Acoustics & Music Theory
why it sounds like that
Series

Tonal-expectation — the series

11 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. The probe-tone profile, major key. How well each of the twelve pitch classes was rated as fitting, after a context establishing the key — Krumhansl and Kessler, 1982. The shading is not part of the measurement: it is the tonic, the rest of the tonic triad, the rest of the scale and the remaining five notes, which are categories this subject had before anybody ran the experiment. The profile separates all four without overlap.

    Counting produced the hierarchy

    Ask listeners how well each of the twelve notes fits after a passage in C major and the answers are not a smooth gradient. They fall into four groups with no overlap at all: the tonic, then the rest of the tonic triad, then the rest of the scale, then everything else — categories the subject had names for centuries before anybody ran the experiment.

    part 1 · perception
  2. How surprising each chord is, in bits. Each step's information content, −log₂ of the probability the root-motion weights used here give it. a perfect cadence totals 6.4 bits over 3 steps; a deceptive cadence totals 7.3 bits over 3 steps; I – IV – V – vi totals 7.3 bits over 3 steps. The single most surprising move drawn is IV to V at 2.7 bits, which is 42 per cent of everything its passage spends. The eight weights are ordinal and stipulated rather than counted, so these are the numbers that ordering implies and not a measurement of any repertoire.

    The chord that did not come

    A deceptive cadence is described as a surprise, and the explanation offered is that the wrong chord arrived. Measured against the tonal hierarchy already in use, the wrong chord is the second best-fitting triad in the key — and two of its three voices do exactly what they would have done in the right one. The surprise is not statistical. It is one voice, and it is the bass.

    part 2 · harmony
  3. How surprising each chord is, in bits. Each step's information content, −log₂ of the probability the root-motion weights used here give it. a perfect cadence totals 6.4 bits over 3 steps; a deceptive cadence totals 7.3 bits over 3 steps; I – IV – V – vi totals 7.3 bits over 3 steps. The single most surprising move drawn is IV to V at 2.7 bits, which is 42 per cent of everything its passage spends. The eight weights are ordinal and stipulated rather than counted, so these are the numbers that ordering implies and not a measurement of any repertoire.

    Surprise is a number

    The chord that did not come was described rather than measured. Its measure is the information content of what did arrive, and a model of the probability has been to hand since the key-finding essays — eight root-motion weights, ordinal and stipulated. Reading them as a distribution prices a deceptive cadence at 2.71 bits against a perfect one's 1.85, and turns up the fact that the largest of the eight had never been read by anything.

    part 3 · harmony
  4. The surprise of each chord, against the uncertainty it arrived into. The information content of each step — minus the log of its probability under a distribution that multiplies the root-motion weight by how well the destination triad's notes fit the key — with the entropy of the moment before it drawn behind. I – IV – V – I: I→IV 1.71 bits, IV→V 2.80 bits, V→I 1.60 bits, against a mean uncertainty of 2.63; I – IV – V – vi: I→IV 1.71 bits, IV→V 2.80 bits, V→vi 2.61 bits, against a mean uncertainty of 2.63. A surprise larger than the entropy it arrived into is an outcome the model was not expecting even given how uncertain it was; one below it is an outcome the model had already mostly bet on. An earlier essay produced the first of those numbers and had no way to produce the second, because a set of preferences is not a distribution and only a distribution has an entropy.

    A chord, given a key and a predecessor

    A chord's improbability has been priced from its root motion alone, which left one multiplication unmade: a chord is also improbable because its notes do not fit the key, and that number has been available since the probe-tone profile. Multiplied and renormalised, the two give a conditional distribution — and a distribution has an entropy, which is the quantity a surprise has to be read against and which a list of preferences cannot supply.

    part 4 · harmony
  5. 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.

    part 5 · harmony
  6. The number nobody has moves the size and not the order. The mean total surprise per chord change, against how much the two surprises share. At zero they are independent and the total is their sum; at one they are the same event and the total is the larger of the two. The mean falls by a factor of 1.53 across that whole range, which is the size of the thing a corpus would settle. The ordering of the events by total surprise does not move at all until the very end: 5 of the 6 correlations swept give exactly the ordering independence gives, and only perfect dependence changes it, by 3 places out of 7. The most surprising event in the passage is the same one at every correlation. So the corpus three separate accounts have recorded wanting would change what this figure reports and not what it concludes.

    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.

    part 6 · harmony
  7. 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.

    part 7 · harmony
  8. 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.

    part 8 · harmony
  9. 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.

    part 9 · harmony
  10. 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.

    part 10 · harmony
  11. Counted over what arrives, the balanced bass is not the roughest register. The mean roughness of the I – vi – IV – V – I arrivals with each chord played as loud as the written register's, relative to the written register, counted over every partial and over the partials that stand above what the rest of the chord masks. Every partial: 70 −2 octaves, 7.48 −1 octave, 1.00 as written, 0.20 +1 octave. Delivered partials only: 6e-9 −2 octaves, 2.83 −1 octave, 1.00 as written, 0.19 +1 octave. Over every partial the lowest register is 343 times rougher than the highest; over what arrives it is the smoothest of the four, and the roughest is −1 octave, 2.8 times the written register.

    A bass chord low enough to balance has already hidden its tenor

    Played as loud as the written register, a progression two octaves down is 343 times rougher than the same progression an octave up — if every partial on the page is counted. Count only the partials that stand above what the rest of the chord masks and that register is the smoothest of the four, with nothing left that beats. The balance is not what does it: the extra thirteen decibels move no voice by more than two partials. The register had already buried the tenor at the written dynamic.

    part 11 · perception

All series