A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
This is very preliminary. The samples were songs that were already hits at the time of the study, with no way to account for contamination. It's highly plausible that the subjects had heard the "hit" songs before the study, and they were just measuring recognition.
Full paper is here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1154663/full
Surveys After each song, participants were asked to rank how much they liked the song (1 to 10), if they would replay the song (0, 1), recommend the song to their friends (0, 1), if they had heard it previously to assess familiarity (0, 1), and if they found the song offensive (0, 1). We also showed participants lyrics from the song and lyrics created by the researchers and asked them to identify the song lyrics to measure their memory of the song (0, 1).
I still think your concern is legitimate.
Memory is funny. Stuff can play in the background and become familiar without you being consciously aware of it.
It would be possible to do this study without contamination by using completely unknown and newly-released songs as a dataset, and checking against future chart data regarding the popularity, or by examining the reaction of an isolated group of people without constant musical bombardment.
It would be possible to do this study without contamination by using completely unknown and newly-released songs
When writing songs, I always wondered if that genius idea is actually just something I heard 10 years ago, but don't remember consciously. Similarly, I wonder if I like a catchy tune because it is catchy in itself, or because it reminds me of something which I cannot recall consciously right now.
Sometimes, I had these moments later when the dots connect, sometimes not. With what confidence could I conclude something is new and original?
I guess that's just another task for future AI.
"Prisencolinensinainciusol", but with vocal pitch-shifting applied for a modern twist.
undefined> Prisencolinensinainciusol
i dont know what that means... but sounds fancy!
I'm increasingly convinced that the pop music of the future will consist entirely of mediocre or terrible songs written by real people -- that the flaws and fuck-ups of lousy artists will suddenly seem like magic when compared to an endless stream of algorithmically generated, pristine computer bullshit.
It seems likely to me that 'pop' music won't be created by people. As a result, people won't be made famous through music anymore, the cult of celebrity will move on to be more era-appropriate.
I mean, this only happened in the first place because it was extremely profitable to sell lots of records/concert tickets. That doesn't seem to be the case now.
So, if pop music has been manufactured to sell an image to impressionable people, there's little incentive to do that these days. It's surely more lucrative to fund an influencer than a 'musician'.
That's a good point -- it hadn't occurred to me that "people who sell a lot of music/are getting a lot of play" might not be a category of fame in the near future. Being able to generate films/books/etc. end-to-end at will would do the same thing to a lot of other categories of media celebrity -- close that off as a path to fame.
Which... huh. What the heck are people going to be famous for?
Abstract
Identifying hit songs is notoriously difficult. Traditionally, song elements have been measured from large databases to identify the lyrical aspects of hits. We took a different methodological approach, measuring neurophysiologic responses to a set of songs provided by a streaming music service that identified hits and flops. We compared several statistical approaches to examine the predictive accuracy of each technique. A linear statistical model using two neural measures identified hits with 69% accuracy. Then, we created a synthetic set data and applied ensemble machine learning to capture inherent non-linearities in neural data. This model classified hit songs with 97% accuracy. Applying machine learning to the neural response to 1st min of songs accurately classified hits 82% of the time showing that the brain rapidly identifies hit music. Our results demonstrate that applying machine learning to neural data can substantially increase classification accuracy for difficult to predict market outcomes.
So they use synthetic data to both train and test their model, this is because the original dataset contains only 24 songs.
Next, we assessed the bagged ML model's ability to predict hits from the original 24 song data set. The bagged ML model accurately classified songs with 95.8% which is significantly better than the baseline 54% frequency (Success = 23, N = 24, p < 0.001).
So the 97.2% accuracy is reported on the synthetic data. On the original one, it is 95.8%. But the authors do acknowledge the limitations.
While the accuracy of the present study was quite high, there are several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, our sample was relatively small so we are unable to assess if our findings generalize to larger song databases.
the sweet summer machine learning child is 35 years behind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual
Fuck yeah, that was my go-to app for like a decade right up until the great reddit migration. I'll very gladly pay for Pro all over again!
I'm assuming lemmy's bug is acting up again lol. Anyway, I am also very excited about Sync.
Oh, huh. Came here to ask which bug but I see now lol. I had no knowledge of this post's existence beforehand so yup, probably.