happier than the norm…almost a throwback to earlier times. And even morelikely to be sung by women. The details are in the journal Royal Society Open Science. [Myra Interiano et al., Musical trends and predictability of success in contemporary songs on and off the top charts]

Komarova's team was also able to predict a song's success, by judging only its musical qualities, about 75 percent of the time. "To me that's very positive. It means that music matters, for song success—it’s not just money." 

Proving that, at least when it comes to their musical tastes… the kids are alright. <>

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe