Will it be a hit? ask the program.

[shackman]

Now I've heard it all. First they demand that you decide what GENRE your music is.

Notice,there's NEVER "MY style" in the dropdown list.

THEN the labels make every Genrre sound the same. (Today's Country music is 1970's pop/rock).

NOW they cehck if your music fits the template. If not you're out.

It's time musicians TOOK BACK THE MUSIC. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[GuitarPix]

Just out of curiosity I tried that program a month or so ago. You can load in two songs for free. Results were pretty much as I expected, the song that has a non-standard arrangement rated so-so and the more standard arrangement did pretty well (85 per cent). Neither song - it should be noted - sound anything like today's pop/country/rock/hip-hop/whatever.

Two things I'd like to know - but they don't mention on the site - are: what are the metrics they're using (what aspects go into their measurements) and what songs have been hits that don't rate high on their system. Really don't expect them to tell us the later info, but would be very interesting.

From what I gather, "hit" songs have a pretty similar structure - verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus etc. There might be a couple of other structures that work well. And the quality of mixing/mastering does seem to count on their system. Also, apparently current trends are not the deciding factor as they've used songs that go quite a ways back. I don't think their system penalizes songs for not being "pop" as it seems to work across genres.

So how usable is this to us? Depends on what we want to do with our songs. If you're writing specifically radio friendly songs it could be vary handy. If you're writing songs that have "a unique flavour" then you probably know its not radio friendly anyways and so you're not surprised when its not a hit, although you can still have a great following of dedicated fans. Just not millions of them.

But like I said, I'd love to know the exceptions - songs that don't rate high but were hits anyways.

[edub357]

Originally Posted by GuitarPix

Just out of curiosity I tried that program a month or so ago. You can load in two songs for free. Results were pretty much as I expected, the song that has a non-standard arrangement rated so-so and the more standard arrangement did pretty well (85 per cent). Neither song - it should be noted - sound anything like today's pop/country/rock/hip-hop/whatever.

Two things I'd like to know - but they don't mention on the site - are: what are the metrics they're using (what aspects go into their measurements) and what songs have been hits that don't rate high on their system. Really don't expect them to tell us the later info, but would be very interesting.

From what I gather, "hit" songs have a pretty similar structure - verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus etc. There might be a couple of other structures that work well. And the quality of mixing/mastering does seem to count on their system. Also, apparently current trends are not the deciding factor as they've used songs that go quite a ways back. I don't think their system penalizes songs for not being "pop" as it seems to work across genres.

So how usable is this to us? Depends on what we want to do with our songs. If you're writing specifically radio friendly songs it could be vary handy. If you're writing songs that have "a unique flavour" then you probably know its not radio friendly anyways and so you're not surprised when its not a hit, although you can still have a great following of dedicated fans. Just not millions of them.

But like I said, I'd love to know the exceptions - songs that don't rate high but were hits anyways.

did anyone ever tell you that you look like the guy from myth busters

[garagesailor2]

Originally Posted by shackman

It's time musicians TOOK BACK THE MUSIC.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[glenlata]

hmm, this is news to me, i checked it out tho and i don't really no what to think about it. my first impression was "what the **** is this ****. ******* music execs and their ******** egos keep making it harder for us ************* artist to get into this ******* biz. **** **** ********* ****." but after coming down a bit and coming back to it, i think i can kinda see with me squinting and looking out of the corner of my eye in the pitch black with a 60 watt light bulb shining 3 miles away how this could be useful. my main focus is to become an lyrical songwriter first engineer second, so maybe it will have some uses for me. i don't know tho, well have to see how it grows and if it becomes an integral part of the music biz or not. I don't think it will help the current real musicians tho and over the last 20 or so years music seems to have been on a rapid decline, with alot more of it being released. the way i see it is there are alot more hits coming out nowadays then might have been in the 50's and 60's, i could be wrong but i think as the years go by, garbage will get high scores while real music will get what its getting now. i could definitely see them adding a photo feature were looks impact scores tho, lol thats classic

[glenlata]

on another note i uploaded a song that wrote awhile back and got a silver auddy with a score of 65 which was alot better then i was expected but not as good as some others in the room would have liked to see so who knows.

[GuitarPix]

Originally Posted by edub357

did anyone ever tell you that you look like the guy from myth busters

Yeah, I get that - even noticed it myself. Seems we're brothers by different parents

[Garethoyle]

I really can't see this program having that much of a future in the music industry. Like people are saying, if songs that aren't necessarily bad but just have a somewhat less standard structure are going to get poor scores, then by relying on the machine record companies are gonna let a lot of 'hits' slip by.

[Jerzy Piff]

wonder what would happen if I put in some songs that were already big hits, and songs that flopped. hmm