Acoustics & Music Theory
why it sounds like that
Concept

Harmonic analysis — where it appears

Reading a passage as a sequence of chords in a key, and naming each one by its function rather than by its notes. It is the operation a key-finding model automates, and the choice between calling a passage a modulation and calling it a series of borrowings is a prior rather than a fact.

Named by 8 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

What the joint search changes, and what it never changes. Over 552 constructed passages of eight slots with rests, how often the joint reading differs from the pipeline's. The chord differs in 29 per cent and the barline in 31, with both differing in 20. The key differs in 0 per cent — never — because the key is read from a pitch-class histogram, which does not know where the bar starts or which notes are chord tones. Two of the three decisions are entangled and the third is not.

Three decisions that constrain each other

Every model here decides one thing at a time — the key from the pitch classes, the metre from the onsets, the chords from the metre — and an earlier essay ended by saying a listener does all three at once. Resolving them jointly costs a hundred and fifty-seven times the search and changes the reading of two passages in five. It never once changes the key, and the reason it cannot is the reason the whole account is built the way it is.

harmony · Progression The one number the ordered key-finder was tuned on. For each rate of alternation between two keys, the cost of changing key at which the model stops hearing two keys and starts hearing borrowed chords in one. The threshold rises with the period — 0.95 at 1 bar, 0.95 at 2 bars, 0.95 at 4 bars, 2.00 at 8 bars, 3.50 at 16 bars — so the parameter and the rate trade off against each other exactly. The value tuned earlier, 2.2, sits above every threshold on this axis, which means its verdict about fast alternation was a consequence of the tuning rather than a finding about the music. Filled means the model names two keys; hollow means it names one and calls the rest borrowings.

A modulation and a borrowing are one number apart

The key-finder that keeps the order has one tuned parameter, and said so. Sweep it and the parameter turns out to be the whole verdict: below a threshold the model hears two keys alternating, above it one key with borrowed chords. The threshold rises with how slowly the keys alternate — and the value it chose sits above every threshold in range, so its finding about fast alternation was a consequence of the tuning.

scales · Key-relations Two kinds of evidence, each measured against its own chance. Every key as a point: across, how many standard deviations its cadence count is above what the same bars resampled would give; up, the same for its pitch-class profile correlation. The winner on cadences is key C at 6.2 standard deviations and on profile C at 1.1, and they agree. Standard deviations above chance are the same unit whatever produced them, which is the commensuration this figure is for — and it costs something: it assumes the two chances are equally interesting, which is a weighting in disguise. The obvious null does not work at all for one of the two: shuffling the bars leaves a pitch-class histogram exactly as it was, so its spread is zero and every key scores nothing against it.

A count and a correlation

Cadence evidence is a count of ordered pairs and profile evidence is a correlation with a template, and the cadence essay refused to total them because they are not in the same units. Score each against its own chance and they are — standard deviations above chance are the same unit whatever produced them. Then the trouble moves: the obvious null does nothing at all to one of the two, because shuffling the bars leaves a pitch-class histogram exactly as it was.

harmony · Progression A long note and a strong note disagree, and the winner is neither. The same 8 notes scored against every triad and seventh at every root, with the weighting run from the metrical one always used to a durational one never drawn. On the left each note counts for its metrical weight; on the right, for how long it is held. The long notes here are on beats 2, 4, 6, 8, which are the weak ones. The two cues point at different chords — C major7 on the left and D minor7 on the right — turning over at a mixture of 40 per cent. And at the crossing the winner is A minor7, which is neither cue's answer — a chord that shares three notes with each and is not the reading either rule asks for. Nothing about the notes changed. What changed is which of two cues a theorist would call obvious is being believed.

The long note and the strong note

The segmentation that produces every object connected here has carried a free parameter since the day it was written: whether a note counts for its metrical weight or for how long it is held. Only the first has ever been drawn. The two name different chords on sixteen per cent of passages where the cues agree about the notes and forty-three per cent where they do not — and where they disagree most sharply a mixture of them picks a third chord neither one asks for.

harmony · Progression The reading the joint search was never offered. The best chord at each mixture of the two segmentation cues, and what the same weighting gives the same notes shuffled into a different order. Both fall along the axis, and most of the fall is the ruler rather than the music: a metrical weighting over a bar of eight spans a factor of eight and a three-to-one duration spans three, so the weighted note mass is 2.1 times more concentrated at the left of the figure than at the right, and a concentrated mass is easier for four notes to cover. What is not the ruler is the gap. It is widest at a mixture of 0.75, where the reading is D minor7 at 2.15 standard deviations above its own null, against 1.12 for C major7 at a mixture of nought. The joint search holds this axis at nought, so D minor7 is not among the hypotheses it considers.

A fourth decision, and two that were never made

The joint search resolves key, metre and segmentation together and holds the segmentation's cue mixture at zero. Adding the mixture is one loop, and reading the search in order to add it turns up something worse than a missing axis: on the passages it is drawn on, the key it reads is the same key at all forty-eight of its hypotheses and the metre scores every barline identically. The fourth axis then cannot be ranked at all until each reading is measured against its own null, because a mixture changes the ruler and not only the answer.

harmony · Progression How often the metre, the chords and their product find the barline, chords at 1. Constructed passages of four bars of eight quavers, 100 at each setting, with the barline at the first slot. Rhythm regularity is how much likelier a note is on a strong slot than a weak one; chord regularity is how much likelier a note is to be a tone of its bar's chord than a random scale tone. rhythm 0: metre finds it 10%, chords find it 41%, product finds it 16%; rhythm 0.25: metre finds it 34%, chords find it 35%, product finds it 56%; rhythm 0.5: metre finds it 49%, chords find it 21%, product finds it 66%; rhythm 0.75: metre finds it 50%, chords find it 17%, product finds it 56%; rhythm 1: metre finds it 50%, chords find it 11%, product finds it 45%.

The chords never move the barline

Every hypothesis the joint search had drawn was one bar long, and on one bar with a note in every slot the metre cannot choose a barline at all. Four bars with rests in them make the barline a decision the metre and the chords both have an opinion about, and the prediction was that the chords would move the barline more often than the barline moves the chords. It is the other way round, completely: whenever the two prefer different barlines the search takes the metre's, on up to 72 per cent of passages, and in fifteen hundred passages the chords never once move it. What the chords decide is the one thing the metre cannot see — whether the bar starts on the downbeat or half a bar later — and they decide it right a little over two times in three at best.

harmony · Progression The product and the sum of standard scores, finding the barline, chords at 1. Constructed passages of four bars of eight quavers, 100 at each setting, with the barline at the first slot. Rhythm regularity is how much likelier a note is on a strong slot than a weak one; chord regularity is how much likelier a note is to be a tone of its bar's chord than a random scale tone. rhythm 0: product finds it 16%, sum of z finds it 22%, metre finds it 10%, chords, z 35%; rhythm 0.25: product finds it 56%, sum of z finds it 58%, metre finds it 34%, chords, z 38%; rhythm 0.5: product finds it 66%, sum of z finds it 61%, metre finds it 49%, chords, z 19%; rhythm 0.75: product finds it 56%, sum of z finds it 58%, metre finds it 50%, chords, z 14%; rhythm 1: product finds it 45%, sum of z finds it 48%, metre finds it 50%, chords, z 12%.

The chords are a weak witness to the barline

Scaled by its own range, the metre overrules the chords every time the two disagree about where a bar begins. The obvious repair is to score each reading against its own chance — the metre against the same number of notes placed at random, the chords against the passage's notes shuffled across its bars — and add the standard scores. It changes very little: the search finds the barline within six points of where the product found it, and the chords gain the power to move the barline only on passages whose rhythm says nothing, where random notes move it nearly as often. The null's real result is the size of the two witnesses. At the written barline the metre stands up to 5.9 standard deviations above chance, and the chords, with every note a tone of its bar's chord, stand 1.55 above it at best.

harmony · Progression Four bars read by where the chords change, barline by barline. A constructed passage of four bars of eight quavers, its barline at the first slot and its chords C, F, Em, Dm. Notes: slot 1 C, slot 3 E, slot 4 G, slot 5 E, slot 6 C, slot 9 C, slot 10 C, slot 11 F, slot 13 A, slot 16 C, slot 17 B, slot 19 B, slot 20 E, slot 21 E, slot 24 G, slot 25 F, slot 29 F. For each of the eight places the barline could fall: as written metre, z 3.97, chords, z 2.00, change, z 4.30, metre + change, z 8.27; 1 quaver late metre, z -2.45, chords, z 2.14, change, z -0.87, metre + change, z -3.32; 2 quavers late metre, z -1.38, chords, z 2.15, change, z -0.54, metre + change, z -1.93; 3 quavers late metre, z -0.31, chords, z -0.27, change, z -2.64, metre + change, z -2.95; 4 quavers late metre, z 3.97, chords, z -1.63, change, z -4.30, metre + change, z -0.33; 5 quavers late metre, z -2.45, chords, z 1.27, change, z 0.87, metre + change, z -1.58; 6 quavers late metre, z -1.38, chords, z 1.18, change, z 0.54, metre + change, z -0.84; 7 quavers late metre, z -0.31, chords, z 1.05, change, z 2.64, metre + change, z 2.32. Best metre, z: as written and 4 late. Best chords, z: 2 late. Best change, z: as written. Best metre + change, z: as written.

The chords mark the barline by changing there

Read bar by bar, the chords stood barely above chance at the barline and broke the metre's half-bar tie two times in three at best. Read instead by where they change — how different the chords are across a candidate's barlines against how different they are across the middle of its bars — the same notes break the tie right on 81 to 96 per cent of passages, and added to the metre they find the barline on up to 89 per cent against 61. The weakness was the question the old reading asked, not the harmony.

harmony · Progression

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

SegmentationMetreKey-findingMetrical weightChord toneEvidenceHarmonic rhythmNull modelProgressionStatisticsDurationInference

All concepts