New Computer Program Determines "Hitability" 482
illuminatedwax writes "It looks like the process of homogenizing the mediocrity of Top 40 radio is going to be aided by a computer, according to an
article from the Music Industry News Network. Polyphonic HMI has developed a new program called Hit Song Science (HSS) and compares "underlying mathematical patterns" in current hit songs and compares them to a new song to determine if it will become a hit or not. Looks like we can expect even more of the same old junk being recycled for us on the radio, although the article claims that it 'will allow new sounds and styles to flourish.'"
This is a great theory, if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a great theory, if... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is a great theory, if... (Score:2, Offtopic)
One minute... (sticks finger down throat)...
Bawaaaarrrff..
Re:This is a great theory, if... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously there are more variables involved here, like maybe the current economic, geopolitical, El-Nino, fashion variables and countless others?
They should just repackage their software and make an MP3-deduper for everyone's large collections.
Re:This is a great theory, if... (Score:5, Insightful)
music? silly you, we dont sell music we sell sex icons.
they sing so they have an excuse to dance. They dance so they can move their body sexual rthym and imitation.
Did you see the Grammy's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did you see the Grammy's? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This makes 2 years in a row that an album that was not pushed by the machine made it to number one. Last year's winner was Oh Brother, Where Art Thou, which was good ol' Bluegrass, and this year it was Nora Jones. CNN [cnn.com] has an interesting article (considering they are Time/Warner) about the fact that these 2 albums were made hits by word of mouth instead of by radio play.
The commercial music industry is broken. Music is being discovered through word-of-mouth instead of through industry channels. I know that is true for me, I have investigated more music through slashdot posts in the last year than from radio and this means more business for indy (non RIAA) labels. I fact I listen to NPR talk radio on the way to work, and to an '80s stationn if the wife is in the car (she hates talk radio). The RIAA isn't going to sell anything to me this way -- I already have most of the music that the '80s station plays.
Re:Did you see the Grammy's? (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, Britney may be well marketed but she really isn't a hit with her peers.
Re:Did you see the Grammy's? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did you see the Grammy's? (Score:3, Interesting)
Though I find it really spooky that they'd be anyone's yardstick for a music's goodness.
It's just a meta-effect of herd mentality, means nothing.
Tune out. Be yourself.
It's a great idea, but they've got it backwards.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a great idea, but they've got it backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
But it doesn't analyze anything in the acutal music.
For that, I would recommend FFT and backprop Neural Nets being added to the existing ranking methods that they have - but in the end, your own brain is likely better at it.
Re:It's a great idea, but they've got it backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, while there may be some relationship between the two, I'll happily use my own brain, listen to stuff and DECIDE if I like it. It's actually pretty effortless.
Re:It's a great idea, but they've got it backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
apocalypse with the Beatles (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:apocalypse with the Beatles (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, if you listen to a Pop station for long enough, you can easily predict new songs that will be a hit. Without actually enjoying or identifying with the music. My girlfriend naturally likes certain songs, and those songs are always hits (the ones that are over-played for about a year, while the rest are forgotten about).
A good program can easily pick up on the patterns, sure. But these are "hits", eg, songs that fit in with the current political "norm", "style", etc.
A true Hit is something that nobody expected. Something that just became a hit on its own merit. It wasn't non-conformist for the sake of being non-conformist (because it was the style at the time), rather, it expressed some emotion or feeling that the general population was able to identify with. Not because that was the "style" at the time. No computer programmer written by anyone alive today can pick up on that...
But the utter crap that comes out on the "pop" stations today? A perl script (or even a VB script) could pick up on that. It's so obvious. Non-conformist for the sake of being so. Sure, we'll dislike rules, because that's what everyone is doing -- that's what's "in". That's always what is "in".
I almost thing a computer program could pick up on it easier than the average "consumer" would. At least the computer would recognize why it is seeing a song as a "hit", where the consumer just sees a) all the popular radio stations are playing it, and b) all the "cool kids" have that CD, so c) It's cool and I have to like it.
Ugh, I hate the entire radio industry. I hate that radio *is* an industry. I never tune in to radio anymore (currently listening to 3rd Strike - No Light in MP3) because of this crap. It's all about marketabiliy.
If the "average" person likes it, that's fine for them. Me? I can't stand any of the utter shit that pops up on the radio these days. Perhaps I'm not like the "average person". Perhaps I am quite happy this way.
Posting AC because I am drunk
Re:apocalypse with the Beatles (Score:3, Insightful)
** I think THE reason why out of all the rock music subgenres, only punk has persisted more or less unchanged from its earliest days and shows no sign of getting "tired", is that it uses structures that are fundamentally similar to certain types of classical music (notably Beethoven). I'm not sure I can explain it better than that, but I can sure HEAR it. (There, use THAT to explain your weird thesis to your music professor.
Wearing thick glasses and a tie (Score:2, Funny)
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Funny)
Rivers Cuomo from Weezer (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as the media telling you what you'll be listening to...
You've got a point, but it's slowly eroding away. Payolla (sp) is now illegal. With all the attention companies like Clear Channel have gotten for owning such a high percentage of the nation's radio stations could soon result in regulation. Then we've got those nasty little P2P file sharing networks lurking around with mp3z to download. *wink*
You've got to face the fact that these record companies and radio stations only care about the money. If they can run a program that will reliably tell them if song A is more likely to be a hit than song B... maybe they can spend less money on promoting song A and get the same results as if they had released song B with extra money for promotion. That's just common sense, man.
thundercatzlair
Re:Rivers Cuomo from Weezer (Score:3, Interesting)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but while it's illegal, I was under the impression it's still the de facto standard.
If they can run a program that will reliably tell them if song A is more likely to be a hit than song B...
That's a pretty big if. You have to make the assumption that in general, music tastes don't change, and that all hit music sounds the same. You also have to make the assumption that music tastes are not affected by the geopolitical situation or the economy. New genres never become popular and every generation likes the same thing.
If it turns out that the program actually works, what does that say about music? Are we as listeners *really* that predictable? Is music really *that* formulaic? I'm not sure you could even call it art after this realization - there would be nothing to stop another program being written that uses the hit calculation formula to spit out cookie-cutter hit music.
I really hope I don't have to mourn creativity's death at the hands of the knuckle-dragging masses and the "bottom-line."
Re:Rivers Cuomo from Weezer (Score:5, Insightful)
> his songs based on songs by several bands
> including Nirvana. As a huge Weezer fan, I'd have
> to say he's on to something.
Most popular music is almost totally based on formulas e.g.:
- 1-2-3-4, 1-2-3-4, repeat till end
- verse/chorus/verse/chorus/mid 8/chorus
- use I, IV, V, IIm, VIm chords
- sad verses, upbeat choruses (Bruce Springsteen loves this one!)
- something around 120 beats per minute is what gets people tapping their feet in time with the music, even if they're not actually consciously listening to it
- various instruments have their frequency ranges compressed in certain ways; this is what frequently separates the good/big-selling producers from the bad/not-so-big. Listen to multiple albums from the one producer, even across several different artists or styles of music, and you'll pick up the "brand" of specific producers in how they mix specific instruments in the audio spectrum.
Although I'm nowhere near up with state of the art, I'd be surprised if current sound analysis software couldn't detect most/all of the above and spit out some sort of number saying how well a song fits the above "rules".
Finally, if there's any doubt that these formulas exist, check the early 80s bubblegum Brit Pop stuff produced by Stock Aitken Waterman. You could remove the vocals, and what's left of the songs are almost interchangeable.
Re:Rivers Cuomo from Weezer (Score:5, Funny)
bah! real men use EMacs chords.
Stock Aitken & Waterman (Score:5, Informative)
They weren't called The Hit Factory [amazon.co.uk] for nothing...
OTOH, Pete Waterman is *still* churning out acts that are hits (and has been a judge on two major UK Popstars talent shows along with his old mate Simon Cowell). And still happily copying classical structures [bbc.co.uk].
And if you think this is a phenomenon of the last 2|5|10|20 years, bear in mind such formulae as the 12 bar blues and the 4 chord trick (I, VI, IV, V, repeat).
But much of the gloss of pop music is (as suggested by parent post) in the arrangements, not the composition. Look at the number of covers in that compilation. Covers from the 50s, the 60s, the 70s. I would guess that much of the software we're talking about analyses arrangements and applies collaborative filtering based on what's selling at the moment.
In the end though, it doesn't matter. Pop music is primarily entertainment, defined by commercial success. Don't mistake it for Art.
Re:Rivers Cuomo from Weezer (Score:3, Interesting)
3-chord rock came out of jazz in the mid 20th century. It's easy to play, and easy to listen to. There are sounds that are naturally pleasing to the western ear.
120 bpm is a longtime holdover from military marches. A healthy person without ambulatory difficulties can walk comfortably to music set at 120 bpm, just ask any Sousa fanatic. (british marches are slightly faster, at 144bpm. don't know why that is)
Actually, a lot of the structure of modern music is an amalgamation of military march styling and jazz. You can't march to music in 5/4 (or dance - check PDQ Bach for some of that silliness). Most marches also have a similar set up of refrains and bridges in their lyrical makeup.
We've dropped the epic storytelling style of classical composition in favor or more portable, more approachable music, which was where the jazz bits came in. Sadly, the rise of pop music has devalued the art to the point where most of it is complete whiny crap. But that's why it's pop music. The listener really has nothing to lose or gain by having a different level of musical appreciation, since it's not musically complex and can therefore be comodified for john q. consumer.
so, yeah.
--mandi
Couldn't they just accomplish the same thing by. . (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:Couldn't they just accomplish the same thing by (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't take some dumb machine to sell tons of CDs to the masses, it takes a few guys with insight into what would appeal to the masses, and then you find people who look right.
I seriously don't think that the machine would fix me up with music I like, because the parameters would be all skewed towards the drooling idiots that are the masses. No wonder I don't buy CDs anymore, I rather put my money elsewhere thank you very much.
American Idol = American Idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a recipe for food poisoning.
How does this help the market? (Score:2, Insightful)
What'll be scary is when they use a modification of this to write top 40 hits, thereby taking people out of the mix entirely. I wonder, could the RIAA support such "musicians" when there is no real "artist" (I don't see them calling the people who wrote the code the artists, for some reason)?
By the way, this was posted over 24 hours ago on Fark. You'd think Slashdot would be a little faster on the updating.
Let me get this straight..... (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't possibly be the crap quotient that has gone up enormously over the last decade.
It seems like more then ever the music industry just sticks with whatever sells, experimenting with new sounds, who wants to take that risk?
Wow this thing will generate more of the same.
Quantifying tastes in music.
Evil.
Oh yeah, the problem with the music industry.
My bad.
Re:Let me get this straight..... (Score:2, Informative)
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out."
Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
Re:Let me get this straight..... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what did the best and brightest of the industry have to say about this tragedy during the show? A moment of silence? Condolences to the families? Nope. Nothing. Worse than nothing, Nelly was up hopping around the flames singing "Hot in Here".
Need any more proof that the music industry couldn't care less about its fans?
No step 3 (Score:3, Informative)
2) PROFIT!!!
How are the statistics interpreted? (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, I could write that.
#!/bin/sh
echo "not a hit"
Never would have made it past (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Smells Like Teen Spirit
3) London Calling
Re:Never would have made it past (Score:2)
1) Richard D. James
2) Gary Numan
3) Botch
Although these artists aren't well known now, I would bet that most electronic/industrial/punk (respectively) music in 5-10 years would be based on their work, if not already so.
Re:Never would have made it past (Score:2)
Re:Never would have made it past (Score:2)
Let's see. Warren Zevon, Lyle Lovett? Nope, not as out there as Tom, but not really "marketable." Maybe we'll let 'em write a few "B" side songs and do session work.
Manhatten Transfer. Are you *crazy?* That's jazz. Everyone knows jazz is dead.
Brian Setzer wants to record *what?* Swing? Man, that's just nuts. Swing is deader than jazz.And so is he. Last year's news.
Rickie Lee Jones. Yeah, now we're talkin'. Have her make 12 new versions of "Chuck E's in Love."
Bobby McFerrin. Ok, that's it. You've gone too far now. Get the hell out of my office and don't come back!
KFG
not necessarily the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Algorithm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Algorithm (Score:5, Funny)
"Back in my day musicians wore tight leather pants, wore earings and had big hair styles... But in my day, they were the WOMEN!".
--STP
The science of the same (Score:5, Informative)
The reasoning behind all this is that if you hear a song that you'd rate a 1 (hate) you're likely to turn the radio dial. But if you hear a 3 you're not likely to have any particular response at all -- thus you'll stay tuned in for more comercials.
Pop is probably done the exact same way. I guess that's why when you listen to "Classic hits of the [6-9]0s" you hear the same tripe over and again.
Re: The science of the same (Score:5, Insightful)
> An NPR article a few years ago reported how music companies decide which Country Music songs will be played on the radio.
Curiously, most of the "country" music that I hear on the radio these days sounds just like the second rate rock music of the 1970s, except for the addition of a handful of specific vocal mannerisms and an optional violin or steel guitar.
> Pop is probably done the exact same way. I guess that's why when you listen to "Classic hits of the [6-9]0s" you hear the same tripe over and again.
I think the "classic rock" format farted its brain out when they started having those "500 best of all time" weekends, where everyone could send in their votes for best song. They apparently used the results of those votes to prune their play lists to the sure winners. When the format first started they played a lot of interesting B-sides, album tracks, and other stuff that never made the top 40, but after a few years it got to where you could set your watch by which Pink Floyd or Bob Seeger tune they were playing.
About half my CDs are "classic rock", but I haven't listened to one of those stations in years. The damn "oldies" stations play a better selection of 60s music than the "classic rock" stations do.
Re:The science of the same (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about country music, because, thankfully, I've never worked in that format. Most other music stations do something like this, but in different forms. Sometimes it's calling people and asking what they think of the songs currently in rotation, i.e. "Will you vomit if you hear this Nickleback record again?" Other times they pick a panel of listeners, and have them listen to snippets of about 100 songs (normally 20-30sec of each), and rate them. The ones that rate badly among everyone are thrown out. When you're focusing on your listeners, you can be less concerned about the positive extreme.
The reasoning behind all this is that if you hear a song that you'd rate a 1 (hate) you're likely to turn the radio dial. But if you hear a 3 you're not likely to have any particular response at all -- thus you'll stay tuned in for more comercials.
Well, my friend, if you listen to stations that don't beg for money every five minutes (in addition to the millions of dollars they get in tax money every year), that's kind of the name of the game: hold the audience long enough so that they'll listen to some commercials. You do it by having good programming and good talent.
I guess that's why when you listen to "Classic hits of the [6-9]0s" you hear the same tripe over and again.
Ummm....not quite. Classics stations are safe. There is a certain segment of the population that has been under the influence of illicit substances since 1968. They'll dig Iron Butterfly until they die in about 30 years.
open source implementation of hit song detector: (Score:3, Funny)
grep -i "britney" song_titles.txt
Re:open source implementation of hit song detector (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:open source implementation of hit song detector (Score:3, Informative)
I dont remember the name of the company, but there was a streeming media
But there are lots of online retailers who have "people who bought this also bought..." boxes on all there pages.
Britney's career is over (Score:2)
Still, even given the rapaciousness of her management and record company, Britney will have made enough money to live like a princess for the rest of her life, so at this point I wouldn't really be caring terribly much if I were her.
Re:Britney's career is over (Score:2)
Actually, as far as I am aware, Avril writes her own songs. At least the lyrics, you may be talking about the "music" part - but I don't think her stuff is so much about the music as the lyrics.
Avril's not the most colorful crayon in the box (Score:3, Informative)
She's not, like, very smart [news.com.au].
I would say that based on the interview above, she would have a hard time writing anything more complex than a small grocery list. At very least she's not a friend of the big words [expage.com].
I confess that I have only heard one of her songs, in passing, on Saturday Night live, so I can't speak to the body of work spanning her entire career. The one song I heard, however, was less than remarkable. I didn't even know who she was until everyone was going on about that virus named after her. And I'm out of her demographic; I'm almost exactly twice her age. Perhaps I'm just not as receptive to the message of teen angst as I once was.
My hunch says she has very good handlers who are actively trying to use her to separate disaffected teens from their parents' money.
-B
Re:Avril's not the most colorful crayon in the box (Score:5, Insightful)
But I have to stick up for her on a few points. Having heard two songs I think I could say that the lyrics don't seem to fit the genre of music. I read a slightly better interview of her in Newsweek a few months back, and I seem to recall she said something similar to what the previous poster had mentioned, that she focused on the lyrics and the label had used a lot of influence over the music on the first album. You can't really fault someone for saying "um" or "like" a lot in an interview because it is on the fly and most of us aren't practiced in rhetoric, don't take our time, and stutter all over the language in that situation. Also, when you're in a multiplatinum position, you probably don't want to talk about what the next album is going to be like if you don't know yet. I could forgive a lot saying she just came out of a huge album and tour, I don't blame her for being a bit exhausted and not really wanting to think about the next album right away. Particularly when you get asked it a lot and are going through the harrowing new star thing.
That said, my interpretation of the whole Avril thing is this: she was on the path to being one of their born 'n' bred country pop sensations. She for whatever reason came out differently than they expected. At 15, her "rebellion" probably didn't consist of walked into the CEO's office and terminating the contract over musical differences. Did anyone notice how mention of her parents is curiously missing from these interviews? My guess is that she told her parents she wasn't going to do it anymore. They went in and told the label, who came up with a "compromise." She could do "whatever she wanted"--as long as she followed along with what they wanted in the areas that didn't have to do with the music. Since she really didn't know a damn thing about music other than pop, it's what her first album sounds like. It's what she knew. Of course the rebellion didn't have anything to do with musical differences, she just didn't want to become a primped and preened mass media sex object.
Predictably, the label saw this as an excellent chance to make her a mass media sex object, only aiming her for the so-called angst-filled teenager market rather than the popular pop market. The uproar over this now seems really no different than the uproar that followed the release of American Pie or Something About Mary, except it's music and it's several orders of magnitude more benign. In actual fact, every teenager has angst, so her demographic is huge. Britney can't exactly convey the angst message, plus she suffered from over exposure. (I'd argue that pop is an inherently limited media that prevents more complex messages than simple teenage love/angst from being transmitted in the first place, but that's another rant.)
I bet they gave her all the freedom she could think of, and then just shuffled her off to do their photo shoots and various other PR without making a big deal about it. Being completely unworldly, she doesn't know 1) what she's rebelling against, or 2) what is intrinsic to the music business that she should be rebelling against, and isn't.
If my theory is correct, here's what I would expect to happen in the upcoming years:
1. Each successive album she creates is more of a departure from the first album until she finds her style (probably 2 albums from now).
2. Her fanbase grows smaller but more dedicated until she is taken seriously as a "real artist" in some circles. Along with that, it will be acknowledged that she has her own style, even if it's representative of some genre, but that genre will not be pop.
3. The label eventually drops her, inspite of which she continues to release albums on a smaller label and fill medium-sized venues well into her old age.
Is it likely? No. But the fact that her bass player left because he was tired of being a "marketing tool" might merely mean he is too talented to be wasted playing second fiddle for a clueless teenage girl who gets all the time in the spotlight. (It's not real likely he's talented either, but this is the music industry not the software industry). But here's what I expect would happen if she is nothing more than a marketing trick:
1. There are 2 additional albums from her, neither showing any marked improvement in skill in terms of songwriting or lyrics (or even any additional maturity or increase in vocabulary).
2. Each successive album cover shows her revealing more skin (in the other scenario, album covers are less likely to feature her prominently).
3. After the third album is a complete failure, the label drops her and she is never heard from again in any capacity. 20 years later, on VH1, we learn that she spent half her money moving to India where she teaches English and Computer Science in a middle school and is a devout Hindu. Or, alternately, she becomes an MTV anchorwench, which I think is at the same level of general interest and importance.
Of course, I could be wrong.
--
Daniel
No, (Score:4, Insightful)
Furthermore, MTV has a big part to play, still, because how many fat, bald guys do you see with hit records? Take hot chick, add dance background, have hit. For variety substitute a few decent-looking boys for the hot chick.
As for this program, remember, the nutrimat in the Heart of Gold also determined Arthur Dent would like the Advanced Tea Substitute. See what happens if he drinks it too much.....
Not really applicable (Score:2)
The only stations I listen to now are the classic rock and oldies stations (except it kind of depresses me to listen the oldies stations...Some of my favorite songs from the 80's are starting to get playtime on them)
Re:Not really applicable (Score:2)
Manufacturing hits (Score:2, Funny)
If Only... (Score:5, Funny)
If only they can make a program to predict "slashdotability", their server wouldn't have to suffer like this.
sounds like bs... (Score:2, Funny)
well...i can tell you right now the song isnt going to be a hit
This is terrible if it works... (Score:2, Insightful)
Most new music is already cut and paste, and it's bad enough as it is.
If something like this had been in place for the past 30 years, there'd have been no innovation in music, and the music industry would be consolidated into one terrible company emitting pure crap, instead of the 5 or so major labels which emit mostly crap...
Sad (Score:2, Funny)
According to this readout from HSS.... (Score:2, Funny)
Love?!?
Who's been tampering with the machine!
Jokes Aside... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not acoustically talented, and I'm sure I couldn't recognize a fugue or a canon if I heard one, but I know that there is some music that I really like, and that sounds better made and more complete than others. I wouldn't find it hard to believe those songs have properties that a computer could pick out.
For example, have you ever listened to a song for the first time, and been able to anticipate what the next notes would be? I think on some level our brain recognizes patterns that we can't see conciously. With statistical analysis, a program could determine if more hit songs always follow a pattern or a specific pattern (easy to hum songs that get stuck in your head), or if more hit songs would break the melody and hit a note you weren't expecting (like those really mind-blowing high notes).
As a music lover, I would be thrilled if this application worked. It would really enhance websites that try to suggest other songs that you might like based on your favorite songs. In a lot of the music I like, the singer's voice gets deep and gravelly in parts. There could be bands that I hadn't considered listening to who match that profile, and a program like HSS coudl find them.
Must have read Fark too much (Score:5, Funny)
Reading the title made me wonder if a computer was able to do some kind of ``Hot or Not'' evaluation of a picture.
reminds me of... (Score:2)
So, tomorrow's hits will be the same ole shite because of a lunatic narrow-minded nerd ?
Flaws could arise (Score:2, Insightful)
2005: a little known new zealand band is suddenly promoted beyond belief. In most respects they're identical to the spice girls, they just happen to sound like New Kids On The Block, and their lead singer is named "Michael Jackson"
I'm running scared already.
This could be useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, this is useful on a person by person basis. I can tell it which songs I like, and it can pre-scan new music and decide what I'm more likely to enjoy.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
There ARE formulas for "hits" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There ARE formulas for "hits" (Score:3, Informative)
so... (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen this before... (Score:2)
Coolest was when they applied the formula, and wrote What Time Is Love and 3a.m. Eternal, which hit HUGE in the UK but really just served the Rave crowd out here....
How the program works... (Score:3, Funny)
Are record companies execs so clueless... (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me naive, but aren't they supposed to be experts in picking hit songs already, and if a computer program can do the job what the hell are they being paid to do?
Re:Are record companies execs so clueless... (Score:2)
Not the song (Score:2, Informative)
Sample program outuput (Score:2, Funny)
34C
Hit!
So close... soooooo close..... (Score:2)
Finally that last pesky seal to the gates of hell can be breached.
wait your turn (Score:2)
Sounds familiar... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
SinOn is providing the AI side of the new MoDI car stereo that can be trained to recognize the owner's favorite style of music, and subsequently anticipate which streams, with permission, will be selected for play. The user simply puts the unit in training mode for approximately 10 hours, after which it is then set for autoplay. When set for autoplay, the software will prescreen all incoming audio streams and compare "underlying mathematical patterns" to determine if they match the listener's preference in music.
We tested the unit against the North Atlantic music satellite weave, giving it the suggested 10 hours of training. Once switched to autoplay, we travelled along the coast for two days, allowing MoDI to select music for us. We were happily surprised with the serendipity of track selection, and pleased with the seamless performance of the unit at all times.
We can report a positive experience with Kenwood's latest, and a recommendation for anyone looking for the newest in mobile audio while avoiding the pap of modern programmed listening.
It never was about the songs... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay! More Hit Songs! (Score:4, Funny)
This may be the excuse to buy a CD/MP3 player. Then I can listen to the hits my mom picks out for me.
The formula has been found! (Score:3, Funny)
Is a link titled "Any idiot can rap"
and it leads to
http://www.bangedup.com/archives/MicroRBHitWi
[ ] Yes
[ ] Yes
YAW
1984, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
A machine that checks to see if a song is going to be a hit with the masses based on mathematics is not far behind a machine that will be able to generate a hit for the masses.
Creepy.
Re:1984, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
"underlying mathematical patterns" (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't have a problem with that, if they were judging each song independently. Like it or not, music DOES revolve around math. Beat, Harmony, Melody, Rhythm, and Tone are all by definition the elements that make something into music instead of just a bunch of noise.
Today MANY musicians make what is by definition closer to noise than music, because it only has some of these elements. A dripping faucet can have a beat and rhythmn, but it doesn't have a melody.
A lot of top-40 crap is manufactured garbage that is hollow and uninspired, but on the other hand it follows all of the rules of music and thus isn't exactly horrible to listen to (share and enjoy.)
On the other hand, a lot of VERY POPULAR singers completely disregard some of the most basic rules of music. (Did beat go out of style while I was off on another planet or is the entire population of the world go retarded while I was gone?)
A simple test for the quality of music is to compare it to all of the basic elements and see how much of each it has, and how well each one has done.
You can take a lot of music and quickly notice that the singer can not in tune, is off beat, isn't in harmony with the music, the music behind the singer's voice has no real melody (it's just a baseline - a common violation these days), or (very often) it's several of these things.
Again, much top 40 follows the rules. I'd rather hear that than some indi band that doesn't. Much of the top 40 doesn't, and I can do without those. Essentially I'll listen to anything well done, regardless of the type of music or whether or not it's "popular". I can even enjoy classical.
So if someone were to write a program that could simply screen out the "noise" and keep it from getting put on the charts, I don't think that would be a bad thing. Top 40 might not instantly stop being shit, but at least it would be musical shit, and not just a bunch of noise.
You're either going to agree with me on this, or flame me to death. What the hell, I have Karma to burn.
RFH (Score:3, Interesting)
The result was the coolest station I had ever or since heard. Dont know exactly what killed them, but i yearn for something half that cool among all the clearchannel stations i have to fight with.
Two things (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I'm pretty sure that the program is some variety of snake oil. Whether it's an interesting AI project that might sometimes work or a pure fraud remains to be seen.
2. This won't change anything, even if it works. The major labels already use focus groups and mixing factories to make sure every piece of music they release is bland. (Why? Because recording has gotten too expensive, so they need to make every release a "sure thing", so they spend millions on focus groups and big-name mixers.) This program, even if it works, can't possibly make things worse.
What makes good music? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can a computer program really translate the meaning of the words sung and see if they are able to capture people emotionally?
Furthermore, when recording a song, there might be a lot of 'takes' to get a good song. Some are obviously better than others to the human ear, but I would be curious if this computer program rates these fairly or the same.
Live recording CDs change songs quite a bit also. When I play song, I try and change it a little each time, because it is a whole new experience. It keeps the audience interested because even if they have heard it before, they have not heard it quite the way I play it that time. The point is, little variations give a song the cutting edge to make it better. I know I have an album by the same band, but two different producers (Sponge - one by Chaos, the other by Work). One version is definately better than the other even though they are the same songs.
It is sort of the same for a song that was orginally lots of electric guitars and they re-did it all acoustic. Sometimes I even didn't like the electric and loved the acoustic. Can a computer program handle these extreme differences? I wouldn't think so.
all I can say (Score:4, Funny)
it's the music equivalent of spamfiltering.
Music makers rejoice! (Score:3, Insightful)
We've already seen this happen -- build a spam filter and the spammers will then engineer their spam to get around it...
If I were a record exec, I'd be particularly dubious of this.
Sean
As a professional musical instrument maker ... (Score:4, Interesting)
When the general public get sick of all the pop and 'reality' stars made for them, they turn to the underground, and this is where you'll find people [ampfea.org] who truly [ampfea.org] allow new [access-music.de] styles [ampfea.org] to flourish. [ampfea.org]
All this Hollywood stuff is for chumps. If you want real music, and real musicians, just look for the underground.
It's out there.
Good news for real artists (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a great saying that I love that I've heard credited to David Cronenberg (never been able to verify it). The saying goes, "An entertainer gives you what you want. An artist gives you what you didn't realize you wanted."
This kind of hit-finding software will give music execs the abillity to perfect their entertainment while pushing them almost entirely away from art. For real artists out there, this could be a good thing, in the long-run.
This might be good (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe there's another application: I have been playing the same old cds for years, and prolly will do so for years to come, maybe they can make a version that can be trained to predict whether I will like it and recommend new songs/artists to me.
Problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the problems is that everyone moans about the homogeneity and lack of good music and then instead of going out and buying it they download MP3s fromthe web. Now that is fine *providing* you give something back to the artists and the musicians writing the stuff... sadly this is often not the way...
The majority of buyers of music are in the young teeny market or the older back catalogue and new music is squeezed between these two camps. And hey guess what, most people into new music don't buy, my record label (LOCA [locarecords.com] sells very small amounts of CDs and Vinyl *even though* we get emails and good press telling us how good the music is.
And we have had a donate to artists for their MP3s available for twelve months and ONLY ONE PERSON HAS DONE SO... even though we have had thousands of downloads.
Now, perhaps everyone hates the music - fair enough - but I think much more likely people can't get their head around paying for something they have already got on their walkman. That is certainly one of the main reasons I do not copy albums off people, the moment I do, no matter how good my intentions, I do not go and buy the CD. Sure if I grab an MP3 off the web I will as then the quality is poor (for instance I recently went out and got the Electric6 single Danger! High Voltage! after a download).
So what do we the tiny independent labels do about this? Well I'm truly not sure.. The market is sewn up by the majors to extents you would not believe. Generally people *do not like* buying unknown bands, and certainly not if they are not stocked in the major record stores, and lastly if they get the MP3 they seem mostly happy with that...
I would love for an alternative business model to start to emerge on the web but it seems that for all the talk its the same everywhere, the majors can advertise and buy their way into the web review sites by blitzing them with promos, they plug like crazy and they already control the external print market. Goodby heterogeneity, hello homogeneity.
This new 'scientific' method of calculating music singles is the result of laziness and shallowness by the buying public and quite frankly history will judge us that way...
But not too get too depressing, will that stop us writing music and running the label? Nah.. we love music too much..
Announcement from the producers of this record: (Score:3, Insightful)
This announcement from the producers of this record contains important information for radio program directors, and is not for broadcast.
The first cut on this record has been cross-format-focused for airplay success. As you well know, a record must break on radio in order to actually provide a living for the artists involved. Up until now, you've had to make these record-breaking decisions on your own, relying only on perplexing intangibilities like taste and intuition.
But now, there's a better way.
The cut that follows is the product of newly-developed compositional techniques, based on state-of-the-art marketing analysis technology. This cut has been analytically designed to break on radio. And it will, sooner or later.
For the station that breaks it first, the benefits are obvious. You lead the pack. Yes, no matter what share of this crazy market you do business in, no other release is going to satisfy your corporation's current idea of good radio like this one. On this cut, we're working together, on the same wavelength, in scientific harmony.
But remember, this cut is constructed for multi-market-breaking NOW. Don't waste valuable research with needless delay. We've done the hard work of insuring your success; the final step is up to you.
SPECIAL DESIGNER SONG FOLLOWS IN 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...(click)
The growing irrelevance of record companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Musicians can now create and engineer music in their own homes with a relatively modest investment. They can advertise and distribute on the web. By charging a modest sum to download the music, they could quickly out-earn the average 35 cents a cd they now make. When someone (Napster?) comes up with the appropriate delivery vehicle for this scheme, the music-as-big-business era will have come to an end.
Record companies ought to recognize this now and stop treating their talent as noisome middlemen. It seems like they start with packaging and marketing, and add in the music as an afterthought.
But all is not lost --- great musicians want to create great music, and people will want to hear it. You can't keep the two apart.
I got an idea. (Score:4, Funny)
Yea, I know, its illegal, but at least it would be more accurate. Then again the purpose of the Top 40 is to SELL CDs, not to inform you on what is really most popular.
Zappa Said It (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there's a shock (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
> and how is this gonna change what's on the radio right now? They just play stuff until they find something that people like, which usually sucks
Actually, they just play whatever's written on the payola $$$, and people "like" it because they think everyone else does.