Environmental Changes and the Dynamics of Musical Identity

Samuel F. Way,1, 2, ∗ Santiago Gil,2, † Ian Anderson,2, ‡ and Aaron Clauset1, 3, § 1Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA 2Spotify, New York, NY, USA 3Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, USA Musical tastes reflect our unique values and experiences, our relationships with others, and the places where we live. But as each of these things changes, do our tastes also change to reflect the present, or remain fixed, reflecting our past? Here, we investigate how where a person lives shapes their musical preferences, using geographic relocation to construct quasi-natural experiments that measure short- and long-term effects. Analyzing comprehensive data on over 16 million users on Spotify, we show that relocation within the United States has only a small impact on individuals’ tastes, which remain more similar to those of their past environments. We then show that the age gap between a person and the music they consume indicates that adolescence, and likely their environment during these years, shapes their lifelong musical tastes. Our results demonstrate the robustness of individuals’ musical identity, and shed new light on the development of preferences.

Music is the soundtrack of our lives. It reflects our personify [10–12]. mood and personality, as well as the important people, When a community forms around some kind of music, places, and times in our past [1]. In this way, a person’s the surrounding environment takes on an identity of its musical identity—the set of musical tastes or preferences own. Cultural geographers have investigated this inter- that they hold, as well as anything that might modulate action between place and musical style [13, 14], treating those preferences1 [2]—represents an ever-evolving de- music as primary source material for understanding what piction of their cumulative experiences and values. Un- places are or used to be like [15]. Research in this direc- derstandably then, various scientific communities have tion has investigated, for example, the evolution of mu- devoted much attention to resolving what determines a sic styles in space and time [16], the impact of tourism person’s musical tastes and, inversely, what can be in- on shaping local musical culture [17, 18] and, the ef- ferred or predicted about someone based on their musical fects of migration on altering the musical landscape of tastes. Progress in either direction broadens our under- places [19, 20]. In much the same way that a person’s standing of the development of individual identity and musical identity reflects important elements of their past culture, their rigidity and transmissibility, and the many and present experiences and values, the musical identity roles that music plays in shaping our personal and social of a place tells the history of its people. lives. These studies highlight just a few of the broader cate- A common theme in musicology research explores indi- gories of research on musical identity. Despite spanning viduals’ use of music to modulate or express their mood, a wide range of ideas and disciplines, a common theme particularly among adolescents [3], and the extent to emerges: musical identity—of individuals and places— which personality both shapes and is shaped by musical is inherently dynamic and ever-changing. These changes tastes [4,5]. Studies have found repeatedly that mood happen both quickly, on the time-scale of our moods, and regulation is among the most common and important slowly, as the cultural landscape of our environments and reasons for why people listen to music [6,7]: music helps music itself shifts gradually. However, many studies of listeners relax, improve their mood, or simply relate to individuals’ musical identity analyze musical taste and arXiv:1904.04948v1 [cs.SI] 9 Apr 2019 others through the emotions of music and its lyrics [8]. its correlates at a single point in time. This limitation Music also plays a crucial role as a social currency, help- stems in large part from the difficulty of characterizing ing initiate and strengthen relationships [9], for example, people’s musical tastes, and tracking their changes over through the exchange of new music or shared experi- time. In recent years, though, more and more people ences at live performances. In these ways, music brings listen to music online, providing a detailed digital record together individuals, forming communities or “scenes” of how individuals’ music consumption and tastes evolve around particular genres, artists, or the lifestyles they over time, all over the world. In this study, we analyze music consumption patterns on Spotify, a popular music streaming platform2. We fo- cus specifically on the United States, the world’s largest ∗ [email protected] † [email protected] ‡ [email protected] § [email protected] 1 As an example, the experience of being a classically trained mu- 2 In mid-2018, Spotify reported having over 190 million active sician affects the music that person is exposed to, how they users worldwide, including more than 75 million users in the evaluate it, and, ultimately, whether or not they like it. United States alone [21]. 2 market for music [22], and one of the earliest and largest Changes in listener environment. In 2017–2018, adopters of online music streaming. Coincidentally, the over 32 million Americans relocated to a new residence, U.S. is also one of the most studied locations in musicol- with approximately 4.8 million of those moves crossing ogy research, providing rich context to guide our analy- state boundaries [23]. Past research has explored the ses and the interpretation of their results. We focus on regional subcultures of individual states, driven in large understanding a key determinant in the development of part by historical differences in the ethnoreligious iden- individuals’ musical identity: the role of environment in tities, cultural preferences, and ways of life unique to the shaping a person’s tastes. Specifically, we measure envi- various groups who settled the United States [24, 25]. In ronments’ effects on individuals’ preferences by treating light of these regional differences, we consider the effects geographic relocation as the basis for constructing quasi- of environment on musical tastes, defining a listener’s natural experiments, using a matched pairs experimen- environment as their state of residence, which we infer tal design to mitigate the effects of confounding variables from the person’s most frequent streaming location. and natural variation. In addition, we investigate the re- Based on reports from U.S. moving companies [26], lationships between the age of a listener and the music the majority of state-to-state relocations happen dur- they consume, informing the likely timing of when and ing the summer months, when the weather is generally where musical identity takes shape. more convenient and most American education systems We begin by describing the primary sources of data are on break. For this reason, we recorded state-level used in our analyses, most notably individual music con- relocations between May and September 2017. Corre- sumption histories and location summaries during three spondingly, we defined a trio of three-month sample pe- sample periods. We then outline our approach for char- riods: one just before the moving months (P1: March acterizing musical taste profiles, built up from data- to May 2017); another immediately following the mov- derived music genres, and for measuring whether changes ing months (P2: September to November 2017); and a in a listener’s environment induce changes in their musi- third, several months later (P3: December 2017 to Febru- cal tastes. We conclude with a discussion of our results ary 2018). For each period, we aggregated users’ artist and an outlook on the future of musical identity research. streams and streaming locations over nine randomly se- lected days. We then identified individuals who relocated by noting changes in their most frequent streaming lo- I. DATA AND METHODS cation between periods P1 and P2. In later sections, we will compare individuals’ profiles during these periods to Our study analyzes the music consumption of Spo- assess short-term effects of relocation. tify users in the United States between December 2016 To assess longer-term effects of relocation, we build on and February 2018. After excluding individuals with cultural norms in the United States specifying Thanks- low activity, missing or invalid demographic information, giving and Christmas as travel holidays that are tra- or unreliable location data, our dataset spans the con- ditionally spent at home with family [27]. In 2017, sumption histories of N=16,445,318 users, called “lis- an estimated 107 million Americans traveled in late- teners” throughout. Consumption histories include, for December alone, with about half of those trips exceed- each listener: (1) daily stream totals for each artist, (2) ing fifty miles [28]. Our sample frame spans three such daily stream totals for each song release year or vin- “home holidays”: Christmas 2016, Thanksgiving 2017, tage, and (3) state-level location data, estimated from and Christmas 2017. Using streaming locations during the listener’s streaming IP address. In addition, these these holidays (i.e., the five-day window centered around histories provide limited demographic information, in- the holiday), we inferred plausible past locations for lis- cluding listeners’ self-reported gender (coded as “M”, teners. The results presented here consider listeners who “F”, and “X”) and an estimate of their self-reported spent two or more of these three holidays in a state other age, aggregated into 5-year windows (e.g., birth years than their location during P1 and P2, suggesting a past between 2000–2004 and birth years between 1975–1979. move. Qualitatively, our results are unchanged for indi- These two examples represent the youngest and oldest viduals who traveled for a single holiday. Naturally, this age groups in our analyses). Aggregating daily histories, heuristic restricts our analyses to listeners who both ob- we constructed statistical profiles that summarize listen- serve and have the means to travel for these holidays [29]. ers’ musical tastes and locations during several sample We discuss this limitation further in our conclusions but periods. We begin by describing our motivation be- proceed with this important caveat in mind. hind selecting these time periods and, from them, for- mulating quasi-natural experiments. We then outline Characterizing musical tastes. People tend natu- our method for characterizing individuals’ musical tastes rally to describe their musical tastes in terms of gen- during these periods and analytical tools to measure the res [30]. This coarse-grained description highlights impact of geographic relocation on musical tastes. individuals’ general tastes and masks details about regionally-specific artists within a particular genre. Given our goal of assessing changes in musical tastes, 3

0.5 0.7 50

40 0.6 30 0.4 0.5 20 Agglomerative Completeness K-Means 10

Adj. Mutual Information 0.4 Spectral Number of unique genres 0.3 0 100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of clusters, k Number of clusters, k Number of streams

FIG. 1. Clustering metrics suggest natural groupings FIG. 2. Rarefaction curves suggest 200 streams cap- of around 200 artists. Average adjusted mutual informa- ture the range of a listener’s musical tastes over our tion (left) and completeness (right) scores are shown, varying data-derived genres. Rarefaction curves, shown here for the number of clusters in three clustering methods. Adjusted a sample of 500 listeners (average shown in black), indicate mutual information peaks, and completeness begins to level that the number of unique genres spanned by each person’s out at around 200 artists, suggesting a reasonable number of streaming history begins to level out after 200 streams. This genres for our analyses. Other approaches, including silhou- analysis informed our sampling depth for constructing listen- ette analysis and information criterion methods (not shown) ers’ taste profiles. further support this number. clustering techniques produce similar-scoring partitions not predicting location, genres provide a suitably ab- of the data, and suggest a natural number of between stract characterization of tastes. But, genres can vary 150 and 250 genres of music (Figure1). Based on this in size and specificity. Some studies suggest that there analysis, we characterized listeners’ musical tastes using are as few as five dimensions to musical preferences [31]. K = 200 genres, derived from the agglomerative clus- In contrast, Spotify characterizes music using a growing tering results. Past studies suggest that this level of ab- list of over 1700 genres and subgenres [32], ranging from straction may provide more detail than is often described broad categories like “rock” and “jazz” to narrow sub- or even perceived by typical listeners [30]. Our charac- genres that distinguish, for example, “metalcore” from terization of musical tastes thus implicitly assumes that “power metal” and “bebop” from “hard bop.” These dif- listeners are attuned to differences between these 200 ferences in definitions present a challenge in choosing an genres, making our analyses perhaps more sensitive to appropriate level of categorization. change than listeners themselves. Finally, to name these Here, we adopt a data-driven approach, defining gen- genres, we selected the most common Spotify genre label res as clusters of artists, whose similarity is derived from among the artists in each cluster. In few cases, clusters the frequency with which listeners stream two artists in were comprised of artists with no associated genre labels succession. We focus on the N = 10, 000 most-streamed (these appear as “UNKNOWN” in Figure3). artists in the U.S., who collectively account for the vast In sum, we characterize an individual’s musical tastes majority of all streams in the country. For these artists, during each sample period (e.g., P1) by summing to- we construct a transition matrix T whose entries Ti,j de- gether their stream counts for artists in each of the note the probability that a listener streamed a song by 200 data-derived genres. This process constructs mu- artist i then artist j during our sample frame. We then sical taste profiles as 200-dimensional vectors that we converted T into an N ×N distance matrix, D, by com- analyze using the methods outlined below. To ensure puting the pairwise correlation distances between each that these vectors are representative of users’ tastes, we pair of artist vectors Ti and Tj: analyzed rarefaction curves (Figure2) to determine the minimum number of streams required to construct reli- ¯ ¯ able taste profiles. In the worst case, in which all genres (Ti − Ti) · (Tj − Tj) are equally distinct, our analyses suggest a minimum of Di,j = 1 − ¯ ¯ , (1) ||Ti − Ti||2||Tj − Tj||2 around 200 streams. This limit informed our sampling depth for each period, ensuring sufficient depth to char- ¯ where Ti is the mean of the elements of vector Ti, and acterize the tastes of nearly all listeners. Repeating this || · ||2 is the Euclidean norm. analysis using the diversity measures introduced below We then evaluated several unsupervised cluster- suggests that the range of most users’ tastes can typi- ing algorithms—agglomerative, k-means, and spectral cally be inferred from many fewer streams. clustering—to obtain data-driven clusters of similar artists, or genres. To determine an appropriate num- Measuring how tastes change. Our goal is to ber of clusters, we calculated cluster purity metrics over quantify the extent to which an individual’s musical a varying number of clusters. Qualitatively, the three tastes shift in response to a change in their environ- 4 ment, namely their state of residence. As described

alternative emo (2)

childrens music (2) UNKNOWN (11) above, our construction of musical taste profiles char- childrens music (3) power metal

desi hip hop classify (2)

indian pop folk punk

taiwanese pop arab pop acterizes each person’s preferences as a distribution of classical (5)

metal UNKNOWN (5) sleep (2) korean pop alternative hip hop mizrahi

stoner metal melodic metalcore alternative emo (1) progressive post−hardcore k−pop skate punk anthem emo screamo counts over 200 data-derived genres. Changes in these celtic rock djent UNKNOWN (3) antiviral pop (2) glitchedm hop (2) antiviral pop (1) anime beats epicore vaporwave chillhop retro electro redneck southern soul blues teen pop gospel profiles from one time period to the next can be char- detroit hip hop anthem worshipa cappella UNKNOWN (7) progressive house southern gospel opm rock en espanol (1) worship tropical reggaeton flow (2) acterized in two primary directions: (i) changes in how reggaeton flow (1) bachata tracestepccm vallenato polynesian pop deep funk carioca sertanejo universitario dancehalltrance (2) latin alternative latin christian (2) diverse a person’s tastes are, and (ii) changes in what christian hip hop latin christian (1) dirty south rap (1) grupera (2) soca cumbia cumbia sonidera tejano genres a person consumes. Measuring changes of this classicalotacore (1) regional mexican (2) regional mexican (1) comedy regional mexican pop (2) texas countrycountry rock en espanol (2) new americana regional mexican pop (1) manner is a central focus in ecological research, which traditional country grupera (1) latin pop (2) ranchera latin poplatin (1) deep latin hip hop underground rap grupera (3) frequently characterizes the diversity within (called “α- deep cumbia sonidera reggae duranguense reggae rock (2) deep norteno broadway banda diversity”) or between (“β-diversity”) ecosystems [33], adult standards (1) focus (3) focus (1) classic rock christian relaxative (1) motown focus (4) new wave pop compositional ambient (1) based on counts of species’ abundances and measures of post−grunge (2) focus (5) hard rock focus (6) compositional ambient (2) alternative metal UNKNOWN (4) UNKNOWN (6) their phylogenetic similarity. Here, we draw inspiration post−grunge (1) meditation (2) reggae rock (1) healing gangsterhip raphop viral pop chamber pop electronic folk−pop from the ecology literature for measuring changes within edm (1) hawaiian christian relaxative (2) edm (3) focus (2) contemporary country childrens music (1) trap music operatic pop and between listeners’ profiles. pop scorecore (2) classical (2) indie r&b (1) scorecore (1) scorecore (3) urban contemporarytropical house new age fake indietronicapop rap classify (1) To measure the range or diversity of a person’s musical classical (4) relaxative (1) classical (3) UNKNOWNpop (1) punk tone (1) folk rock relaxative (2) meditation (1) indie folk tone (2) environmental (5) sleep (1) environmental (3) tastes within a given time period, we used Rao-Stirling environmental (1) UNKNOWN (10) UNKNOWN (8) modern rock environmental (2) environmental (4) trap francais jam band blues−rock indie pop indie garage rock (1) underground hip hop (1) funk new wave dancehall (1) trip hop chicano rap divergence [34, 35]. This technique is a popular measure jazz hardcore hip hop rumba

west coast trapazontobeats

UNKNOWN (2) indie r&b (2) vocal jazz cool jazz dirty south rap (2) smooth jazz bossa nova of biodiversity and is closely related to other approaches UNKNOWN (9) underground hip hop (2) rock−and−roll

adult standards (2) underground hip hop (3) adult standards (3)

used throughout ecological research [36, 37]. It has also rock (2) indie garage recently been applied to the study of musical diversity by Park et al. [38], who highlighted the measure’s advan- tage over existing approaches, namely that some genres FIG. 3. Dendrogram showing relatedness of the 200 data-derived genres. Constructed using the UPGMA al- can be very similar to others, biasing approaches that gorithm and genre-genre correlation distances, this dendro- count unique genres or otherwise ignore their similar- gram serves as the basis for our UniFrac-based comparisons of ity. Given a taste profile p, constructed as a probability musical taste profiles. This clustering captures many known distribution over our data-derived genres, Rao-Stirling relationships between genres. Notably, the largest distinction divergence is calculated as in the tree, shown near 2 o’clock, splits musical genres by the language of their lyrics. Genres titled “UNKNOWN” repre- X sent groups of artists with no specified genre labels on Spotify. dRS(p) = pi × pj × d(i, j), (2) Numbered genres differentiate individual clusters having the i,j∈K same most-common Spotify genre label. where pi and pj denote the fraction of streams from gen- res i and j, respectively, and d(i, j) denotes the dissim- just which genres are consumed but in what proportions ilarity of the two genres. To quantify the dissimilarity (i.e., the abundance of each lineage). between our data-derived genres, we measured the num- For completeness, we repeated our UniFrac-based ber of times listeners consumed genres i and j in P1, analyses using Jensen-Shannon divergence, a dissimilar- forming a co-consumption matrix of genres. We then ity measure that incorporates no information about the computed d(i, j) as correlation distances, comparing the relatedness of genres. Jensen-Shannon divergence (dJS) rows of the resulting matrix (similar to Equation1). is related to the popular Kullback–Leibler (dKL) diver- To measure the difference between two taste profiles, gence in that dJS is an averaged, symmetrized of mea- we used UniFrac, another approach adopted from the sure dKL divergence. Given two probability distributions ecology literature. UniFrac is a family of distance met- a and b, dKL and dJS are defined as rics used to assess the dissimilarity of two ecosystems that, like Rao-Stirling, takes into account the similarity X a(x) of the counted elements [39]. These metrics are con- dKL(a||b) = a(x)log 2 b(x) structed using a phylogenetic tree that summarizes the x∈X evolutionary distances separating the species or, in our 1 1 d (a||b) = d (a||c) + d (b||c), case, the distances between data-derived genres. We JS 2 KL 2 KL used the same genre correlation distances (d(i, j)) as in 1 where c = (a + b). our Rao-Stirling calculations to construct such a tree 2 of genres, using hierarchical clustering (UPGMA algo- rithm [40]; resulting tree shown in Figure3). Distances between taste profiles were then calculated based on Qualitatively, our findings were not sensitive to the the the amount of distinct versus shared branch length choice of weighted UniFrac or Jensen-Shannon diver- spanned by the two profiles. In our analyses, we used gence. As such, we present just the weighted UniFrac- weighted UniFrac (dWU ), a variant that considers not based results below. 5

A Texas Country B Gospel, Soul C West Coast Trap, Hyphy

Ranchera, Mariachi Hawaiian, Ukulele Jazz, Bebop -2 -1 0 +1 +2 D E F Streams from cluster (z-score)

FIG. 4. Data-derived genres encode regional information. These heatmaps show the fraction of each state’s streams coming from six data-derived genres, displayed using z-scores. The maps highlight different elements of the states’ unique musical identities and provide a useful check to ensure that the genres capture patterns that should be expected historically.

Inferring state-level musical identities. Finally, versity calculated at the level of individuals (p > 0.05, in several of our analyses, we test whether individuals’ Conover post-hoc test for multiple comparisons). To- musical preferences change in response to relocating from gether, these two observations suggest that the higher one state to another. To ground these measurements, diversity of some state taste profiles is driven by diverse we constructed state-level musical taste profiles by sum- compositions of individuals, not because the individuals ming together the streams from all listeners from each in those states have more diverse tastes themselves. state over our 200 data-derived genres. These state-level profiles enable more concrete definitions of change for individuals. For instance, if a person moves from state II. RESULTS a to state b, do their tastes become more similar to the aggregate profile for state b? Or less similar to that of We devised two sets of matched pair analyses to study a? Additionally, these state-level characterizations pro- the short- and long-term effects of relocation on individ- vide a valuable sanity check to verify that the states do, uals’ musical tastes. We begin by analyzing short- then in fact, possess distinct musical tastes that might in- long-term effects, followed by an examination of the re- fluence the tastes of individuals. Qualitatively, we found that consumption patterns for many data-derived genres matched intuitions based on the history of the states and their ethnic, religious, and cultural compositions (Fig- Distributions of diversity MA Distribution of diversity in individual taste profiles ure4). in state taste profiles for each state Analyzing the general diversity of these state-level taste profiles using Rao-Stirling divergence, we found WV that states vary in their aggregate diversity (Figure5). Density CO

This quantity does not correlate with the entropy of U.S. IL Census-reported distributions for race/ethnicity. How- TX ever, there is a moderate correlation (Pearson’s ρ=0.49, 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 p<0.001) between Rao-Stirling diversity and states’ His- Musical diversity (Rao-Stirling) panic composition [41]. This correlation is likely due in part to large disparities in the co-consumption of genres FIG. 5. Musical diversity of individuals follows a sim- that differ in the primary languages of their lyrics (see ilar distribution across the states, even though state- Figure3), which contributes to higher levels of measured level diversity varies. Multiple distributions are depicted. diversity. In green, we show the distributions of musical taste diversity (Rao-Stirling) for individuals within all fifty states. In black, While states vary in the diversity of their aggregate we show the distributions of musical taste diversity of the compositions, states exhibit similar distributions of di- aggregate state profiles. 6 lationship between the ages of listeners and the music they consume. 0.15 Short-term effects of relocation. We tested Mover becomes Mover becomes whether moving from one state (a) to another (b) in- 0.10 more similar to less similar to duces short-term changes in individuals’ musical tastes past home past home by constructing matched pairs of listeners. Each mover (49.9%) (50.1%) m in our sample frame was paired to a non-mover n by 0.05 exact matching under the following criteria: Fraction of matched pairs 1. Both m and n lived in state a during P 0.00 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Relative difference in dissimilarity (weighted UniFrac) 2. m moved to state b between P1 and P2

3. n continued living in a during P2 FIG. 6. Short-term effects of relocation on musi- cal tastes are insignificant, within the range of typ- 4. m and n share the same reported gender and age ical month-to-month variability. The distribution of group changes in dissimilarity between movers (m) and their previ- ous home state (a) compared to non-movers. Changes here These criteria formed a total of N =592, 716 matched are scaled by the amount of expected variability from within- pairs of listeners. First, we tested whether movers ex- person, month-to-month fluctuations in musical tastes (see main text). As shown, no systematic changes were found hibit a systematic change in the overall diversity of across our sample, and individuals’ changes were predomi- their musical tastes, measured using Rao-Stirling diver- nantly within the range of typical variability. gence. Specifically, we measured m’s change in diver- sity from before (P1) to after their relocation (P2) as dRS(mP2 ) − dRS(mP1 ). We then compared this change Dividing these differences by the month-to-month in diversity to the same quantity calculated for m’s variability of all non-movers (i.e., standard deviation of matched pair individual, n. Sampling 1000 matched D(n, a|P2,P1) − D(n, a|P3,P2)), we note that, despite pairs from each state, we found no significant change in some amount of heterogeneity in the magnitude and size movers’ overall taste diversity compared to non-movers, of individuals’ changes, the observed differences gener- neither between P1 and P2 (p=0.72, matched-pair t-test) ally fall within one standard deviation of typical month- nor P1 and P3 (p=0.24). to-month fluctuations in a person’s tastes (Figure6). Next, we tested whether movers’ taste profiles shift in Next, replacing a with b in Equations3 and4, we response to relocation, possibly becoming less similar to tested whether individuals’ tastes become more or less their former home and more similar to their new home. similar to their new state (b) after relocating there. As First, we calculated the difference in dissimilarities be- before, we sampled 1000 matched pairs from each state tween m and a’s taste profiles, during P1 and P2, and found no significant differences between movers and non-movers (p=0.77, matched-pair t-test). In the short D(m, a|P ,P ) = d (m , a )−d (m , a ). (3) 2 1 WU P2 P2 WU P1 P1 term, moving to a new state does not seem to move an individual’s musical taste profile closer to their new This quantity captures whether m is more similar to a state’s. during time period P1 or P2. Next, we calculated the same quantity for n to compare, The results of these comparisons hold over slightly longer periods of time (i.e. comparing taste profiles be- tween P and P , rather than P and P ), despite a trend D(n, a|P2,P1) = dWU (nP , aP )−dWU (nP , aP ). (4) 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 towards significance. They are also robust across differ- The difference between these two quantities, ent age groups and genders, as well as isolating the effects D(m, a|P2,P1) and D(n, a|P2,P1), captures whether for particular choices of a or b, and using more narrowly- m’s dissimilarity to their former home state a increases defined state taste profiles, constructed for each age- or decreases after moving to state b, compared to their gender group. In addition, we measured changes relative matched pair, who remained in state a. Sampling to another non-mover, rather than aggregate state taste 1000 matched pairs from each state, we found no profiles, and found similar outcomes. Lastly, we added significant differences in the similarity of states’ musical another matching criterion to the list above, requiring taste profiles to individuals who live in versus moved that matched pairs share the same “favorite” (i.e., most away from that state (p = 0.70, matched-pair t-test). consumed) genre during P1. Each of these modifications That is, moving to a new state does not, in the short only served to corroborate the observations above. term, appear to have a significant effect on individuals’ Our results here indicate that relocation has little ef- musical tastes, neither making them more nor less like fect on individuals’ taste profiles in the months following their former home. their move. While no detectable changes were found, 7 our measurements cannot rule out the possibility that differences may become significant over longer periods 0.20 of time. Accordingly, in the next section, we outline a similar matched pair analysis to reason about how relo- 0.15 Mover is Mover is cation affects taste profiles in the long term. more similar to more similar to present home past home 0.10 Long-term effects of relocation. We tested (57.5%) (42.5%) whether relocation induces long-term changes in indi- 0.05 viduals’ musical tastes by constructing matched pairs of listeners based on their locations during the three home Fraction of matched pairs 0.00 holidays spanned by our sample frame. Listeners who -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 traveled to a different state for at least two of these holi- Relative difference in dissimilarity (weighted UniFrac) days were assumed to have formerly resided in that state, having since moved to their current state. As in the anal- FIG. 7. Long-term effects of relocation on musical ysis above, we paired each mover, m, with a non-mover tastes indicate that listeners’ tastes shift towards n—someone who spent the home holidays in their cur- their current environments’, if only somewhat. Here, rent home state—by applying the following criteria: negative values indicate that m is more similar to their present home state (b) than their past home state (a), rela- 1. m traveled to and is assumed to have lived in state tive to n. Changes are normalized by the amount of expected a variability in non-movers’ taste profiles.

2. n lives in and spent the holidays in state a current home b. Next, we calculated a similar quan- tity (D(n, a, b)) for m’s matched pair, n, and consid- 3. m now lives in state b ered the difference between the resulting quantities. We found that movers are significantly more similar to their 4. m and n share the same reported gender and age present home state than their past home state, compared group to their matched pair (p<0.001, matched-pair t-test; see Figure7). Here, 57.5% of movers were more similar to These criteria formed a total of N =469, 935 matched their current state. pairs. First, we tested whether movers differ from non- Together these findings paint a nuanced picture of the movers in the general diversity of their musical tastes, long-term effects of relocation: on average, listeners’ mu- measured by Rao-Stirling divergence for aggregate pro- sical tastes continue to resemble their past home states’, files of listeners’ streams from periods P1 through P3. and shift only slightly, if at all, towards their present Sampling 1000 matched pairs from each state, we found home state. Unlike our first analysis, here we lack in- that movers and non-movers had similarly diverse musi- formation about when listeners may have moved away cal taste profiles (p = 0.41, Mann-Whitney). This result from their previous home state and therefore how these is unintuitive given that exposure to a wider variety of effects may develop over time. Nevertheless, we find that environments could plausibly instill more varied musi- both past and present environments do appear to shape cal tastes. To ensure that this result was not driven listener preferences in the long term. To gain a better by moves to neighboring states with similar cultures, we understanding of when listener environments likely im- repeated this test, omitting moves between states that pact musical tastes, we now shift our focus towards the share a border. Under this restriction, movers exhibit relationship between the ages of listeners and the music only marginally higher diversity than non-movers (0.1% they consume. higher; p<0.001, matched-pair t-test). Next, using these same aggregate profiles, we deter- Timing of environmental influence. In the previ- mined whether movers’ tastes are more similar to their ous section, we found that both past and present envi- inferred past (a) or present (b) home states, relative to ronments play a role in shaping listeners’ musical tastes. non-movers. Said differently: do movers’ tastes shift to Here, we test when and therefore which environments are reflect their new environment? To test this possibility, likely to affect these tastes by analyzing how listener age we used weighted UniFrac to compute the difference in predicts the age of the music they consume. Specifically, dissimilarity between m and the two states as we look for indications of when musical tastes are formed in order to inform when environment is most likely to D(m, a, b) = dWU (m, b) − dWU (m, a). (5) have an impact. First, we analyzed the general relationship between Again drawing a sample of 1000 matched pairs from the age of listeners and their music (Figure8). We found each state, we found that the distribution of D(m, a, b) that listeners of all ages consume predominantly current skews positive (p < 0.001, t-test), with 64% of movers music, with 28% of all streams coming from songs that being more similar to their past home a than their are less than a year old. This observation applies to 8

2.0 1955 1.5 -1 10 1965 1.0 18 (y=2000) 28 (y=1990) 38 (y=1980) 48 (y=1970) 1975 0.5 10-2 Age group 1985 0.0 1975–1979 -0.5 1995 1980–1984 -1.0 10-3 1985–1989 Song release year 2005 -1.5 1990–1994 Streams by age (z-score) 2015

Fraction of all streams 1995–1999 -2.0 -4 10 2000–2004 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Age of listener when song was released 100 101 102 Song age in 2018 FIG. 9. The distribution of song vs. listener age high- lights the importance of adolescence in musical iden- tity formation. For each song release year, the distribution FIG. 8. Listeners of all ages predominantly stream of current listener ages when the song was released. Negative current music. Distributions of song age (i.e., 2018 minus ages indicate listeners streaming music that was released be- release year) consumed by our six age groups. Shown on log- fore they were born. Two age regions were excluded due to log axes, two patterns emerge: (1) regardless of their age, low representation of older listeners (upper right) and young listeners generally consume new or recently-released music, or unborn listeners (bottom left). and (2) listener age correlates with song age. all age groups, though older listeners are more likely to ronments. Finally, listeners’ affinities for music released consume older music. during their adolescence suggests that a person’s musical While all listeners tend to consume music that has environment during this period ultimately shapes their been released recently, music of a given age may be more musical identity. or less likely to be consumed by listeners of different ages. Our results indicate that musical tastes, character- We analyzed the relationship between a song’s release ized here as distributions over 200 data-derived genres, year and the age of its current listeners when the song are largely robust to relocation from one state to an- was released by calculating the distribution of streams other in the U.S. There are at least three factors that by listener age for each song release year. We then cal- might help explain this observation. First, our analysis culated z-scores for the fractions of streams from each studies the changes in listeners’ consumption of general listener age. Applying this transformation highlights an styles of music, as captured by the 10,000 most popular affinity in listeners for music that was released when they artists in the United States. Naturally, the popularity of were 10–20 years old (Figure9). these artists (and the genres to which they belong) varies This pattern corroborates past studies [4, 42] that sim- tremendously, with the most popular artists receiving or- ilarly found adolescence to be a crucial period in the de- ders of magnitude more streams than the least popular velopment of musical taste and identity. In the context artists. We made no effort to re-weight or otherwise ad- of our other results—that musical tastes are generally ro- just for common tastes so as to amplify any differences, bust to change but reflect our past locations—this pat- yet it may well be the case that artists on the long tail tern implies that it is both the timing and geographic of the popularity distribution are what make listeners’ location of person’s adolescence that casts their musical tastes unique [43, 44]. Our decision to not re-weight identity. taste profiles was made consciously, under the assump- tion that listeners themselves would define their musical tastes based on how often they listen to each genre, not III. DISCUSSION how unique those genres are. This assumption should itself be explored by future studies in order to better In this study, we used a comprehensive data set on understand how people describe their interests and how music consumption in the United States to measure the descriptions vary depending on social context and the impact of geographic relocation on individuals’ musical curated version of self the person wishes to portray. taste profiles. Analyzing short-term effects, we found Second, our classification of environment as states of that listeners’ musical tastes are robust to changes in en- residence masks a large amount of cultural variation vironment, both in terms of their overall diversity as well within most states, adding noise to our study and po- as in composition. Over longer periods of time, reloca- tentially hiding subtle patterns. This limitation is par- tion does appear to shift individuals’ tastes marginally ticularly true for states with both sizable urban and ru- towards those of their new environment. The size of ral populations. For example, the cultural differences this effect, however, is small, and listeners’ tend to more between moving to Manhattan versus a small town in strongly resemble their past rather than present envi- upstate New York can be substantial. We attempted 9 to mitigate this effect in our matched pair analyses by home. Other, more precise methods for inferring loca- incorporating additional matching criteria (e.g., requir- tion histories may be possible and would enable more ing that matches share favorite genres), but future stud- nuanced analyses in the future. Nevertheless, listeners ies should consider investigating these sub-state cultural of higher socioeconomic status are generally regarded variations more directly. For instance, what is the im- as “cultural omnivores” [38, 46], which may make their pact of moving from an urban to a rural environment, tastes more malleable than others and lead us to under- or vice versa? And, are there personal attributes that estimate the rigidity of musical preferences in the larger predict the malleability of someone’s tastes? population. Lastly, individuals who use Spotify or similar services Selection biases also complicate the idea of carrying may have more robust musical tastes than others. For out similar analyses for international migration: relocat- one, these listeners may have a higher baseline aware- ing between countries is expensive, both financially and ness of or interest in music. Perhaps more importantly, socially, and people who do may not be wholly represen- however, the success of music streaming platforms stems tative of those with more restricted mobility. However, in part from their ability to give listeners access their overcoming this limitation would offer valuable insight music at any time, anywhere. Paired with increasingly into the robustness and transmissibility of international prevalent mobile phone technology, these platforms have culture. For example, what aspects of a culture (e.g., ushered in a new era of accessibility in music and have ac- Hofstede’s cultural dimensions [47]) make it more or less celerated a transition from what has traditionally been a resistant to change? To what extent do migrants adopt “push” model of music consumption (i.e., radio stations the culture of their new environment, and at what rate? decide what gets played) to more of a “pull” model (i.e., And, could any of these variables be predicted before- individuals decide for themselves what to play), giving hand? As access to services like Spotify increases in the listeners more control over what they listen to, when, and future, answering such questions may become possible. how. This increased level of individualized play control As people increasingly discover, consume, and share may contribute to the portability and thus robustness music through online platforms, the field of musicology of tastes observed here. That is, had this analysis been is uniquely poised to produce new insights on the devel- somehow possible 30 years ago, we might expect to see opment of tastes and identity, their determinants, and greater malleability of musical tastes because listeners’ their interaction with surrounding communities and cul- choice was more directly constrained by what was locally tures. In addition to providing insights into these topics, available after a move. Moreover, the effect of this shift further research in this direction may enhance the way in control on the formation of musical tastes represents people experience music through these platforms, while another interesting direction for future research, to make also ensuring that services are mindful of their potential sense of preferences in light of nearly limitless choice and impacts on the development of individual identity and control [45]. on the evolution of culture more broadly. Our study focuses on Spotify users in the U.S. in par- ticular, a population that skews towards younger and, by virtue of having access to the Internet and services like Spotify, likely wealthier individuals. This limitation IV. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS is compounded in our analysis of the long-term effects of relocation, in which we assume past environments are suggested by holiday travel patterns. We acknowledge We thank Manish Nag, Nathan Stein, Scott Wolf, that these assumptions likely exclude people of lower so- Rozmin Daya, Clay Gibson, Will Shapiro, Glenn Mc- cioeconomic status, and may introduce some noise, for Donald, Ricardo Monti, Laura Norris, Daniel Larremore, example, from individuals who regularly travel during Abigail Jacobs, Allison Morgan, and Herrissa Lamothe the holidays but to a location other than their former for helpful conversations.

[1] Tia DeNora, Music in everyday life (Cambridge Univer- [4] Kelly D. Schwartz and Gregory T. Fouts, “Music prefer- sity Press, 2000). ences, personality style, and developmental issues of ado- [2] Raymond MacDonald, David Hargreaves, and Dorothy lescents,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32, 205–213 Miell, eds., Musical identities, Vol. 2 (Oxford University (2003). Press, 2002). [5] Thomas Sch¨aferand Claudia Mehlhorn, “Can person- [3] Adrian C North, David J Hargreaves, and Susan A ality traits predict musical style preferences? A meta- O’Neill, “The importance of music to adolescents,” analysis,” Personality and Individual Differences 116, British Journal of Educational Psychology 70, 255–272 265 – 273 (2017). (2000). [6] John A Sloboda and Susan A O’neill, “Emotions in ev- eryday listening to music,” Music and emotion: Theory 10

and research , 415–429 (2001). C026—Personal Travel: The Long and Short of It , 169– [7] Suvi Saarikallio and Jaakko Erkkil¨a,“The role of music 177 (2001). in adolescents’ mood regulation,” Psychology of Music [30] Peter J Rentfrow and Samuel D Gosling, “The do re mi’s 35, 88–109 (2007). of everyday life: the structure and personality correlates [8] A Wells and Ea Hakanen, “The emotional use of popular- of music preferences.” Journal of Personality and Social music by adolescents,” Journalism Quarterly 68, 445– Psychology 84, 1236 (2003). 454 (1991). [31] Peter J Rentfrow, Lewis R Goldberg, and Daniel J Lev- [9] Bonnie H Erickson, “Culture, class, and connections,” itin, “The structure of musical preferences: a five-factor American Journal of Sociology 102, 217–251 (1996). model,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology [10] Andy Bennett and Richard A Peterson, Music scenes: 100, 1139–1157 (2011). local, translocal and virtual (Vanderbilt University Press, [32] Maura Johnston, “How Spotify discovers the genres of 2004). tomorrow,” Spotify for Artists Blog (2018). [11] Jennifer C Lena, Banding together: How communities [33] Robert H Whittaker, “Evolution and measurement of create genres in popular music (Princeton University species diversity,” Taxon , 213–251 (1972). Press, 2012). [34] C Radhakrishna Rao, “Diversity and dissimilarity co- [12] Sara Cohen, Rock culture in Liverpool: Popular music in efficients: a unified approach,” Theoretical Population the making (Oxford University Press on Demand, 1991). Biology 21, 24–43 (1982). [13] Ray Hudson, “Regions and place: music, identity and [35] Andy Stirling, “A general framework for analysing diver- place,” Progress in Human Geography 30, 626 (2006). sity in science, technology and society,” Journal of the [14] Peter H Nash and George O Carney, “The seven themes Royal Society Interface 4, 707–719 (2007). of music geography,” Canadian Geographer 40, 69–74 [36] Andrew P Martin, “Phylogenetic approaches for describ- (1996). ing and comparing the diversity of microbial commu- [15] Lily Kong, “Popular music in geographical analyses,” nities,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68, Progress in Human Geography 19, 183–198 (1995). 3673–3682 (2002). [16] George O Carney, “Bluegrass grows all around: The spa- [37] Catherine A Lozupone and Rob Knight, “Species di- tial dimensions of a country music style,” Journal of Ge- vergence and the measurement of microbial diversity,” ography 73, 34–55 (1974). FEMS Microbiology Reviews 32, 557–578 (2008). [17] Dick Hebdige, Cutn’Mix: Culture, Identity and [38] Minsu Park, Ingmar Weber, Mor Naaman, and Sarah Caribbean Music (Routledge, 2003). Vieweg, “Understanding musical diversity via online so- [18] Chris Gibson and John Connell, “Bongo Fury: tourism, cial media,” in Ninth International Conference on Web music and cultural economy at Byron Bay, Australia,” and Social Media (2015). Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 94, [39] Catherine Lozupone and Rob Knight, “UniFrac: a new 164–187 (2003). phylogenetic method for comparing microbial commu- [19] George Carney, “Music geography,” Journal of Cultural nities,” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, Geography 18, 1–10 (1998). 8228–8235 (2005). [20] John Baily and Michael Collyer, “Introduction: Music [40] Robert R Sokal, “A statistical method for evaluating sys- and migration,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies tematic relationship,” University of Kansas Science Bul- 32, 167–182 (2006). letin 28, 1409–1438 (1958). [21] Spotify Technology S.A., “Financial results for third [41] Kaiser Family Foundation, “Population distribution quarter 2018,” (2018). by race/ethnicity,” https://www.kff.org/other/state- [22] IFPI, “International federation of the phonographic in- indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/ (2018). dustry digital music report 2018,” (2018). [42] Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, “The songs that bind,” The [23] US Census Bureau, “CPS historical migra- New York Times (2018). tion/geographic mobility tables,” (2018). [43] Chris Anderson, The long tail: Why the future of busi- [24] David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s seed: Four British folk- ness is selling more for less (Hyperion, 2006). ways in America (Oxford University Press, 1991). [44] Sharad Goel, Andrei Broder, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, and [25] Joel Lieske, “Regional subcultures of the united states,” Bo Pang, “Anatomy of the long tail: ordinary people The Journal of Politics 55, 888–913 (1993). with extraordinary tastes,” in Proceedings of the third [26] Allied Van Lines, Inc., “Why summer is the peak ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data moving season,” https://www.allied.com/blog/view/all- Mining (ACM, 2010) pp. 201–210. blogs/2017/06/20/why-summer-is-the-peak-moving- [45] Tom Vanderbilt, You May Also Like: Taste in an Age season (2017). of Endless Choice (Simon and Schuster, 2016). [27] Mark Benney, Robert Weiss, Rolf Meyersohn, and [46] Richard A Peterson and Roger M Kern, “Changing high- David Riesman, “Christmas in an apartment hotel,” brow taste: From snob to omnivore,” American Socio- American Journal of Sociology 65, 233–240 (1959). logical Review , 900–907 (1996). [28] American Automobile Association, “2017 year-end holi- [47] Geert Hofstede, “Cultural dimensions in management day travel forecast review,” (2017). and planning,” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 1, [29] William J Mallett, “Long-distance travel by low-income 81–99 (1984). households,” TRB Transportation Research Circular E-