The worst song ever made, according to science
It was my personal understanding that it had already been adjudged that UB40‘s diabolical ‘Red Red Wine’ had been confirmed as the worst song in history. Or at least placed a very noble second behind Eiffel 65’s ‘Blue (Da Ba Dee)’.
But this must’ve purely been wishful thinking because those dastardly folks in white coats have since gotten involved to analyse what truly makes a track unlistenable and crown the musical rock bottom. So while personal opinion is worth arguing over a pint for, the truth is, if you want an equivocal answer, then the scientific world has one locked and loaded for you to fire at your favourite muso.
For a lot of those people, there will be an outcry for even considering bringing the notion of ascience to music. Even album sales are often disqualified when considering what is the best album ever made, so using a formula to decide anything in art is a difficult sell to make. Art is, of course, subjective, but it’s subjective in a similar fashion to food.
There are some things we don’t like for taste alone, but then there are things our bodies warn us against. Music is similar in a psychological sense. So, an arbitrary poll in the 1990s about the worst sounds in music set three scientists – Vitaly Komar, Alex Melamid and David Soldier – on a mission. This trio decided to gather as much data as they could to scientifically engineer the worst song in history.
The results produced a track that apparently “fewer than 200 individuals of the world’s total population will enjoy”. If you’re one of them, then please report your Spotify Wrapped to the local authorities. The 20-minute assault on the ears combines subjective sore spots from a survey where people declared the elements of music that drive them mad, such as cowboy lyrics, a chorus of kids, bagpipe howls, and bossanova synths, and advertising slogans, among other aural defecation, with more scientific musicology that reverse engineers catchiness.
Previously, this trio of time-wasters had created a gallery exhibition showcasing paintings that displayed what people deemed to be the most desirable elements of art. Now, in the world of music, they looked to do the opposite and created ‘The Most Unwanted Song’, which turned out to be the A-side of a single with ‘The Most Wanted Song’.
The unfurling unpleasantness features soprano Dina Emerson belting out an arhythmic reading of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, a philosophical book that muses over how the limits of language are the limits of science and reasoning, too. It’s a genuinely painful listen that requires a deep sense of scientifically backed staying power to overcome the sheer obnoxiousness of the ordeal.
As Penguin put it on the blurb: “We could capture the whole sense of the book as follows: what can be said at all can be said clearly; and whatever cannot be said must be left to silence.” The operatic reading from this weighty, mind-irritating text is done over a plodding pipe organ.
This then melds towards a children’s choir chanting sweetly about every holiday and celebration imaginable. Country lyrics then take their turn before it all ends with an angry man with a bullhorn, blaming anyone still listening for the ills of the world. And then, 200 people presumably clap while the rest of us wonder why we choose to squander precious time. Alas, that is defeatist thinking because this artful nonsense does ask pertinent questions.
What makes a song catchy?
Well, as it happens, ‘The Most Unwanted Song’ is actually catchy; this is partly why the scientists avoid creating a simple dissonant racket of smashing plates and grunge solos. As a study by Penn State found, “MRIs show that a catchy song makes the auditory part of the brain ‘itch’, and the only way the itch can be scratched is by listening to the song.”
This can be a good thing that turns an earworm into a musical drug, or it can become very annoying if the itch isn’t also associated with comfort and pleasure.
