17 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 32.4 ms ] thread
I wish he would add mc chris[0] to this. I have no idea where mc chris would fall, but I suspect it would be to the right, simply because of his use of unique sci fi words.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC_Chris

Also a shame that Project Pat[0] is not included

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pat

He is likely a part of Three Six Mafia's entry in the list.

It is a pleasure, however, to see Canibus ranked among the top. That man is a true legend IMO.

The most surprising one for me is DMX. There is a lot of repetition in his songs, though I remember thinking that he was a solid lyricist spitting bars much more complex than his beats, which are certainly a bit more mundane.
You don't have to use a very large vocabulary to be a solid lyricist.
Literally came here to say this!! I think more of his sound comes from his fast delivery, his different voices, and of course, his ridiculously unique beats. The Damien songs come to mind.

I think X achieves his lyricism through the combination of small and simple words into unique phrases. "Yall been eating long enough now, stop being greedy" is a unique phrase that no other rapper would ever utter, but it isn't made from complex words like Aesop Rock or Eminem would use.

I like the "Just W" filter. Also Action Bronson surprised me.
This has been posted several times, but it was updated with fresh and interesting data today--for the first time in several years. Is it possible to get that [dupe] flag removed?
author here, that'd be great!
Does using a large vocabulary correlate with positive critical reception? Does using a smaller vocabulary correlate with increased record sales?

It would be interesting to see another dimension to the data such as critical reception or record sales.

Another idea is to break down an artist's discography, and show these stats across different albums (would probably only work for artists with a large discography)

Has someone tried quantifying those who create something maximally spectacular from the smallest number of words possible? This seems to be the theme in math: gargantuan universes out of minimal number of axioms.
Energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light.
As the author points out, song structure biases the results, so that artists with structured and repeated lyrics end up with a lower "vocabulary". Wouldn't it make sense to simply combine repeated lines before counting? So you'd be measuring vocabulary in first 35,000 non-structurally-repeating lyrics.