Slashdot Mirror
New Computer Program Determines "Hitability"
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 works if you assume that a "new" or "different" song isn't likely to be a hit.
increases "hitability" in elementary school.
The media is already telling you what songs you will be listening to. Why would they need a computer to tell them what they already know?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
having Britney Spears rerecord the same song over, and over, and over and . . .Arrrrgh! Just shoot me now.
KFG
All I see this doing is allowing the RIAA to determine which songs should be invested in and which shouldn't be. Doesn't add to diversity because all it does is identify hits. If anything, it'll further homogenize corporate radio.
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.
If not all sentients are human, couldn't it be possible that not all humans are sentient either?
I am the reason the music industry is dying.
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.
1) Make song exactly like current hit
2) PROFIT!!!
> 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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Do they give it all the songs ever, and it says "not a hit" for all of them, and it's 90% correct, because 90% of songs are worthless?
Hell, I could write that.
#!/bin/sh
echo "not a hit"
1) Bohemian Rhapsody
2) Smells Like Teen Spirit
3) London Calling
An NPR article a few years ago reported how music companies decide which Country Music songs will be played on the radio. They cold call people and have them listen to 5 seconds of the song. This tortured person is then asked to rate the song 1-5. The music industry then takes all the songs that get 1s and 5s and discards them. It turns out that often when one group rates a song a 5 another will really hate the song and rate it a 1. So what the industry is really looking for is songs that score 3s.
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.
#!/bin/bash
grep -i "britney" song_titles.txt
The songs that will be hits are the ones that get the most spins, whether it's because a local program director/music director got sweet-talked by a distribution rep (aka legal payola), or because Clear Channel says it'll be a hit. IAADJ.
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.....
Imagine if these "mathematical patterns and structures in music that until now have been hidden" can be extracted and then applied to existing recordings which haven't done as well as the labels hoped or to new recordings in order to enhance their success subliminally. As an example, what if these secret signals were applied to remaster William Shatner's old recordings?
If only they can make a program to predict "slashdotability", their server wouldn't have to suffer like this.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
if you need a computer to tell you that a song is good...
well...i can tell you right now the song isnt going to be a hit
If this program works like they say it does, then this could be the final nail in the coffin for the radio. If they made popular music MORE cut and paste, it'd just be some time before more people just quit listening.
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...
"...and there goes the last DJ..."
Love?!?
Who's been tampering with the machine!
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
Music and Math are closely related, as anyone who's read Godel Escher Bach knows. Musical scores have themes that appear in many different variations such as canons (when a melody is offset in time) and fugues (more complicated than a fugue, read the book if you want to know).
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.
for me, ``hitability'' doesn't mean the same at all.
Reading the title made me wonder if a computer was able to do some kind of ``Hot or Not'' evaluation of a picture.
A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
hey, how long till i can have it automaticly D/L the songs that i will [Mathematically] like?
I think this kind of system, while it may very well do good for promoting songs that have similar qualities to existing 'popular' ones, would eventually bring up flaws if relied on too heavily, from the feedback loop it would have to generate. A few wildly popular songs would define what's released/promoted in the future. Those promotions, themselves only selected due to the use of an artificial construct, would then define what follows. I think some pretty icky patterns could start to reveal themselves.
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.
Can I run the program on music I might consider listening to and rule out anything it approves?
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
From the way progressions resolve to the overused arrangement of "Intro Verse Chorus Bridge Verse Chorus Bridge Verse Breakdown Verse Chorus Outro", most popular music has the same basic structure. Why is it that 95% of rock songs have the same 4 chord major progression? IT WORKS! Yes, there are exceptions where real song writing ability carries the song on to success (Queen, anyone?) but the general templates are there...and record companies KNOW (and bank) on it. (considering that most pop buyers can only hear the singing, I'll understand if no one gets this)
"Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them."
It listens to female pop singers and prints out "I'd hit it" if it thinks the woman is hot...
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
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?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's not (only) the song that detemines the hit-factor. It's the looks of the 'artist' and the promotion...
I want my karma, and I want it now!
Input Breast size:
34C
Hit!
You can do it now. Or you could at least. .com that when you set up an account, you selected how much you like genres of music, and it shot down random songs at you. For each song played you could select how much you like it, to black list the [song|artist]. The system would thus learn what you like. Sory I dont have a url to prove that Im right :P
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.
...this is pretty similar to the computer program described in The Jazz by Melissa Scott. A kid stumbles onto a program that can tell him how similar something is to existing works. It goes slightly further - making suggestions also - but the idea is the same. In the book, a major studio uses it for movies.
Today, Kenwood announced a new model in their line of automotive head units that incorporates the fruits of their recent alliance with the Chinese software group SinOn.
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.
Rivers uses a mathematical formula when writing 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. He's talked candidly about it in interviews. I'm at least fairly interested in what comes of this.
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
it's about the artistes... Why the hell else stupid shows like American Idol and Popstars (Bardot who?) become so popular?
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
This may be the excuse to buy a CD/MP3 player. Then I can listen to the hits my mom picks out for me.
A third of the way down (Jan 23 in fact) http://www.bangedup.com/archives/z ard. jpg
Is a link titled "Any idiot can rap"
and it leads to
http://www.bangedup.com/archives/MicroRBHitWi
[ ] Yes
[ ] Yes
YAW
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
People, people, we already HAVE this. Observe circumstancial evidence:
Program start: Logic
------
Marylin Manson was a hit.
Marylin Manson plays guitar
Marylin Manson has long hair
Marylin Manson is considered "rock".
Avril Lavigne plays guitar and has long hair
Avril Lavigne is rock.
-----------
End program: Logic
Obviously it is in its very early stages, but you know, the record companies may just leave it that way since they make more money off the stupid people.
An artist puts something of himself or herself into the work. It conveys emotions and ideas. There may be science in music, but there's no science behind what makes a song good or enjoyable.
When this algorithm can understand and reproduce the genius of the Beatles I will be impressed. recognizing tripe is still tripe. Creating tripe is still tripe. Write Yesterday, or In My Life and only then will I retire as a musician.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
I'm surprised I didn't see this mentioned anywhere. I remember one of the particularly depressing things from 1984 was the music generating machine used to create music for the proles.
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.
you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
"underlying mathematical patterns"
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.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Take a peak at who wrote her songs... and then take a peak at which other acts he has produced...
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.
You'd have to know more about how the system works to tell. It's very well possible that those songs share some mathematical similarities with other less original hit songs. Statistical methods can find rather deep hidden similarities even in superficially dissimilar things.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
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.
Surely it's the marketing and not the tune which makes a hit. If a company can get a single into the top 10 (Not too hard with sales fixing etc.) then they will start to make real sales.
It's the popularity of a song that makes it popular, not the music. When was the last time you heard a mainstream DJ say "This song is great. It's got strong African rhythms mixed with Celtic melancholy." Or how about "This song is great. It's got the gothic movements mixed with C&W lyrics". Now, how about "This song is great. It came in at number one"...
People aren't interested in hearing music. We're interested in hearing what other people are hearing.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
She's not, like, very smart.
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.
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
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Who was the big winner? Was it some teen sex idol? No. It was the daughter of a sitar player.
if you had access to the program, and you fed it the songs that were your own personal hits, maybe rated them, it would be better than just about anything else at telling you what else you'd like. Finding you bands you'd never heard of that were actually pretty good. It could allow you to expand your musical horizons rather than forcing you into the narrow spam mold of the cold musical marketing machine. It could easily evolve into a simple web based tool to sell more and a broader variety of music, but they'd never even think of it.
Sure music is mathematical, but you get completely different music from a computer or machine making the music (player piano, etc.) and somebody actually performing it. The person is able to put expression and feelings in the their work. Often the actual words sung are important to give the right expression and emotion.
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.
I want one. Running every song on the radio through this algorithm would be good. Just so I can automagically switch channels if the software says it's "hit-material" mind you..
it's the music equivalent of spamfiltering.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
If you can get ahold of the algorithms that are used to rate the music, you can then compose music that will make the record execs pee their pants with excitement. "Whoa, your song went up to eleven!"
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
... and as a hobbyist musician I love articles like this.
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 who truly allow new styles to flourish.
All this Hollywood stuff is for chumps. If you want real music, and real musicians, just look for the underground.
It's out there.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
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.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
If you think of this in a positive way: Maybe the record companies will be more willing to give new artists that try something new a chance if this tells them it might be a hit. Ofcourse this is all dependant on how well this works, and the music alone is not always enough to make hit.
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.
beauty is only a light switch away
This reminds me of the Negativland album "Escape From Noise." The first track on the record is a parody of a radio announcement telling you that the next track you will hear has been scientifically tested and engineered to be a big hit. I guess this shows how parody often becomes reality. Spooky. Great album, by the way, if you haven't experienced Negativland yet.
IAAL
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 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..
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
It's been around for years and I've always called it "cookie cutter" music.
No originality, every song sounds just like the last song, and boring as hell.
Somebody takes a recipe, gets the required ingredients, and bakes a shitty song.
The trouble is that a lot of people don't have any taste when it comes to music, and they buy whatever is hyped the most just so they will look "cool" or "with it". No surprise that most dance and pop music falls into this category.
Top 40 means the top 10 songs played 40 times a day. Aaarrrrrrgggghhh!
Goodbye, Mr. Rogers. We'll miss you.
They weren't called The Hit Factory 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.
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.
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Launch.com currently allows you to vote on a scale how much you like/dislike a song - then based on that it recommends other songs to you.
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.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
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)
This is just more evidence of the growing irrelevance of record companies. As technology moves forward, the record companies seem determined to find ways to decrease creativity and thwart musicians, not promote artistry. This will prove a fatal approach, in my opinion.
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.
http://ob-la-blog.blogspot.com/
The Polyphonic site says:
Well, much of what attracts us to a particular song is found in the basic structure of the music. Particular rhythms, changes in key and certain
HSS visualization of an album superimposed into the recent "hit universe" melodic patterns define the psychological and very human response we all have to music.
This seems to imply that the reaction to hit songs is universal. I'm not ashamed to say that I absolutely abhor most of the hit songs on the charts nowadays. Um, "we all have" this "very human response"? My response is to change the station (which rarely actually happens, since I almost always just listen to my MP3 CDs anyway).
My point is, how can some software like this transcend people's individual tastes? I mean, sure, it wouldn't be hard to recycle some music to sell it wholesale to the masses, but it's pretentious at best to assume that some sort of program can accurately reflect my tastes at the same time as the average 12-year-old boy band fan.
--------------------
"Time is an illusion.
Lunchtime doubly so."
-Douglas Adams
David Borowitz
Maybe they should rank songs in the Top 40 by how many times it is downloaded on Kazaa. I mean, the idea is to rank how POPULAR the song is, what better method than to measure how many people are getting using the most popular method for getting new music?
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Yes, so long as "what I will like" = "what I like now".
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.
-Styopa
Ok.. The conecept is a great CompSci project, in its own idea. Determining and matching patterns in music. GREAT! The bad part is they applied EVIL statistics to the game. Statistacs can be manipulated in sooo many ways. My problem is ok for this to work.. they'd have to survey all the top hits and make a Master pattern. Not only top hits from now.. but top hits from as far back as human archives have recorded, and stratified as popular. Then look and see what common ground you find. Remember.. taste changes over time.
Now my concern personally about this is.. I don't like mainstream music *most* of the time. There is a lot of crap out now, and has been out before that I am completely boggled as to why its popular. I'd say 90%. Mostly I many of the bands I like haven't seen much pop top 40 play. I don't try and be snobbish about it.. its just what I like. If its popular I don't mark it automatically off the list. I mean I'm ashamed to admit it, but I really like that Pink song, Party started.. or whatever it was called. That was a great pop song, and dance hall song really. On the other hand I really like listening to Mike Doughty solo and from his days with Soul Coughing.
My point is everybody is different.. I hate it when everything is playing to the lowest common denominator. I guess thats a cruel fact of life though.
Oh well chances are everbody will get bored of what the program determines as pop.. and they'll have to reprogram it.. thus the industry will still be behind the trends.. as always..
Who makes you Sig?
The way to write a hit song is to imitate what you here on the radio. So said Frank Zappa, in an interview shortly before his death. Listen to the current hits, and imitate them: nothing more, nothing less.
-kgj
Sounds like a recipe for food poisoning.
Considering the proportion of garbage on the air, it would be a fair trade. Still, a better use would be as a "Junk Filter", to decide ahead of time what I *wouldn't* like. (And remember, you need to check the junk filter every once in awhile to make sure the settings haven't gotten bollixed up.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
1. Theoretical system. This, I sense, could actually be a great technology. If there is a solid basis behind what we like and why we like it, I feel it would provide some great insights into culture. The record industry would issue music based on what people really do want to hear.
2. Empirical system. This would use data from previous hits and misses to predict how a current song will do. What I don't like about this is the prior database: it will be made up of the generic music the industry has been pushing for years. So it will not be making a decision based on how the masses really would like a tune, rather it would make a decision based on how the masses liked the other stuff they sold. In this way, innovative new styles will still take a long time to pry their way into the mainstream.
No I'm not trolling.
Food for thought:
(The songs I list here are my examples, you may disagree, just substitute appropriate songs for you...)
When I think back to the first time I heard particular songs, even without knowing who the artist was, I recall certain times I loved the song right away, for example:
Enter Sandman- Metallica
Still the One- Shania Twain
(I still enjoy those songs today.)
Then there was some songs that I thought were interesting, for example:
Informer- Snow
I'm Blue (ah ba dee aba dah)- still don't know by whom
These songs were interesting, not great but the third or fourth time I heard them I kind of liked listening to them.
(Now I hate listening to them.)
Then there's songs like Abercrombie and Fitch girls, which I always hated, and still do. I think there's an obvious marketing trend. The Abercrombie and Fitch song was hyped so much, that they "MADE" you like it, or at least they "MADE" the people like it who would call up and request it to be played, thus making it a hit.
The first group represents good songs that stand the test of time. The middle group represesnts something somewhere in the middle. Now all of these songs were top hits. How do you suppose a computer program will differentiate them? (Or does it matter? A hit is a hit.)
I assumed computers were already responsible for top 40 music.