Archive for October, 2011

ISMIR Session – the web

The first session at ISMIR today is on the Web.  4 really interesting sets of papers:

Songle – an active music listening experience

Mastaka Goto presented Songle at ISMIR this morning. Songle is a web site for active music listening and content-based music browsing.  Songle takes many of the MIR techniques that researchers have been working on for years and makes it available to non-MIR experts to help them understand music better.  You can also use Songle to modify the music. You can interactively change the beat and melody, copy and paste sections.   Your edits can be shared with others.  Masataka hopes that Songle can serve as a showcase of MIR and music-understanding of technologies and will serve as a platform for other researchers as well.  There’s a lot of really powerful music technology behind Songle.  I look forward to trying it out.   Paper.

Improving Perceptual Tempo estimation with Crowd-Source Annotations

Mark Levy from Last.fm describes the Last.fm experiment to crowd source the gathering of tempo information (fast, slow and BPM) that can be used to help eliminate tempo ambiguity in machine-estimated tempo (typically known as the octave error).  They ran their test over 4K songs from a number of genres.  So far they’ve had 27K listeners apply 200k labels and bpm estimates. (woah!). Last.fm is releasing this dataset.  Very interesting work. Paper

Investigating the similarity space of music artists on the micro-blogosphere

Markus Schedl analyzed 6 million tweets by searching tweets for artist names and conducted a number of experiments to see if artist similarity could be determined based upon these tweets.  (They used the Comirva framework to conduct the experiments).  Findings: document based techniques work best (cosine similarity, while not always yielding the best result yielded the most stable results).  Unsurprisingly adding the term ‘music’ to the twitter search helps a lot (Reducing the CAKE, Spoon and KISS problems).  Surprising result is that using tweets for deriving similarity works better than using larger documents derived from web search. Markus suggest that this may be due to the higher information content in the much shorter tweets.  Datasets are available. Paper

Music Influence Network Analysis and Rank of Sample-based Music

Nick Bryan from Stanford – trying to understand how songs/artists and genres interact with the sampled-base music (remixes etc).  Using data from Whosampled.com – (42K user-generated  sample info sets).  From this data they created an directed graph and did some network analysis on the graph  (centrality / influence) – Hypothesized  that there’s a power law distribution of connectivity (typical small-worlds, scale-free distribution with a rich-gets-richer effect).  They confirmed this hypothesis.   Use Katz Influence to help understand sample-chains.  From the song-sample graph, artist sample graphs (who sampled whom) and genre sample graphs (which genres sample from other genres) were derived.  With all these graphs, Nick was then able to understand which songs and artists are the most influential (James Brown is king of sampling), surprisingly, the AMEN break is only the second most influential sample.  Interesting and fun work.  Paper

 

 

 

 

 

, ,

Leave a Comment

Music Recommendation and Discovery Remastered – A Tutorial

Oscar and I just finished giving our tutorial on music recommendation and discovery at ACM RecSys 2011.  Here are the slides:

 

 

Leave a Comment

What is so special about music?

In the Recommender Systems world there is a school of thought that says that it doesn’t matter what type of items you are recommending. For these folks, a recommender is a black box that takes in user behavior data and outputs recommendations. It doesn’t matter what you are recommending – books, music, movies, Disney vacations, or deodorant.  According to this school of thought you can take the system that you use for recommending books and easily repurpose it to recommend music. This is wrong. If you try to build a recommender by taking your collaborative filtering book recommender and applying it to music, you will fail.   Music is different. Music is special.

Here are 10 reasons why music is special and why your off-the-shelf collaborative filtering system won’t work so well with music.

Huge item space – There is a whole lot of music out there. Industrial sized music collections typically have 10 million songs or more.  The iTunes music store boasts 18 million songs.  The algorithms that worked so wonderfully on the Netfix Dataset (one of the largest CF datasets released, contain user data for 17,770 movies) will not work so well when having to deal with a dataset that is three orders of magnitude larger.

Very low cost per item –  When the cost per item is low, the risk of a bad recommendation is low.  If you recommend to me a bad Disney Vacation I am out $10,000 and a week of my time.  If you recommend a bad song, I hit the skip button and move on to the next.

Many item types - In the music world, there are many things to recommend: tracks, albums, artists, genres, covers, remixes, concerts, labels, playlists,  radio stations other listeners etc.

Low consumption time – A book can take a week to read, a movie may take a few hours to watch, a song may take 3 minutes to listen to.  Since I can consume music so quickly, I need lots of recommendations (perhaps 30 an hour) to keep my queue filled,  whereas 30 book recommendations may keep me reading for a whole year.  This has implications for scaling of a recommender. It also ties in with the low cost per item issue.  Because music is so cheap and so quick to consume, the risk of a bad recommendation is very low. A music recommender can afford to be more adventurous than other types of recommenders.

Very high per-item reuse  - I’ve read my favorite book perhaps half-a-dozen times, I’ve seen my favorite movie  3 times and I’ve probably listened to my favorite song thousands of times.   We listen to music over and over again. We like familiar music. A music recommender has to understand the tension between familiarity and novelty.  The Netflix movie recommender will never recommend The Bourne Identity to me because it knows that I already watched it, but a good music playlist recommender had better include a good mix of my old favorites along with new music.

Highly passionate users  -There’s no more passionate fan than a music fan. This is a two-edged sword.  If your recommender introduce a music fan to new music that they like they will transfer some of their passion to your music service. This is why Pandora has such a vocal and passionate user base. On the other hand, if your recommender adds a Nickelback track to a Led Zeppelin playlist you will have to endure the wrath of the slighted fan.

Highly contextual usage - We listen to music differently in different contexts.  I may have an exercising playlist, a working playlist, a driving playlist etc.  I may make a playlist to show my friends how cool I am when I have them over for a social gathering.  Not too many people go to Amazon looking for a list of books that they can read while jogging.  A successful music recommender needs to  take context into account.

Consumed in sequences – Listening to songs in order has always been a big part of the music experience. We love playlists, mixtapes, DJ mixes, albums.  Some people make their living putting songs into interesting order.   Your collaborative filtering algorithm doesn’t have the ability to create coherent, interesting playlists with a mix of new music and old favorites

Large Personal Collections – Music fans often have extremely large personal collections – making it easier for recommendation and discovery tools to understand the detailed music taste of a listener.  A personalized movie recommender may start with a list of a dozen rated movies, while a music recommender may be able to recommend music based upon many thousands of plays, ratings skips and bans.

Highly Social – Music is social. People love to share music. They express their identity to others by the music they listen to. They give each other playlists and mixtapes.  Music is a big part of who we are.

Music is special – but of course, so are books, movies and Disney vacations – every type of item has its own special characteristics that should be taken into account when building recommendation and discovery tools. There’s no one-size-fits-all recommendation algorithm.

,

3 Comments

“What do I do with those 10,000,000 songs in my pocket?”

References to Mae West aside, I’m really looking forward to the Industrial Panel being held during the Workshop on Music Recommendation and Discovery.  Great set of attendees:

Great theme: As we mark the 10 year anniversary of the first iPod, how good are machines at helping us not only rediscover and organise our own music but also discover and recommend interesting new music?

Leave a Comment

Music Recommendation and Discovery Revisited

I’m off to Chicago to attend the 5th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems.  I’m giving a talk with Òscar Celma called Music Recommendation and Discovery Revisited.  It is a reprise of the talk we gave 4 years ago at ISMIR 2007 in Austria.  Quite a bit has happened in the music discovery space since then so there’s quite  a bit of new material.  Here’s one of my favorite new slides.  10 points if you can figure out what this slide is all about.

It should be a fun talk, and it is always great working with Oscar.  We’ll post the slides  on Monday.

3 Comments

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers