Every Noise at Once
everynoise.com
everynoise.com
Lots of other cool Spotify-scraping projects by the author at the bottom.
"Subgenres are McDonald's business. By going over listener data and identifying patterns, McDonald and his co-workers can identify clusters of artists who might coalesce into a genre—something he’s been doing since his earliest days at the music-intelligence company The Echo Nest, which Spotify bought in 2014. Today, his work with Spotify's data helps listeners discover artists that may have been hiding in plain sight. McDonald’s “data alchemy” helps populate the Fans Also Like sections of Spotify's artist pages, as well as Daily Mix; it also provides a real-time chronicle of how music is developing and splintering into different styles."
[0] https://artists.spotify.com/blog/trap-queen-and-the-data-sci...
Edit: so out of curiosity I looked at the bottom right corner and found "tanci". Odd name. Clicked on it, and it's Chinese spoken word artists. Incidentally I practice Chinese so it's perfect.
IIRC, there are 14 dimensions in total, but it’s impossible to represent all of them on a page. So he went for up-down, left-right, clusters, and colors to represent a subset of them.
Source: used to work at Spotify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishkur%27s_Guide_to_Electronic...
One thing that's really funny is now with my current taste, going back on there and re-listening to the clips of artists that are now in my mainstay.
If you still feel that you didn't get what you were looking for ... here's an acceptable substitute perhaps?
...but it IS still pretty cool.
A more even-sounding spectrum is pink noise which is equal energy per base 2 logarithmic bandwidth. Sounds like a waterfall.
This is Byzantine Chant: https://youtu.be/Bs--5yMg1g0
Also, Georgian Polyphony did not involve strings as a general rule. There were regional exceptions, but early Slavic polyphony was generally a capella.
Here's a good example of Gerogian polyphony: https://v-s.mobi/elia-lrdei-princeton-georgian-choirs-fall-2...
Sorry to nitpick, but I hate to see a fascinating corner of music ignored. Happy Listening!
But It's OK. I think the interesting thing is how the musical snippets are different from each other rather than whether or not they're correct in an absolute sense.
It's a step in the right direction, I think. And it's not surprising that the categorizations and recommendations you get on music streaming services like spotify aren't as ridiculously off the mark as they used to be.
Having people use words to precisely pin-down entire genre's is perhaps near the end of it's usefulness.
https://twitter.com/GenreADay/status/1110510786277982208?s=2...
+1 from me
Would be cool to see something like this on song-level, not artist/group.
This seems like a useful tool for discoveling new sounds, but when it comes to finding out what Polish free jazz really sounds like, I wouldn't trust it one bit.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/68n44v/the-ill-fated-tale...
It's a great music discovery service that I've used several times in the past. I've found some good artists this way, and really wish someone would build something similar for fiction books. The only downside is it's tied exclusively to Spotify.
This is perfect for me. So much more to discover.
Defining a genre by its characteristic instrument set, for instance, doesn't match how I tend to react to things very well, but it's a fairly popular way of separating genres, it seems. (I'm not saying I don't understand the use of that metric, it's very, well, available, in the sense of "availability heuristic". But I do not personally find it all that useful.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_series#Absolute_conv...
[edit] See my comment below: my joke is about the fact that, depending on the order in which you sum an infinite sequence of waveforms, you can create a sequence that converges to any sound you want [1] (as long as those waveforms together span the full frequency space). Note also that a sum over a truly continuous space of arbitrary waveforms is even more ill-defined.
Sound waves are indeed cancelled out by their inverse.
Sound is non-linear as sound gets louder - sound wave volume is physically limited because the low of the sound wave can't be lower than vacuum.
Another non-linearity is air cannot transmit frequencies higher than some limit.
Another is that sound has a noise floor depending on the temperature of the gas (noise like rain on a roof?).
There are surely other gross non-linearities.
Those non-linearities mean you can't add or subtract some sounds, and you can't assume commutativity.
My point is that if you really sum every possible waveform, the resulting value may or may not converge depending on the order in which you sum them; in fact, it's a well-known property of such conditionally-convergent series that you can actually get any limiting value you want based on how your order them [0]! (let's ignore the fact that the fourier coefficients can take on a continuous set of values). For example, even if you were only allowed to play a single frequency sound wave sin(x) at volumes that are the inverse of some integer value multiplied by a max volume of 1 (in arbitrary units), you may or may not have them cancel depending on how you group the terms in the sum:
sum = 1*sin(x) + -1*sin(x) + (1/2)*sin(x) + -(1/2)*sin(x) ...
a_i = (2/n-1)*sin(x) for odd x
a_i = -(2/n)*sin(x) for even x
Now, if you extend this thinking to every frequency of sinusoidal wave, you can start summing every pure tone in arbitrary order to get an arbitrary coefficient for each frequency. By picking your limit for each frequency correctly, you can sum your sine waves in a fourier series [1] to get any song you could ever want! And this is while limiting ourselves to discrete frequencies and alternating harmonic coefficients (since it allows us to take a discrete infinite sum).
So the unexplained punchline to my previous comment is that the problem is ill-defined, or rather, that you can view any song as just a specific ordering of an infinite series of other sounds. (You don't have to use sine waves as your basis, by the way; you can use a bunch of different waveforms that look more like "noise" as long as their combination spans the same infinite-dimensional linear space as pure sine waves; you just end up with different coefficients. For example, in quantum mechanics, you can get a sine wave (momentum eigenstate) by summing energy eigenstates (non-sine waves with a specific form) with the correct coefficients.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem#Alterna...
(Also, you're missing the frequency components there; your math cannot reproduce any sound at all, it can only reproduce different amplitudes of the same sine wave.)
Also, your point about commutativity is more subtle than you think; it fails for an infinite sum because you have an infinite space in which to rearrange things. Sure, the terms cancel eventually, but you can keep sticking the negative terms farther and farther back in a pattern so that by the time they've cancelled earlier positive terms, there's already a bunch of new positive terms to take their place. The subtlety comes from the fact that you can keep doing this forever, and you can do it in a way where the sum eventually converges to a specific value.
But don't take my word for it. This is an extremely well-known and basic result in mathematical analysis (the fancy math term for calculus and related topics). Again, see links above, or go straight to a proof [0]. If you want a deeper understanding, check out Rudin's Principle's of Mathematical Analysis [1], which explains this and other fun math stuff very well.
[edit] Just to be crystal clear, the Riemann series theorem does not apply to partial sums, which is what you are saying; if you do an infinite sum on a conditionally convergent series (like the alternating harmonic sum, a variation on which I used in my example), then your final result can literally be any number you want based on how you order the terms in the series. You can set it up so that the infinite sum keeps getting closer an closer to an arbitrary value. If this sounds nonintuitive, it's because infinite phenomena are subtle and nonintuitive!! This is a very cool example of how weird things get once you start dealing with the infinite.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_series_theorem#Proof
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Mathematical-Analysis-Inte...
However, cherry-picking a different reordering for each frequency component before doing an inverse FFT really isn't the same thing as playing all the sounds simultaneously.
Anyway, the thing is, we're not talking about an infinite series. This is a thread about digital audio playback, where both amplitude and phase components (I'm going to assume this site uses some sort of DCT-based codec) are quantized, and hence occupy a finite space. No amount of reordering will change that sum.
You start at a band of your choice and then can travel all the bands in the world.
You can find it here, if anyone is interested: https://open.spotify.com/user/gallefray/playlist/6CzafKwRUi5...
>The calibration is fuzzy, but in general down is more organic, up is more mechanical and electric; left is denser and more atmospheric, right is spikier and bouncier.
Not sure about the colors though.
Some of the genre memberships seem odd. Barry McGuire is bubblegum pop? As is Zager & Evans? Roy Orbison? That whole category seems to be a weird mashup of what I'd expect in bubblegum pop plus a random dump of '60s rock.
For artists that appear in more than one genre, it seems to use the same sample clip for all of them, so don't be put off from checking out an artist in a genre you like because the sample doesn't fit.
Good problem for adversarial learning. Train one ML system to rate EDM, trying to match some metric like total sales. Second system tries to generate EDM which gets high scores from the first system.
Here is an example in case you thought I was making up this genre:
for starters, no Kwela, Mbaqanga, Marabi, or Highlife. Allthough here is Kwaito