Pandora: Case Studies in Frustration

Here are some of the incidents that helped me determine the 7 Reasons Pandora Sucks.



















You can kind of figure out how they get from one selection to the next and that kind of predictability can be good, but it's also repetitive and boring. From Bruce Springsteen I get John Fogerty, Bob Seeger (obviously), Elvis Costello, Steve Miller Band, DMB, The Grateful Dead (really?) and some god-awful thing called Blessed Union of Souls that I want to skip but can't because I've exhausted my 6 song limit--again. Am I listening to a classic rock station because I thought I was listening to my own personal DJ.

From the Arcade Fire, I get to the Arctic Monkeys and some other bands that all sound kind of the same and not very interesting. Eleventeen? The Don’ts? Love Battery? A lot of these bands I would write off for their names alone. In about 40 minutes, I get 3 other listenable songs: The Arcade Fire, Stellastarr* and Guided By Voices. I’m not introduced to anything new I didn’t know I liked and I’m frustrated. Disgusted, almost.

If I make a station based on Fiona Apple or Joanna Newsom, that doesn’t mean I want to hear all female artists—quite the contrary, I rarely like listening to female singers. I like these two, though, and they are each quite unique and only they can pull off what they are doing. I don’t really want to hear Ani DiFranco, Joni Mitchell or anything else with a harp in it, either, thank you.

My most consistent complaint about Pandora was the sheer volume of absolute crap it played for me—regardless of the musician I started with. A radio is supposed to be some sort of filter and this type of filter is very limited. The problem with Pandora is they evaluate plenty of technical characteristics in a kind of objective way but there is no discernible quality control measure. Because quality in art is a subjective assessment, that makes it difficult to quantify.

One way Pandora might approach this is take into account the number of thumbs down or thumbs up ratings for the songs not just by individual user but total. Popularity measures always have their drawbacks and prevent less popular songs from rising to the top, but this might be one way to get some better songs played more. Also, one way I like to investigate bands is checking out the acts they have toured with in the past—that’s generally a good indicator. Artist's influences are also a great way expand in a historical way.

You would think that their "Quick Mix" mode might fix some of the problems of one-dimensionality but really, it just increases the types of bad songs you might hear. Maybe I’m really picky, maybe it’s the fact that I’m an avid media-consumer and I feel like I don’t have the time or patience to listen to anything I don’t like. Maybe Pandora just sucks.

Does it?

7 Reasons Pandora Sucks

Since Tim Westergern, the founder of Pandora, has been in the press for the battle to save internet radio these days, it seems appropriate to write up his project--one of the best known and most popular internet radio experiments. Pandora's capstone, called the Music Genome Project, has the ambitious/foolish purpose of mapping the musical "genes" of every song in the history of the world--ridiculous, in my estimation, and impossible at that. They also more modestly claim to help people find music they like. While the service offers a lot of benefits (free streaming in the U.S.) and may be improving (if it survives those proposed royalty hikes), Pandora's whole premise is flawed. Here are 7 of the reasons Pandora sucks:

1. Songs are not scientific specimens. So far Pandora has analyzed over 10,000 songs on the basis of over 2000 "focus traits" which include 400 technical attributes like rhythm syncopation, vocal counterpoint, and key tonality. All the problems with Pandora stem from their focus on this method because songs are not scientific specimens readily dissected by "technicians"—they are art. I don’t think there is a good reason behind "objectively" evaluating these songs on technical traits because they are valued for their subjective appeal

2. DJing is an art that “musical genes” couldn't possibly inform and Pandora feels randomized. Early free-form DJs and the best of today’s performer-DJ blend the element of surprise and rewarding anticipation in making a playlist. They play off subtle qualities or themes to make seamless transitions and perfect matches. Susan Douglas talks about this in her book Listening In and I will expand on her theories in a future post. If a machine merely replicates the genre you're interested in, as Pandora does, you may be comfortable, but you're not breaking any new ground or in for a mind-expanding song from left-field.

3. The catalog is excessive in some areas and deficient in others. You could stumble upon thousands of terrible bands or singer-songwriters (hello Modern English, Buckcherry) but there's no classical music and few selections from abroad. The amount you can hear from selected artists is also limited. This directly results in my biggest issue with Pandora...

4. Pandora plays a lot of crap because there is no discernible quality control mechanism. And I tested this theory with a wide range of artists, so it’s not MY taste that is to blame here. Because Pandora’s engine finds artists with similar technical attributes, they often find copyists who sound terrible because the style they are trying to emulate is unique and hard to pull off well. This brings me to my next issue….

5. You can only skip 6 times an hour. When I shuffle on my iPod, which includes songs I should like since they're on my iPod, I might skip 6 times in 1 minute trying to find the song I want to hear. When there is all this bad music thrown in that I don't know and won't like, of course I'm going to want to skip more than 6 times.

6. I cannot and will not be programmed by Clear Channel, Pandora, or any other computer program! This may just be a personal issue because I am a picky, avid music consumer. Just like I hate Clear Channel for using computer-generated playlists, I don't like the idea that my diverse interests can similarly be dissected and summarized so easily by a computer program, even if it is supposedly designed specifically for me. Sure, there are personalization mechanisms with Pandora: you can thumbs up or thumbs down songs to try to narrow the “station” more to your liking, but that’s time consuming and you only get those measley 6 skips an hour. Kids have always defined themselves by their musical tastes. It's one way to create an identity, and if that identity can be imposed from without by a computer, that doesn't make you unique. There's something enterprising about today's music hunters--they go out there and they find their music and stake their claim to that hard-earned musical property. "This is my band" or "I found this band before MTV did." With this program, it feels like it's all out there for anyone to randomly stumble upon.

7. Pandora is insulting. There is an assumption implicit in the program that a listener’s tastes are limited to songs that sound just like the artist they choose. And the simple fact that Pandora plays me such hideous crap means they think I might like it. When I somehow get played Creed or Nickleback, I don't only feel offended. I feel aurally assaulted.

What has your experience been like with Pandora? Am I missing something here?

Poll of the Day: Pandora

Pandora and founder Tim Westergren have been in the news lately for the SaveNetRadio campaign. Seems appropriate to see where people stand on this service so here's the poll:

Up Next: What I think about Pandora.