Talk:Microsoft Research Songsmith

Viral Hit
the "commercial" for this is gaining speed on Youtube, despite a two star rating. Rcollins03 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

a few errors
I'm not going to change anything in the actual article, as I'm somewhat biased. There are a few things I would change, though:

1. The correct name of the product is Microsoft Research Songsmith.

2. I'm fairly certain the Songsmith promo video is not "unintentionally" bad.

Iansimon (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you so sure about #2? Even if that's the case, it's telling..shows you how seriously people take this whole thing. --131.107.0.112 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, this article needs copyediting, badly. --131.107.0.112 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed on the errors
I'm also biased, and as such will not change the article. However, the "unintentionally bad" phrase is not a fact (as Wikipedia is meant to report), but instead opinion (which as far as I understand is not appropriate for Wikipedia). It seems the line should just read Morris and Basu starred in an infomercial[5] that became a viral video. The product name is also "Microsoft Research Songsmith" as the commentor above mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the results are usually so utterly excruciating that to express a neutral opinion on their merits is itself a violation of NPoV, being effectively a strongly positively biased statement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed also
I'm not biased, and it's pretty obvious that the infomercial was intended to be funny. This whole debacle has been caused by people having lowered expectations when it comes to Microsoft. The part about unintentional should most definitely be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.70.27.104 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

grossly mismatched chords
any citations? i wouldn't say the wrong chords are more gross than what simon cowell comes up with. :-) if this can't be cited, it should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.126.62 (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Composition" software?
I'm not sure that songsmith is compositional. One would argue that Songsmith has no elements of traditional DAW. You cannot edit (in depth) the chord spacing in the accompaniment or use multiple instruments. Compositional applications would most probably be Sibelius, Finale and another consumer based application: Apple's Garageband (which is consumer based). On this basis, I think it is right to edit to accompaniment software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff janes (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

mangled
It might look bad if I personally change this, but the last sentence in the article states that popular vocal tracks are "mangled by" Songsmith. Certainly the accompaniments generated by Songsmith are different from the song's actual instrumental tracks, and I'm sure most people would agree to an increased cheese factor, but "mangled" is a bit extreme.

Oops, forgot to sign. Iansimon (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Songsmith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717203036/http://videogum.com/44861/nothing_can_prepare_you_for_th/music-related-content/ to http://videogum.com/44861/nothing_can_prepare_you_for_th/music-related-content/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)