Spotify Top Hits

Daniel Moraes Gonçalo Moutinho Helena Ferreira

Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering
University of Porto University of Porto University of Porto
Porto, Portugal Porto, Portugal Porto, Portugal
up201800181@edu.fe.up.pt up201506397@edu.fe.up.pt up201706264@edu.fe.up.pt

Ines David Rui Gomes Tomás Miranda

Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering Faculty of Engineering
University of Porto University of Porto University of Porto
Porto, Portugal Porto, Portugal Porto, Portugal
up201806552@edu.fe.up.pt up201705528@edu.fe.up.pt up201704718@edu.fe.up.pt

Abstract — Music is eternal. Since the beginning of the human
existence until eternity, music is always in constant development,
and so is one of the most famous applications nowadays to show
it to everyone: Spotify. Spotify is undoubtedly a case of success
when it concerns listening to music and how people organize
their own playlists and songs, according to their music tastes, and
its use is growing even more along time. Creating a playlist could
involve lots of parameters to distribute the different songs in a
specific way, as it could be organized, for example by music
gender, or even by the danceability of its songs or even its
popularity. This research is based on the relationships between
songs available on a Spotify database that were appointed for this
article, and their display in different playlists according to their
tempo, duration, etc. To do this research in a well-analysed way,
this article was sustained on 3 big algorithms: The Decision Tree,
The Random Forest, and The Naïve Bayes.
I. INTRODUCTION & PROBLEM DEFINITION
Since as long as we can remember, music has been a feature
of all societies. Its diversity is due to these cultural differences
and time eras. As such, with a billion-dollar turnover, the music
industry continues to expand with each passing year. The
global recorded music market generated 20.2 billion US dollars
in revenue in 2019 and 21.6 billion US dollars in 2020. People
may now listen to music whenever and wherever they choose,
thanks to the digitalization of the music industry. Modern
computer technologies have also made it easier to collect and
store large amounts of data. [1]
With a fast-growing user base, Spotify is one of the most
popular on-demand music services. Over 1.2 trillion songs
were expected to be streamed on demand in 2018,
underscoring the cultural significance of music in our lives. [2]
Music's popularity and trends change in very short periods
of time. The popularity and success of songs are influenced by
a variety of elements, including genre, chords, danceability,
tempo, artist, play-counts, and so on. If music producers can
learn more about the factors that influence a track's popularity,
they will, also, be able to tailor tracks to the preferences of their
target audiences, ensuring its success to some extent. [1]
The attributes of the songs can be successfully broken
down and analysed using artificial intelligence and machine
learning to predict their popularity. [1]
Personalization of music services is also one of the primary
concerns in the music industry and digitalization.
Automatically creating customised music playlists and giving
a way to switch styles result in substantial progress in the
personalization and intelligence of music services, as well as
increased customer happiness. [3]
Starting by the extraction of the Spotify dataset from
Kaggle, in this problem, it is used a predictive analysis, using
regression and classification techniques, to achieve a
successful model that can be used to generate a personalized
music playlist based on a certain criterion.
After discussing the background theory in Section II, the
methodology of the proposed approach is provided in Section
III, followed by the results and discussion in Section IV.
Finally, the paper is concluded in Section V followed by
acknowledging those who provided indispensable help in the
succeeding section.
II. BACKGROUND THEORY
In this work, three different models were used: the Decision
Tree, the Random Forest, and Naïve Bayes.
A. Decision Tree Algorithm
The Decision Tree algorithm is part of the supervised
learning algorithms family. The decision tree approach, unlike
other supervised learning algorithms, may also be utilized to
solve regression and classification issues. [4]
By learning simple decision rules inferred from prior data,
the purpose of utilizing a Decision Tree is to develop a
training model that can be used to predict the class or value of
the target variable (training data). [4]
We start from the root of the tree when using Decision
Trees to forecast a class label for a record. The values of the
root attribute and the record's attribute are compared. We
follow the branch that corresponds to that value and jump to
the next node based on the comparison. [4]
The decision to make strategic splits has a significant
impact on a tree's accuracy. The decision criteria for
classification and regression trees are different. [4]
To decide whether to break a node into two or more sub-
nodes, decision trees employ a variety of techniques. The
homogeneity of the generated sub-nodes improves with the
generation of sub-nodes. To put it another way, the purity of
the node improves as the target variable grows. The decision
tree divides the nodes into sub-nodes based on all available
variables, then chooses the split that produces the most
homogeneous sub-nodes. [4]
We decided to use this algorithm since due to handling non-
linear data sets effectively.

10th June 2022

B. Random Forest Algorithm
A random forest is a machine learning technique for solving
classification and regression problems. It makes use of
ensemble learning, which is a technique for solving
complicated problems by combining multiple classifiers. [5]
Many decision trees make up a random forest algorithm.
Bagging or bootstrap aggregation are used to train the 'forest'
formed by the random forest method. Bagging is a meta-
algorithm that increases the accuracy of machine learning
algorithms by grouping them together. [5]
The (random forest) algorithm determines the outcome
based on decision tree predictions. It forecasts by averaging or
averaging the output of various trees. The precision of the
result improves as the number of trees grows. [5]
A random forest method overcomes the drawbacks of a
decision tree algorithm. It reduces dataset overfitting and
improves precision. It generates forecasts without requiring
many package setups. [5]
C. Naïve Bayes Algorithm
Nave Bayes is a fantastic example of how the simplest
answers are often the most powerful. Despite recent
advancements in Machine Learning, it has proven to be not
only easy, but also quick, accurate, and dependable. [6]
It has been effectively utilized for a variety of purposes, but
it excels at natural language processing (NLP) issues. [6]
The Bayes Theorem provides the basis for the Nave Bayes
algorithm, which is utilized in a wide range of classification
problems. [6]
It's a classification method based on Bayes' Theorem and
the assumption of predictor independence. A Naive Bayes
classifier, in simple terms, posits that the existence of one
feature in a class is unrelated to the presence of any other
feature. [7]
For example, if a fruit is red, round, and roughly 3 inches
in diameter, it is termed an apple. Even if these characteristics
are reliant on one another or on the presence of other
characteristics, they all add to the likelihood that this fruit is
an apple, which is why it is called 'Naive.' [7]
The Naive Bayes model is simple to construct and is
especially good for huge data sets. Naive Bayes is renowned
to outperform even the most advanced classification systems
due to its simplicity. [7]
Naive Bayes uses a similar method to predict the
probability of different class based on various attributes. This
algorithm is mostly used in text classification and with
problems having multiple classes.
III. METHODOLOGY
The research also identifies the factors that have played a
significant role in deciding the songs' popularity. The entire
methodology can be divided into 3 major sections:
Prepossessing of data-set, Model Development, Analysis of
Graphs.
A. Pre-processing of dataset
The paper's data was culled from Spotify, a popular music
service. Spotify's music sorting criteria are built in. The piece
is inspired by the same metrics, which were used to compare
songs in the project.
The parameters and their significance are as follows:
Acousticness: A scale from 0.0 to 1.0 that shows whether
the track is acoustic. The number 1.0 denotes a high level of
certainty that the track is acoustic. [8]
Danceability: Dance ability is a musical concept that refers
to how appropriate a track is for dancing depending on a
variety of factors such as tempo, rhythm stability, beat power,
and overall regularity. The least danceable value is 0.0, and the
most danceable value is 1.0. [8]
Energy: Energy is a measure from 0.0 to 1.0 and represents
a perceptual measure of intensity and activity. Typically,
energetic tracks feel fast, loud, and noisy. For example, “death
metal”, has a high energy level, whereas a Bach prelude has a
low one. Perceptual features contributing include dynamic
range, timbre, onset rate, and general entropy. [8]
Instrumentalness: Determines whether a track has no
vocals. In this case, the sounds “ooh” and” aah” are viewed as
instrumental. Tracks like rap or spoken word are simply
“vocal.” The higher the instrumentalism score gets to 1.0, the
more often the track is devoid of vocals. Instrumental tracks
are represented by values above 0.5, but as the value reaches
1.0 optimism increases. [8]
Liveliness: The participation of an audience in the video is
detected. Higher liveliness values indicate a greater likelihood
of the track being played live. If the value is greater than 0.8
the track is almost certainly live. [8]
Loudness: Loudness values are summed over the whole
track and can be used to compare the relative loudness of
different tracks. The main psychological correlate of physical
power is loudness, which is the quality of sound (amplitude).
Typical values vary from -60 to 0 decibels. This values were
normalized between 0.0 and 1.0, more calm music have a lower
value, near 0.0. [8]
Speechiness: The appearance of spoken words in a track is
detected by speechiness. The attribute rating is like 1.0 the
more purely speech-like the recording is (e.g., talk show, audio
book, poetry). Tracks with a value greater than 0.66 are almost
always completely made up of spoken language. Tracks with
values between 0.33 and 0.66 which include both music and
speech in parts or layers, such as rap music. Music and other
non-speech-like songs are likely to have values below 0.33. [8]
Valence: A scale ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 that describes
how positive a track is musically. Tracks with a high valence
sound more optimistic (e.g., joyful, cheerful, euphoric),
whereas tracks with a low valence sound gloomier (e.g. tragic,
melancholy). [8]
Tempo: The overall estimated tempo of a track in beats per
minute (BPM). The tempo is the rhythm or pace of a piece in
musical terms, and it is taken directly from the average beat
length. These values were normalized, so a high tempo (near
1.0) translates into a higher speed. [8]
All parameters were normalized, for an easier
understanding about the diversity on graphics where we
associate the popularity and parameters values. This is similar
to the work done in [8]. This also helps understanding which
parameters are the most influential in the popularity of a music.
A new column was created in the data base to be able to
serve as label for the upcoming models’ predictions and
analysis. This classifies a song as very popular or not. A song
with popularity index over 70 was considered very popular. A
total of 699/1942 songs were in this category.
B. Model Development
We now show the models developed for this work. They
were developed using the software “Rapid Miner”.
1) Decision Tree Model
The Decision Tree Model consists of a very elementary
method. The generated tree contains various nodes in which
each node represents a splitting rule for one specific attribute
and the propragation of new nodes is repeated until the
stopping criteria is met. [9]
Fig. 1: Decision Tree Model.
After generation, the decision tree model can be applied to
new examples using the Apply Model operator. [9]
2) Random Forest Model
The Random Forest Model is essentially a learning method
that operates by constructing a multitude of decision trees at
training time. Due to this, it generally outperforms an
individual Decision Tree Model, however, a single boosted
tree might achieve better results. A total of 200 trees were used
to maximize the accuracy of the predictions.
Fig. 2: Random Forest Model.
Two processes were created for the Random Forest Model.
The first one predicts whether a song will be very popular or
not and evaluates the performance of the Model as well. The
second gives us the weight of each of the attributes on said
prediction.
3) Naïve Bayes Model
The Naive Bayes model is a high-bias, low-variance
classifier and it’s generally able to build a good model . It is
simple to use and computationally inexpensive with good
accuracy especially for bigger amounts of data available. [10]
Fig. 3: Naive Bayes Model.
One process was created with a very straightfoward
application of the Naïve Bayes operator. The classification
model is delivered from the output port and the model can be
applied to the unlabelled data, which will generate predictions
that will then be applied, and subsequently evaluated by the
Performance operator. Furthermore, the operator Split Data
divides the original data set into two parts: one is used to train
the Naive Bayes model, and the other serves to evaluate the
model. [10]
With the results obtained it is possible to create different
types of song playlists with distinct characteristics. This will
be further demonstrated in the results section of the article.
C. Analysis of Graphs
The final section of approach is dedicated to analysis. After
the training and testing, the model clearly displays the
maximum number of songs with a significant diversity
between them.
Further analysis is on the musical parameters namely
acousticness, liveliness, danceability, instrumentalness, tempo,
loudness, speechiness and energy. The following parameters
are plotted with respect to popularity for both the data-set to
check how they fare against each other. In the following
graphs, parameters are plotted alongside X-axis while the
popularity on Y-axis. [8]
Their results and reports are answered in the following
chapter.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The scatter plots of both the sets show some striking in the
diverse fields, comparing with the popularity of a song. The
popularity is an important attribute to understand the
behaviour of other attributes.
Fig. 4: Popularity vs. Acousticness of songs.
In Fig. 4, it is visible that a song becomes more popular
when it has acoustic on the track, but not too much. Also, it is
visible that there are more songs with low values of
acousticness than high.
Fig. 5: Popularity vs. Danceability of songs.
In Fig. 5, it is visible that a song becomes more popular
when it has high values of danceability, but does not become
so popular when it has intermediate or even low values of
danceability.
 Fig. 6: Popularity vs. Energy of songs.
In Fig. 6, it is visible that a song becomes more popular
when it has high values of energy. Songs with low values of
energy are not popular at all.
Fig. 7: Popularity vs. Instrumentalness of songs.
In Fig. 7, it is visible that there are few songs with
intrumentalness atribute, and on the songs that it is present, it
is stated that the popularity does not increase when the
intrumentalness is low. In this case, we can perceive that this
parameter does not affect has much the popularity with this
data base, considering that the majority of songs use similar
values of instrumentalness.
Fig. 8: Popularity vs. Liveliness of songs.
In Fig. 8, it is visible that there are songs with more
popularity when the liveness atribute has low values.
Fig. 9: Popularity vs. Loudness of songs.
In Fig. 9, it is visible that there are songs with more
popularity when the loudness atribute has high values. There
are almost no popular songs with low values of loudness.
Fig. 10: Popularity vs. Speechiness
In Fig. 10, it is visible that the popularity gets higher when
the speechness atribute has low values.
Fig. 11: Popularity vs. Tempo of songs.
In Fig. 11, it is visible that there are songs with a high
popularity when the tempo has high values or has low values.
In other words, this parameter is shown to not be influential
when it comes to the popularity of a song.
Fig. 12: Popularity vs. Valence of songs.
In Fig. 12, it is visible that there are songs with a high
popularity when the valence has high values or has low values.
Just like tempo, this parameter does not influence the
popularity of a song, considering the diversity valence in
songs in the data base used.
After this graphical analysis, it is now possible to
understand which are the songs atributes that have more
inlfluence on the songs popularity. Using the different
algorithms, we tried to prove effectively which were the
different attributes with more weight to define a popularity of
a song. Loudness, danceability, energy were, for example,
three important aspects, using the Random Forest Model.
Fig. 13: Atributes weight in the popularity, using the Random Forest Model .
 1) Decision Tree Model
Firstly, with the Decision Tree model it is noticeable that
the results acquired were not desirable, with a very low
number of class recall results and very few predicted Yes’s
compared to the predicted No’s.
Fig. 14: Decision Tree Model statistics.
2) Random Forest Model
Using the Random Forest method which predict based on,
not one, but multiple decision trees, the following results were
achieved.
Fig. 15: Random Forest statistics.
The accuracy achieved with the Random Forest method is
far from ideal, as is visible in Fig. 16. This is due to the
individual decision trees being far from optimized, but it is
still better than the outcome of a single tree model (Decision
Tree).
Even changing the number of trees, as well as the depth,
and applying different pruning and preprunning values did not
translate to a significant improvement in the accuracy.
3) Naïve Bayes Model
On the other hand, the Naive Bayes Model yielded the
better results out of all the three models tested. As such, the
accuracy and class recall percentages were fairly reasonable
and it was in this model that the conclusions of this paper were
based on.
Fig. 16: Naïve Bayes Statistics
4) Creation of Playlists
This model can therefore be used to create playlists based
on its predictions. An interesting idea would be, for example,
the creation of a playlist comprised of songs that the model
predicted would be very popular, based on the values of
attributes mentioned above, while having, however, a
popularity rating below 70 in reality.
Fig. 17. Example of songs for the playlist.
In Fig. 17 three examples of songs that the model wrongly
predicted to be very popular are highlighted. This could be
used to create a playlist named “Great songs you might not
know”, for example.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, the following statements were concluded:
• Some paramenters have an big influence on a song’s
popularity.
• Loudness, danceability, energy were three of the most
important parameters in a song’s popularity.
• Three different models were able to solve our work’s
problem, using the following algoritms: the Decision
Tree, the Random Forest, and Naïve Bayes.
• With the results, it was stated that the Naïve Bayes
model was the one with the highest accuracy. Thus
being the most suitable for our work.
• Moreover, we were also able to generate a playlist
based on the models results, having wrongly predicted
top hit songs.
There were more ideas for this project, however this was
the maximum that we could have done with the time given. So
for future work, it would be interesting, with the results in this
paper, to create different playlists considering the influence of
certaint paramenters while using different models.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper and the research behind it would not have been
possible without the exceptional support of Professors Eduardo
Oliveira, Teresa Galvão and José Luís Borges.
REFERENCES
1. Kamal, J., et al. A Classification Based Approach to the
Prediction of Song Popularity. in 2021 International Conference on
Innovative Computing, Intelligent Communication and Smart
Electrical Systems (ICSES). 2021.
2. Gulmatico, J.S., et al. SpotiPred: A Machine Learning Approach
Prediction of Spotify Music Popularity by Audio Features. in 2022
Second International Conference on Power, Control and Computing
Technologies (ICPC2T). 2022.
3. Bakhshizadeh, M., et al. Automated Mood Based Music Playlist
Generation By Clustering The Audio Features. in 2019 9th
International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering
(ICCKE). 2019.
4. Chauhan, N.S. Decision Tree Algorithm, Explained. Machine
Learning 2022 [cited 2022; Available from:
https://www.kdnuggets.com/2020/01/decision-tree-algorithm-
explained.html.
5. Introduction to Random Forest in Machine Learning. Machine
Learning 2020; Available from: https://www.section.io/engineering-
education/introduction-to-random-forest-in-machine-learning/.
6. Chauhan, N.S. Naïve Bayes Algorithm: Everything You Need to
Know. Machine Learning 2022; Available from:
https://www.kdnuggets.com/2020/06/naive-bayes-algorithm-
everything.html.
7. Ray, S. 6 Easy Steps to Learn Naive Bayes Algorithm with codes
in Python and R. 2017; Available from:
https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2017/09/naive-bayes-
explained/.
8. Datta, A., et al. Multi-Class Classification of Different Region Pop
Songs using Spotify Database. in 2021 5th International Conference
on Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA).
2021.
9. Decision Tree. [cited 2022; Available from:
https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predicti
ve/trees/parallel_decision_tree.html#:~:text=Description,rule%20for
%20one%20specific%20Attribute.
10. Naive Bayes. Available from:
https://docs.rapidminer.com/latest/studio/operators/modeling/predicti
ve/bayesian/naive_bayes.html