Live data from Hacker News

The lie of music discovery algorithms

zeynepevecen.dev

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#191

I think I speak for most people when I say I want my music "discovery" playlist to be something like "mostly stuff that sounds like stuff I've indicated that I like" with a small amount of "not sure I'll like it, but suprise me". It sounds like OP is looking for the ability to turn up the "surprise me" factor at the expense of maybe having to skip a few more songs that just aren't clicking with them. So maybe somethi…

You're welcome to your preferences but I think you need evidence to claim you "speak for most people".

[deleted]

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#192

Way back when Last.FM has its own radio service, I could throw a few random genres and/or artists at it, and it would recommend me pretty much exactly want I wanted every time. I gladly enabled scrobbling in my music players, and it tended to recommend me good stuff every time. Ever since its radio feature got killed, its database has been getting worse and worse. Just now, I tried to search for some things it used t…

There was an article in the Times recently about how Spotify is no longer solely using "how much do we predict the user will like this song" as a metric, but now is also considering "how much do we pay this artist per play" to optimize for cheaper higher-profit-for-spotify music.

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#193

I'd be quite happy if Spotify just went away. The world of music would be much better off. My solution (doesn't work for everyone): I have a large library on the microSD card on my phone, and set the music player to Shuffle. Quite often a song comes on and I think, "Wow, I own THAT??" OK, I'll admit that doesn't play any new music. However, no bills for bandwidth!

> I'd be quite happy if Spotify just went away. The world of music would be much better off. Why? It's almost exactly the same experience you get from all the competing services, and that experience is fantastic: any album, any song, instantly ready to play. > I have a large library on the microSD card on my phone, and set the music player to Shuffle. This is a fine situation to be in but from the perspective of your…

> happily continue not making any money

You got that right.

This is a totally vapid, progress-is-great response. Do you work for Spotify?

Read some Ted Gioia and get cured of that.

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#194
Finding music requires effort and energy. I rember going to the recordshop an listening to a pile of records. After 45 minutes i would have to leave and take what i found until then becaue i was exhausted. This doesnt change with music streaming. It still takes effort to discover and process and the machine cant do that for you no matter how clever the AI. Listening to new music, filtering, seeing what is in it for you is communication and as all communication basically boils down to a biological process that can reward you with dopamine or not but will require energy either way.

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#195
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They 100% do not pull from the same sources. Hey Jude by The Beatles - Tidal lists 22 different people who worked on this song. Spotify lists 3.

Thanks, that's really surprising. Credits get into ownership and payment, and I assumed some group of authorities would have that on lock, and would have pooled all their data since it's sort of in their interest to do so. Silly me I guess!

Session musicians mostly only receive a one-time fee and no royalties, so would be irrelevant from a subsequent payment distribution perspective.

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#196

Way back when Last.FM has its own radio service, I could throw a few random genres and/or artists at it, and it would recommend me pretty much exactly want I wanted every time. I gladly enabled scrobbling in my music players, and it tended to recommend me good stuff every time. Ever since its radio feature got killed, its database has been getting worse and worse. Just now, I tried to search for some things it used t…

I used Pandora a lot when I was a teenager, and experimented a bit. If you were listening the same time I was, the size of the library probably wasn't the primary issue.

Presumably their recommendation algorithm and the Music Genome Project tagging allowed them to, given a set of tags, find similarly tagged songs. This worked really well. It's how they used it and how they picked what track to play next that caused issues.

First, thumbs up. As far as I could tell, at the time Pandora would strongly prefer to play a track you'd thumbsed up on a station over anything else, as long as it was available to play, which mainly just required it to not have played to you in the last two hours. So if you used thumbs up the normal way, a well-used station would eventually turn into a loop of things you'd already heard.

Second, the way they used the algorithm - it seemed to me like they only or mostly used the station seeds as the input, there was no blending going on, and if thumbs ups impacted it, well, they had their own problems. That is, if you had a station with two seeds, it played some songs close to one seed, then it switched to the other seed and played some songs close to the other seed. Skipping would usually bump you to a different seed.

To get around all this and get a variety of new material, I created a station with a lot of seeds - 25 to 50 or more - and never thumbsed up anything on it.

Re: The lie of music discovery algorithms

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, my bad! It's a "landing page"! Totally normal that it needs to 200 Kb of JS to display 1 Kb of text!

There’s an email subscription field thats why i need js hahah you’re so fond of yourself

So you can't write a simple form without JS?

Weirdo.

Post reply on HN