Users for Last.fm song length tracking » Discussions

A website that tracks top artists by track length

Page 1 of 21 2 Next

- ThusIsOurKrao said...
- User
- 24 Jun 2007, 14:36
A website that tracks top artists by track length

For now, we can all use this:
http://www.associativetrails.com/stuff/normalisefm/

As an example for what it does, I'll list my top three artists by track length as quoted by the site when one submits one's username:

1. Current 93
Original rank: 10
Tracks listened to: 60
Minutes: 676
Difference: +9

2. Boredoms
Original rank: 40
Tracks listened to: 44
Minutes: 676
Difference: +38

3. Kayo Dot
Original rank: 20
Tracks listened to: 56
Minutes: 651
Difference: +17

Enjoy, and go go go.

[quote][b][user]ThusIsOurKrao[/user][/b] said: For now, we can all use this: http://www.associativetrails.com/stuff/normalisefm/ As an example for what it does, I'll list my top three artists by track length as quoted by the site when one submits one's username: 1. Current 93 Original rank: 10 Tracks listened to: 60 Minutes: 676 Difference: +9 2. Boredoms Original rank: 40 Tracks listened to: 44 Minutes: 676 Difference: +38 3. Kayo Dot Original rank: 20 Tracks listened to: 56 Minutes: 651 Difference: +17 Enjoy, and go go go.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- anttilm said...
- User
- 30 Jun 2007, 19:45
Superb

[quote][b][user]anttilm[/user][/b] said: Superb[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- [Deleted user] said...
- User
- 2 Aug 2007, 16:21
It's not bad but in some cases it doesn't work due to how Last.fm works.
Devil Doll was ranked down three steps for me, and most Devil Doll albums are just one track, over an hour long.

This is because there's another band called Devil Doll.

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: It's not bad but in some cases it doesn't work due to how Last.fm works. Devil Doll was ranked down three steps for me, and most Devil Doll albums are just one track, over an hour long. This is because there's another band called Devil Doll.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Adelantedolor said...
- User
- 4 Aug 2007, 10:35
Outstanding :)

¿Mi lista de reproducción en LastFM? Todo parecido con la realidad puede ser pura coincidencia.

Borrador B

[quote][b][user]Adelantedolor[/user][/b] said: Outstanding :)[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Emgo said...
- User
- 4 Aug 2007, 23:49
some other examples

Explosions In The Sky
original rank:14
tracks:68
minutes:480
+10 !!

John Coltrane
original rank:40
tracks:37
minutes:329
+31 !!

Mono
original rank:33
tracks:43
minutes:241
+18 !!

Miles Davis
original rank:42
tracks:36
minutes:216
+22 !!

[quote][b][user]Emgo[/user][/b] said: some other examples [artist]Explosions in the Sky[/artist] original rank:14 tracks:68 minutes:480 +10 !! [artist]John Coltrane[/artist] original rank:40 tracks:37 minutes:329 +31 !! [artist]Mono[/artist] original rank:33 tracks:43 minutes:241 +18 !! [artist]Miles Davis[/artist] original rank:42 tracks:36 minutes:216 +22 !![/quote]

Permalink Quote
- d1eg0 said...
- User
- 17 Aug 2007, 22:22
is it possible to get a widget-like tool?

[quote][b][user]d1eg0[/user][/b] said: is it possible to get a widget-like tool?[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- [Deleted user] said...
- User
- 23 Aug 2007, 18:29
It completely left out a handful of my top artists off that list. My #2 and #3 are gone and a couple more down the line like #13

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: It completely left out a handful of my top artists off that list. My #2 and #3 are gone and a couple more down the line like #13[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- AdamSlim said...
- User
- 26 Aug 2007, 22:22
Yay Mahler up 24 places to number 6!!

[quote][b][user]AdamSlim[/user][/b] said: Yay Mahler up 24 places to number 6!![/quote]

Permalink Quote
- 5thEye said...
- User
- 1 Sep 2007, 09:07
It kinda works. It somehow still thinks I've listened to Aphex Twin for 5 hours, which isn't true at all, but this list is still much better.

[quote][b][user]5thEye[/user][/b] said: It kinda works. It somehow still thinks I've listened to Aphex Twin for 5 hours, which isn't true at all, but this list is still much better.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- ilovecharts said...
- User
- 2 Sep 2007, 08:26
[spam]

[spam]

one

[quote][b][user]ilovecharts[/user][/b] said: [spam][/quote]
Edited by hjbardenhagen on 3 Jan 2011, 13:55

Permalink Quote
- [Deleted user] said...
- User
- 25 Sep 2007, 13:58
1.Merzbow379765 2
2.Lou Reed1149591 1
3.The Gerogerigegege3025570 27

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: 1. Merzbow 3 79 765 2 2. Lou Reed 1 149 591 1 3. The Gerogerigegege 30 25 570 27[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- AutumnSodomy said...
- User
- 16 Oct 2007, 19:25
I haven't been to that site in months.... I'm gunna go back to see where my artists are now.

(((***** Don't judge a book by it's cover, judge it by it's content inside. *****)))

[quote][b][user]AutumnSodomy[/user][/b] said: I haven't been to that site in months.... I'm gunna go back to see where my artists are now. [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Kreator82 said...
- Subscriber
- 1 Nov 2007, 23:31
I just use a script for Firefox to see my stats by track length

[quote][b][user]Kreator82[/user][/b] said: I just use a script for Firefox to see my stats by track length[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- schschsch said...
- User
- 9 Nov 2007, 15:42
it lists artists by average tracklength, guys. which, in my case, is total bullshit because I listened to tool's "intermission", a very short track, like 72 times and now tool is one of my (normalised) top artists.

[quote][b][user]schschsch[/user][/b] said: it lists artists by [b]average tracklength[/b], guys. which, in my case, is total bullshit because I listened to tool's "intermission", a very short track, like 72 times and now tool is one of my (normalised) top artists.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- VilenessFats said...
- User
- 4 Dec 2007, 04:59
La Monte Young +44

none

[quote][b][user]VilenessFats[/user][/b] said: La Monte Young +44[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- [Deleted user] said...
- User
- 27 Jan 2008, 19:41
schschsch said:
it lists artists by average tracklength, guys. which, in my case, is total bullshit because I listened to tool's "intermission", a very short track, like 72 times and now tool is one of my (normalised) top artists.
If thats so it sux a bit. Nice idea/toy anyway. last.fm should finally get rid of this problem. Same thing with rolling year charts... cutoff should be at least every month, not every year o.0

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]schschsch[/user][/b] said: it lists artists by [b]average tracklength[/b], guys. which, in my case, is total bullshit because I listened to tool's "intermission", a very short track, like 72 times and now tool is one of my (normalised) top artists.[/quote] If thats so it sux a bit. Nice idea/toy anyway. last.fm should finally get rid of this problem. Same thing with rolling year charts... cutoff should be at least every month, not every year o.0[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- [Deleted user] said...
- User
- 23 Feb 2008, 16:12
1. Gustav Mahler + 29
:)

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: 1. Gustav Mahler + 29 :)[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Memor said...
- User
- 26 Feb 2008, 17:32
And in addition to the average track length thingy, the database on last.fm about track lengths just isn't that huge yet. My Nobuo Uematsus and Yasunori Mitsudas drop hard. :(

Nice idea, though.

[quote][b][user]Memor[/user][/b] said: And in addition to the average track length thingy, the database on last.fm about track lengths just isn't that huge yet. My Nobuo Uematsus and Yasunori Mitsudas drop hard. :( Nice idea, though.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- [Deleted user] said...
- User
- 31 Mar 2008, 10:32
There is actually a website that does keep track of what you have been playing by length.
It's called foosic. Only "problem" is that you have to use foobar (on windows machines) (which actually is not a problem but a blessing).

Check it out at:
www.foosic.org

(ps. that site is really really slow)

[quote][b][user][/user][/b] said: There is actually a website that does keep track of what you have been playing by length. It's called foosic. Only "problem" is that you have to use foobar (on windows machines) (which actually is not a problem but a blessing). Check it out at: [url]www.foosic.org[/url] (ps. that site is really really slow)[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Rotuhiiri said...
- User
- 30 May 2008, 19:20
[spam]

[spam]

[quote][b][user]Rotuhiiri[/user][/b] said: [spam][/quote]
Edited by hjbardenhagen on 28 Dec 2010, 21:39

Permalink Quote
- groo-7 said...
- User
- 9 Jun 2008, 14:02
jim o'rourke - +39

[quote][b][user]groo-7[/user][/b] said: jim o'rourke - +39[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- rooie666 said...
- User
- 27 Jun 2008, 09:45
most of my top 10 bands drop quite a bit (grind bands are not knwon for lengthy compositions)

Dus.

[quote][b][user]rooie666[/user][/b] said: most of my top 10 bands drop quite a bit (grind bands are not knwon for lengthy compositions) [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Starless_night said...
- User
- 28 Aug 2008, 17:28
it's good but I want other people to see my tracks in length too... Last.fm developers suck!

Swagerific

[quote][b][user]Starless_night[/user][/b] said: it's good but I want other people to see my tracks in length too... Last.fm developers suck![/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sebschub said...
- User
- 26 Nov 2008, 16:38
Antonín Dvořák
+23

The problem is that I do not agree with last.fm's or musicbrainz' spelling of my favourite Russians (why, as not being native English, should I choose an "Englisch" spelling for Russian names?), so they are not included in the list...

We hate kiddies who listen to music with their mobiles without ear-phones

[quote][b][user]sebschub[/user][/b] said: Antonín Dvořák +23 The problem is that I do not agree with last.fm's or musicbrainz' spelling of my favourite Russians (why, as not being native English, should I choose an "Englisch" spelling for Russian names?), so they are not included in the list...[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- plaSStik said...
- User
- 21 Jan 2009, 14:24
Opeth: 35 -> 10
Metallica: 37->23
Black Sabbath:50->38

[quote][b][user]plaSStik[/user][/b] said: Opeth: 35 -> 10 Metallica: 37->23 Black Sabbath:50->38[/quote]

Permalink Quote