Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rare-Branch-8503 t1_ixwrjbm wrote

I like your creativity here but I don’t think this is an effective visualization for this data set. It’s very hard to read and gather any insights/conclusions. What question does this answer?

16

OfficialWireGrind OP t1_ixwxsfb wrote

One thing I'm seeing is that there aren't a whole lot of songs above 170 words per minute (WPM). The songs "7 Rings," "Roses Imanbek," "The Box," "STAY," "Rich Flex," and "Levitating" are all in the range of 158-165. Kendrick Lamar's "N95" comes in around 210, but among 30 songs I've looked at, it's a bit of an outlier.

Another observation is that the highest WPM is more than twice that of the lowest. Comparing "N95" to Yahritza y Su Esencia's "Soy el Unico" increases the ratio to 3.6, and it's strongly reflected by a relatively broad range of vocal styles.

All of this is a fairly preliminary analysis though. I would imagine that if the input data is selected more thoughtfully, then patterns will emerge in the plot.

6

VikThorior t1_ixylboc wrote

From this answer, I understand that all you really care about is the distribution of WPM among top songs. So you don't need to show length and number of words on the plot. The best plot for this would be a simple histogram. You would be able to see the maximum and the ratio between highest and lowest. You would also be able to put more songs in the plot, using data from other years.

But what about the labels? you could ask. Indeed, with a histogram, the reader wouldn't be able to see which song is where on the plot. But what's greagt is that it's not the point of a plot.

If your goal is to show people the number of WPM for each song, you just show a table with all the values in it. That way, people can sort it in alphabetical order or by WPM value.

If you are interested in outliers, you can still show the name of the songs, because by definition, there are not many outliers, so you will have enough space to write their names.

3

EbMinor33 t1_iy0e5g9 wrote

I think one thing that seems unnecessary in this chart to me is the differentiation of year. One glance at 5 songs a year isn't nearly enough to make any conclusions. I think it might be better to focus on one or two years (without distinguishing between them) and include many more data points so you can see more overall WPM trends.

1