Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

robert_ritz OP t1_iuq7k2s wrote

Reply to comment by EldraziKlap in [OC] Billboard's top 10 singles are getting progressively more negative (and less acoustic) over time by robert_ritz

Spotify defines it as the likelihood that a track is acoustic on a scale from 0-1. You could interpret this as how acoustic sounding a track is.

This is a machine-made metric, though, and you can take it with a grain of salt if you wish. Docs on these are here.

71

EldraziKlap t1_iuq8eqr wrote

Thanks for the response. I moreso wonder what in that case Spotify defines as acoustic, and what it considers non-acoustic music.

13

robert_ritz OP t1_iuq8kjd wrote

My guess is that there is no "definition" and that a machine learning model was trained using songs labeled as "acoustic". This is probably the result of either some database Spotify pulls from or the artists themselves.

40

isaacals t1_iurr6iq wrote

I would assume it's just a degree of how much sound amplification/modulation and/or manipulation is made to the acoustic instrument or the recordings of it. Mind you, you don't even need to "record" if the original sound is made digitally/electronically which I guess can be considered non-acoustic or at least a very low degree of acoustic-sounding.

1