>2019
>Only listening to a few genres and sub-genres defined by humans.
Why are you such a brainlet.
Why can't you be more like the coming AI overlords that realize that human genres are a foolish clustering mechanism (image on the left) and the superior machine algorithms can see that different genres share same features (image on the right).
You could be exploring so much more stuff you like but you choose to be limited by your mammal labels.
Other urls found in this thread:
developer.spotify.com
twitter.com
nigga wat
Basically imagine that guy that only listens to hip hop and hates metal, or vice versa.
He is literally limiting himself, because there are songs in hip-hop and metal that have fundamentally the same audio features.
But our cultural tribalism makes people lose opportunities to find new music because they are stubborn and like genre labels.
the fuck is valence
" A measure from 0.0 to 1.0 describing the musical positiveness conveyed by a track. Tracks with high valence sound more positive (e.g. happy, cheerful, euphoric), while tracks with low valence sound more negative (e.g. sad, depressed, angry).: "
The only people who do this anymore are normies who listen to one or two new albums a year
all this image says is that this particular AI classifies things based on pace/loudness/tonal qualities and ignores a million other aspects that humans use to relate to and classify music.
oversimplification and dumbass pseud bullshit
>plotting 4 parameters on a 2-dimensional graph
No you fucking idiot. Pace/loudness/tonal qualities are the audio features Spotify uses to classify songs in their algorithm.
Someone just used their API to plot cluster figures like this based on human and AI generated labels. The features used are the sames for humans and AI.
Musically educated people do the thing on the right unconsciously. Brainlets do the thing on the left.
100% this lol
humans group things together based on factors which are important to humans
dont give a fuck what some lines of code "think" about how genres should be classified because it has zero bearing on real-world use
spotify's algorithm is fucking trash lol
they should have just bought pandora
If you have ever used any recommendation algorithm in your life to listen to something, you should be aware of how wrong you are.
I think spotify's algorithm is a lot more complicated than the info included in your picture and 3 sentence caption but uhh live your life bro
i understand what spotify does to classify music, and it's fine and good
there is nothing wrong with the data
the problem is your ridiculous conclusions that the reasons people like certain "genres" are because they're dumb or ignorant or something
the reason the spotify algorithm works is because it takes the data you're talking about and applies that to listening history and social trends, which is much more likely to yield patterns in terms of human genre classifications
I'm not disagreeing with you, but my conclusion is not wrong either. One shouldn't stick to genre labels so strongly that one misses out on hearing similar-feature-like songs. It's not by chance that most people start listening to only one genre or two as a teenager and branch out as they study more music.
I believe the analysis of the image I posted before, even if it's simplistic (I mean I'm sure you can get more than 5 or so clusters if you want to), has useful consequences for any music lover. It's just a different way to look at things, and could be a different way to look for music you like. All of us are already used to asking shit like "what genre is this" when we hear something new and unknown and we want to find more. We could also grow used to checking the audio features of those songs.
Musical Maturity Lesson #001: Introspect as a Means of Maximizing Success
(Discovering and accepting musical biases, and employing your self-knowledge in a way conducive to the discovery and appreciation of good music)
>example 1: "I really like 'x' (where 'x' can be a style, instrument, aesthetic, etc.) therefore I will seek out music with 'x' because I understand I am more likely to enjoy them."
>example 2: "I really dislike "x" (where 'x' can be a style, instrument, aesthetic, etc.) therefore I will avoid music containing 'x' for now because I understand I am less likely to enjoy them and prefer to keep my time as conducive to the discovery and appreciation of good music as possible."
It is perfectly okay (and even encouraged) to dismiss a genre of music if you hold strong bias against the prominent aesthetics that define that genre.
To imply that all genres are of equal worth, or that no genre is "devoid of good music" is a sign of both musical immaturity and unrefined taste.
>note: Accepting your musical biases does not mean to become complacent with them- quite to the contrary in fact. By pinpointing what you do and don't like, you can be much more effective in your search for good music by paying closer attention to the descriptions of and content within new musics.
>note 2: It is encouraged to be as specific and analytic with your musical biases as possible- dismissing large chunks of things merely because they fall under a vague or broad term can be a grave mistake, and putting too much on your plate at once with overly wide musical fetishes can be tiring.
>To imply that all genres are of equal worth, or that no genre is "devoid of good music" is a sign of both musical immaturity and unrefined taste.
Sure feel lucky that I didn't imply any of that shit.
It is one thing to affirm "you should try to see if there are any overlaps between metal and hip-hop that you could enjoy and aren't for whatever reason" and another one to affirm "you HAVE to like hip-hop and metal because they are equally good".
There are plenty of genres I abhor and haven't explored beyond a few songs, but I do so knowing fully well that I am probably missing out on listening to at least some stuff I like, and I should probably get my head out of my ass at some point and go back to those with an open mind again in the future.
I hear you. I do think it is a good tool. I just don't think it's refined enough to capture it in totality. Humans can make distinctions in some of the places it doesn't discern well.
I agree with this almost entirely I just don't like the use of "good music" there
In a discussion about taste it should be implied as subjective
"missing out" is irrelevant when you factor in how much time you waste listening to trash to satisfy your compulsion to avoid appearing narrow minded
use of the word "good" means that these arguments are predicated on subjective evaluation, not refuted by it
finish your intro to philosophy class
meanwhile in ass backwards technoland
>paying for university philosophy classes
played urself
>Attempting to not fall in a comfort zone.
>"Haha what a loser you're just trying to not appear narrow minded."
I'm not gonna ask "who hurt you".
But, who hurt you?
no arguments lol
did the big bad man strike a nerve?
I mean, who am I trying to appear as anything to? Myself? Who am I trying to impress?
I have legitimately found music references I wouldn't have otherwise by doing this type of comfort zone breaking search, and I have no problem in defining what I don't like, as well.
I really don't see how being in your position is any better. You are like a painter choosing to paint with less colors and getting mad at me for looking for more options.
>"missing out" is irrelevant when you factor in how much time you waste listening to trash to satisfy your compulsion to avoid appearing narrow minded
filtered
>doesn't account for timbre at all, other than "instrumentalness" and "acousticness"
Yeah, no wonder it thinks jazz, folk, blues, country and classical are the same thing when it can't distinguish between the sax, the guitar or the violin. Better luck next time OP.
hey OP you cumnugget how about you post the link to the study? too much of a coward?
