Talent time
By Wilson Rothman
June 14 2003
Icon
Like many working stiffs, I'm also a musician. In a herculean task, my band, Augean Stables, recorded a full-length CD of original music last year. Along the way we received positive reinforcement and kind words from everyone around us. Still, once we had the finished product in hand, we longed for some sort of third-party validation or at least a cold splash of reality.
With that in mind, my partner, Dave Riedel, began posting our songs on garageband.com. Once an internet darling bent on shaking the foundations of the crusty old music industry, Garageband is home to more than 325,000 musicians and new-music hunters who review original songs in an ongoing round-robin tournament.
Garageband's beating heart is a "preference engine" that combines the reviewer's emotional reaction a la hotornot.com (does the song put a smile or a frown on your face?) with the more intellectual judgements of, say, slashdot.org (with your knowledge or experience, how would you improve this song or recording?).
Because of its design and the atmosphere of friendly competition, Garageband manages to persuade thousands of musicians to assess one another's music.
Competing sites from the dot-com era have suspended operations or switched their focus and now promote major-label releases. Garageband is the last happy haven for unsigned or amateur musicians in search of feedback and a chance to discover what others are doing with their studio time.
Dave and I, as passionate about our tunes as we are opinionated about others, were instantly drawn in. As soon as we began reviewing other people's original music, strangers worldwide - most with musical backgrounds and production experience - began reviewing ours.
Our first song, a band favourite called Citronella, received the validation we were hoping for: after more than 30 reviews, about three-quarters of the listeners said they liked the song. "It has a serious Blues Traveler groove, with hints of Simon and Garfunkel," one reviewer wrote. "Special points for acoustic guitars and lyrics. Good use of backing vocals on the chorus, too." Another complimented us on our "kickin' organ" and a third praised the "nice pop feel".
Not every song is for every person, though. Somebody labelled it "generic and off-key" and another confessed, "I don't like this stuff because I'm a jerk."
At the same time Citronella was charging up the charts. From down in the 15,000s, up through the quadruple and triple digits, it hit a momentary high of 66 in the pop/rock category. Suddenly, we knew how rock stars feel as they watch their own tracks inch up the Billboard 200.
Our glory was short-lived, however. Citronella was soon retired to the back catalogue, where its all-time ranking is 2617 out of about 18,700 - respectable but nothing to brag about.
Having a song in the contest gives you a gambler's thrill: up and down it goes and where it stops, only the preference engine knows. The algorithm that determines rank is fairly sound. Each reviewer listens to a pair of songs and chooses one over the other. The process itself is blind in that a reviewer can pick a genre, from alternative to rock, but doesn't learn the name of the song or artist until the review session is over. In the qualifying round, a song is paired 20 times with random challengers; each time, a new reviewer chooses one song and rates both on a scale from 1 to 5.
In the past, if there wasn't enough data to order the top songs from 1 to 200, the system put those songs out for extra reviews. From last month, each category's top 20 per cent was automatically put into a second round of evaluation after 20 reviews. These new rankings are now combined with first-round data for a more accurate chart.
The system isn't perfect: if a song wins every pairing but has only been randomly matched with songs at the bottom of the barrel it will rate lower than a song that has gone undefeated against stiffer competition. The system is tamper-resistant, though, and it is becoming a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
How good are the judges in picking winners? Or, as my bandmate puts it, "Does anyone on the site have a clue as to what a radio hit could be?"
The people on Garageband are not the average music-buying public, nor are they American Idol-class music-industry insiders. They are people like Dave and me who make their own music and have strong opinions about how it should be done.
"Having a good song on Garageband is not going to matter unless other factors are in place," says Eric Godtland, who manages Third Eye Blind, the KGB and other bands. "Labels want to know how old you are, how marketable your look is and then what the music is like."
Referring to Avril Lavigne, the skater-girl pop sensation, he says: "Her songs wouldn't have done much sitting on Garageband but people saw her live and it became a mania. Garageband only offers a tiny little slice of what the public needs to embrace an artist."
Since the site was founded, only a handful of bands taking part have been signed by major labels and most of them were hard-working, professional entertainers to begin with. Validation from Garageband is cool because it suggests that in a blind test your peers approve of your sound, yet Garageband charts are mostly for recreational use only.
Garageband was created under the misconception that there was a scientific way to discover the best band in the world. According to the original blueprint, that band would be handed $250,000 and would become the Garageband label's first artist. At the same time, the site drew reviewers by promising a free CD for every 20 review pairs completed. Last February, after burning through a lot of cash without making a dent in the real world of radio stations and album sales, Garageband closed for several months.
Why, then, was the company pulled from the trash heap and resuscitated by former employees shortly after it closed? Why are its membership figures higher than they were when there was a promise of a record contract?
Perhaps it's because the site was secretly one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com age, if you measure success in terms of member loyalty.
"People were crying out, 'I want my Garageband back!"' says Ali Partovi, who became the chief executive after the site's resurrection. "There was a very vocal group of people who were very sad and wanted it to come back. We wondered whether it was 100 super-excited musicians, or if tens of thousands would be right there when we restarted."
By Wilson Rothman
June 14 2003
Icon
Like many working stiffs, I'm also a musician. In a herculean task, my band, Augean Stables, recorded a full-length CD of original music last year. Along the way we received positive reinforcement and kind words from everyone around us. Still, once we had the finished product in hand, we longed for some sort of third-party validation or at least a cold splash of reality.
With that in mind, my partner, Dave Riedel, began posting our songs on garageband.com. Once an internet darling bent on shaking the foundations of the crusty old music industry, Garageband is home to more than 325,000 musicians and new-music hunters who review original songs in an ongoing round-robin tournament.
Garageband's beating heart is a "preference engine" that combines the reviewer's emotional reaction a la hotornot.com (does the song put a smile or a frown on your face?) with the more intellectual judgements of, say, slashdot.org (with your knowledge or experience, how would you improve this song or recording?).
Because of its design and the atmosphere of friendly competition, Garageband manages to persuade thousands of musicians to assess one another's music.
Competing sites from the dot-com era have suspended operations or switched their focus and now promote major-label releases. Garageband is the last happy haven for unsigned or amateur musicians in search of feedback and a chance to discover what others are doing with their studio time.
Dave and I, as passionate about our tunes as we are opinionated about others, were instantly drawn in. As soon as we began reviewing other people's original music, strangers worldwide - most with musical backgrounds and production experience - began reviewing ours.
Our first song, a band favourite called Citronella, received the validation we were hoping for: after more than 30 reviews, about three-quarters of the listeners said they liked the song. "It has a serious Blues Traveler groove, with hints of Simon and Garfunkel," one reviewer wrote. "Special points for acoustic guitars and lyrics. Good use of backing vocals on the chorus, too." Another complimented us on our "kickin' organ" and a third praised the "nice pop feel".
Not every song is for every person, though. Somebody labelled it "generic and off-key" and another confessed, "I don't like this stuff because I'm a jerk."
At the same time Citronella was charging up the charts. From down in the 15,000s, up through the quadruple and triple digits, it hit a momentary high of 66 in the pop/rock category. Suddenly, we knew how rock stars feel as they watch their own tracks inch up the Billboard 200.
Our glory was short-lived, however. Citronella was soon retired to the back catalogue, where its all-time ranking is 2617 out of about 18,700 - respectable but nothing to brag about.
Having a song in the contest gives you a gambler's thrill: up and down it goes and where it stops, only the preference engine knows. The algorithm that determines rank is fairly sound. Each reviewer listens to a pair of songs and chooses one over the other. The process itself is blind in that a reviewer can pick a genre, from alternative to rock, but doesn't learn the name of the song or artist until the review session is over. In the qualifying round, a song is paired 20 times with random challengers; each time, a new reviewer chooses one song and rates both on a scale from 1 to 5.
In the past, if there wasn't enough data to order the top songs from 1 to 200, the system put those songs out for extra reviews. From last month, each category's top 20 per cent was automatically put into a second round of evaluation after 20 reviews. These new rankings are now combined with first-round data for a more accurate chart.
The system isn't perfect: if a song wins every pairing but has only been randomly matched with songs at the bottom of the barrel it will rate lower than a song that has gone undefeated against stiffer competition. The system is tamper-resistant, though, and it is becoming a better way to separate the wheat from the chaff.
How good are the judges in picking winners? Or, as my bandmate puts it, "Does anyone on the site have a clue as to what a radio hit could be?"
The people on Garageband are not the average music-buying public, nor are they American Idol-class music-industry insiders. They are people like Dave and me who make their own music and have strong opinions about how it should be done.
"Having a good song on Garageband is not going to matter unless other factors are in place," says Eric Godtland, who manages Third Eye Blind, the KGB and other bands. "Labels want to know how old you are, how marketable your look is and then what the music is like."
Referring to Avril Lavigne, the skater-girl pop sensation, he says: "Her songs wouldn't have done much sitting on Garageband but people saw her live and it became a mania. Garageband only offers a tiny little slice of what the public needs to embrace an artist."
Since the site was founded, only a handful of bands taking part have been signed by major labels and most of them were hard-working, professional entertainers to begin with. Validation from Garageband is cool because it suggests that in a blind test your peers approve of your sound, yet Garageband charts are mostly for recreational use only.
Garageband was created under the misconception that there was a scientific way to discover the best band in the world. According to the original blueprint, that band would be handed $250,000 and would become the Garageband label's first artist. At the same time, the site drew reviewers by promising a free CD for every 20 review pairs completed. Last February, after burning through a lot of cash without making a dent in the real world of radio stations and album sales, Garageband closed for several months.
Why, then, was the company pulled from the trash heap and resuscitated by former employees shortly after it closed? Why are its membership figures higher than they were when there was a promise of a record contract?
Perhaps it's because the site was secretly one of the biggest success stories of the dot-com age, if you measure success in terms of member loyalty.
"People were crying out, 'I want my Garageband back!"' says Ali Partovi, who became the chief executive after the site's resurrection. "There was a very vocal group of people who were very sad and wanted it to come back. We wondered whether it was 100 super-excited musicians, or if tens of thousands would be right there when we restarted."
