Category Archives: Technology

Coming soon to a classical search engine near you. . .

I thought I’d just write a quick note to tell you what we have planned for the site in the next couple of weeks.

Our development team is currently working on the latest version of our prototype website, which represents a significant upgrade to the pretty limited version of the site currently at leliomusic.com.  The new version will look superficially similar, but much has gone on under the hood.  Here’s what you can expect.

  • A significant increase in the number of recordings available.  We currently list about 150 recordings.  This will increase to around 2,000 in the next release.  This is still a very long way away from being comprehensive – and you may notice that the actual selection is a little eccentric! – but it’s a step in the right direction.  More to the point, we will be able to add more albums on a regular basis.
  • Search for a much wider range of compositions.  The current prototype only lets you search for symphonies; the new release will open searches up to all musical forms, with the exclusion of songs and opera (which have some slight technical challenges involved).
  • iTunes links: We will now feature buy links to both Amazon and iTunes!  If you use them, we will actually make a very small amount of money – imagine that!
  • Support for misspellings: At the moment, if you type Mozarf instead of Mozart, you get no results back.  In the new version, misspelled words will automatically take you to the correct page (with an option to go back to a general search results page if we got it wrong).
  • Artist imagery (we hope!): At the moment the site only features images of composers.  We are hoping to get hold of a stack of artist publicity photos to use on the site.  It won’t be entirely comprehensive, but should go some way towards making the site more visually appealing.
  • Better album titles: Currently, album titles are being pulled from Amazon’s data, leading to situations such as a listing for Beethoven’s Symphony No. 3, “Choral”.  The new site will replace these titles with automatically generated names based on the works featured and our own data.  This should be much cleaner and more accurate.  (You would not believe the amount of SQL code sitting behind this seemingly simple task, though!)
  • Lots of minor look-and-feel tweaks: Stuff you won’t even notice, but which will make the site look just a little more polished.

We’re expecting to release all of this in early February, so stay tuned for more.  And, as always, if you like what we’re doing, please share this blog on Facebook or Twitter or really any social media outlet you like.

A classically trained search engine

Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jazbeck/

No, Amazon, when I say “Beethoven’s 2nd” I am not looking for a kids film about a freaking St Bernard.

As most of us who have ever tried it will know, searching for classical music online is a hit-and-miss affair.  There’s a reason for this.  Most search engines decide which results are relevant to you by matching words in your search query with words that appear in a particular web page, document or record.  The more words matched within a given document, the more ‘relevant’ a search engine believes it to be and the higher up the list of search results it will go.

The problem with this type of search is that it is fundamentally ‘dumb’. The search engine has no built-in understanding of the words you use in your search query.  It doesn’t know that a “piano concerto” is a musical form, that “Mozart” is a composer, that “A major” is a key signature, and that the “A major piano concerto by Mozart” is not the same thing as “a major piano concerto by Mozart”.

This is not terribly surprising.  Most search engines have no idea who you are, or what you are going to type into them.  In the US last year, the top ten Google searches included “Boston marathon”, “government shutdown”, “VMAs”, “new pope” and “Mayweather vs Canelo”.  That’s a pretty diverse range of topics, and no search engine could be expected to have an intelligent understanding of each of them.

The problem is worsened quite substantially when numbers are introduced into a query. This is pretty much impossible to avoid with classical music, whether you’re looking for “beethoven piano concerto 5“, “schoenberg 5 pieces for orchestra” or “corelli’s 12 violin sonatas op 5“.  Because a search engine doesn’t really understand the terms you type into it, it cannot deduce from the context what sort of number you’re looking for.  Instead, it just searches for matching numbers within its database.

The result is that a search for “beethoven symphony no 5” might yield an album of (say) Beethoven‘s Symphony No. 7 coupled with the Piano Concerto No. 5.  From the search engine’s perspective, that’s not a bad match.  From yours, it could definitely be bettered.

This inability to intelligently comprehend what you are looking for is why traditional search engines don’t really work for classical.  Completely unambiguous search terms such as the following yield completely different sets of results, even on the two biggest online music retailers:

 

 

Search Results

 

Good luck guessing which of those results sets has the particular recording you’re looking for in it!

Solving this problem has been one of Lelio’s key aims over the last 18 months.  Our search engine was built with classical music in mind from the very beginning.  We were able to do this because, unlike a traditional search engine, we know what type of information our users are likely to be looking for.  It is then just a matter of programming the search engine to intelligently interpret queries about that information.

So for instance, when you type “beethoven symphony 3″ into the Lelio search box, it understands that Beethoven is a composer, a symphony is a musical form, and 3 (in this context) probably refers to a particular instance of that musical form.  If you typed in “beethoven symphony 55″, however, it knows that there is no 55th symphony and instead checks to see whether there is a matching symphony under Op. 55 – which, in this case, there is.

Key to the efficacy of this model is ensuring that every term in our database is unique.  It’s no good having different records for “Tchaikovsky”, “Tschaikowski” and “Tchaik” (as his mates call him), when they are all synonyms for the same composer.  Likewise, Lelio will accept any of the following variants of the word “symphony”:

  • symphony
  • sinfonie
  • symphonie
  • sinfonia
  • sin
  • sinf
  • sym
  • symph

As far as Lelio’s search is concerned, all of these terms mean the same thing (and in the next release, it will also recognise misspelled variants just in case you have chubby fingers like me.) This is what allows us to return such a consistent set of results.

Why is this consistency so important, you ask?  Well, remember how the other week I blogged about Lelio’s mission to revive classical music sales?  Well, it turns out that in the world of sales, positioning is everything.  Just look at this graph showing the clickthrough rate of Google’s search results:

Optify analysis of Google top 20 search results click-through rate

What this graph demonstrates is that someone is almost three times as likely to click on the first search result they get offered than on the second – and over 16 times more likely than on the tenth.  If someone wants to buy something, it pays to ensure you’ve positioned it smack in the middle of their sight line.

With Lelio, we take things one step further. If our search engine considers your search to be wholly unambiguous, we don’t even display a list of search results: we just take you straight to the item you’re looking for.  At the moment, this is limited to composers or works, but artists and recordings will be coming in the next release.  The idea is to save you valuable time which can be better spent deciding whether you want the Furtwängler recording or the Klemperer.  (Top tip: get both!)

At any rate, we think this technology works really well and removes a big degree of randomness from the process of searching for classical music.  As I said in my last post, however, we know our prototype search engine is extremely limited – but we hope you enjoy playing around with it anyway and seeing what it could be capable of in the future.  If you have any feedback, we’d love to hear it – and please do share this blog using the buttons at the top of the post if you like what we’re doing.

(Subsistence) Living Classical

Last week I talked a little bit about the sad decline in classical sales and Lelio’s mission to reinvigorate the sector by building a new model for online shopping.  In today’s post I’m going to discuss our strategy for how we’re going to do this with no money.

Lelio is a startup, which is a nice way of saying we have no customers and no revenues.  Our coding, design work, business development, marketing, data entry and so on has all had to come out of our own pockets.  Ten or so people have contributed directly to the project over the last 18 months, some of them putting in hundreds of hours of work, and all have foregone payment in lieu of a slice of the business we hope to build together.

The whole “no money” thing does have some advantages, though.  It forces a business like ours to be highly strategic – to really pick and choose which objectives are most important to our success, and try to achieve those objectives as cheaply and as efficiently as possible.

We decided early on in the Lelio project that the key to making classical music easier to buy was to make it easier to find.  So building an effective search engine had to be our first priority.

We’re so lean we could only afford one copy of this book

The question is, how do you build a search engine from scratch with no money?  For this, we defer to the wisdom of Eric Ries’s excellent and highly influential book The Lean Startup.  Ries argues that startups, rather than trying to perfect their product before launching it, should focus on building what he calls a “minimum viable product” (MVP) and aim to get that in front of customers as quickly as possible.  The rationale for this is that no entrepreneur wants to be working in secret for two years on a product and only find out at the end that nobody actually wants it.  Furthermore, no amount of beta testing or focus grouping will tell you whether or not your product is desirable better than your customers will.

So we set ourselves a very minimal goal in order to test our thesis: could we create a search engine for symphonies only?

We chose to focus on symphonies for a number of reasons:

  • According to our market research, the symphony is the most popular form amongst classical listeners;
  • There is a fairly small group of symphonies in the standard repertory;
  • And most importantly, symphonies have abstract titles such as Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67, which would really test our search engine’s mettle.

So that’s why if you visit the Lelio prototype website today, you will our search engine only finds results for about 120 symphonies and a couple of dozen composers.  What it does do, though, is prove to us that our search works: if you type in “beethoven’s third symphony” or “eroica symphony” or “lvb sym 3″ or “beethoven op 55″ you will get the same set of results for Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony every time.  That’s already a pretty big improvement over what iTunes and Amazon can do.

Still, we know the site is still of pretty minimal use to customers.  Amazon and iTunes carry over a hundred thousand classical recordings, against which our selection of just under 200 seems pretty paltry.  Don’t worry, we know.  Nor do we imagine for a moment that classical customers are suddenly going to lose all interest in chamber music, piano music, instrumental music, song or opera and just stick to the symphonic repertoire from now on.

But as I say, we have to be strategic.  Our next release – which we expect in the next month or so – will substantially broaden the scope of the search engine.  We will have ten times as many recordings, and several thousand searchable works in the database – although still excluding vocal music and opera at this stage (sorry!).

Our hope is that this is enough to at least get a few people using the site.  That’s something we can build on, a minimum viable product.  Our next step is to seek an early stage investor to come on board and fund the next round of development.  With a little extra money (i.e. some) we can focus on building the next set of features, including:

  • A fully “clickable” journey through to our composers and artists (rather than requiring you to type something in the search box);
  • The ability for customers to write reviews and rate recordings;
  • The introduction of custom Collections (more on this in another post);
  • Many more searchable works, artists and composers.

We have plans beyond these features, of course, but I have to hold something back for another blog post.  But one thing you may have noticed is that not once have I mentioned how we will actually sell stuff on our sales platform.

There’s a reason for that.  The mechanics of shopping baskets, checkouts, payment gateways and delivery services are already tried and tested.  We aren’t planning to improve that technology, and investing in even a ‘me too’ is expensive and time consuming.  That’s why we currently use Amazon (and soon, iTunes) to handle the actual transactions.  We get only a very small cut of those sales, but at this stage all we are trying to prove is that people prefer shopping for classical music using a website that speaks their language.

We hope we are making progress on that front, and would welcome any feedback you have about the search as it stands.  Failing that, the best way you can help Lelio at this stage is to tell others what we’re working on!  There is a whole suite of sharing options at the top of this post, any one of which will help Lelio on its journey towards making the online world a better place for classical customers to buy music.

Solving classical music in the 21st Century

Shopping for classical music in the good old days

In my last post I discussed the disheartening decline in classical sales over the last couple of decades.  From representing 11% of the recorded music market back in 1990, classical has dropped to just 3% today.  The collapse of traditional bricks-and-mortar record shops has forced classical customers online, where we are treated very much as second-class citizens in a retail landscape thoroughly dominated by pop music.  Inadequate technology means that finding the specific album or recording we want to buy has become a hit-and-miss affair, usually involving our having to wade through countless irrelevant search results before we (maybe) find what we’re looking for.  Many of us just give up, creating a vicious cycle whereby dwindling classical sales disincentive online retailers from investing in the genre and fixing the situation.

Something desperately needs to change.  And that’s where Lelio comes in.

When we started working on Lelio back in 2012, we had a fairly straightforward aim: to make classical music as easy to buy online as it is in a shop.  That might sound simple, but there are several big challenges that we’ve needed to overcome.

To start with, it’s worth pointing out that online shopping does have some natural advantages to the traditional “walk into a shop and buy what you want” experience.  For a start, there’s no walking involved (which is a major plus in my books).  Online shops can also carry a much bigger range of stock than their offline counterparts.  That means more choice for the customer, which in theory is a very good thing.

In the world of classical, however, the sheer size of that range can be daunting.  There are over 150 commercially available recordings of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony alone, with more being released every year.  For someone just beginning to build their classical collection, knowing where to start is tricky.  For a more experienced collector, knowing where to go to next can be just as much of a challenge.

This is where a traditional shop has the advantage: any classical section worth its salt will have a chap behind the counter who can help you find a recording to suit your needs.  Failing that, there’s always the ubiquitous (and usually thoroughly dishevelled) copy of a Penguin Guide or Gramophone Guide lying around on the counter.  Online shops might be able to offer you customer reviews and star ratings, but they are no substitute for an expert opinion.

But even if you did just want to wing it, in a traditional shop you at least have the option of browsing through all the available recordings yourself.  That’s because in an old school classical section, albums are handily organised by composer and composition, rather than sales rank or release date.  This style of organisation – an A-Z listing of composers, with each composer’s works neatly filed under Symphonies, Concertos, String Quartets, Piano Sonatas etc – works brilliantly for classical shoppers, but is entirely absent from the online shopping experience.

So, Lelio’s first challenge has been this: how do you create a structure for selling music which is appropriate to classical?  Most online retailers simply take the view that copying and pasting the dominant “songs and albums” model will be sufficient for us classical customers.  With Lelio, we’ve thrown away that model completely, and started again from scratch.

I don’t want to bore you with in-depth discussions about our database design, but suffice to say that every album on Lelio is defined in terms of which compositions it contains.  This is in fact a radical departure from an album being defined in terms of artist name and album title, which is the model used by pop music and the model into which classical music is shoehorned by every record label and online retailer out there.

Building our database using compositions as the basic building block allows us to do a lot of really neat things.  We can group all recordings of a particular composition together under a single set of results.  We can group compositions together by composer, and build categories and hierarchies for that composer (e.g. Chamber Music –> String Quartets –> Late String Quartets).  We can slice and dice our data to show you all Bruckner recordings by Daniel Barenboim, then let you pivot to see all of Barenboim’s recordings of the Beethoven piano sonatas, and let you pivot again to see the Beethoven sonatas recorded by András Schiff.  We can also do some really, really neat tricks with our search engine, but I’ll discuss that in another post.

Ultimately, our hope is that by starting from the position of loving and understanding classical music, we can build something that really resonates with classical fans.  We want customers to have a nice time shopping for music, rather than pulling their hair out over the inadequacies of the technology.  By rebuilding the online shopping experience from the ground up, our hope is nothing short of revitalising the classical sector – replacing the vicious circle I mentioned earlier with a virtuous one.

All of this is a huge undertaking, though, and we can’t do it all at once.  Next week I’ll talk about our more immediate goals, why our current prototype website only has 150 recordings listed on it, and when you can expect to see the next round of developments.

In the meantime, if you liked this blog, you’ll be doing us a big favour by sharing it on Facebook or Twitter!

Why online music stores are failing classical

All the way back in October 2007, I penned a little rant for The Guardian entitled iTunes is clueless when it comes to classical music.  I was fairly new to the world of digital music in those days, but even then it was clear that online music stores weren’t really working for classical music.  My particular gripe in that instance was that there was no way for me to download an individual work – in this case Vivaldi’s Gloria, consisting of a dozen movements – without shelling out for the whole album.

It was a small issue, but it illustrated an important underlying problem: classical music was a poor fit for the ‘songs’ and ‘albums’ model being used by online music retailers.

Given five years is the equivalent of about three millennia in the technology world, you would expect things to have moved on since I wrote that piece.  And indeed they have.  iTunes now acknowledges the concept of multi-part compositions, offering them as complete works you can buy as discrete bundles.  They’ve addressed a number of other complaints from classical fans, too, such as improving sound quality.

But there is still a long way to go.

For a start, searching for classical compositions is still a hit-and-miss affair at best.  A few months ago, I tested both iTunes and Amazon to see how they handled a variety of search terms one might use to find recordings of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony.  Just look at the huge variance in the number of results:

Search Results

Every one of those search terms unambiguously points to a single piece of music – and yet the two biggest online record shops will give you a wildly varying set of results depending on the exact set of words you choose.

It would be very easy to blame the retailers themselves for this.  But the problem is more pervasive then that, and in fact affects even the big specialist classical record labels.  The problem is metadata.

Metadata, for the uninitiated, is data that describes other data.  In this case, it’s the text that describe what you’re listening to.  For most pop records, this is pretty straightforward stuff: Artist and Song Title are usually sufficient to find pretty much anything in the popular music back catalogue.

But who is the Artist on a piano concerto?  Or an opera?  Is it the composer?  The soloist?  The singers?  The conductor?  I’ll bet everyone reading this has had the experience of finding the Artist field taken up exclusively with the name of the composer, and thus having absolutely no idea who the actual performers are.  Matters are made worse by the fact that many classical performances are a collaboration between several artists: ‘Herbert von Karajan & the Berliner Philharmoniker’ is not in fact the name of a 60s garage band, but rather two separate entities unhelpfully crammed into a single metadata field.

Worse yet is the problem of Track Name.  This is particularly problematic because most classical compositions don’t even have proper names.  Generally, we know them just by a set of parameters.  Going back to the example of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony, for instance, you could describe it like this:

  • Musical Form: Symphony
  • Musical Form Instance: No. 3
  • Key Signature: E-flat major
  • Catalogue Number: Op. 55
  • Nickname: “Eroica”

You can pretty much assemble those parameters any which way you like to describe the piece in question.  And indeed that’s just what record companies do, squeezing all that data down into a single field called ‘Track Name’.  Because nobody condenses their data in exactly the same way, this leads to enormous inconsistency between record labels, which in turn leads to inconsistent search results.

Of course, it’s hardly surprising record labels and online retailers haven’t felt inclined to build a completely new metadata standard for classics.  Classical music accounts for just over 3% of total record sales worldwide.  It’s simply not worth the investment.

This is where Lelio is different.  We’ve built an entirely new standard for classical music, and paired it with a brand new type of search engine that ‘gets’ how classics work.  Our aim is simple: we want to make classical music easier to find, easier to buy, easier to compare and easier to enjoy.

I’ll be blogging in more detail about how we’ve gone about addressing the problems described above, as well as how Lelio plans to thwart a number of other bugbears that have plagued classical fans since the dawn of the digital revolution.

In the meantime, let us know what you think.  Do you share these frustrations?  Do you think things have got better over the years?  Or worse?  How would you rate the online experience versus the good old bricks-and-mortars approach?  Is there anything you prefer about it?  Or do you long for the days where a record meant something made of vinyl that you could hold in your hand, rather than just another entry in a database?