Acoustics & Music Theory
why it sounds like that
Concept

Statistics — where it appears

Summaries computed over a body of measurements — a mean, a spread, a skew — and the inferences drawn from them. Most of what this collection knows about performance timing is a published statistic rather than the data underneath it, which is why a distribution's shape keeps turning out to matter.

Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

How far a wall moves the mean, in spreads. The bias a floor puts into an observed mean, in units of the parent's own spread, against how far the parent sits above the floor. With the mean exactly on the wall the truncated bias is 0.797 spreads and the censored bias is 0.399 — half of it, exactly, because half the mass sits at one point and the other half is an upper half-normal. The earlier essay used the upper figure for a process that produces the lower one, so every bias it quoted is twice what a floor on execution actually causes.

The shape a wall leaves behind

A floor on execution biases every statistic computed on swing timing, and the bias was priced with Pearson's truncated-normal formulas. Those are the formulas for a sample with everything below the wall thrown away. A player who cannot execute a short gap does not throw the attempt away — it comes out at the floor. That is a censored sample, its bias is exactly half, and its skew is two thirds larger.

rhythm · Microtiming 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 The bias a wall puts in a mean, against the parent it came from. The bias a wall puts into an observed mean, in spreads, for each of eight standardised parents, with the wall exactly on the parent's mean. The censored values run from 0.354 to 0.433, a range of 0.079; the truncated from 0.582 to 1.000, a range of 0.418. The formula now used is the one that hardly depends on a distribution nobody has measured, and the formula it replaced is the one that depends on it a great deal.

The parent nobody measured

Every figure drawn behind a wall so far assumed a normal parent, and the assumption turns out to matter in exactly the wrong place. The censored bias is half the parent's mean absolute deviation — a theorem, not a coincidence — so it lands between 0.35 and 0.43 spreads for every distribution tried, and the truncated one runs from 0.58 to 1.00. But the third moment proposed as the test moves 2.9 across parents against 0.65 between the two rules, and a censored sample from a slightly left-skewed parent has a skew of 1.007 where a truncated normal has 0.995. The statistic that does work is a count of ties.

rhythm · Microtiming 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.

EvidenceHarmonic analysisSegmentationCensoringGrooveHarmonic rhythmMetreMicrotimingMotor noiseNull modelSwingTempo

All concepts