Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Software

Software Predicts Music Success 278

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the prestidigitation-and-other-party-tricks dept.
Frankenbuffer writes "The Globe and Mail today reports that MIT researchers have developed a computer program to analyze pop music and predict how people will react to it. The method, developed at MIT's Media Laboratory, analyzes the pitch, rhythm, and other characteristics of music. What makes the technology unusual is that it also takes into account social responses to hit music gathered from weblogs, chat rooms, music reviews, and other online discussions, and correlates this data to the music to guage the popularity of a particular sound. According to the researchers, the software has accurately predicted Billboard hits for the past several months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Software Predicts Music Success More

Software Predicts Music Success

Comments Filter:

  • great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by esoteric0 ( 105786 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:32PM (#14017471)
    the record labels are going to get ahold of this and turn it around to actually produce the music. then it will all sound the same.

    wait....

    • Re:great... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Awperator ( 783768 )
      Simple test to see if this should be used exclusively. Let it rank the likes of Britney Spears, Ashlee Simpson, etc. If it ranks them highly, it obviously is broken. If it ranks them lowly, then we have a winner!

    • Re:great... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Seumas ( 6865 )
      Now if only someone could produce an piece of code that analyzed slashdot submissions and weeded out duplicates like this one. You know, news that Slashdot did last year.
    • All sound the same...... hmmmm, as opposed to most pop music now.... okay. Didn't they come out with a program like that to produce erotic stories? Don't think that worked out real well either.

    • Oh my. (Score:3, Funny)

      by imsabbel ( 611519 )
      I guess that means it has been in active use for YEARS already.

    • the record labels are going to get ahold of this and turn it around to actually produce the music. then it will all sound the same. wait....

      They don't need to turn it around. They just need to make their artists make songs that are very highly ranked by this algorithm. Since it predict by using what actually exists, record label will prevent artists to produce anything new (just like right now but they will have a software to tell them how un-new it is so it will be more precise). This will result in

    • Re:great... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:46PM (#14017567)
      I can just see Sonda Bullock and Sylvester Stallone discussing this over nachos at Taco Bell:

      Stallone: "You know, it's odd that all your music sounds like Britney Spears."

      Bullock: "Well, after the Great DRM Wars of 2030, all music is Britney Spears."

      Stallone: "Oh my God!"

    • Re:great... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rust42 ( 900538 )
      A (quite successful)songwriter in Australia was recently interviewed and said he had worked out the basics of writing a hit,e.g. so many bars intro, chorus of such and such type etc. and had proved it worked. Now his aim was to write hits and popular songs that fell outside that specification.
    • So if you think splogs are a problem now, wait until the music companies start actively getting into the fray. Mind you, it's not like they haven't already done that kind of thing before [bebeyond.com].

      Eric
      Follow my AdSense case study [ericgiguere.com]

    • Re:great... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      then it will all sound the same.

      Stories like this remind me of the Queen musical We Will Rock You, which is set in a soul-less, commericalised future that caricatures today, where all music is computer generated and the mere posession of a musical instrument is illegal.

      Infact, if I remember correctly, there have been previous Slashdot stories covering software that creates 'good' tunes by utilising the same sort of parameters listed in the summary. You could combine the two to make a nice feedback loop - a

      • Re:great... (Score:3, Funny)

        by unitron ( 5733 )
        "You could combine the two to make a nice feedback loop - a program that creates a tune, analyses it for potential success, then amends certain variables and repeating the process until you have a song that is so perfect that..."

        ...the RIAA sues both machines every time the song makes that round trip between the two.

    • Obvious comment :-) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Crouty ( 912387 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @07:24PM (#14017734)
      the record labels are going to get ahold of this and turn it around to actually produce the music. then it will all sound the same.
      Well, this was the most obvious comment to the subject. I am sure, the record labels will be very interested in using this analysis to synthesize elements of hit records. But this is a much more difficult task than it may sound. It is hard enough to identify the elements that makes a song successful.

      Trying to shape a song so it becomes successful has been tried many times before - with unsatisfying success. On a higher level it led to the categories of music we know today, like Blues, Trance, Metal, etc.. On a lower level we see follow-ups to first hits, that use the same kind of harmonies, rhythm and sounds. But there still are a lot of songs that become successful not because they sound the same like other songs but because they are innovative, think Kraftwerk or Nirvana.

      Music trends are a system between unification and diversification. The more songs sound alike, the more people will appreciate songs that differ and vice versa. This system is very hard to predict. I am sure the music industry tries to predict it and synthesize hit records and I think this is why there are so few truely creative artists with a contract from a major record label.

      • Well, they haven't got enough data to claim that they can accurately predict how people will respond to a song. Remember that their metric so far has been the Billboard charts. So, all they're saying is, they've written a program to replace the decisions of RIAA Execs, not the music consumer. When we can write software to appreciate music, or at least put up a convincing approximation thereof, I think we'll have stumbled upon bigger problems than predicting / writing hit records.

        --Jasin Natael

    • Wasn't this already done on South Park?
      I think it was the Faith+1 double platnium episode, but could have another, I havn't seen it recently. And Revenge of the Nerds, some software written or at least assisted music won them control of the council. And then there was Voyager's singing doctor, music is math you can hear. It's only "pop" music, it can't be that hard to make up something and market it successfully, and if it doesn't sell you can blame it on piracy, the RIAA does it all the time.
    • ...And once machines can predict what will be popular, the labels will just have machines make the music. [uncoveror.com] You don't have to pay robots.

  • The next step (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jsveiga ( 465473 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:34PM (#14017487)
    Once this program is trained enough, join it to a noise generator and a "natural selection" algorythm (typing intended), and you'll have an automated hit composer!!

    It will eventually compose the "perfect hit", and kill art as we know it.
    • Algorhythm, you mean. If you're going to misspell a word for effect, make sure you misspell it correctly.

      Or something like that.
    • Kill art? I doubt it - if Bitchney Spears hasn't managed to kill it yet, then an automated tool to create a "perfect hit" won't do so, either.

      In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Bitchney Spears is actually indistinguishable from such a tool... isomorphic, if you will.

  • Indie Artists (Score:5, Interesting)

    by punkdigerati ( 921644 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:34PM (#14017489)
    Can Independant artists who want to see how well their songs are going to do be able to use this software for themselves?

  • More targetted version (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kebes ( 861706 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:35PM (#14017496) Journal
    I'm not sure I care whether or not this software can predict the next pop craze... but I wouldn't mind a more personalized version. Maybe something that analyzes my mp3 collection, and then automatically checks new releases and looks for tracks that correlate well with my preferences? It would be nice to have a system that pulls out the things I'm most interested in. And a piece of software would be more impartial than the media executives and promoters who want to sell me the "next big sound."

    I think lots of people would love something like that. If iTunes automatically integrated technology like that, I think it would be a hit. And best of all, it would level the playing field. Small bands could "get noticed" by the common person if their sound was something that the given person liked.
    • And best of all, it would level the playing field. Small bands could "get noticed" by the common person if their sound was something that the given person liked.

      This is why you'll never see it. The big money is trying to make sure the small bands have no chance.

      Apple's agreements with the RIAA probably prevent this feature too.

    • Re:More targetted version (Score:5, Informative)

      by dduardo ( 592868 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:45PM (#14017555)
      Try pandora.com. Enter a band or song you like and it will find similar music. Also, if you look inside the cache folder you'll find mp3s of all the songs you've heard through the site.

    • Re:More targetted version (Score:4, Informative)

      by wolenczak ( 517857 ) <.paco. .at. .cotera.org.> on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:54PM (#14017612) Homepage
      You can create a profile in audioscrobbler (last.fm). I've discovered lots of new sounds that turned out to be what i was looking for.

      http://www.last.fm/user/paco_cotera/ [www.last.fm]

    • AKA Spam filter? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )
      > It would be nice to have a system that pulls out the things I'm most interested in.

      What you are talking about is a spam filter for music! Well.. that would be wonderful.

      But then you would have to wait some weeks until you could listen to the next hour of music, because most radios and other sources would return quietness for most of their time. ;)

      Or you would have to push EVERY music on the planet trough it. Even the street musicians from some mountan village in nepal oder the whate-veryo-ucall'me-isl
    • Pandora [slashdot.org] is already responsible for many cd purchases. So much for napster...

      Put in an album or artist, and it will PLAY similar tunes for you.

      The best part about it is the "why are you playing this?" description, which explains using musical language the characteristics of the tune.
    • Look at the new winAMP feature called Predixis MusicMagic. It does exactly what you are talking about (within your library of music). I'm sure there is a version/extension of it out there that does the same thing but in a more universal database of tunes.
    • I'm not sure I care whether or not this software can predict the next pop craze... but I wouldn't mind a more personalized version. Maybe something that analyzes my mp3 collection, and then automatically checks new releases and looks for tracks that correlate well with my preferences? It would be nice to have a system that pulls out the things I'm most interested in. And a piece of software would be more impartial than the media executives and promoters who want to sell me the "next big sound."

      Uh, you're ki
  • As we embed more and more intelligence into the machines around us, Ray Kurzweil's singularity seems more and more real.

    In fact, although we haven't yet achieve immortality, I'd argue that we've already crossed the threshold between biology and machines in many cases. Modern man is already inseparable from his technology. My son's insulin pump that calculates his insulin and automatically injects it, my mother-in-laws replacement hip, my software containing the combined wisdom of my business workday the pas
    • Ray Kurzweil is overrated. Talking about "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history" is melodramatic, but little else, and giving it a cute name like "singularity" just underlines that he's not really talking (or trying to talk) to a technical audience but rather to a wider group of people who'll be more inclined to get lulled in by big words without thinking about what what he says actually means.

      And in any case, whatever you make of what he said, we'

  • I'd love to see what would happen, (Score:3, Funny)

    by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:37PM (#14017508)
    ... if the fed Miles Davis' Bitches Brew into this.

    Darn thing would BSOD right on the spot, I'll bet. :-)

  • Now If (Score:4, Interesting)

    by miyako ( 632510 ) <miyako AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:38PM (#14017512) Homepage Journal
    Now if they could just crack the algorithm the music industry uses to generate music, all of the geeks of the world could create free music that sounds just like Britny Spears/P Dilldy dooldy whatever/Pop or Rap Group D'jour....
    No wait, on second thought I'd rather keep my sanity.
    Joking aside, this sort of research might be interesting from a psychological point of view. If they've developed an algorith that can tell what music is "good" it seems like with some proper research it might provide some insite into the way the brain process music, which could help scientists to better understand the way the brain interprets patterns, etc. If such an algorithm could be used to generate "good" music, it might be useful for things like games, where the game could provide parameters based on what's going on, and algorithmically generate appropriate music.
    • From the description it would seem what they have actually built is a "bad commodity music that people with more money than sense really like"-detector.

      A patent on those algorithms would be worth something. The fact is that most people have bad taste. And most of the people spend most of the money.

      -- John.

  • So what's the big deal? (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:40PM (#14017522)
    According to the researchers, the software has accurately predicted Billboard hits for the past several months.

    Hell, I can do that. My friends have noticed that, for a long time, any piece of popular music that I can't stand to hear becomes a hit. Hm ... maybe I'm in the wrong business.

  • This is BAD! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BalorTFL ( 766196 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:42PM (#14017533)
    This is not the first such program, and I suspect it shares the failing of its predecessors... It will not predict new trends, it will only follow existing ones. The more it is used to decide if an artist is going to be promoted, the less variety we will see in the music world. When new artists can no longer make it unless they are cookie-cutter copies of current acts (which has arguably already happened), the mainstream music scene will cease to evolve, and the really progressive, groundbreaking groups with a chance to become superstars and jumpstart new genres will be buried even farther under a pile of sameness.

  • What does this mean... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SeanMon ( 929653 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:42PM (#14017540) Homepage Journal
    for up-and-coming artists? Music companies will be able to use this to pay artists less because the computer doesn't like their music.

    MAL (Music AnaLyzer): "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I don't like that."
  • If that's the case, the results may look a little like google. For example, a review of Gwen Steffani's new album: An upbeat, poppy sound, Gwen Steffani nude, Gwen Steffani fakes, free nude Gwen Steffani pictures, free nude celebrities, with more complexity than her previous albums.

  • I wrote one too (Score:5, Funny)

    by ShakaUVM ( 157947 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:44PM (#14017547) Homepage Journal
    I wrote a predictor too. It's a neural net, actually.

    int music_predictor(int artist_type,float rhythm, int genre, int tempo, int male_or_female, int quality, int singing_quality, int band_quality, int number_of_band_members) {
            if (artist_type == BIG_NAME_POP_ARTIST_WITH_STUDIO_BACKING)
                    return true;
            else
                    return false;
    }

    Ok, so it's a one-axon neural net. But it gets 99%+ accuracy.

  • Can only predict hits inline with current trends (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whiplashx ( 837931 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:45PM (#14017560)
    By analyzing existing trends and statistics, the software can predict and identify trends, but I would imagine its a much harder (or possibly impossible) task to predict 1st or 2nd order derivatives, IE, the new directions musical trends will take.

    On a personal level, I think we're going to head into an era where experimentation and unique sounds will be cherished. We've been listening to this sort of tin-pan alley redux for about 10-20 years now, and a lot of people sense discomfort with the existing pop music trends. Look at the 40s-70s and I think you'll see the same sort of musical revolution in the next 30 years.

  • Oh, let me say it this time! (Score:5, Informative)

    by pegr ( 46683 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:48PM (#14017572) Homepage Journal
    Dupe! [slashdot.org] ;)
  • As is often the case, we really need to be told more before we even know if the success claimed in the article is very significant. It doesn't mention anywhere what songs are being fed into this sucker. All we know is that it's picking big hits. So what, if its universe of discourse is composed of the songs that the record companies are already playing on the radio, for instance. In that case, I could do just about as well. From what I understand of the radio/record business, record companies pick song

  • obBritneySpears (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Octagon Most ( 522688 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:49PM (#14017580)
    We don't need software to predict how many posts will mention Britney Spears even though she faded away years ago. She's no longer an appropriate proxy for manufactured pop music. Pay attention people. It's 50 Cent's world, we just live in it.
  • Hmm, i seem to recall watching an episode of "the many loves of dobbie gillis" (on nick at night, not live). Bob denver's character, Maynard, with the assistance of a machine created more popular songs depending on how many sales they wanted. Long story short, the truely popular song was just a bunch of random noise.

    epic

  • Killing art? Not really. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dex.pdx ( 923011 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @06:53PM (#14017610)

    Even though a system such as this would seem to have the logical result of killing the art of music, it simply can not.

    As a musician I have noticed that the more I study music theory (theory is really just the language to describe music) the more I come to realize that almost all music is the same. You can spot similarities between four hundred year old classics and current "Indie"/Pop/Rock/Whatever, the connection is there.

    So what might you ask makes it different?

    The style makes it different. The way the individual artist performs/arranges/records a piece. Not to mention that lyrical content adds a whole new dimension?

    Saying something like this will ruin the art of music is like saying that the grammar checker in any document editor ruins the art of writing. Though it is neat that a program could possible sort out "popular" music, which just means it's able to emulate the human ear just a little bit.


  • The assumption is that people will want MORE of the crap thats currently available. I'm not so sure this is a safe bet.

  • There was a time when NIN was the hit band to listen to.. Then the Mighty Mighty Bosstones. Before that we'd have Clapton and The Beatles.. Is that accounted for, as well?

    "But the 14-year-old teenage girl could care less, as long as her friends are listening to it." - Lovely.

  • We're a hop, skip and jump from this to having the computer just write the music itself. Now all we need are some barely legal girls with breast implants to "sing" the output. Actually, let's just skip the music.

  • Greg Egan wrote a story somewhat along these lines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joe user jr ( 230757 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @07:00PM (#14017640)
    Excerpt:
    When they started making music straight from the Azciak Polls, everybody howled about the Death of Art -- as if the process was anything new, anything more than an efficient closure of what had been happening for years. Groups were already assembled on the basis of elaborate market research. The Azciak Probes were already revealing people's tastes in breakfast cereals, politicians, and rock stars. Why not scan the brains of the populace, discover precisely what music they'd be willing to pay for, and then manufacture it -- all in a single, streamlined process, with no human intervention required? From the probes buried in a random sample of twenty thousand representative skulls, to the construction of the virtual bands (down to mock biographies, and all the right birthmarks and tattoos), to the synthesis of photorealist computer-animated videos, accessible for a suitable fee ... the music industry had finally achieved its long-cherished goal: cutting out everyone but the middleman.
    Ok, a little less prosaic than the item under discussion, but an interesting read...

    Read the whole story, at: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/stories/worth.htm [infinityplus.co.uk]

    If you're interested, Greg Egan's site: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ [netspace.net.au]

  • is because its generally simplistic.

    But then I don't generally choose to listen to pop.

    What proportion of pop music sales are due to the televised video?

    Repetitive moronic pap sells because there are sexy women performing courtship rituals on the video not because of the music itself.

    Yes, I am an old heavy metal fan.

  • The most stunning revelation (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rolo Tomasi ( 538414 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @07:10PM (#14017680) Homepage Journal
    The secret to success is apparently: more cowbell.

  • Software Predicts Slashdot Dupe Story Success (Score:3)

    by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @07:25PM (#14017736)
    Editors at popular geek site slashdot.org have created an algorithm which predicts the success of any potential duplicate story on the web site, and are using it to make usch posts with increasing regularity. The software determines whether the original story contains any letters from a to z (case-insensitive), and of it finds them, the post is deemed to be dupe-worthy. This program has been in operation now for more years than anybody care to frickin' remember...

  • Music-Matic (Score:3, Funny)

    by jpetts ( 208163 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @07:31PM (#14017761)
    When the Play button was pressed it made an instant but highly detailed examination of the subject's music-appreciation buds, a spectroscopic analysis of the subject's metabolism and then sent tiny experimental signals down the neural pathways to the hearing centres of the subject's brain to see what was likely to go down well. However, no one knew quite why it did this because it invariably delivered three minutes of sound that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Britney Spears.
  • analyze p2p traffic??

    Real easy to find whats hot and whats not..
    Works for movies, music, whatever.

    +5 DUH..
  • Disclaimer: I'm a jazz musician

    I have a feeling they're predicting success more from weblogs than anything else. The problem with prediciting new hits by analyzing past data is that new music comes from a distinctly human creativity process that's not readily quantifiable.

    If you fed all the music of the 1940s into such a program and then asked it to predict the success-ability of a 1950s rock and roll song you'd probably get does-not-compute. Similarly you couldn't predict 60s pop from 50s rock and ro
  • But I swear I've heard about this before...

    Oh wait... FTFA:

    "The company established its credibility in 2002 when RCA used its method to determine the order in which the singles from Christina Aguilera's album Stripped should be released to maximize record sales. Since then, other labels have turned into regular customers."
  • This can work both ways.. If you dont like the crap that is being put out by the mainstream music industry, just look for low ratings.
  • if(album.marketing_budget >= metric_fuckton){
            album.chart_position = 1;
              }

    Academics is easy!
  • Now there's no chance of anything but lousy generic sounding pop music being played on the radio becuase they'll be able to pre-test it and not even bother trying to promote anything but the most money generating tunes.

    Thank you Consumer America, for ruining Rock'n'Roll.
  • A formula of this nature can surely analyze what worked in the past, but basing the future on the past becomes sketchy territory. I think mass media and mass music grossly underestimate the masses thinking that the same ol' same ol' will keep them happy. For example, me, I want another Britney, except I need her more virgin and more slutty at the same time. OTOH I think the computer would have taken care of that wish ;) ...

  • Not Impressed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by David_Shultz ( 750615 )
    I know it's generally more interesting to talk about how cool it is that technology is doing such great things, and to start imagining all the implications of the wonderful progress we're making. I'm going to do something dangerously uncool and uninteresting -I'm going to expose this article for what it really is. And what is that? An overhyped project with nothing impressive going for it. Really. Nothing. Let's examine the claims to fame made in the article.

    First of all, the big claim made is that "the s

  • ... it's easy to predict what songs are going to be hits, since the success of any given song is mostly dictated by payola, and has little to do with the merits of the song itself.

    Just tune into any pop radio station to find out what the next hit is going to be.

    Do people here really think the Top 40 is based on popularity?

  • Now let's hook this up with WolframTones [wolfram.com] and see how long it takes to generate a Billboard hit.

    The answer might be t -> infinity
  • Judging by the music on the radio and what my teenage son and his friends actually listen to, these evaluation programs don't work. It appears that the 1970-1985 style rock music is far more popular than the music pushed by the big labels.
  • You mean the music sucks so badly that you can't just *listen* to it with your own ears and figure out if it's any good, you have to get a *computer* to listen to it for you?

    You mean MI-God-help-me-T is getting that slow? Think this over: A few months of picking pop hits statistically is nothing but a couple of lucky hours at a craps table. So, you pump out hits based on what have been hits over the past few months. How can you go to MIT and think of trends in that short a term?

    You think this program co

  • Dumb.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jesus IS the Devil ( 317662 ) on Saturday November 12, 2005 @10:29PM (#14018395)
    Some of the lamest most predictable "funny" comments are in this thread. People you're not funny.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close