Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!cica!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: programs that can infer key/meter
Keywords: Finale?
Message-ID: <489@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 89 18:58:23 GMT
References: <15170@netnews.upenn.edu> <125936@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <7203@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <484@artsnet.UUCP> <7354@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 70

In article <7354@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> brownd@thor.stolaf.edu () writes:
>In article <484@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
>
>>Good luck. Especially on things like changing meters and
>>syncopations within a strict meter.  If musicians can't agree
>>on how to notate such (and believe me, that's rampant) how can
>>someone program 'definitive' decisions about it?
>
>	The way to make 'definitive' decisions:
>
>		1.	Define an arbitrary standard.
>		2.	Use it consistently.

Part of the power of musical notation is the fact that it is
flexible.  Aside from that, you're asking (to get back to the
psychological method mentioned) for the meter to be inferred 'as
the result of small amounts of information.  I would suggest that
1) a larger quantity would be helpful, and 2) we should recognize
that music is a 'map' by which we produce music, and different
methods of cartography may have different advantages/disadvantages
in any given situation.

BTW, a related programming puzzle would be to take photos from an
airplane (or satellite) and write a program that would create
roadmaps according to Rand McNally's arbitrary cartographical standards.
Try it sometime. :-)

>If you (a program) insist on such standard, some people will come to believe
>that it's correct.   (My Acoustics prof. referred to this as "proof by
>intimidation.")  If all goes welll, the standard will become accepted
>generally.

When the emperor has no clothes and there is always someone who will
gladly point it out.

>Now, how to get all programs to agree (e.g. Finale, SCORE, etc.)?

You have to get the musicians to agree first!

>I'm sure I don't know.  But a standard format for indicating syncopations
>would be extremely useful-- apart from the sillico-musical environ, too.

Certainly, because that's where the ultimate tests lie
(repeatedly).

I suggest you look at Joseph Shillinger's (sp?) treatise on theory
which includes an attempt to come to 'definitive standards' for
explaining musical structures mathematically.  It is all but
ignored now, and is generally thought of only in negative terms
these days.  But you might want to check it out.

>St. Olaf College has very little to     | M M | M M M | M M | M M M | M M |   
>do with the things I talk about!        | M M | M M M | M M | M M M | M M |   
>                                        | M M | M M M | M M | M M M | M M |  

Really?  Say 'hi' to Jennings and the choir.

>Dave Brown: brownd@thor.acc.stolaf.edu  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  
>"I _like_ programming the DX-7!"        |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|  


Cheers,

--Mark

========================================
Mark Gresham  ARTSNET  Norcross, GA, USA
E-mail:       ...gatech!artsnet!mgresham
or:          artsnet!mgresham@gatech.edu
========================================