i want to heard Pandora - internet radio

I always find myself attracted to the piano. It's a weird kink, but it's pretty rare for me to find a piano rock album that i don't like. I find myself looking for piano in music, or the acoustic guitar. This lists off a bunch of people: Ben Folds, Missy Higgins, Jack's Mannequin, Matt Nathanson, Monte Montgomery, Splitsville, Barenaked Ladies, American Zeroes, The Trouble with Sweeney, Ben Harper, etc. I look for those instruments a lot, plus good lyrics. I can't stand lyrics that don't mean anything, or are "decoded" and kept secrets for the people not in the know. Give me a good, carefree song with a acoustic guitar and/or a piano, and i'll like the album. I'd say that's my guilty pleasure: mindless stuff thats fun to listen to but not fantastic musically or vocally. Which is why I find myself attracted to Ben Folds. His "Song for the Dumped", cover of "In Between Days" and "Such Great Heights", "Get your hands off of my woman" and "Army" are fun to listen to. But it's his "Silver Street", "Philosophy" and "Dog" that really show how he can rock at the piano. Same with a lot of these people. For every one, I can pick a song that I enjoy listening to, and I can pick one that I sincerly think it's genius for song writing. I do this with A Capella music too. Rockapella is fun, they're talented, but it's a guilty pleasure. Like Ice Cream. It's good, don't get me wrong, but you don't want it all the time

I basically have two ways to use songs: Express my emotions, or help me get to a certain emotion. After I came off of a bad relationship, I found myself being attracted to Sean Watkins, "Song for the Dumped", and The Streets' "Dry Your Eyes" (Ya, which of those songs doesn't belong?). But I'll also use "Song for the Dumped" if I have to get into a certain mode for a show or something. It's energetic, it's fast, it's fun to scream. Same with most of the Cat Empire stuff. Two ways

I find it's a matter of taste. People look for different things in music in different times of their lives, which is why music has many genres. How my day went depends if I'll sit down to Matt Nathanson, Quickmix, or Barenaked Ladies. There is no system, there is no process. If there was, I'd have two stations: Good Day, Bad Day. I'd switch them back and forth every day, and sometimes I'd pull out the QuickMix. But it's not. Which is why many of us have more than 5 stations. We always differ in what we want, or what we want to here. Which is why I think a lot of us are naturally drawn to Pandora

As far as the Nilsson v Wilco comparison, I say it's no contest for me. Wilco's song sounds like a full band whereas Nilsson's has a definite singer-songwriter-with-backup feel to it.

That carries over to my general preferences in choosing artists. I generally like a fuller sound than is offered by early 1970's guys like Harry Nilsson, Todd Rundgren or Cat Stevens. House or backing bands often do present a rich, full sound- Funk Brothers or Booker T and the MG's for example- but the tightness that comes from touring and creating the music together is often lacking when there are just a bunch of hired guns in the studio.

Wilco has that tightness. Their songs see many appearances in live settings before they are laid to wax- even when the concert and demo versions sound nothing like the album version, they sound fully realized.

I hope that makes sense!

"At The Bottom of Everything" by Bright Eyes has a similar chord progression and production technique next to Bob Dylan's humorous "I Shall Be Free". Similarly, "Save Room" by John Legend sounds precariously like "Margaritaville" by Jimmy Buffet.

There are many songs that although they have similar musical sounds have very different personal sounds. I find that much of the music I listen to has different genre definitions. For instance, in my CD collection I have Sister Hazel and I have Hootie and the Blowfish. Even though these bands sound the same I would argue that they are completely different. I would listen to Sister Hazel if I was in a very good mood. They have a pretty happy under tone. Whereas I would listen to Hootie and the Blowfish if I was depressed, and getting drunk.

For sound, I really like clarity and honesty. Something where I can hear each instrument in a pretty unadulterated form. It doens't much matter if it's bluegrass or odd rock-metal stuff like the first Masters of Reality record, I really like a clear and honest mix. I really don't like heavily processed sounds at all.

Lyrically I like songwriters who use the language well. People like Paul Simon and Jennifer Knapp can tell stories with their clever word choices. Others, like John Denver or Shel Silverstein's Dr. Hook songs, can use very simple and unpretentious language very effectively. I also don't like meaningless "you have to figure out what it means for yourself" songs...because those songs are typically just words that sounded good together but mean nothing.

It's also tough for me to make a really useful Pandora because I like surprise and novelty and my stations tend to feature similar sounds. I don't know if Pandora just can't measure the features I like, or maybe I just haven't figured out how to use Pandora to build a station that features the sort of variety I like. I have the same problem finding books to read. I like books not for their genre but for the author's style of using English, and it's hard to quantify what about a style I like to get good recommendations.

I have to agree with much of Christian's comments, especially about the "honest" sound. In my case, processed sounds are no problem, but if I hear a group with excessive "noise" I find it unpleasant to listen to.

The songs that surprise me the most, and which I find most memorable, are those that have multiple competing melodies. In classical this is often more easily heard where you may have a violin with one melody, and a cello with a countermelody, but it can also occur in any genre.

Other things that stand out are songs that induce, rather than augment, a particular mood and can bring all sorts of mental fantasy to bear. A good example would be Rising Sun, by Covenant, which conveys a sense of momentum greater than the notes of the song itself.

Two other things that catch my ear are unique voices - Bjork for example - or lyrics that are more powerful than the music; Wolfsheim and VNV Nation would both fit into this category. While I generally don't find the "style" of music, the poetry of the lyrics pulls me past the notes.

fascinating comments so far - what I'm hearing, from most of you, is that the overall reaction to the song is the primary way you distinguish between songs you like and songs you don't. That may even be the way that you distinguish between songs you think are great and songs you think are throwaways. So in the larger context, it seems that most of you are expressing the idea that aesthetics is an issue of a developed perception, otherwise known as "taste."

It's cool to hear how similar sounding songs can indicate such different meanings to you, as well. I suspect that lots of the mood-information is in the lead vocal; but also there are the characteristics of the overall sound (prominence of bass or treble etc), the recklessness or carefulness of the musical arrangements, and so many others. Somewhere in the choices that artists and producers make in the studio, meanings are created, and when listeners encounter those choices they perceive that meaning.

christian's comments seem to come closest to this kind of listening, at least in the notion that it is the perceived "honesty" and "clarity" of the musical elements that he finds meaningful. those are both technical and artistic choices, and christian's comments make me hear that they signify certain ideas about the world. it's interesting to think that those ideas become a part of what the song expresses, in addition to the words and the music.

cheers,
mz

This is an interesting topic, thank you for posting it. I'm not so sure that I look for particular characteristics in songs and artists so much as hearing characteristics that "hit me the right way." I'd say that I have a much more reactive technique for finding songs and artists I like.

Some of the things that definitely hit me more often than other things are female vocals, strong pop sensibility, great pop hooks, shared male/female vocals, multi-layered sound that has a lot going on, emotive singing, great vocal harmonies and interesting or humorous lyrics. Having said that there are lots of songs and artists that don't fall into any of these areas. I basically like what I like because it hits me the right way.

The thing that hits me most about most songs is the way they sound. Something in the music or the vocal style gives me enjoyment or hits me emotionally. There are many times when I don't even try to listen to the lyrics because I enjoy the song so much. On the other hand, sometimes I'll notice the lyrics of a song and they will make me feel happy, sad, hopeful, amused or any number of different ways. These songs are in the minority of songs I like however. A third class of songs I like are those that are associated with various points in my life. They would be songs that helped me through a break up, songs that remind me of someone, songs that seemed to cature exactly what I was feeing at a particular time or songs that evoke feellings in me for unknown reasons.

I'm actually far more aware of what turns me off to songs and artist than I am what I do like in them. Certain singing styles turn me off immediately. Listening to Pandora I've heard a lot of songs that were musically spot on, but once the singing started I couldn't give them a thumbs down fast enough. Lyrics which are mainstream pap or way too repetitive turn me off as well. Certain styles of music rarely work for me.

Interestingly enough when I listen to some of the music I like, I find that I've given thumbs down to music that shares similar characteristics. I think this is especially true in the area of vocal quality. For example one group I like a lot I first heard live. When I listen to their recordings I recognize that some of the songs wouldn't normally stand up to my vocal quality standards. But I have an emotional connection to the songs and/or the group that allows me to look past that.

I'm not sure that I think of any music as great in and of itself. I know what I love and can see why I love it. I am also able to recognize the characteristics in music that I don't like or even hate that makes it "good music" in spite of my disliking it.

I think my guilty pleasures are that way more due to other people's feelings about an artist than any internal guilt for liking them.

The way I classify songs is totally a matter of taste. I don't hold any particular standards to the music I listen to. If I like it, I'll listen to it.

Interestingly enough I find my musical taste changes over time. Groups I was completely taken by before that I played all the time sometimes get completely dropped because I'm bored of them and their songs. I can still see what I enjoyed about them, but they just don't do it for me anymore. I know there are people in my age group (I'm almost 50) who are "stuck" listening to the same songs, artists and musical styles they listened to in high school and college. I listen to very few artists that I enjoyed in high school and college. Most of the stuff I like these days is from new groups that are young enough to be my kids.

As a future topic for one of the blogs, I'd love to hear about the evolution of people's musical tastes. What groups and genres did they progress through on the way to their current listening selections? Which ones have been dropped completely or almost completely? Which ones have endured and why do they think they have.

There is only one thing I could say on the subject of defining the music that appeals to me:
It's the music that makes me feel.
It's all about the feelings: happiness, melancholy, euphoria, nostalgia or whatever. Other preferences fall under the category of "taste", but it's the feelings that make us choose artists and songs within a certain genre or style.

I've been using Pandora for about a week, and I can say that the excitement of discovering something as awesome as this radio is still with me. As great as it is, there's still plenty of room for improvement. Christian mentioned one of the things that could be improved - the recommendation system. I encountered a similar problem: even though I created 8 lists with dozens of artists and songs, I can't get Pandora to play the songs with that unexplainable quality that I look for. The key word here is "unexplainable": musical preferences can be analyzed and categorized only so far - the rest is so highly individual that only a person very similar to yourself can guess what you like.

I actually wrote a couple of fairly lengthy e-mails to Pandora's customer support on the subject of it's recommendation system, in which I believe to have made a few useful suggestions. The reply to the first came instantaneously, and it was a generic "thanks for writing" answer. So I wrote another, with a more detailed description of what could be done to make Pandora even better than it already is. I hope that I'm not getting the reply because my comments were taken into more serious consideration; otherwise, one could find waiting on a reply for over four days to be somewhat rude. So, besides using this blog to say something on the subject of evaluating music, I have to misuse it to complain about this "no-reply" situation. The least I would expect is a reply saying that my notions have no relevance for Pandora, which I would find hard to believe since I have certain experience in recommendation systems (I did a project on one for my B.A.).

again, more interesting info here -

I'm reading these responses (which are great, by the way), and I see that in many of the examples above, people are describing what they like (i.e., pleasing vocal timbres or styles, pianos, etc).

but what about a song that challenges what we like, and does so with good reason?

in some way or another, most art defies peoples' initial expectations (at least when it's new), and following that, instead of obeying a reaction against a certain style or sound, can be very interesting and rewarding (of course, sometimes you realize that you've been taken for a ride to a destination that is just not worth visiting).

I usually want (and maybe even need) the songs I listen to to have some significance beyond the things I might like (things like a cool voice, interesting drum sounds, a cogent style, etc). I think that's because I'm looking for something that challenges me at least a bit.

since I'm not a relativist, I have to think that there are principles that underly all of this, that really do differentiate between the quality of different artists' work. I have a hard time saying that my desire for "significance" is just another kind of taste in music.

something makes Bob Dylan really and truly better than so many other artists, right? And this something makes him better than artists that people (maybe even me) like more than they like Dylan. In other words, what I like and what's great are not always the same thing.

at some level, all the elements of a song just have to come together into an overall, unintellectual totality, and on that level, it's each person's discernment, and the fineness of their perception, that determines the quality of a song.

but aesthetics is the general field of knowledge that tries to explain how Dylan is simply better than others in a way that is very nearly an objective truth. I'd like to know more about that.

it's all pretty mysterious....

mz

great radio! linked in my blog, www.lacaramelladiyu.blogspot.com
thanx!

I find that often, for me, I look for the meaning in the song. What is the artist saying? It might be weird, and indeed I could be one of few, but I can't help it. When I was younger, I would get frustrated with songs that didn't have some strong emotional/political point behind them. I've since moved past the idea that a song isn't worth having if it doesn't have an obvious meaning to me, personally, as that's a pretty limited view on music. Still, if an artist weaves in a message or sings about something I can relate to (as opposed to the "look at me, I have lots of money, I'm tough, and everyone wants me" idea), it makes a song that much better for me. =)

Hey Marko,

Just wanted to mention that I have sent you a follow-up email,as has Etienne, the COO of Pandora. I hope that our messages successfully addressed all your questions and comments.

In general, we personally read and respond to every email that comes to Pandora-Support within a period of 24 hours...often it takes much less time than that. For follow-up emails that come to personal inboxes it might take a little longer, but we will respond as soon as we're able to. We always welcome comments or questions that anyone may have; we're all ears!

Thanks so much for writing, Marko; we appreciate your comments. And just remember we read and respond to absolutely everything!

All the best,

Maggie @ Pandora

For me, the vocals are a huge factor. I tend to look for very weird or unique sounds from a vocalist--Antony of Antony and the Johnsons is a great example--I love that sort of weepy, androgynous sound. Also Joanna Newsom, who is so amazingly squeaky and ernest and has that great chewy enunciation. And Stephin Merritt, gravelly and guileless.

It's not so much that their voices are beautiful to listen to, I just like them because they don't sound like anything I've heard before. I like vocals to be a little weird.

One thing that I think gets lost when trying to find songs that sound alike is that songs which sound alike can be very different in mood. An artists can juxtapose the mood of their lyrics or their vocal style with the style of their instrumentation. Thus, the same melodic qualities or instrumentation could result in something new and interesting or trite and dull depending on what else is going on. I heard (on Pandora) Klaus Nomi's campy disco cover of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" and totally dug it, but I would be bored to death by a regular disco song.

Also, lyrics. I am capable of liking a song with dull lyrics (or no lyrics), but what really keeps me coming back for more is the words. That's why I like the Magnetic Fields so much--I could care less what the music sounds like (which is good, because they're all over the place), I just want to hear the next wry, inventive phrase.

So, in case it isn't clear, I think what I'm looking for most in a song is uniqueness, weirdness, a deliberate challenge to Top 40 pop. I once saw a song on Pandora with the quality of "quirky ideas", and was totally thrilled. The problem for Pandora, I think, is that uniqueness can only be identified in the context of everything else--it's not internal to the song.

I have to say that I look mostly at musical style and the music's integrity. By that I mean - Do the artists work to create, well, art, or do they have ulterior motives? If they strongly associate themselves with a genre, is it just because they want to play that genre or because that genre fits their music well? Do they try new and different things? Are they creative? Does the subject matter go beyond the 3 basic human desires (sex, power, and survival)? What about the attitudes of the artists - are they pretentious? Do they have a "persona"? Could you potentially run into them at a 7-11 and just start to talk? And most importantly, is the music immature? (That's why I don't like emo - not because of anything against the artists, but because the songs tend to lack emotional depth beyond the characteristic, unconscious self-absorption of teenagers. I know - I'm a teen, I'm not bashing my own age group. We can't help it!)

I've thought about this topic a lot. I've thought about how, if I worked for Pandora, I would devise two other categories for creating Pandora stations. It would start with a mood category and/or a sensibility category. It would obviously take a pretty sophisticate algorithm to pull it all together which is why I don't work for Pandora...
Let me line it up though with examples. I'm a fan of most styles of music but I don't like mixing my music. If I'm in the mood for Indie music I want music with an indie sensibility. If I want indie pop, Pandora is good about not giving me heavily experimental indie music. It understands many of the aspects of pop and how those are very different from experimental. But when I want Indie pop, for instance Belle and Sebastien, Peter, Bjorn and John, Pandora is NOT good at giving me only indie sensibility pop. So for instance on my Belle and Sebastien station I end up getting songs i thumb down like Eric Geyer or Lee Feldman who have no mood relation to Belle and Sebastien. Even after thumbsdowning certain songs on a station, Pandora doesn't seem to get smarter at understanding my reasons. If it only knew how to read my mood, or how to categorize by sensibility I am certain it could pick up why ONE Donovan song fits into Belle and Sebastien's and Nick Drake's and Velvet Underground's sensibility but certainly NOT ALL of Donovan's do, and certainly NOT ALL of Velvet Underground's do. Or how Jack Johson, however much I like him, does not belong on my Devendra Banhart station, nor does Devendra belong on my Ben Harper station.
This sensibility/mood category would also allow certain Weezer songs to fit onto a Neutral Milk Hotel station. Pandora reads Neutral Milk Hotel's choice of instruments and decides that the music has nothing to do with Weezer when in mood and senisibility it in fact does.

as it is, we choose a song or artist and get the full monty

matched (or similiar) sounds and styles has been interesting

I have been enjoying the programing the way it is
so could we now try a new catagory? :

particular artist- I just want one particular artist's music - just for the exploration of his songs and sounds.

[or am I to achieved this by rejecting everyone other than his five times when anything else comes up to play?]

Some people say I follow the horse race too much, but I like to listen to music that is really original. For example, one of my favorite artists is Modest Mouse. They have a very odd style that gives them the ability to avoid almost any comparison (some try to relate them to the Talking Heads, but they aren't wild enough, and some try the Pixies, but they're too relaxed for that style).

Artist that have a wide range of emotions in their music are also my ilk. For example, Beck can be very folky (his "Sea Change" era), humorous (anything off of "Mellow Gold") and very funky ("Odelay" or "The Information"). The Flaming Lips album "At War With The Mystics" is also a very good example of this. It have very genteel songs ("Mr. Ambulance Driver"), very angry songs ("The W.A.N.D."), and songs that no one really knows what to do with ("Haven't Got A Clue" and "Free Radicals").

And as you can see from the three artists I've listed here, I like a lot of atmospheric music, music that surrounds your head in a comforting way. Whenever I describe that, people often refer me to Coldplay's album "Parachutes", but that music sounds like a headache. Orchestration is very important to me.

As far as your question about how I choose music, I would say that I go for something that just musically intelligent. I don't care whether you have good lyrics or not if the music doesn't sound good or is just to plain jane I'm too distracted by that to enjoy the lyrics. However if you just sing while playing acoustic I dont necessarily consider that plain jane. I think the artists attitude about the music comes out when they play. You can tell if someones spent hours pouring their heart and soul out into a song cause things will fit they will just sound right together. Whether its the boston philharmonic or it's just some guy with a guitar and lyrics. I guess I enjoy well composed songs mostly. A fine meshing of music and lyrics (whether or not they are deep and meaning full) is an enjoyable listen.

I apologize to everyone who has posted - I couldn't read every person's entry. In fact, all I read was the first line of the latest one regarding intelligent music. I mostly agree with the idea.

Although I have mellowd from my younger punk years I sometimes find myself listening to a power rock song because it drives my foot to the ground so hard and so fast and my mind begins to race. At the same time, I'm an elitist and I enjoy Dylan or Glen Phillips for their poetry. I think every musician has his or her own style, own need, and own abilities. If you can produce a record or put on a live show that is worth tuning in to, then I will hopefully enjoy it.

I realize it is mostly immeasurable and entirely perceptive, but there is something to be said for a musician who makes music that just, well, works. Use your voice as an instrument or a soapbox, use your guitar as an instrument or a soapbox, do what you know and know it better than you had ever hoped.

And by the way, kudos to the kids at Pandora - I'd spent a couple of months away from the site and I am wicked impressed with its larger library!

I don’t know if people have moved on beyond this post but I’ll add my take on this. For me music is personal. It is tied to my mood. It is a journey I enjoy alone as to not be influenced by others reactions. Here’s my thought list:

Where am I? (Influences mood)
What is on my mind? (Influences mood)
Am I alone? (Influences mood)

I am first and foremost affected by the answers to these questions, man in his environment. I find that when listening to a new song it comes into this environment and is now subject to these conditions. Here are the 3 main scenarios I find myself in when listening to music:

I’m at work; I want some quiet guitar music or some mellow jazz, no vocals (I find them distracting).
I’m on my way home during the work week; I want something that reminds me of the good things in life.
I’m on my way home for the weekend; I want something that says TGIF!