Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!jmj
From: jmj@wpi.WPI.EDU (John M. Joy)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Research on Automated Analysis
Message-ID: <1991Feb4.191008.27611@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 4 Feb 91 19:10:08 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 36

I am currently pursuing work on a computer science MS thesis on
the feasibility of creating an automated analysis system a la
[Lerdahl & Jackendoff, "A Generative Theory of Tonal Music"].

Does anyone know of any current (or past or future) work in the
same or similar area?  I have already perused Computer Music Journal
and Computers & the Humanities, as well as numerous texts relating
to analysis and generic uses of computers in music research (BiBTeX
available on request).

Incidentally, yes, I DO know that the theory (as given in [L&J83]) does
not constitute an effective procedure: 1) presence of informally
defined concepts (e.g. parallelism); 2) lack of conflict resolution
between preference rules; 3) potential "well-formed" analyses for
a given piece represent an infinite search space.  1) will be
treated as a peripheral issue (there is enough research on cluster analysis
and musical applications and the like (such as [Mongeau&Sankoff,
CHum 24:161-175]) to provide an algorithm for computing something
"reasonably close" to [L&J83]'s intended meaning of "parallelism").
2) will be handled by pursuit of means of "weighing" (functionally?!?
I doubt that the preference rules are context free).  As for 3), this
frees me from finding the optimal analysis, a satisfactory one is good
enough (i.e. I must define "satisfactory").

Any information or leads (not noted above) would be appreciated.  Please
respond to me at:
jmj@maxine.wpi.edu
or:
jmj@wpi.wpi.edu

Thanks.

JMJ

P.S.  The thesis is NOT intended to deal with the suitability or
usefulness of the [L&J83] analysis, so please no flames!