Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!gatech!artsnet!mgresham
From: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: programs that can infer key/meter
Keywords: Finale?
Message-ID: <490@artsnet.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 89 19:35:55 GMT
References: <15170@netnews.upenn.edu> <125936@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <7203@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <484@artsnet.UUCP> <7354@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <1277@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Reply-To: mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham)
Organization: ARTSNET  Atlanta, GA  USA
Lines: 59

In article <1277@accuvax.nwu.edu> sandell@ferret (Greg Sandell) writes:
>Mark Gresham writes:
>>Even an example from the sixteenth century, "Ecce quomodo moritur"
>>(Jacob Handl) would be made into a metrical hash by the
>>Lerdahl/Jackendoff approach to analysis
>
>Why would you want to 'discover the meter' of music of this period?

I wouldn't.  But if I were to notate it for performers in our
time, I might want to use metrical indications for practicality.
In light of that, I have seen published editions of music using
the kind of metrical hash I described, especially where it is
either unnecessary or damaging.

>I don't know the specific piece, but I recognize the genre.  Even
>if written in 4/4 time nobody *hears* a 4/4 meter marching along
>in this music.

Of course not.  (Note the Hindemith example I'll cite later...)

>In any case, L&J limit their scope to music of
>the common practice period.  (Complain if you like, but you try to
>create an exhaustive theory of all musics of all periods, and see
>how much success you have!)

I wouldn't try (as other theorists have tried before) because of
the differences in intent and historical perspective if nothing
else.

>Mark, your questions are interesting, and your challanges are merited.  But
>I think maybe you thought that what L&J are trying to do is discover
>the *notated* meter.  To the contrary, they proceed from the assumption
>that the notated meter is frequently in contrast to the experienced
>meter.

I'll buy that.  But this discussion (I thought) began with a desire
to have a program 'perceive' the midi input and then *notate* it,
including key and meter.  Like the "Ecce..." example (where you
might not want to notate any meter anyway) the results are likely
to be far afield from the kinds of results desired.

Incidentally, I'd be interested in what the L&J method would turn
out as results (yes, notated!) from a hearing of the double
fugue ("Lo, body and soul, this land...") from Hindemith's
requiem, "When Lilacs Last In The Dooryard Bloomed."

Yes, percieved and notated meter are often quite different, that's
one of my points.  The notation is a 'roadmap' to the performance
of the music, not vice versa.

Cheers,

--Mark

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