The collection

Every essay — page 20

Page 20 of 21, continuing through the fields in the same order.

Pitch and tuning Intervals and chords Scales and modes Harmony and voice leading Rhythm and metre Timbre and acoustics Perception and the listener Instruments and their design Form and structure Series Objects Sounds Search

Form and structure

The shape a piece has in time, computed rather than labelled. A distance matrix finds the sections before anybody names them, a phrase turns out to be a number of seconds rather than of bars, and an ending is five separate signals that can each arrive without the others.

Where a twelfth comes from. The range of a walk with no walls, against how many notes it runs for, at three settings of the one parameter it has. The parameter is fitted to the post-skip reversal rate and to nothing else; the range is then read off. With no central tendency at all the walk passes two octaves by 60 notes and keeps going. At the setting that reproduces 70 per cent reversal — κ = 0.78 — the range is 11.9 semitones at thirty notes and 17.9 at a hundred and twenty. It grows logarithmically, so over the whole plausible length of a tune it sits between an octave and a fifteenth, and a twelfth is the middle of that. The three tunes carried here are marked and all three fall below the curve.

The twelfth, and where it comes from

Melodies occupy about an octave and a fifth, and an earlier essay set out to explain that by the singer's register break and found that it does not: the chest mechanism alone spans two octaves and a semitone. The answer is in a parameter the essay on leaps fitted and then put down. A walk with no walls whose central tendency reproduces the post-skip reversal rate has a range that grows logarithmically — six semitones at eight notes, twelve at thirty, eighteen at a hundred and twenty — so across every length a tune plausibly has, the span is between an octave and a fifteenth.

6 figures
Where the page ends a phrase, and where the ear does. Twinkle, twinkle with two sets of phrase boundaries on it. The lower curve is a local boundary detector — a peak in how much the interval and the note length change from one to the next, with nothing in it about bar lines or harmony — and the marks above it are where the notation puts the phrase ends. It finds 100 per cent of them and 2 boundaries the page does not have. Where the two agree it is because a long note is sitting at the join; where they disagree the page is marking a grammatical unit and the detector is finding a perceptual one.

Where a phrase ends

Run a boundary detector over the three tunes used throughout and it agrees with the notated phrasing on one of them perfectly and on another almost not at all. The reason is which cue each tune uses: Twinkle's phrases all end on a long note, so a duration-weighted detector finds five of five with no false alarms; Ode to Joy's run on in crotchets and its phrasing is in the intervals, where a duration detector finds one of three and a pitch detector finds all three and eight others. No fixed weighting serves both, and the published one is worse on each tune than the single cue that tune uses.

8 figures
What survives a change of encoding: verse and chorus. The same 32 bars of verse and chorus under five encodings, scored on the three things measured here measures. Mean off-diagonal similarity says how alike the piece looks to the arithmetic. Recall and precision are the novelty operator's boundaries against the 3 the section plan has, at a kernel of four bars. The period is the strongest peak of the lag profile, in bars. Under the bag of pitch classes every other figure uses, the piece is 90 per cent self-similar and the operator finds 0 per cent of the boundaries; under how far the root moved it finds 100 per cent. The period is the quantity that does not move.

The repeat that is not in the notes

Eight earlier essays compare bars by writing each one as a bag of pitch classes and taking a cosine. Nothing chose that encoding — the first used it and the other seven inherited it. Encode the same six schemes four other ways and one of the three findings survives untouched, one survives with different numbers, and one turns out to have been a statement about the encoding all along: the boundary operator finds none of the section edges in three schemes as a bag of pitch classes and every one of them as tonic, subdominant and dominant.

8 figures
note length against the onsets. Every candidate metre's fit to a 16-step pattern with 4 onsets, plotted against how strongly note length is weighted. At a gain of zero the scoring is the onset-only one every earlier model used, and the winner is step 1 and step 4. At a gain of 0.05 the answer becomes step 4. 2 candidates are exactly flat — step 2 and step 3 have no onset on any strong position, so there is no credit for the cue to multiply and no weighting of it can move the line.

What the onsets left out

Eight essays induce a metre from a list of ones and zeros, and every failure they recorded was argued about as a failure of the rules. Two of the three are not. Note length is already in that list and the scoring throws it away: put it back and the son clave's two-way tie resolves to the notated downbeat. But the groove with its beat removed cannot be repaired by any cue at any strength, and the reason is arithmetic rather than empirical — the true phase has no onset on any of its strong positions, so there is no credit for a cue to multiply and its line is exactly flat.

9 figures
The boundaries that survive each amount of smoothing. The local boundary strengths of Twinkle, twinkle read at every scale: the curve is smoothed with a Gaussian of the width on the horizontal axis and the peaks that survive are counted. Small scales give 11 boundaries and large ones give one, and the notation marks 5. The level with that many falls at a width of 2, where the model finds 100 per cent of the notated boundaries and 100 per cent of what it finds is notated — a comparison with no threshold in it, which is what the scale parameter buys.

A boundary at a stated level

A boundary detector run over three tunes agreed with the notation on one and barely at all on another, and left two things owing: a version with a scale parameter, and a version run on performance timings. Both are paid here, and they pay differently — the scale removes a free parameter from the comparison and does not rescue the hard case, while two per cent of rubato does.

7 figures
Crescendo, and what the impression does. A crescendo of 20 dB over 8 seconds, drawn as three loudnesses in sones. The pale line is what is physically sounding, the middle line is the short-term loudness of the moment and the heavy line is the long-term loudness, which is the passage's loudness as a listener would report it. The gap between the last two is the whole of the effect: at its widest the moment is 1.02 times the running impression, and the impression takes 2 seconds to come down against 99 milliseconds to go up.

Loud is relative, and it comes down slowly

The account of loudness had a model of a moment and the account of closure asked it for a model of a form. The published one exists and its content is a pair of numbers that are not the same: a listener's running impression of how loud the music is rises to meet a step in a fifth of a second and takes seven seconds to come back down. A twenty-decibel crescendo spread over eight seconds therefore buys almost no contrast at all, and the same twenty decibels taken as a step buys a factor of two.

7 figures
Twinkle, twinkle, phrased at the level each tempo selects. The number of boundaries the model finds when its smoothing scale is set by the psychological present rather than chosen, against the tempo the tune is taken at. The scale in notes is the present's 3.5 seconds divided by the mean note length, so a fast tempo puts more notes inside the present and smooths harder. The page's own phrasing has 5 boundaries, drawn as the flat line; the model matches it best at 160 beats per minute, where the present holds 8.2 notes. The same tune at two tempos is read at two levels, which is the prediction and is not a free parameter.

The level the tempo chooses

The boundary detector has a scale parameter and an earlier essay left it free, ending with the sentence that names this one: the scale is in notes and the psychological present is in seconds. The psychological present is two to eight seconds, a tempo converts one to the other, and the level a listener reads then stops being a parameter at all — which is a prediction with teeth, because the same tune at two tempos should be phrased differently at levels the arithmetic names in advance.

6 figures
Adding parts adds power, and very little loudness. Each part is played at the same level, and the chord is realised every way its parts allow and averaged over them, so the quantity is a property of the texture rather than of one arrangement. Going from 3 parts to 8 adds 4.3 decibels of power and 0.1 decibels of loudness, because the extra parts land in bands that are already occupied — the count of occupied critical bands FALLS from 6.0 to 3.9 as the parts crowd into the same register.

The dynamics are in the score already

Count the parts in each bar, realise them in their ranges, put every partial in its critical band, sum the loudnesses and run the result through the two smoothers built earlier. What comes out is a dynamic curve for a piece with no performance in it anywhere — and it says that doubling the number of parts inside a fixed register adds three decibels of power and about one of loudness, because the extra parts land in bands that were already occupied. Let the register widen with the parts and the same arithmetic gives eight phon, which is what a tutti actually is.

6 figures
Four endings, and the loudness each produces from the page alone. Short-term loudness through the closing 6 bars of a thirty-two bar scheme, computed from the part count of each bar with no performance data of any kind — the parts are realised every way their ranges allow, every partial is placed in its critical band, and the sum is run through the two loudness smoothers. thins to one arrives at 0.764 of the running impression; full final chord arrives at 0.952 of the running impression; unchanged arrives at 1.000 of the running impression; thins then full arrives at 0.929 of the running impression. The result worth the figure is that full final chord is not the loudest: adding parts to a final chord adds power and almost no loudness, because the extra parts land in critical bands the chord already occupies. An ending is made loud by contrast with what preceded it, not by thickness.

A final chord is not made loud by adding to it

An earlier essay on closure said the loudest cue an ending has needs a corpus rather than an arithmetic. The arithmetic was built one essay ago, so it does not. Run four ending textures through it and two things come out backwards: a final chord three parts thicker than the rest arrives *quieter* against the running impression than the passage it ends, and a texture that drops a part a bar does not get quieter at all until the bar where there is one part left.

6 figures
Every assignment, at equal levels and at its own best balance. The 6 ways of putting 3 players on a chord, each drawn twice: hollow at equal levels, which is what an assignment ranking sees, and filled at the levels that balance the parts and then minimise roughness. Every scoring here is at the same total loudness, 23.3 sones, so two points are comparable. Solving the discrete problem first picks violin · clarinet · oboe; solving both at once picks violin · oboe · clarinet, and the two-stage answer costs 9.0 per cent more roughness. The orderings do not keep their places between the two columns, which is the whole of the argument: a ranking taken at equal levels is not a ranking.

Who plays what and how loud is one question

Two lines of argument, one about spectrum and one about loudness, each stopped at the same wall and each said so. One of them can choose who plays which note and has every player at the same level; the other can choose how loud each part is and has nobody assigned to anything. Put together they are a single problem with two kinds of variable, and solving it in stages picks a different answer from solving it at once — nine per cent rougher, at the same loudness, on an ordinary triad.

7 figures
The tempo turns, and almost nothing moves. The earlier arrival reading — what is sounding at the final chord over what the listener has been hearing — swept over bar lengths from 0.5 to 5 seconds, which is 480 down to 48 beats a minute, at 3 closing lengths. Every curve is nearly flat. Across a tenfold change of tempo one gesture's reading moves by a factor of 1.201 and the other's by 1.098, while the gap between the two gestures — which is what that essay was measuring — is 1.228. The expectation was that the tempo would decide the answer, on the grounds that a two-second bar against a two-second release is a comparable pair. The premise is wrong in a way the sweep makes obvious: the thing being compared with the release is not a bar, it is the WHOLE ENDING, which is 2 to 8 bars long and is therefore far longer than the release at every tempo anybody plays. The running impression has caught up with the closing texture before the final chord arrives, at 0.5 seconds a bar and at 5, and what is left is the last bar's own jump.

The parameter that did not decide the answer

An earlier essay on closure ended by naming the tempo as the thing every number in it was resting on, and said it was the kind of parameter that had caused trouble before by turning out to decide the answer. Turned across a tenfold range at a closing gesture of fixed length it moves the reading by four per cent, against a twenty-three per cent gap between the gestures it is distinguishing. The parameter beside it in the same figure — how many bars the gesture occupies — moves it by twenty, and nobody had named that one at all.

7 figures
How far the detector looks, note by note. The number of notes that fit inside a 3.5-second present at each point of the tune, once the performance has lengthened its phrase-final notes by 30 per cent. It runs from 5 to 10 notes against a constant 7 for the unperformed version, and it dips exactly where a boundary is, because a boundary is where the performance slows. Reading the boundary-strength curve with that width at every point instead of one width everywhere gives an agreement of 0.55 with the notated phrasing, against 0.36 for the fixed width the present dictates and 0.71 for a fixed width fitted to this tune. The dips are marked, and the notated boundaries are the vertical lines: the detector narrows itself at the places it is supposed to find, which is the circularity this figure has to be honest about — the lengthening was put there by the notation.

A detector whose resolution the performance sets

The boundary detector lost its free parameter when the psychological present became a number of notes at a stated tempo, and what that held still was named at the time: a performance slows into a phrase end, so the number of notes inside the present is not the same everywhere in a tune — it falls exactly where a boundary is. Making the width follow the performance recovers half of what removing the parameter cost, and honestly leaves the other half.

6 figures
A ritardando does not spend the diminuendo. The arrival reading under a deceleration into the ending, from no ritardando at all to a final tempo 30 per cent of the starting one — which stretches the closing bars from 12.0 seconds to 20.2. The expectation was that it would matter: a ritardando lengthens exactly the bars the gesture is happening in, so a diminuendo that would have been absorbed at a steady tempo gets more of the smoother's own time to be absorbed in. It moves the reading by 0.00 per cent. Every line here is flat to within the thickness of the line, which is the second time a tempo parameter has been swept here and found to do nothing.

The reading was a step response

Sweeping the tempo found it did not decide the answer. This one sweeps the deceleration across a factor of three and finds a null to five figures, and then sweeps the length of the closing gesture across a factor of forty-eight and finds it moves the reading by eight per cent — but not as a function of seconds. Sorted by seconds the twelve runs scatter; sorted by how many bars the instruction covers they fall into three tight groups. One sentence explains the null and the not-null together.

6 figures
A written dynamic is an instruction to the listener's impression. Every earlier scoring holds one chord still. A passage is a succession, and the running impression of loudness carries a chord into the one after it, so what a marking asks for and what playing the marking produces are different things. Here is a five-chord passage with a written shape. Playing each chord at its own written loudness gives the running impression 2.4, 3.0, 4.2, 5.6, 4.0 sones against the 2.4, 3.0, 4.2, 5.6, 2.0 that were asked for — right until the last chord, where it misses by 2.0. Solving for levels that make the impression arrive at the marking does not fix it: the last chord's target is I, two parts, and it is unreachable — the correction runs to silence and the impression still sits 1.1 sones above. A subito piano after a full chord is not a level a player can produce. It is a rate of change, and the smoother's two-second release is what refuses it.

A subito piano is a rate, not a level

All three earlier essays score one chord held still. An orchestration is a succession, and the running impression carries a chord into the one after it — so a written dynamic is an instruction to the listener's impression rather than to the instantaneous sound, and there are markings that cannot be produced at all. The correction runs to silence and the impression still sits above the target.

7 figures
One contrast survives every tempo anybody plays and the other does not. How much of each quantity's contrast between chords a listener still has at the end of each chord, against how long a chord lasts. The roughness curve is flat at one down to 45 milliseconds a chord and then falls off a cliff, because its window is 37 milliseconds and a boxcar either fits inside a chord or does not. The loudness curve is already losing at a second a chord and keeps 83 per cent at the slowest pace here, 39 at the fastest. Nothing in music is faster than the roughness window and a great deal of music is faster than the loudness one, so a passage delivers its dissonance and averages its dynamics.

The dissonance arrives and the dynamic does not

A scoring decides two things at once and both of them have to be integrated by a listener before they exist. The loudness smoother's release is two seconds and the roughness window is thirty-seven milliseconds, and that ratio of fifty decides which of the two survives at the pace music is actually played. Nothing anybody performs is fast enough to blur a dissonance, and a great deal of it is fast enough to average a dynamic.

7 figures
A rest is a diminuendo, and a long one. How far a listener's running impression of loudness falls during a silence, converted into the diminuendo that would have taken it the same distance. Half a second of nothing is worth 3.2 decibels, a second and a bit is worth 8.1, and two and a half seconds is worth 17. The marked line is three and a half seconds, which is where a gap starts to be heard as an ending rather than as a pause: at that length the reference has fallen by 24 decibels, which is more than a fortissimo to a pianissimo. A tempo swept over a factor of ten, a deceleration over a factor of three and a gesture length over a factor of forty-eight all returned the same reading to four significant figures. This one moves it by twenty-four decibels.

A rest is a diminuendo

Three parameters swept over factors of ten, three and forty-eight returned the same reading to four significant figures. The one manipulation left unswept moves it by twenty-four decibels: a silence. A listener's running impression decays at the loudness smoother's two-second release, so a general pause is a diminuendo nobody wrote, and at the length that makes a gap an ending it is worth more than any marking a composer has.

7 figures
What the chord before takes out of the chord after. Five chords at 1.2 seconds each, with the roughness each one has on its own — its simultaneous masking and the threshold of hearing already applied — and the roughness it actually has once the chord in front of it has raised the threshold. Four of the five are untouched. The fifth, i, two parts, follows the only step in this passage that falls more than fifteen decibels, and it arrives into a hole: it is entirely below threshold for its first 13 milliseconds and takes 240 to get all of itself back. Masking can only remove partials, so it can only lower a roughness — and the chords it can reach are the ones a written dynamic has just made quiet, which are already the smooth ones. Across the passage the dissonance contrast goes from 3021 to 3113: the mask widens it by 3.0 per cent rather than eating it.

A soft chord has to fade in

Forward masking sits between the two integration times already in play — two hundred milliseconds against a thirty-seven millisecond roughness window and a two-second loudness release — and it was owed as the term that might eat the dissonance contrast. It does not. It widens it, by three per cent at a chorale's pace and fifty-nine at four chords a second, because it can only ever remove partials and it can only reach the chord a dynamic has already made quiet. What it does instead is stranger: one chord in the passage is entirely inaudible for its first twelve milliseconds and takes a quarter of a second to arrive whole.

7 figures
A general pause of a bar is worth 4.9 decibels in a hall and 8.1 in silence. What a rest is worth as a diminuendo, in rooms with different reverberation times. The upper curve is the earlier figure, which assumed the sound stops when the players do; each curve below it lets the hall go on sounding, falling sixty decibels in its own reverberation time until it reaches the background. At the bar of silence a general pause usually is — about 1.2 seconds — the dry value is 8.1 decibels, shoebox concert hall keeps 60 per cent of it and gothic cathedral keeps 22. At 3.5 seconds, where a gap stops being a pause and becomes an ending, the same hall keeps 86 per cent. A long silence outlives any hall's tail and a short one does not, which is why the room costs the device most at exactly the length a composer writes it.

A rest needs a dry room

The twenty-four decibels a general pause is worth assume the sound stops when the players do. Put a hall under it and a bar of silence keeps 60 per cent of its value in a shoebox concert hall and 22 per cent in a cathedral, while a three-and-a-half-second one keeps 86 and 45 — because a hall's tail has a length and a rest either outlives it or does not. A written bar of silence is worth half its dry value at 2.76 seconds of reverberation, which falls between the concert hall and the stone church.

7 figures
A bar of silence is worth 13.1 decibels written last and 6.0 written first. Four closing gestures, drawn against how many seconds of silence each contains. All four hold the same 12-part texture, write the same 6.0-decibel diminuendo over 4 seconds, and differ only in what order the diminuendo and the silence are written in. The quantity is how far the listener's running impression has fallen when the final chord arrives, in decibels of equivalent diminuendo. Written with the silence last, a general pause of a bar is worth 13.06 decibels and one of three and a half seconds is worth 28.3. Written with the silence first, both are worth 6.00 — exactly the diminuendo's own depth, because the music resuming after the silence puts the reference back at its own level. The silence written first is worth less than the silence written with no diminuendo at all, which reads 8.12 at a bar: a diminuendo placed after a general pause takes 2.12 decibels away and adds nothing.

A general pause is spent by the note after it

Whether a composer should write the pause before the diminuendo or after it looks like a question about how big the ensemble is. It is not. Forty decibels of ensemble are worth one decibel of silence, and the order is worth seven — because a running impression rises twenty times faster than it falls, so half a general pause is spent by ninety-seven milliseconds of sound.

7 figures
An entrance stops being a loudness event and never stops being a colour one. The same oboe entering on the same note at the same level, against how many players were already sounding. Its contribution to the loudness falls from 15.5 phons to 0.32 — a factor of 48 — and crosses the one-phon difference limen at 5 players already playing. Its contribution to the roughness rises by a factor of 12.3 over the same range, because roughness is a sum over pairs and the entrant makes one new pair with everybody. Both curves are drawn as a share of their own largest value, since a phon and a squared pascal have no exchange rate. The claim is the two directions, not the crossing point of two units.

An entrance is a change of colour

Eight essays on orchestration move the assignment and hold the ensemble still, and a score does the opposite: it brings players in and takes them out. Loudness is a sum over parts and roughness is a sum over pairs, so the player who joins adds one term to the first and one to the second for everybody already there. What the entrance is worth in phons falls by a factor of forty-eight across the range an ensemble spans and crosses the difference limen at five players; what it is worth in roughness rises by twelve, and by a further factor of ten for every ten decibels the passage is played at.

7 figures
Three clocks receive one entrance, and they do not agree about when. An oboe joining 5 players already sounding, at time zero, with each of the listener's three readings drawn as its own share of the change it eventually makes. The roughness window is 49 milliseconds wide and has half the change at 25; the short-term loudness smoother has half at 15; the long-term one, whose release is the two seconds an earlier essay is about, has half at 90. The two-second release is on the wrong side of the smoother to hide an entrance. Its attack is 99 milliseconds, so an entrance is received promptly and it is a departure that is not.

The release is on the wrong side

Whether the loudness model's two-second release makes an entrance inaudible has the answer no, for a reason the question did not anticipate. The smoother is asymmetric — ninety-nine milliseconds going up and two seconds coming down — so a rise is tracked twenty times faster than a fall, and an entrance is received promptly by every one of a listener's three readings. The colour of it arrives first, at twenty-five milliseconds against ninety, and the reading that moves with the ensemble is the one nobody would have picked.

6 figures
The same player, arriving and leaving, read as a share of the change. One oboe joining 5 players and the same oboe leaving them again, with both loudness readings drawn as the share of their own change that has arrived. The entrance is half received in 90 milliseconds and the exit in 1.43 seconds, a factor of 15.9. The roughness readings, drawn faintly, are 25 and 25 milliseconds and lie on top of each other. A score that writes a diminuendo under a departing part is not softening the exit. It is doing the smoother's release for it, on a clock the smoother would otherwise take two seconds over.

A part that leaves is not a part that arrives

The same player, the same note, the same level, and the only difference is which way round it happens. A listener's loudness reading takes 1.43 seconds to receive half of a departure and 90 milliseconds to receive half of an arrival — a factor of sixteen with nothing asymmetric in the sound at all, since both readings integrate the same two states in the same order. The colour reading receives the two identically, because a window has no direction, so a departure is a change whose grain arrives at once and whose level takes most of two seconds.

6 figures
Which chord of a passage has room for the part that is entering. An oboe entering on one note, tried at each chord of a five-chord passage, scored by how far its own partials sit above the threshold the ensemble already sounding puts over them. The best moment gives it 9.0 decibels of margin and the worst 0.3, a spread of 8.7 — and the best moment is not the quietest chord, which is vi, close below. Room for an entrance is spectral rather than dynamic. A chord with a hole in its written spacing need not have one in its spectrum, because the partials of its bass fill the middle whatever the notes above it do.

The chord that has room for an entrance

Three essays have made the ensemble something a score can change and none of them has asked when. The ensemble already sounding puts a masked threshold over whatever register an entering part takes, and that threshold is set by the voicing rather than by the dynamic — so the five chords of one passage differ by 8.7 decibels in how much of an entering oboe survives them, and the quietest chord of the five is the worst place in the passage to bring somebody in. Swept over the entrant's own pitch, the choice of moment is worth as much as the choice of register.

6 figures
The schedule that hears every entrance best holds the high parts back. Six parts waiting to enter a five-chord passage over four sounding players, each entering once and staying: the schedule under which the least audible entrance is as audible as it can be made. brass on E3 enters at I, open with -1.4 decibels of mean margin over the mask; oboe on E4 enters at vi, close below with -2.6 decibels of mean margin over the mask; clarinet on G4 enters at I, open with -1.4 decibels of mean margin over the mask; voice on C5 enters at IV, close above with 2.1 decibels of mean margin over the mask; violin on G5 enters at V, bracketing with 6.9 decibels of mean margin over the mask; flue pipe on C6 enters at I, hollow with 4.0 decibels of mean margin over the mask. The least audible entrance is at -2.6 decibels and the margins sum to 7.6; of all 15625 schedules 0 have a better least audible entrance and 576 a larger sum.

Room is used up by whoever enters first

The chord with the most room for a part entering alone is a fact about that chord. It stops being a fact the moment two parts want it, because each part that comes in raises the mask over everybody after it. Given six parts waiting to enter a five-chord passage, choosing each part's moment the way one part's moment is chosen puts three of them into the same chord and lands in the bottom fifth of all 15,625 schedules. Placing them one at a time does no better. The schedule under which the least audible entrance is heard best is unique, and it brings the low and middle parts in while the texture is thin and holds the three highest back for the last three chords — because a high part keeps its room over a full texture and a middle part does not.

7 figures