Predicting the "Next Big Thing" in Music

Flipboard led me to an interesting article over the holiday, written up in the Guardian, all about why it is so hard to predict what will be the next big thing for 2016.  Combined with an interesting article I read in Rolling Stone the other day about how big data (and especially Shazam) is defining the next hits we will be hearing, I've been mulling this over for a few days.  I need to put down my thoughts about super early predictions of who may come to ACL in 2016, and both of these articles tied right into that plan.  How are we all being led to our next musical discovery?

The Guardian article predicts that Jack Garratt, a name I have literally never heard in my life, is going to be the next big thing.  This is according to the "most famous musically predictive institutions," the BBC, the Brits, and MTV.  From looking at the BBC's list, it sounds like they use a panel of DJs, critics, and writers to make their predictions (apparently I need to find the Blossoms and J Hus) and zeroed in on Jack Garratt as their overall winner.  I like the approach that leans on a panel of experts, but that can also lead to a lot of pompous fartsniffing.  In past years, the BBC panel picked Years and Years, Adele, Sam Smith, and Haim, so they appear to have a good track record.  The Brits picked Garratt as their critic's choice for the year.  Who knows how MTV UK made their weird list.  But the overall gist of the Guardian article (and I hear it while I am currently listening to Jack Garratt's singles on Spotify) is that 2016 looks to be unoriginal and very like 2015.  I'll talk more about Garratt at another time, but so far I'm hearing some Ed Sheeran style earnest folk electro pop.  Here is the top song on Spotify, called "Worry."

Now, as for the Shazam/data article in RS, I'm a little more intrigued about what this means for the world.  At first, I agree that the labels and radio stations can get some good information about real time listener interests from what people are Shazam'ing.  I know I have definitely done that - hear a song on the radio, Shazam it, go "oh, Bobby Shmurda, never heard of that," and then promptly forget about looking that up until weeks later.  But it really should show real time interest in music that can be tied to different geographic markets and other demographic data.  Smart.  However, the manager who claims that you can't fake the Shazam data is being naive.  Of course you can.  Even aside from something nefarious like hacking the Shazam system or outright lying about Shazam numbers, a label could easily follow the same model as Facebook like-mills and pay people to Shazam their song.  

Another problem with that system of measuring music popularity is that it only accounts for new artists.  If Pearl Jam puts out a new song, only some moron 12 year old is going to have to Shazam that song to figure out that it is PJ.  The rest of the world is going to know Eddie Vedder's voice and so Shazam won't note their interest in the new tune.  Although I may be wrong, because Adele and Beiber take up three spots in the top ten on Shazam's chart right now, so the established people may still get some queries.  

A quick aside, about the number one song on the Shazam "New and Future Hits" list, is that SCREW YOU FABOLOUS, THAT IS LL COOL J'S FREAKING SONG!  It's one thing to borrow a smidge or a line or a beat from an old song, but to straight up bite the whole thing? You suck Fabolous!  The only reason people are Shazam'ing your song is to figure out who the asshole is that is riding LL's jock!

<deep breath>

The other thing in that article that piqued my interest was the last paragraph, where the writer discusses a theory that this data-driven hit-picking leans toward EDM-driven pop, international sound.  Unfortunately, I bet that is a true theory.  Just like my beloved ACL, we've gone from the sound of Austin to the sound of Ibiza in a shockingly short time period, with Wilco replaced by Deadmau5 and more computers and effects pedals on stage than guitar pickers.  I get that I don't represent the entirety of musical taste out there, but at the same time, the homogenization of the musical spectrum hurts the cachet of what makes ACL its own amazing thing.

Now that I know Shazam has a website full of data, I'm going to play with this thing a little more and see how predictive it can be.  Maybe it can help lead me to a better return rate on my ACL predictions.  Although likely not, as the categories if you want to drill down on genres are super strange, and are as follows:

• Country
• Dance
• Dance - Italy
• Dance - UK
• Hip-Hop
• Hip-Hop - France
• Latin - USA
• Pop

Huh.  No rock.  No chamber pop.  No indie.  No alternative rock.  No math rock.  So a bunch of the usual suspects for ACL won't even be apparent from their ratings.  This gets more interesting the deeper I dig!  More to come, I'm sure.