Skip to content
Permalink
master
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
============================================================================
REVIEWER #4
============================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer's Scores
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scholarly/scientific quality: medium low
Novelty: medium high
Relevance of topic: medium high
Importance: medium high
Readability and paper organisation: medium high
Title and abstract: yes
Bibliography: yes
Make Review Publicly Accessible: Yes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a metareview.
All reviewers have identified pluses and minuses to this work, some with major
details. We can all see that a significant amount of effort has gone into the
preparation of this work, but one of the main sticking points is that the
quality of writing must be greatly improved.
From my own judgements, I think this is another paper extolling the virtues of
lots of data without thinking about defining and solving meaningful problems.
More data is not necessarily better data. The paper is just the tip of the
iceberg on how much effort has gone into collecting this data, but we don't
know whether all that effort is actually useful. One major problem is the
comparison of MIR with image content analysis. Music recordings are not like
images. "Genre" is not an object. A music signal is not a perspective of
arranged and opaque objects. Humans don't listen to music like they look at
photos. So I am not persuaded by the argument that MIR should be more like
image content analysis. Plus, there's the naive treatment of genre as a
category. That so many recordings are labeled "experimental" by artists shows a
major problem: the metadata here is highly dependent on the current time. The
"artist hotness" etc. will have limited usefulness, if it has any, outside of a
narrow time window. Anyhow, this paper is presenting a new and larger dataset,
which will lead to more benchmarking whether it is valid or invalid.
Even with all that said, I am inclined to say "weak accept."
In the discussion among the reviewers, we came to conclusion that if this paper
is accepted that the authors will take into account all comments and produce an
improved paper.