1. Musical Similarity: More perspectives and compound techniques CS 275B/Music 254

2. Musical similarity  Similarity studies in general  Reductionist approachs  Social cognition  Timbral confounds  Compound search techniques  Cognitive distance metrics  Affective similarity 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 2

3. Timbral confounds 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 3

4. Reductionist approaches: melodic simplification 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 4 Target: 3452 (Vertical)

5. Time-span reduction 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 5 German folksong Substitution of one pitch for each bar Work of Helmut Schaffrath and pupils (Essen) cf. http://www.esac-data.orghttp://www.esac-data.org

6. Time-span reduction 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 6 German folksong Substitution of one pitch for each bar Work of Helmut Schaffrath and pupils (Essen) cf. http://www.esac-data.orghttp://www.esac-data.org Lerdahl-Jackendoff approach more nuanced

7. Social cognition 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field7 Morris tune Danny Boy The Folìa

8. Social cognition, cont. 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 8 A, B = title-driven C, D, E = content-driven

9. Joint-accent structure: Mari Riess Jones 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 9 Perception, cognition (Ohio State U.)

10. Co-ordinated pitch/duration similarity 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 10 Manfred Leppig (German mathematician)

11. Leppig vs Riess Jones 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 11 Mari Riess Jones (OSU) Manfred Leppig (1987) 1: 1 3 5 8 6 86 5 4 5 3 1 2 1 2: 1 1 5 5 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 223 1 D: 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 -2 0 0 mathematics psychology

12. Pitch-time space: interval reductions 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 12 Suk Won Yi, UCLA, (1992) Interval1.000.00 1.000.00 1.000.008.000.00 Duration0.25 0.500.25 0.500.25 0.501.00 Coefficient of Melodic Activity 2.611.91 2.611.91 2.611.91 3.480.53 Pitch98898898816 Duration.25.5.25.5.25.5

13. Pitch-time space: Lerdahl, Krumhansl (2007) 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field13 Tension attraction Values projected vs values judged

14. Prototypical (elusive) melodies 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 14 Hypothetical melody: Mozart Piano Sonata in G Major Actualities Possible reductions

15. Narmour: Theory of Melody (and melodic implication) 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 15 If interval < fourth stepwise departure likely If interval  fourth directional change likely Cf. Themefinder refined contour search

16. Transportation distance  Wiering, Typke et al. (2005):  Earth Mover’s Distance 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 16 EMD: S. Cohen et al., SU Robotics, 1999 Joint pitch and duration metric

17. Affective similarity Performing medium Genre contrastClassical titleOther title PianoClassical- contemporary Rachmaninov: Moment Musical Op 16, No. 2 Ligeti: Concerto for Piano and Orchestra PianoClassical-jazzSchumann: Kreisleriana Op 16, No. 5Gershwin: “I loves you, Porgy” (Porgy and Bess) OrchestralClassical-jazzProkofiev: Symphonie Op 100, No. 5, movement 1 Gershwin: Porgy and Bess OrchestralClassical-popBeethoven: Romance for Violin and Orchestra Op 50, No. 2 Beatles: “Eleanor Rigby” Classical-musicalBeethoven: Romance for Violin and Orchestra Op 50, No. 2 Nacio Herb Brown: “Singin‘ in the Rain” 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 17 Table 2. Anomalous listener-defined similarities among works of different genres in the Aucouturier-Pachet research.

18. Cognitive distance metric (1) 1. Basic Pitch-Accent StructureRange = 0-4 A.If meter matches targetMax = 1.00 andIf subunit (e.g. quarter note) is the sameScore = 1.00 orIf subunit is different (e.g., 4/8 vs. 2/4)Score = 0.50 ElseScore = 0.00 B. Percentage of matched pitches on primary beats*Max = 2.00 If matching number of scale degrees=100%Score = 2.00 orIf matching number of scale degrees =>90%Score = 1.33 orIf matched number of notes/unit =>80% Score=0.67 Score = 0.67 ElseScore = 0.00 C. Percentage of matched pitches on secondary beatsMax = 1.00 If matching number of scale degrees=100%Score = 1.00 orIf matching number of scale degrees=>90%Score = 0.67 orIf matched number of notes/unit =>80% Score=0.33 Score = 0.33 ElseScore = 0.00 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 18

19. Cognitive distance metric (2) II. Basic Harmonic-Accent StructureRange = 0-6 A. Mode of work (major, minor, other)Max = 1.00 If modes matchScore = 1.00 ElseScore = 0.00 B. Percentage of matched chords on downbeat**Max = 2.50 If unambiguous matches on primary beats =>90%Score = 2.50 orIf unambiguous matches on primary beats =>80%Score = 2.00 orIf unambiguous matches on primary beat =>70%Score = 1.50 ElseScore = 0.00 C. Percentage of matched chords on secondary beats**Max = 2.00 If unambiguous matches =>90%Score = 2.00 orIf unambiguous matches =>80%Score = 1.50 orIf unambiguous matches =>70%Score = 1.00 ElseScore = 0.00 D. Percentage of matched chords on tertiary beatsMax = 0.50 If unambiguous matches =>90%Score = 0.50 ElseScore = 0.0 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 19

20. Cognitive distance metric (3) ExamplePitch-Accent scoreHarmony-Accent scoreTotal score (additive) RawRankedRawRankedRawRanked 2a3.6725.539.172 2b3.6725.048.673 2c2.6766.018.673 2d1.1794.556.678 2e2.6764.096.678 2f2.3384.556.837 2g1.00102.0113.0011 2h3.5044.558.006 2i4.0014.558.505 2j1.00104.095.0010 2k3.3356.019.331 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 20

21. Evaluating search viability and efficiency  Krumhansl, 2000 [theoretical]  Sapp, Liu, Selfridge-Field, 2004 [practical] 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 21

22. Sapp, Liu, Selfridge-Field (ISMIR 2004) 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 22 Data Search Effectiveness (1)

23. Search Effectiveness (2) 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 23 Pitch features Meter features

24. Search Effectivesness (3) 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 24 Sample search Coupled search

25. Results 2013 Eleanor Selfridge-Field 25