Repetition — the series · Acoustics & Music Theory

thirty-two-bar AABA, every bar against every other bar. A self-similarity matrix of 32 bars of thirty-two-bar AABA. Each cell is the cosine similarity of two bars' pitch-class vectors, with the chord's own notes weighted 1 and the rest of the key 0.5. Similarity is quantised into four bands for drawing and anything under 0.35 is left as paper. Nothing in the computation knows what a section is; the blocks and stripes are what the arithmetic returns.

A piece is mostly itself again

Take a piece of music, encode each bar as the notes sounding in it, and compare every bar with every other bar. The picture that comes out has blocks and stripes in it, and those blocks and stripes are the form — arrived at by arithmetic that has never heard of an exposition, a chorus or a refrain.

part 1 · form

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.

part 2 · form

Redundancy in bits, and why the number needs a length beside it. Left: the LZ78 cost of each scheme divided by the cost of sending the same symbols flat, against how many bars are sent, with each bar coded as its chord and key. Every scheme is above 1 at a single chorus — the coder loses — and every one falls under it as the piece runs. Right: new dictionary phrases per bar at one chorus, which is the statistic that survives at short lengths.

How much of this is new

Repetition can be counted rather than looked at. Feed a piece's bars to a compressor and the bits it needs are a measure of how much of the piece is a repeat of an earlier part of itself. The measurement works, the number is real, and it turns out to be a statement about the description rather than about the music — which is the most useful thing it has to say.

part 3 · form

How long until it comes back

A self-similarity matrix has a second reading that nobody looks for. Add up each diagonal instead of walking along one, and out falls repetition as a function of how long ago — a period, in bars, with no segmentation, no kernel width and no bar numbers anywhere in the answer. Five of the six schemes here report the length a listener would have named. The sixth reports something better.

part 4 · form

The period, as the piece goes by. The strongest lag of thirty-two-bar AABA computed on only the bars heard so far, against how many bars that is. The final answer is 4 bars; it is revised 6 times on the way, and is not reached for the last time until bar 29 of 32, which is 91 per cent of the way through and 64 seconds at 108 beats a minute. Nothing about the boundary operator is involved: this is the global statistic, and it is the half of the form that a first hearing cannot have.

The form a first hearing cannot have

Every figure so far was computed with the whole piece in hand. Run the same methods over only the bars already heard and one of the two methods survives intact — the boundary operator turns out to be causal at a fixed delay of a few bars — while the other collapses. The period of a piece is not knowable until the piece is nearly over, and in two of the six schemes here not until its last bar.

part 5 · form

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.

part 6 · form

The ranking is settled either side of one narrow band. Remembered repetition — each bar's best match to an earlier bar, discounted by exp(−Δt/τ) with Δt in seconds — for 6 schemes at 108 beats a minute, against the decay constant τ on a logarithmic axis. The order of the schemes changes only between 8 and 13 seconds; outside that band it is fixed, so an estimate of τ wrong by any amount that stays outside it leaves the ranking alone.

A return has to be remembered

A stripe four bars off the diagonal and a stripe twenty-four bars off it are the same ink and are not the same experience. Convert the lag axis to seconds, discount every comparison by how long ago it was, and the ranking of these six schemes by how repetitive they are changes — and the decay constant and the tempo turn out to enter the arithmetic as one number rather than two.

part 7 · perception

thirty-two-bar AABA, as a strip of time. thirty-two-bar AABA laid out one cell per bar, coloured by section, with the roman numeral in each bar. the A section's turnaround is the ii-V every variant keeps; the bridge is a chain of applied dominants. At 108 beats a minute in 4/4 the whole of it lasts 71 seconds. Cut into 4 repeat units of 8 bars, 3 pairs of units agree on more than 50 per cent of their bars. 2 of them are not identical, and 2 of those 2 differ in a run of bars ending at the last bar of the unit; the changed bars are marked in orange.

Where a repeat is changed

Cut every scheme into its own repeat unit, compare each unit with every other, and ask where a repeat stops agreeing with what it repeats. The answer is that it stops at the end, in every case the corpus contains — and the number of cases the corpus contains depends entirely on where the threshold for "a repeat" is put. Moving it by nothing at all takes the count from two to twenty and the finding with it.

part 8 · form

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.

part 9 · form