Advertisement

Determining Key Boundaries

  • Elaine ChewEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 204)

Abstract

Computer models for determining key boundaries are important tools for computer analysis of music, computational modeling of music cognition, content-based categorization and retrieval of music information and automatic generating of expressive performance. This chapter describes a Boundary Search Algorithm (BSA) for determining points of modulation in a piece of music using a geometric model for tonality called the Spiral Array. For a given number of key changes, the computational complexity of the algorithm is polynomial in the number of pitch events. We present and discuss computational results for two selections from J.S. Bach’s A Little Notebook for Anna Magdalena. Comparisons between the choices of an expert listener and the algorithm indicates that in human cognition, a dynamic interplay exists between memory and present knowledge, thus maximizing the opportunity for the information to coalesce into meaningful patterns.

Keywords

Phrase Structure Major Section Event Onset Pitch Class Pitch Collection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Jeanne Bamberger for her guidance and cogent advice that made this research possible; and Martin Brody for his insightful comments on interpreting the results in an early version of this document.

References

  1. 1.
    Auhagen, W., Vos, P.G.: Experimental methods in tonality induction research: a review. Music Percept. 17(4), 417–436 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bamberger, J.S.: Developing Musical Intuition. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, R.: Tonal implications of the diatonic set. In Theory Only 5, 3–21 (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chew, E.: Towards a mathematical model of tonality. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chew, E.: Modeling tonality: applications to music cognition. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohn, R.: Neo-Riemannian operations, parsimonious trichords, and their tonnetz representations. J. Music Theory 41(1), 1–66 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohn, R.: Introduction to Neo-Riemannian theory: a survey and a historical perspective. J. Music Theory 42(2), 167–180 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gjerdingen, R. (ed.): Music Percept. 17, 4 (2000) Note: Special issue on tonality induction.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krumhansl, C.L.: Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. Oxford University Press, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewin, D.: Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations. Yale University Press, CT (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Longuet-Higgins, H. C., Steedman, M. J.: On interpreting Bach. B. Meltzer and D. Michie (eds.). Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, p. 221. Edinburgh U Press, Edinburgh (1971)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Longuet-Higgins, H.C.: Mental Processes. MIT Press, MA (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rowe, R.: Key induction in the context of interactive performance. Music Percept. 17(4), 511–530 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shmulevich, I., Yli-Harja, O.: Localized key-finding: algorithms and applications. Music Percept. 17(4), 531–544 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steedman, M.: The well-tempered computer. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 349, 115–131 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Temperley, D.: The perception of harmony and tonality: an algorithmic approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Temperley, D.: What’s key for key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding algorithm reconsidered. Music Percept. 17(1), 65–100 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vos, P.G., Van Geenen, E.W.: A parallel-processing key-finding model. Music Percept. 14(2), 185–223 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Digital MusicQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations