Pattern Recognition

There is a certain way that the human brain identifies patterns. If we look specifically at music we notice one thing. The degree of utility or pleasure the human brain derives depends fully on its complexity. I will qualify that later.
What complexity means is really contrast. If you have low frequency parts, you need parts that also contain mid frequency and high in the mix. If you have a lot of discrete note based parts , you will need a lead or string to balance it. Balancing is adjusting contrast. If you have a part where most of the notes go up then you need to follow it with a part where most of the notes go down. If you have a part with quick changes you need to follow it with a part with slow changes.

Now they are exceptions, but the exceptions follow the same rule. You CAN have lots of non-contrast in a part of that song, as long as some other part of the song strongly contrasts with that one...i.e. a contrast between parts that internally are not contrasting in some respect. The larger the cohesion in a part the larger the contrast needed to balance it. An example would be a chorus and a verse, or if both the chorus and verse are cohesive, then the song would naturally need a bridge to be good.
Of course the complexity in it is not vanilla complexity as I will now qualify it. If in the media there have been lots of complex (put your own definition here) songs for a long time, (cohesion) then to contrast that cohesion, a simple (read opposite of the definition you gave for complexity) song will be the most successful.
What have we done is, we have moved from the realm of individual songs and used the same rules found within songs to describe the rules for hit songs.
What you have to understand is that that cohesion described above, of lots of complex songs in a row, depends on the definition you gave of complexity. Use another definition and you could have totally different songs in the charts that follow this rule.
That is the source of the different musical tastes in the world. We know that the posterior distribution for RNB music is different from that of SALSA, because of the different definitions of complexity.
Why then is there both RNB and SALSA in existence? Because they use contrasting definitions of complexity. Where have we seen that word “contrasting” before? It seems we can apply the same rules found within a particular song, within the class of all genres of all musical types. Observe the musical genres of the world, don’t they contrast. In fact their existence is a function of the extent to which they contrast.
Now look at something that seems totally unrelated. If you are awake for a long time won’t you need to sleep for a long time too? If you examine all aspects of your life , isn’t a balanced one encouraged , where for example , if you eat meat for a long time you need to eat veggies for a bit. Or once you crack too many jokes you need to say some more less exhausting everyday things. Now all these things exist together, so a hit song will depend on all these other complexities. If there have been too many slow songs and a fast one would have the greatest value ordinarily, and perhaps a queen dies for example .Yet one more slow song expressing the loss might instead possess greater value than any fast song. BECAUSE there is contrast in that a queen doesn’t die often.

Now the difference between all the ways this rule is expressed of contrast fully depends on our interpretation of complexity and simplicity. You must be complex .unless you should be simple. And you should be simple only if the set of those two contrasts, of the complex part that that simplicity contrasts with, is complex. This forms a hierarchy of sets of complexity, and sets consisting of sets of complexity combined with their simplistic dual .all contained in another set of complexity. Which itself has a dual and both are both contained in yet another complexity…and so on…

If we are intelligent we could choose one level of complexity and modulate the distribution of all the elements in the subsets below in order to maximise the value of that level of complexity. But that is another topic.

Now all this mess can be simply described in terms of Xand Y. Where X represents complexity and Y represents simplicity.
What it means is that though reality has no structure, it seems all humans follow this contrast method in everything they do. In this scenario everything humans do can be described in X’s and Y’s. where X(n-1) + Y (n-1)= X(n) where Y(n-1)= X(n-1)’s opposite.
If a human does something he is going to do the opposite eventually, in every aspect or endeavour we enterprise in.
Including the formation of language.
We could use this knowledge to our advantage.
Imagine that we have a feature X. we know because of the way humans think we can call it X(n) ,and consequently know that there must exist another feature, somewhere in the function that we are trying to describe that would represent the contrast to that feature and we could call it Y(n).

That means in our analysis we now have more information than what we think we have. Because we know that what whatever information we possess….there will be an opposing feature to that feature within the posterior distribution of the thing we are analysing and so we know that we should expect it, and so search within its direction.

Since our universal function approximaters come to accumulate X’s or different features of the objects we are studying, at the same time, it means that the information we would get from this type of analysis should explode.