The collection

Every essay — page 9

Page 9 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

Harmony and voice leading

Chords as places, progressions as paths, and the smallest possible move between them.

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.

Expectation as a curve, and what a change costs where it lands. Every quantity so far is attached to a chord change: a list of surprises, one per event. A listener's expectation is continuous — it sharpens through a bar and collapses when the change arrives — and the two ingredients for it are already here, the harmonic rhythm and the metrical beat weights. The curve is the hazard: given that the chord has not changed yet, the chance that it changes on this beat. It runs from 0.043 on the weakest beat to 0.290 on the downbeat, a ratio of 6.7, against 0.125 if every beat were alike. The marked beats are where the changes actually arrive, and their timing bill is 3.6 bits against 6.0 for a listener with no metre — so these changes are 1.7 times cheaper to expect than a metreless listener would find them. That term is new: an earlier essay prices which chord arrived and this prices when, and a listener meets the sum.

Expectation is a curve, not a list

Every quantity so far is attached to a chord change: a list of surprises, one per event. A listener's expectation is continuous, sharpening through a bar and collapsing when the change arrives — and the two ingredients for it were already here, in two other accounts. What comes out is a second surprise, for when a chord arrives rather than for which one it is.

A loud chord is a smaller chord

Two earlier essays hold the level fixed, and the level decides how much of a chord a listener is given. At thirty decibels twenty of a triad's twenty-four partials stand above what the rest of it masks; at a hundred, nine do. Every roughness figure until now counts partials that are in the score, and a partial the chord masks is not a partial the listener has.

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.

Two surprises and one event

A chord change is surprising twice over — in which chord it is, and in when it comes — and a listener meets one event. Adding two surprises needs to know how much they share, which is a fact about a repertoire nobody has. Sweeping it instead: the total moves by half, the ordering does not move at all, and the most surprising moment in a passage is the same one whatever the answer turns out to be.

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.

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.

A third of the timing surprise is paid for by nothing happening. Every beat of a bar of 4/4 at 1 chord change a bar, with what it costs a listener in expectation. The lower block is the arrival — the chance the chord changes here times what that change costs to be surprised by. The upper block is the hold, which is paid when the chord does not change and is charged at every beat rather than at every event. Over the bar the arrivals come to 2.61 bits and the non-arrivals to 1.29, so the term never spent before is 33 per cent of the total rather than most of it. The two together are exactly the binary entropy of each beat's own hazard, which is why the bar's whole timing bill is 3.90 bits and cannot be raised by rearranging where the changes fall.

The surprise of nothing happening

A hazard charges a listener twice — once when the chord changes and once, quietly, at every beat it does not. The second term was expected to dominate, because there are more beats than changes. It is a third of the bill at one chord a bar and never reaches a half at any rate a metre survives, because the cost of a beat where nothing happens is second-order small.

What a chord change costs where it actually lands. Every beat of a bar of 4/4 at 1 change a bar, priced as a listener meets it: the pale block is what has already been paid waiting through the beats the chord did not come on, and the dark block is the arrival itself. Their sum is what it costs to be surprised by a change here. The last column is the remaining case, never priced before: no change in the bar at all, at 1.61 bits and a probability of 0.33. The 9 costs are a proper distribution — 1.000 — which is the check that this is one model rather than two. And the spread is the finding: the arrival term alone puts a factor of 6.7 between the best and worst beat, and counting the waiting makes it 19.

Where the chord actually lands

Every timing surprise so far is evaluated on a downbeat: the curve spans a factor of 6.7 and every number is read at its peak. Charge the waiting as well as the arrival and the costs over a bar become a proper distribution, the spread between the best and worst beat rises to a factor of 19.5, and a third of the probability sits on a bar in which nothing changes at all.

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.

A notehead in four parts costs 1.30 bits and one in two parts costs 1.89. What one notehead asks of a reader, against how many parts are on the page, for a progression realised by the voice-leading solver used here at 2 semitones of motion a voice a chord. The horizontal rule is a note of a single melody under the measure established earlier, 1.89 bits, which is what a texture costs when its parts have to be read one at a time. The bars are the harmonic reading: the chord, charged at the worst case of 2.81 bits for one of seven diatonic degrees, plus the logarithm of how many voicings of it the previous chord could legally have moved to. At two parts there is no bar, because a duet has no complete voicing of any triad — it cannot state the harmony and has to be read as 3.79 bits of two independent lines. Every thicker texture is cheaper a notehead than the thin one, and the four-part figure is an upper bound.

Four parts are easier to read than two

Twelve earlier essays read one line, and a score is several at once. Measured through the voice-leading model, a notehead of a four-part chorale asks a reader for 1.30 bits and a note of an independent line asks 1.89 — so twice the ink is less than three quarters of the load. The reason is a boundary those essays already established: a duet has no complete voicing of any triad at all, so two parts cannot be read from their harmony and have to be read as two melodies.

A tonic bought with the function

Putting the measured probe-tone profile inside the ordered key-finder is one term, and it does what was predicted: the natural-minor passage is named A minor at every bar instead of C major. It also does two things nobody predicted. It renames a scheme that has been read in the wrong key at every bar since the day it was written, and it destroys the chord's function while it is buying the key.

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.

Eighty-one chords the expectation model cannot tell apart. Every voicing of a dominant seventh on G inside the three octaves above its own root, placed by how rough it is and how far its outer voices are apart, and coloured by which member of the chord is at the bottom. The roughness runs from 0.269 to 1.449, a factor of 5.4, computed from each voicing's own spectrum under Plomp and Levelt's roughness model. The identity surprise the expectation model assigns is 3.51 bits for every one of the 81, because it is a function of a scale degree and its predecessor and there is no register anywhere in it. What separates them is spacing rather than inversion: roughness falls as the outer voices spread apart, correlating -0.42 with the span, and is indifferent to which member of the chord is at the bottom at 0.02. The seventh in the bass is not what makes a chord rough; a fourth and a third packed together at the bottom of the range is.

Eighty-one chords, one number

A dominant seventh has eighty-one arrangements inside three octaves and their roughness spans a factor of five and a half. The tonal-expectation model gives every one of them the same 3.51 bits, because its states are scale degrees and there is no register anywhere in them. Conditioning the surprise on the voicing costs no corpus — and the arithmetic says the conditioning belongs beside the probability rather than inside it, for three reasons that can each be computed.

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.

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.

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.

Level does not dilute the register's roughness, it multiplies it. The mean roughness of the I – vi – IV – V – I arrivals at 4 registers, each relative to the register as written, read three ways. Level-free, the bass is 8.6 times rougher than the treble. With every note at 70 dB it is 8.6 times, the same factor, because one level rescales every pair alike. With each chord played at the level that makes it as loud as the written register's chords — 82.8 dB −2 octaves, 75.5 dB −1 octave, 70.0 dB as written, 66.8 dB +1 octave — the bass is 343 times rougher than the treble, because roughness grows with the square of the pressure and the bass needs more of it to be heard at the same loudness.

A rough arrival is rough because of its spacing

The pair the expectation essays report for every chord — how surprising it was, how rough its voicing is — has no level in it. Putting level back in answers the question it left open, and not the way it was framed. At one written dynamic the arrivals keep their order from 40 to 90 dB at three registers of four, and the bass stays 8.6 times rougher than the treble. Made equally loud, the bass has to be played 12.8 dB harder, and it is 343 times rougher: level does not explain the register's roughness away, it multiplies it.

The change reading follows the chords, not the bar. How far above the other candidates the true barline stands, in standard units, for the reading that scores how much the pitch-class content changes at each candidate — at three harmonic rhythms. At 2 chords a bar the margin is 0.12 and the reading finds the barline 12 per cent of the time; At 1 chord a bar the margin is 1.66 and the reading finds the barline 42 per cent of the time; At a chord every two bars the margin is 0.47 and the reading finds the barline 27 per cent of the time, against a chance rate of 13 per cent. The passages read earlier all changed chord once a bar, which is the middle column and the only one where the reading has anything. Two chords a bar puts a change at the half-bar as well and the reading cannot tell the two apart; a chord every two bars leaves half the barlines with no change at all and the margin halves exactly.

The change reading follows the chords, not the bar

Every passage read until now changes chord exactly at the barline, which is the one harmonic rhythm at which 'the chords change here' and 'the bar starts here' are the same sentence. Pull them apart and the reading goes with the chords: at one chord a bar it stands 1.52 standard units above the other candidates and finds the barline half the time, at two chords a bar it stands 0.01 above them and is at chance, and at a chord every two bars its margin is exactly half — because half the barlines then carry no change at all.

Asked for the rate, it answers a multiple of it. The change reading asked its own question — what period do the chords change at — over passages built at three harmonic rhythms, with its standardised score for each candidate period. Given 2 chords a bar it recovers the rate 33 per cent of the time and answers too slow 65; Given 1 chord a bar it recovers the rate 58 per cent of the time and answers too slow 38; Given a chord every two bars it recovers the rate 93 per cent of the time and answers too slow 0. It never errs fast in the way it errs slow, and the reason is structural: a chord change every four slots also produces a change at every eighth slot, so a slower grid inherits a faster rate's evidence and a faster grid cannot inherit a slower one's. That ambiguity is why the reading looked like a barline detector in the first place — the bar is a multiple of every harmonic rhythm that fits inside it.

Asked for the rate, it answers a multiple

A reading that follows the chord rate rather than the bar can be asked what the rate is, and the shape of its errors is the whole of why it looked like a barline detector. Given two chords a bar it returns the right period a third of the time and something slower two thirds; given a chord every two bars it is right nine times in ten. It errs slow and essentially never fast, because a change every four slots also falls on every eighth slot and a slower grid inherits a faster rate's evidence — which is the same asymmetry that makes a pitch detector report an octave too low.

The content errs slow and the bass errs fast. Passages of eight bars built at three harmonic rhythms, each with a bass that states every new chord's root and moves to another chord tone on a beat 50 per cent of the time. Two readings are asked the chord rate: one from how much the pitch-class content changes across a grid, one from how completely the bass's moves land on it. At two chords a bar the content reading names the rate 63 per cent of the time, too fast 0 and too slow 37; the bass reading 100, 0 and 0. At one chord a bar the content reading names the rate 67 per cent of the time, too fast 0 and too slow 33; the bass reading 18, 80 and 2. At a chord every two bars the content reading names the rate 98 per cent of the time, too fast 2 and too slow 0; the bass reading 0, 100 and 0. The two readings miss in opposite directions and at opposite ends of the tempo range: the content reading at fast harmonic rhythms, by naming a multiple, and the bass reading at slow ones, by naming its own arpeggiation.

The bass errs fast where the content errs slow

Asked how often the chords change, a reading built on pitch-class content names a slower multiple and never a faster rate. Give the passage a bass that states each new root and moves between chord tones inside a chord, and a reading built on the bass's moves errs the other way: it names a faster grid and never a slower one. At two chords a bar the bass is right every time; at a chord every two bars it is never right. Six ways of combining the two readings each trade one end of the range for the other.

A bass that holds through a change marks the barline

At two chords a bar the chords change on the barline and on the half-bar alike, so a reading of where they change is at chance, and the metre ties the two. The bass has one more piece of evidence: a change inside the bar can be voiced over the note already sounding, and a change on the barline is voiced over its root. Hold the bass through one mid-bar change in six and the metre and bass together place the barline in 85 per cent of eight-bar passages; one in three, 97. The convention cannot be stronger than that, and the chord changes, asked first, only get in the way.

Rhythm and metre

Time divided, subdivided and deliberately misaligned — drawn as a circle rather than a line.

E(3, 8) as a cycle. A rhythm drawn round a circle, one equal arc per step, with the struck steps filled. On a circle the pattern has no beginning, which is why the same necklace of onsets is several different named rhythms depending on where a listener decides bar one is.

Rhythm is a circle, and the bar line is a choice

Draw a rhythm as a line and it looks like a sequence of decisions. Draw it as a cycle and the same pattern turns out to be shared across continents, differing only in where somebody decided to start counting.

Six rhythms, all from the same construction. Euclidean rhythms generated by Bjorklund's algorithm, which spreads a number of onsets as evenly as a number of steps allows. The patterns were not transcribed from recordings; they are what the algorithm produces, and the names beside them are where each one is already in use.

As evenly as possible, which turns out to be a famous rhythm

Ask an algorithm to space five strikes over eight beats as evenly as it can. It produces the cinquillo. Ask for three over eight and it produces the tresillo. Nobody told it about Cuba.