The Explosive Growth of EDM - Article

[djproben]

Which of the four genres does drum n bass fit into?

[TCMuc]

Which of the four genres does drum n bass fit into?

"Dear djproben,

the International EDM Committee is very sorry to inform you that Drum'n'Bass couldn't be considered in the survey as neither drunk girls nor bottle service crowds seem to particularly like it.

Maybe if you could come up with a Drum'n'Bass Version of 'Levels', preferebly with a Skrillex remix on the a-side, we could review our evaluation.

Kind regards,

Dat Mouth, Senior Vice President Sell Ou... erm Sales & Marketing"


On a more serious note: that study is plain bullsh*t...

The definition of "EILPs" is almost cute "If you hear about a song from a friend and go find it on Youtube or Soundcloud, that is an EILP. If you tune into a radio station you like and they happen to play the song, that’s an EILP also."

Right, so they basically go through all the radio stations playlists and by some cryptic (maybe even psychic) powers they know when people liked the songs that were being played and when they were just to lazy switch to another station...


The genre selection looks odd at best. Who defined the genres? By the enormous increase in the popularity of house since 2004 I'm quite sure that this includes music that definetely would not be seen as house by most of the people who have been listening to house music pre-2004... (hint: if it's on a mainstream radio station, it probably isn't house...)

[SherpaPsy]

Vanity blog by some self centered nutter, who puts some graphs up and goes "look at me I'm a fucking scientist!" No, you're bonkers not a boffin...try less e next time. Even if the graphs are based on bullshit, you have to tell us whose bullshit it is!

[Toastmaster]

Just got this email from the poster; this was originally a blog post and a report is ongoing (supposedly). Will post entire paper as soon as I get it:

Andrew,

Thanks for your email. We deliberately did not publish the myriad sources we used. Firstly, this was to prevent commercial entities from reusing our data to target the market with more efficiency than they already do. Wouldn't want to make things too easy Second, we wanted to protect our sources, who risked a great deal in some cases to get us this information. We are currently formatting and organizing the data in a report that we will be presenting at business conferences, and in that report we will have the specific sources of data presented in such a way that it will not compromise the above two concerns. When that report is done within the next several days, it will be publicly available for scrutiny and curiosity alike. I am a proponent of opening all arguments and sources to the highest levels of critical analysis to prevent people from, frankly, skewing things to support what they want to say. So thank you for your email, and I will make sure that your address is on the list of people to receive the aforementioned report as soon as it becomes available. Thanks for reading!

-The Snob

[djproben]

Thanks for your email. We deliberately did not publish the myriad sources we used. Firstly, this was to prevent commercial entities from reusing our data to target the market with more efficiency than they already do. Wouldn't want to make things too easy

Uh-huh, I buy that. Commercial entities who can easily afford to pay actual researchers (the kind with credentials and publications and stuff) to do their research (and probably have access to databases of real sales information, etc.) are going to rely on some blogger's "research" for their marketing strategies.

Second, we wanted to protect our sources, who risked a great deal in some cases to get us this information.

Yes our sources are part of a shadowy underworld known as "music listeners" who might be targeted by international cartels and police agencies. A rare snapshot of one of these clandestine information transactions was captured on instagram: http://instagram.com/p/M1TJSQKnoN/

We are currently formatting and organizing the data in a report that we will be presenting at business conferences, and in that report we will have the specific sources of data presented in such a way that it will not compromise the above two concerns.

In other words, we won't tell anyone at the "business conference" where our data comes from either. Which won't matter, because it turns out, actual researchers don't go to "business conferences" either.

When that report is done within the next several days, it will be publicly available for scrutiny and curiosity alike. I am a proponent of opening all arguments and sources to the highest levels of critical analysis to prevent people from, frankly, skewing things to support what they want to say.

This is a great attitude but it seems to contradict the rest of the email. I guess we'll wait and see....

[joonmusic]

From a scientific point of view this is literally the worst paper I've ever ready. I've got a master in Chemistry and have been grading people shit reports for a long time to get my masters and this would easily have gotten a D or E. No sources at at all, not even an inkling of where the data comes from. No real explanation of how the data was accumulated and aggregated.

Also saying virtually no one knows sub sub genres is just ridiculous. Tons of people know it. Its just call being lazy with you stats and not characterizing your genres. It give no indication to how the genres were even obtained and defined, another key factor.

No credit to the statistician at all? Where is this persons credentials. Is this some random college kid doing it for a paper for stats class? I mean come on. Whats the point of showing graphs and saying you have a statistician then never showing the data at all.

Also what the hell is the point of this article at all? Its terribly written. If its suppose to be a fact driven article about the growth of EDM its delivers that extremely poorly. What is the point of this article, to show electronic is bigger than in the past with some number picked out of the sky? Great thanks for information 99% of people already know. How about showing the stats and stating some reasoning to why it grew, or why some genres are growing fast, and others are the biggest, how about a null hypothesis to all the stats in general and make an actual paper?

Why go through all the trouble to do this to write a shit article? Apparently this EDMsnob guy has a voice but honestly its really a dumb voice, and its really not a snob at all. This dude is just doing a take on Bikesnob and doing it like completely crap. If it were actually funny, witty, and poking fun at EDM it would be a worthwhile blog.

Get 'em dude!

[calgarc]

Uh-huh, I buy that. Commercial entities who can easily afford to pay actual researchers (the kind with credentials and publications and stuff) to do their research (and probably have access to databases of real sales information, etc.) are going to rely on some blogger's "research" for their marketing strategies.


Yes our sources are part of a shadowy underworld known as "music listeners" who might be targeted by international cartels and police agencies. A rare snapshot of one of these clandestine information transactions was captured on instagram: http://instagram.com/p/M1TJSQKnoN/



In other words, we won't tell anyone at the "business conference" where our data comes from either. Which won't matter, because it turns out, actual researchers don't go to "business conferences" either.


This is a great attitude but it seems to contradict the rest of the email. I guess we'll wait and see....

where did you get that photo... my comrades have been compromised... i never gave you that mixtape and we never had this conversation...

your's truly The Source

[djproben]

where did you get that photo... my comrades have been compromised... i never gave you that mixtape and we never had this conversation...

then how do you know it was a mixtape?