Acoustics & Music Theory
why it sounds like that
Concept

Modulation — where it appears

A change of key within a piece, accomplished by introducing the notes of the new key and treating one of them as its leading note. How much evidence a listener needs before the new key is established is measurable in events.

Named by 29 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The circle of fifths. The twelve pitch classes arranged so that each is a fifth above the last. Keys next to each other differ by one sharp or flat, which is why the notes of a key form a contiguous arc rather than a scattering.

Keys are neighbours, and the map is computed

Two keys a fifth apart share six of their seven notes. That single fact generates the circle of fifths, the key signatures, the shape of nearly every modulation, and the sense that some keys are far away.

scales · Key-relations Boundaries found by a local operator, at three kernel widths. Foote's checkerboard novelty computed on the self-similarity matrix of thirty-two-bar AABA, at kernel widths of 2, 4, 8 bars. The dashed verticals are where the encoding's sections actually change; nothing about them enters the computation. A peak is a place where the bars before resemble each other, the bars after resemble each other, and the two groups do not resemble each other.

The boundary is where the neighbourhood changes

A section boundary can be found by an operator that never sees a section. It walks the diagonal of a similarity matrix asking one local question — do the bars behind me resemble each other, do the bars ahead resemble each other, and do the two groups resemble each other — and where the answer is yes, yes, no, there is an edge. What it cannot find turns out to say more than what it can.

form · Repetition The key plan is the shape. The key of a classical sonata-form movement against position in the movement, measured in steps along the chain of fifths from the home key. The positions are the proportions such a movement is described by rather than bar numbers from any one score. The furthest point is 4 steps out, sharing 3 of seven notes with home.

The key plan is the form

The large shape of a classical movement is not a shape at all, it is a journey — out to one key and back. Which key is not a matter of taste. Of the two keys that share six of their seven notes with home, only one introduces a note the home key does not use in any of its chords, and that note is the arriving key's own leading note. The departure is audible because of one accidental.

form · Key-relations Sensitivity and specificity on one dial. Aligned similarity — bar i against bar i+L, which is what a return is — for 4 eight-bar comparisons, as the key-invariance dial turns. One comparison is constructed: a literal repeat in the encoding, moved up a fifth, which is a stated manipulation because no scheme encoded here repeats a section in a new key. The shaded band is the margin between the two named comparisons, and it runs from 0.021 to 0.106.

The same thing somewhere else

A measure built on which notes are sounding calls a passage that comes back a fifth higher a stranger. There is a dial that fixes this, and turning it is supposed to be a trade — more sensitivity to a transposed return, less specificity against a coincidental one. It is not that trade. Two different statistics answer opposite ways, and the setting that would compromise between them is the worst one available.

form · Repetition How far every key is from C major. The 11 other major keys under three measurements. Notes in common and steps round the circle are the same measurement — the first is seven minus the second until it bottoms out at two — and voice-leading distance between the tonic triads is not. E major shares 3 notes and is 2 semitones away; A♭ major shares 3 notes and is 2 semitones away, against the dominant's 6 and 3.

Three ways to measure how far a key is

Notes in common and steps round the circle of fifths are the same measurement — among the twelve major keys the first is seven minus the second until it bottoms out. Voice-leading distance between the tonic triads is a different one, and it disagrees in exactly one place: E and A♭ are four steps from C, share three of its seven notes, and are two semitones away, which is nearer than the dominant.

harmony · Key-relations How many bars a key change takes to be heard. A twelve-bar progression that moves to G major at bar 6, read by the same correlation against all twenty-four profiles, with a window of 3, 4 and 8 bars. With 3 bars of history the new key is never the answer at all. With 4 bars of history the answer is G major from bar 7, one bar late, and it holds it from there. With 8 bars of history the answer is G major from bar 9, 3 bars late, and it holds it from there. The pivot bar is ambiguous by construction — it belongs to both keys, which is what makes it a pivot — so the lag is not a defect of the algorithm but a statement about how much evidence a key is.

How much evidence a modulation needs

Run a key-finder bar by bar over a progression that moves to the dominant at bar six. With four bars of history the answer becomes the new key at bar seven and holds. With three bars it never gets there at all, and reports E minor and B minor on the way. The window decides the lag as much as the music does.

perception · Key-relations The map is two-dimensional and the circle is one axis of it. Major keys along the top, each a fifth from the last; underneath each, its relative minor, which shares all seven of its notes. Moving sideways changes one note; moving down changes none at all and changes the tonic. Among the twelve major keys alone there is only the sideways move, which is why that map really is a circle — the second axis needs the minor keys to exist.

The circle is a circle, and the map is not

Among the twelve major keys, notes in common is a strict function of distance round the circle of fifths — one value for each step count, no exceptions — so there is nothing else to measure and the map really is one-dimensional. A second axis appears only when the minor keys are added, and it is a different kind of move: the relative shares all seven notes and the parallel is one semitone away.

scales · Key-relations The fluctuation stays; the rate goes. A unison of n voices with a spread of 15 cents, averaged over 5 draws. The depth of the amplitude fluctuation does not fall as voices are added — a choir is no steadier than a duet — but the fraction of that fluctuation in any single modulation component falls from 77 per cent at two voices to 24 at 32. Two voices make one beat and it can be counted; 16 make 120 and none of them is a rate. That is why a choir cannot be tuned by nulling anything.

What a choir does that a soloist cannot

Two singers on one note produce one beat and it can be counted. Sixteen produce a hundred and twenty at once, and the amplitude still fluctuates by as much as it did — a choir is no steadier than a duet. What has gone is not the fluctuation but its rate: the modulation energy that sat in a single line at two voices is spread across a band at sixteen, with no line in it. That is the choral sound, and it is also why the just-intonation drift this site measured describes only ensembles that hold their pitch still.

timbre · The voice A model that cannot say two keys does not say it is unsure. I – IV – V – I played in C major and in a second major key at the same time, with the second key moved round the circle of fifths. For each separation: the correlation the standard key-finder gives its single best answer, and the correlation reached by the best PAIR of key profiles — a hypothesis the finder does not have. The pair recovers both keys that are sounding at every separation, 7 of 7. The single answer names neither of them at 4 of the 7, and its confidence does not fall when it is wrong: at four steps apart it reports E minor at r = 0.886, against 0.959 for the same progression in one key.

Two keys at once

Every key figure so far assumes one key is sounding, and the standard key-finder has no value it can return that means two. Play one progression in C and the same progression a major third away at the same time, and the model does not report uncertainty: it reports E minor, at a correlation of 0.886, against 0.959 for the same progression in one key. It is as confident as it ever is, and neither key it names is being played. Give it the missing hypothesis — pairs of key profiles rather than single ones — and it recovers both keys at every separation, all seven of seven.

harmony · Key-relations How fast two keys can alternate before the finder stops following. The share of bars a moving key-finder names correctly, once its reading is shifted back by its own lag, against how many bars each key holds for. One line per window. Below a block of three bars the second key is never named at all — 2 of the sweep's readings report a single key for the whole passage — and above about twice the window the tracking is over ninety per cent. The lag itself is about half the window: 0 bars at a window of 3, 0 bars at a window of 4, 3 bars at a window of 8.

The alternation a key-finder cannot follow

Two keys sounding together are not in the key-finder's vocabulary, and an earlier essay ended by pointing at the other case and saying what was missing: a passage whose alternation rate can be varied while everything else is held still. Built, it gives a rule with three numbers in it — the second key is never named below a block of three bars, the tracking clears ninety per cent above twice the window, and the reading is late by half the window throughout.

harmony · Key-relations The test a histogram cannot pass. Two passages built from the same two keys: one takes them in turn and the other sounds them together. Over a window long enough to hold both, their pitch-class histograms are 98.6 per cent alike, so they are very nearly the same object to a profile model — and it names two keys in both. The ordered model names up to four for the alternation and one for the simultaneity, because a simultaneity has no sequence in it that any single key's grammar will not fit.

A key-finder that keeps the order

Every key-finding model until now begins by throwing order away — a histogram over a window, correlated against twenty-four profiles — and the thing that most obviously declares a key is an ordered pair of chords. A model that keeps the order costs 84 states and 7,056 transitions against 24 hypotheses and none, and what it buys is the one test a histogram was said not to pass: two keys in turn and two keys at once have histograms 98 per cent alike, and are two different sequences.

harmony · Key-relations 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 The passage built so the two statistics disagree. A body of chords diatonic to C major, of growing length, ended by a ii–V–I in G. The bag of notes says one key and the ordered pair says the other, which is the case the earlier figures never contained. The line is the cadence evidence for G, and under the axis is what each reading actually names at each length. The cadence reading holds G up to a body of 6 bars and is overturned at 8, so one explicit cadence is worth about that many bars of profile evidence — and it is overturned by the body's OWN incidental root motions rather than by the histogram at all. That is the finding the earlier essay could not have: on real material the two statistics cannot be varied independently, because lengthening the profile evidence adds cadence evidence too, for a third key.

The passage built to make them disagree

A cadence count and a key-profile correlation have been put on one scale and run on a passage where the two agree, which tells nobody anything. Building one where they disagree — the notes of one key and the cadences of another — measures the exchange rate at about six bars per cadence, and finds something the agreement case concealed: the two statistics cannot be varied independently, because lengthening the profile evidence adds cadence evidence too, for a third key.

harmony · Progression How sure the reading is, bar by bar. Every earlier essay reports one best reading. A dynamic program that finds a best path has, by construction, the best score into every state at every bar — so the gap between the best reading and the best reading in any other key is already computed and has never been printed. Here it is, in bits, for the thirty-two-bar AABA. The mean margin is 1.14 bits and 13 of 32 bars are inside one bit of a rival reading, which is where a listener would be genuinely undecided. The reading itself names C, E, B, D, G; the margin says what that naming is worth, and at the weakest bar — bar 31, C over F — it is worth 0.07.

The margin the dynamic program already had

Nine earlier essays produce a single best reading, and the passages worth arguing about are the ones where two readings are nearly equally good. What is needed for that has been inside the model from early on: a dynamic program that finds a best path has, by construction, the best score into every state at every bar — so the gap between the best reading and the best reading in any other key is already computed, and printing it turns every analysis here into a measurement of ambiguity.

scales · Key-relations How far out of tune an interval has to be before its beat is usable. An earlier essay produced a modulation index for every interval on a stated timbre; whether a fluctuation of that index at that rate can be detected is a published function of both. Running one against the other turns a table of decibels into a window in cents. The bar is the mistuning over which the beat is both deep enough to notice and at a rate a tuner can use — not so slow that a beat takes half a minute to complete, not so fast that it has stopped being a beat. the major third gives the widest window, 1.3 to 60.0 cents, and the minor sixth the narrowest, 0.8 to 38.9. The ordering is the opposite of the dip's: the octave has the shallowest dip on a string spectrum and the widest usable window, because its coincidence sits at a low partial and a given mistuning therefore produces a slower beat. Depth and rate pull opposite ways, and it is the rate that decides.

The beat a tuner can actually use

There is a modulation index for every interval on every timbre, and the published threshold for detecting a fluctuation is a function of exactly that and its rate. Running one against the other turns a table of decibels into a window in cents — and reverses the ordering, because the interval with the shallowest dip has the widest window.

intervals · Beating The same roughness, before and after the window it has to be heard through. The instantaneous roughness of an interval under a vibrato, and the same quantity after a running average of 59 milliseconds — the time a dissonance has to last to be heard as one, which is 4 cycles of this interval's own 68-hertz fluctuation rather than a number chosen for the figure. The mean is identical to every digit, 0.1487 against 0.1487, because a running average cannot change an average — so the earlier Jensen factor of 1.0 survives the window untouched and its prediction that the window would shrink it is wrong. What the window destroys is the depth: 0.30 of the mean becomes 0.23, which is 77 per cent. The roughness a vibrato adds is heard; the fact that it is moving is mostly not.

The mean survives the window

A roughness that moves has a mean, a depth and a rate — all three of which a listener could only have through a temporal window. Applying the window already to hand settles which of the three survives, and the answer refutes the guess: a running average cannot change an average, so the octave's factor of nineteen stands and the movement is what goes.

intervals · The voice How much of the reading comes from what has not happened yet. Every margin reported earlier is two-sided: the best path through a key at a bar is the best score into it plus the best score onward from it, and the second half uses bars a listener has not heard. Dropping that term is one line, because the dynamic program already had both halves separately. The mean margin falls from 3.90 bits with hindsight to 1.79 without it, so 54 per cent of this passage's certainty is retrospective. The two passes never disagree about which key is best here, so the hindsight buys confidence rather than a different answer. This is the quantity every earlier essay has assumed and none has measured.

How much of the reading arrives late

Every margin reported earlier is two-sided: the best path through a key at a bar is the score into it plus the score onward from it, and the second half uses bars a listener has not heard. Dropping that term is one line. On a thirty-two-bar song it removes more than half the certainty, and on a passage built to be ambiguous it changes the key named at nine bars out of eleven.

scales · Key-relations A listener has a quarter of an analyst's confidence and the same answer. The mean margin between a passage's best two key readings, against how many bars a listener's memory of the evidence takes to halve. The two-sided reading — the one that uses bars that have not happened yet — sits at 3.90; the forward pass with perfect recall at 1.79; a forward pass whose evidence halves every 6.6 bars at 1.00. The dots' size is how often that reading names the same key as the two-sided one: 100 per cent at perfect recall and 81 at a one-bar half-life. So forgetting costs a great deal of confidence and very little accuracy — the key is robust and the certainty is not.

The listener who forgets

Setting an analyst's reading of a key against a listener's measures what arrives late. Both passes assume perfect recall of their own half — which is as wrong going forward as knowing the future is going back. Put a decay on the forward pass and a listener with a memory of a few bars keeps a quarter of the confidence and nine tenths of the answers.

harmony · Key-relations Which bars the key is decided by, and which bars it is believed on. Every bar of a 32-bar scheme removed in turn, with what its absence costs. The column is how far the passage's mean margin falls without that bar — how much of the model's certainty it supplies. The dot is how many bars are then read as a different key — how much of the answer it supplies. The 18 bars an analysis would point at — a section opening or closing, a dominant, the chord a dominant resolves to — average 0.079 bits of certainty and 0.50 bars moved; the 14 ordinary bars average 0.047 and 0.07. So the structural bars carry 1.7 times as much certainty as the ordinary ones, and 7.0 times of the answer. Those are different quantities, and the second is the one an analysis is about: an ordinary bar can carry a great deal of a passage's certainty and none of its reading.

The bars a key is made of

A discount that treats every bar alike is the wrong shape for a memory, so take each bar away in turn and see what it was worth. The bars an analysis points at carry seven times as much of the answer as the ordinary ones and slightly less of the certainty — and a memory built only of them reads the passage worse than a memory with no structure in it at all.

harmony · Key-relations The twelve keys a key-finder has never had. Every scheme the key-finder reads, read twice: over the twelve major collections the model has always used, and over twenty-four with the harmonic minor added. The pale bar is the first and the dark one the second. On 5 of the 6 the extra twelve states change nothing a reader would see — the largest loss of certainty is 3.2 per cent, on the rondo — and no bar of any of them is renamed. The exception is the ostinato, every bar of which the twelve-collection model calls E♭ and the twenty-four-collection model calls C minor — the same seven notes, the right name. So the missing states were not costing the key-finder its answers. What they were costing is the ability to say which of a collection's seven degrees is home, and that is a different repair.

The key-finder with no tonic

Thirteen essays of key-finding have run over twelve major collections and not twenty-four keys, so a passage in A minor is read as C. Adding the missing twelve costs almost nothing and fixes almost nothing — because the model has no tonic in it at all, and below three raised sevenths in a passage the extra states are worth exactly zero.

harmony · Key-relations Partials 3, 4, 12 of "hod", over one vibrato cycle. The level of three partials of a 220 hertz note on the vowel in "hod", each about its own mean, over one cycle of a vibrato of ±71 cents at 6.0 hertz. The pale curve is the frequency deviation itself, for phase reference. Partial 3 at 660 hertz swings 4.22 decibels and peaks with the frequency; Partial 4 at 880 hertz swings 0.41 decibels and peaks twice a cycle; Partial 12 at 2640 hertz swings 8.62 decibels and peaks against it. The formants of this vowel are at 730, 1090, 2440 hertz and do not move; a partial below one rises as the frequency rises and one above it falls, so the modulations of a single note run in opposite directions at the same instant.

The partial that gets louder as it goes sharp

Eleven earlier essays sweep a set of partials and hold their amplitudes still, and a real tract does not move with the fundamental. Put the formant account and the sweeping account together and every partial acquires an amplitude modulation at the vibrato rate: 0.07 decibels on the fundamental and 8.6 on the twelfth partial of the same note. They are in phase below a formant and anti-phase above one — not ninety degrees apart — and the whole note swings 0.82 decibels, because they cancel.

instruments · The voice Where a section's fluctuation stops being a beat, on 220 hertz. Two rates up the spectrum of a 220 hertz note sung by a section whose voices are spread by 15 cents. The rising line is the beat rate between a typical pair of them, which grows with the partial because a mistuning in cents is a difference in hertz that scales with frequency; it reaches the 15 hertz at which a beat stops being a beat by partial 5.5, at 1217 hertz. The flat line is the amplitude modulation the vibrato imposes through the formants, which is 6.0 hertz at every partial because the vibrato modulates every partial by the same number of cents at the same rate. The two are equal at 487 hertz. Above 1217 hertz the beating has become roughness and the only fluctuation left is the vibrato's — and that frequency is the same one an octave up, where it is partial 2.8 instead.

The rate that does not rise with the partial

Twelve earlier essays give every vibrato the same six hertz, and the measured spread is 5.5 to 7.5. Putting the two fluctuations a choir contains on one axis shows why the rate matters: the beating between mistuned voices rises with the partial and leaves the range a listener follows as fluctuation at 1,217 hertz, while the vibrato's own modulation is six hertz at every partial. Above that frequency a section fluctuates by vibrato alone — and if every singer had the same rate, it would barely fluctuate at all.

instruments · The voice Every beat in a family is the same depth, and none is near the threshold. The 8 members of the beat family a octave mistuned by 6.0 cents makes at A3 on a real string, each placed at the rate it beats and at the modulation index a listener's filter delivers there. The rising curve is the published detection threshold for amplitude modulation, which is flat at 0.03 below about fifty fluctuations a second and rises above it. The flat dashed line at 0.667 is the depth the pair has in isolation, and it is the same for every member: on a spectrum falling as one over n, the k-th member pairs partials 2k and 1k, whose ratio is 2.00 whatever k is. What the filled points show is the smaller effect that does depend on the member — the partials on either side of the coincidence leak into the same filter, add level without adding fluctuation, and dilute the index from 0.662 to 0.405. Inside the countable rate window the narrowest margin over the threshold is a factor of 16.7, on member 4. The depth criterion removes nothing.

Every member of a beat family is the same depth

A mistuned octave's beats have been counted on their rate and their place, with the depth recorded as the thing left out and a prediction that the shallow upper members would take the count from four to two. The depth turns out not to fall at all: on any power-law spectrum every member of a family has exactly the modulation index its interval's own ratio gives, at every register, on every wire. The count does fall to two, and the thing that takes it there is the criterion that essay was already using.

intervals · Beating The channels a fluctuation is analysed into, and how wide they are. A modulation filterbank of quality factor 1, drawn every half octave, with two of the beats a mistuned octave at middle C produces marked at 0.89 and 1.26 a second. A channel of quality one has its half-power points at 0.618 and 1.618 of its centre, so two fluctuations closer than a factor of 1.618 never end up in different channels. The two marked rates differ by a factor of 1.42, which is inside that. They are one fluctuation and not two — which is the question an earlier essay asked and left open, answered by a bank rather than by a convention.

One fluctuation or two

Whether two members of a beat family are one thing or two was decided by asking whether their rates differ by a factor of two, and the factor was written down as a stand-in for a modulation filterbank nobody had run. Run, the bank gives 1.618 — the golden section, and not by accident, since a channel of quality one has its half-power points there. The stand-in was conservative rather than optimistic, and the recomputed counts do not change at a single register, because the criterion was never what was binding.

tuning · Beating A loudly struck note hides the beats it is being struck to reveal. The share of the fluctuation in its own auditory filter that belongs to each of the first five members of a mistuned octave's beat family, against how loud the note is. The filter's lower skirt shallows by about 38 per cent of its 51-decibel value every ten decibels, so more of the neighbouring partials get into the filter and the pedestal each member sits on grows. The mean share falls from 0.55 at 40 decibels to 0.07 at 100. Past about 90 decibels the curves are flat because the model's skirt is clamped rather than because anything stops changing — that clamp is the model's floor and not a measurement.

How hard the note was struck

The auditory filter is not a fixed shape: its lower skirt shallows by about 38 per cent of its reference value every ten decibels, so a loud note is analysed through a wider filter than a quiet one. Every share computed so far was quoted at a moderate level, and a tuner does not strike moderately. Recomputed, the mean share of a mistuned octave's filter falls from 0.55 at forty decibels to 0.07 at seventy, and the count of separable beats goes from two to none — which is a prediction too strong to be right, and the way it fails is the useful part.

tuning · Beating Given the bar in octaves, the cue gets the degree back. How often the reading names the right scale degree, against how much the bass cue is worth, under three rules for what a bass note rewards. the bass is the root: 68 per cent at best; the bass is some chord tone: 67 per cent at best; the bar in octaves: 92 per cent at best; the bass is the root, on a root line: 89 per cent at best. The published cue rewards the triad rooted on the bass, which is right only when the chord is in root position; rewarding any triad containing the bass is right always and rewards three chords a bar instead of one. The third rule is not a bass cue at all — given the bar voiced in octaves a listener knows which three pitch classes are sounding, and that names the chord outright. It reaches 92 per cent on a real line against the published cue's 68 on the same line, and the dashed curve is what that cue manages on a line made entirely of roots — 89 per cent.

Given the bar in octaves, the degree comes back

A bass note is a bare pitch class in the usual figure, and a register in any realisation anybody plays. Voice each bar in octaves and a listener knows which three pitch classes are sounding and which is at the bottom, which names the chord outright — and the rule that uses it reads the right scale degree in 92 per cent of bars on a real bass line, against 68 for the published cue on the same line and 89 for that cue on a line made entirely of roots. The question was whether the register recovers the 89. It recovers it and passes it.

scales · Key-relations A sharper cue is worth nothing to a reading that will follow it anywhere. How often the reading names the right scale degree, against how much it costs to change key, at a bass worth 1.5 on a real bass line. the bass is the root: 20 per cent at a key cost of 0.5 and 68 at 4; the bass is some chord tone: 47 per cent at a key cost of 0.5 and 59 at 4; the bar in octaves: 46 per cent at a key cost of 0.5 and 91 at 4; roots, and a line of roots: 49 per cent at a key cost of 0.5 and 91 at 4. Where a key change is cheap the rule that names the chord outright reads no better than the rule that names three — 46 against 47 per cent — because a reading that will move key for one bar's evidence follows a sharp cue wherever it points. The sharper cue's whole advantage appears only once the reading is reluctant enough to stay put, and by a key cost of 2.2 it is 31 points ahead.

A sharper cue is worth nothing to a reading that moves

The rule that names the chord outright reads 92 per cent of scale degrees right where the published bass cue reads 68 — at the key cost these readings have always been run at. Sweep that cost and the advantage is not a property of the cue. Where a change of key is cheap the sharp rule reads 46 per cent and the vaguest rule 47, because a reading that will move key on one bar's evidence follows a sharp cue wherever it points. The cue's whole value is borrowed from the model's reluctance to be moved.

scales · Key-relations The two parameters are not one, and the reason is a ceiling. The plane of the two parameters these readings have been swept one at a time: how much weight the bass cue carries, against what a change of key costs. Every cell is how often the reading names the right scale degree, and the lines are the contours of equal share. along the 50 per cent contour the product of the two coordinates runs from 0.10 to 0.50; along the 60 per cent contour the product of the two coordinates runs from 0.43 to 1.84; along the 70 per cent contour the product of the two coordinates runs from 0.66 to 2.56; along the 80 per cent contour the product of the two coordinates runs from 1.85 to 4.91; along the 90 per cent contour the product of the two coordinates runs from 2.71 to 15.20. If the two multiplied cleanly those products would be constant and the contours would be hyperbolae. They are not: every contour turns upward and then vertical, because past a bass weight of about 3 more of the cue buys nothing at all and only reluctance is left to buy anything with. The key cost has an interior best, at 3 on this grid, where the reading names 93 per cent of degrees — so a reading that will not change key at all is worse than one that will, which no sweep of a single parameter had found.

The two parameters turn out to have a ceiling between them

The essay before this one asked whether the bass cue's weight and the cost of changing key are one quantity with two names, and said the test was a contour: if they multiply, the curves of equal degree share are hyperbolae. They are not. Along the ninety per cent contour the product of the two runs from 2.7 to 15.2, because past a bass weight of about one and a half the reading saturates and more cue buys nothing. And the sweep finds something no single-parameter sweep here could: the key cost has a best value, and a reading that will never change key is worse than one that will.

scales · Key-relations The ceiling is thirteen bars, and every one of them has a name. Every bar of the six schemes read by the key-finder at a key cost of 3 and a bass weight of 3, with the chord in every bar given exactly — no segmentation is involved. 175 of 188 bars have both the key and the degree right, 93.1 per cent. The misses: 7 in the thirty-two-bar song's bridge, where the chain III7 is read in E major, III7 is read in E major, VI7 is read in E major, VI7 is read in D major, II7 is read in D major, II7 is read in D major, V7 is read in D major; 4 bars of the rondo's A minor episode read as C major; 2 next to a change of key; and 0 of any other kind.

The ceiling is thirteen bars with names

The key-finder's two cues stop buying anything at about 93 per cent of scheme bars read right, and the obvious suspect was the chord segmentation feeding it. The reading was never given a segmentation: every bar arrives with its true chord. What the ceiling is made of can be listed instead, and it is thirteen bars of 188 — seven in a bridge of secondary dominants, four in a minor episode whose chords C major also owns, and two at the edges of a modulation. No weight of any cue moves one of them.

scales · Key-relations

Named alongside it

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

Key-findingBeatingRelative minorSegmentationCritical bandwidthKey-relationsScale degreeCircle of fifthsInferencePartialVibratoAmbiguity

All concepts