Shared publicly  - 
6
1
Yllona Richardson's profile photoGary Stock's profile photoValdis Kletnieks's profile photoHeidi V's profile photo
5 comments
 
This article reads very much like the early goals and objectives of the Music Genome project, which later became the basis for Pandora. I haven't seen the Pandora data set in many years. However, if memory serves, Pandora uses a checklist/questionnaire of 400 musical characteristics that are classified by human analysts (often musicians) against each song in their catalog.

The resulting analysis is then used as a collaborative filtering algorithm for "channels" and recommendations within Pandora.
 
Bloody hell.  That "research" ranks as one of the all-time most absurdly uninformed wastes of effort. Reading that article actually encourages ignorance. 

Seriously:  if a reader knows very little about music, reading that article would reduce their understanding of it.  It's the musical theory equivalent of a history lesson from Sarah Palin.
 
+James O'Connor -- yes, that pronouncement was quite a shocker!  I'm glad they said "accidentals" rather than "sharpy flatty things."  lolz

Their effort could improve -- perhaps far enough to produce a net knowledge gain for some readers -- in any of several simple ways. 

Two trivially obvious examples...

Possibly interesting: "I analyzed the chords KEY AND KEY CHANGES of 1300 popular songs for patterns."

Possibly valuable:  "I analyzed the chords of 1300 popular songs IN THE SAME KEY for patterns."

Both could still be misleading to the novice -- and flaky from any educated standpoint -- but less harmful to the reader.
 
Absolutely nothing here that should surprise anybody who's got even a basic understanding of music theory.
Add a comment...