In my quest to find new relevant and timely topics for this blog, I find myself, quite enjoyably, regularly checking various arts blogs. A recent LA Times music blog discussed the new Google "music search" feature: if you type your favorite musical artist into Google right now, you will see its features. Searching for "John Mayer," the searcher's top result will be four popular John Mayer songs, along with the ability to sample each song once, as well as explore his music further with the sites that Google has partnered with: LaLa, Rhapsody, Myspace Music, Pandora and Imeem. The feature isn't meant to replace these musical sources, but to help guide the user to them based on the researched artist. When testing the new feature, I didn't find it that thrilling. Searching Beethoven, Prokofiev and Charles Ives, (purely at random, obviously), resulted in a lack of playlist for each.
Still, it made me curious about the other sites. Pandora has been around for a while, and I find that my non-musician friends talk about using it much more often than my friends who are musicians. Even though it's existed since about 2006, I haven't explored it much until now. I realized it differs from the other free legal music sites because its creation of playlists finds music for the user based on stylistic elements of the music instead of specific artist.
Cue, now, snobby musician. How is it that a computer can intellectually tell me what music to like? This article talks about how Pandora sees the DNA in music, and chooses music for the user with specific genes.
You may not realize it, but you don't like chromatic harmony," Pandora's Chief Strategy Officer said. "You may have no idea what that means, but we see you don't like anything that has it." Thus, your playlist would not include anything including that gene.In classical music, though, unless you're listening to Mozart or Haydn, you'll find chromatic harmony, that, whoever Pandora is addressing in the quote probably wouldn't even recognize as uncomfortable. I think it's difficult, for a classically trained musician like myself, to grasp the idea that a computer might know music theory, the stylistic between specific composers in different eras and the vast repertoire of each preferred composer better than I do. Popular music--the difference between those who like Mars Volta playlists versus Miley Cyrus--seems obvious. Still, just because a majority of Americans don't realize that the difference between Ravel and Mahler is just as vast as the previous example, doesn't mean the computer isn't smart enough to know. In the music student world, at least, we aren't quick to turn to computerized musical preferences--we want to do research on our own and analyze our findings with our own knowledge.
When I typed in Prokofiev, it listed several specific pieces, of which I chose, at random, Piano Sonata No. 3. For fun, I skipped to the next song of the playlist, which was a piano piece by Ginastera that I had not heard of before. Normally, I would not categorize Ginastera's "brazilian-ness" with Prokofiev, but the piece was nice, and was a good addition to a playlist of a person who might enjoy 20th century piano music.
Don't misunderstand, though--music students have online databases that we turn to for free music listening also, (without the computerized compiling of playlists of course), that can be accessed through the library website for free (Naxos and Classical.com). Although the Pandora library was much more impressive than expected, if I needed to listen to the Harbison Woodwind Quintet or the Martinu Oboe Concerto, I would probably have to look to a classical database. I would hope that in the near future, though, that the worlds could be one--obscure oboe concertos could be found on Pandora genetic playlist-maker could be one that not only be convenient, but also promote artistic culture.