The Pandora Experiment
So I was listening to some Pandora Radio on my new iPhone 3G. Because it’s super cool to do stuff like that. (Also, interestingly enough, it doesn’t work well on a wi-fi connection, but on the 3G network it works great). Anyways, I decided that I’d listen to something different, so I threw on some Michael Jackson radio. And since Pandora is cool, it tells you why it’s playing something, I of course, looked at why it played the song it did. “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin'” was the song. Great song off a great record. And so I read what it told me. And I noticed something interesting.
It had a laundry list of reasons it played the song. I thought it was interesting, because I realized that what I usually listen to has a very short reasoning. For instance, for Dream Theater radio, I’ll usually get something like “minor key tonality, electric guitar solo” and so on.
Here’s what I got for MJ.
—–
basic rock song structures
r&b influences
call and answer vocal harmony
repetitive melodic phrasing
demanding instrumental part writing
a busy horn section
extensive vamping
a clear focus on recording studio production
heavy syncopation
major key tonality
groove based composition
prominent bass riffs
an emotional male lead vocal performance
use of ambient synths
subtle use of render rhodes
angry lyrics
vocal harmonies
and many other similarities identified in the music genome project
So, then I decided to conduct a little experiment. I let the next song play. Up came Another One Bites the Dust. Interesting choice, I thought.
Looked at the reasoning…
—–
repetitive melodic phrasing
minor key tonality
and many other similarities
Interesting. So then I loaded up Dream Theater radio and did another experiment. It wasn’t the best song for an example, but I took it.
One Last Time
—–
Subtle use of vocal harmony
acoustic rhythm piano
demanding instrumental part writing
mixed acoustic and electric instrumentation
major key tonality
prominent organ
many other similarities
So there were more things in the prog rock, but still not as much as MJ. So then I went to Kurt Rosenwinklel radio. For those who don’t know, Kurt is one of the baddest jazz guitar cats out there right now. And yet, this is what he comes up with…
The Cloister
—–
an outside electric guitar solo
acoustic piano accompaniment
jazz waltz feel
other similarities
Three things? Really? Well, I’m getting more and more stumped. So now, I wind up going to my good buddy Joe Satriani to see what his is going to say. And I get this.
Theme for a Strange World
—–
electric rock instrumentation
repetitive melodic phrasing
demanding instrumental part writing
minor key tonality
electric guitar riffs
an electric guitar solo
an instrumental arrangement
many similarities
So here’s what we have.
MJ, DT, and JS are complex music according to Pandora (but the latter two are not as intricate as MJ), while Queen and Kurt Rosenwinkel are rather shallow comparatively speaking.
What does this mean? I have no idea. In the back of my mind this idea that most music genuinely is shallow and the stuff that’s really involved is REALLY involved. But why does Thriller have that many reasons why it was chosen? Yes, it’s masterfully produced and an excellent album on top of that, but is it really that deep? Likewise, is very well performed and intricate jazz really very shallow and only good to those who play it?
In other words, do people still even care about jazz enough to put the laundry list of what’s happening musically or can people simply not understand it? Whereas people can understand Michael Jackson, they cannot comprehend bebop? Is jazz now forever doomed to be the “musicians” genre? I don’t know. I do know that I’m listening to John Abercrombie right now, and I can see very few other people that I know listening to this and even enjoying it, much less understanding what’s going on.
So that was long. Thoughts? Am I reading too much into Pandora Radio’s Music Genome Project? Or is there something to this?
Post a comment and let me know what you think!
Mike Willett 