WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.960 align:middle line:90%
[SQUEAKING]

00:00:01.960 --> 00:00:04.410 align:middle line:90%
[RUSTLING]

00:00:04.410 --> 00:00:07.840 align:middle line:90%
[CLICKING]

00:00:07.840 --> 00:00:10.610 align:middle line:90%


00:00:10.610 --> 00:00:13.190 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So we're going
to make a good part of today

00:00:13.190 --> 00:00:16.340 align:middle line:84%
about talking about some of the
other people who have thought

00:00:16.340 --> 00:00:19.220 align:middle line:84%
about music representation or
talking about other people's

00:00:19.220 --> 00:00:21.630 align:middle line:84%
thoughts and whether we
agree with them or not,

00:00:21.630 --> 00:00:24.720 align:middle line:84%
specifically, two
giants of the Field,

00:00:24.720 --> 00:00:29.870 align:middle line:84%
Eleanor Selfridge-Field, her
article on music representation,

00:00:29.870 --> 00:00:34.190 align:middle line:84%
and Nicholas Cook on what's
comparative musicology

00:00:34.190 --> 00:00:36.000 align:middle line:84%
and what's
computational musicology

00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:39.450 align:middle line:84%
and what they might have to do
with each other, if anything.

00:00:39.450 --> 00:00:45.050 align:middle line:84%
So let's start by talking a
little bit about the Eleanor

00:00:45.050 --> 00:00:46.303 align:middle line:90%
Selfridge-Field article.

00:00:46.303 --> 00:00:49.610 align:middle line:90%


00:00:49.610 --> 00:00:52.710 align:middle line:84%
Before getting into computers
and continuing afterwards,

00:00:52.710 --> 00:00:55.350 align:middle line:84%
she's a specialist
in Baroque music,

00:00:55.350 --> 00:00:59.740 align:middle line:84%
which is Western European
musical era from--

00:00:59.740 --> 00:01:05.630 align:middle line:84%
a lot of people say 1600 to
1750, roughly 1580 to 1770,

00:01:05.630 --> 00:01:08.200 align:middle line:84%
but with the previous
areas overlapping,

00:01:08.200 --> 00:01:12.130 align:middle line:84%
and previous and
next ones, for a bit.

00:01:12.130 --> 00:01:18.850 align:middle line:84%
And so she talks about
some things in her article.

00:01:18.850 --> 00:01:25.690 align:middle line:84%
Anyone remember anything
about the article

00:01:25.690 --> 00:01:28.630 align:middle line:90%
that has this diagram?

00:01:28.630 --> 00:01:31.510 align:middle line:84%
What's this kind
of showing here?

00:01:31.510 --> 00:01:32.520 align:middle line:90%
Do you recall?

00:01:32.520 --> 00:01:35.980 align:middle line:90%


00:01:35.980 --> 00:01:36.878 align:middle line:90%
I know you do.

00:01:36.878 --> 00:01:37.545 align:middle line:90%
You're just shy.

00:01:37.545 --> 00:01:43.210 align:middle line:90%


00:01:43.210 --> 00:01:44.982 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: A note has
a lot of parameters.

00:01:44.982 --> 00:01:46.940 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Note
has a lot of parameters.

00:01:46.940 --> 00:01:47.470 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:01:47.470 --> 00:01:50.570 align:middle line:90%
Note has a lot of parameters.

00:01:50.570 --> 00:01:56.560 align:middle line:84%
What kind of relationship are
we talking about "has a" means?

00:01:56.560 --> 00:01:59.300 align:middle line:84%
What word pops into your head
when you think of "has a?"

00:01:59.300 --> 00:02:03.330 align:middle line:90%


00:02:03.330 --> 00:02:06.760 align:middle line:84%
Go into your ontologies
that you've forgotten.

00:02:06.760 --> 00:02:09.870 align:middle line:90%
What are the two choices?

00:02:09.870 --> 00:02:10.718 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, go ahead.

00:02:10.718 --> 00:02:11.760 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Is it meronymy?

00:02:11.760 --> 00:02:13.650 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Taxonomy and meronymy.

00:02:13.650 --> 00:02:15.930 align:middle line:84%
Did you have your hand for which
one of those two that would be?

00:02:15.930 --> 00:02:17.180 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Would it be meronymy?

00:02:17.180 --> 00:02:18.722 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Meronymy, yes, yes,

00:02:18.722 --> 00:02:20.250 align:middle line:84%
yes because a
taxonomy is the one

00:02:20.250 --> 00:02:24.780 align:middle line:84%
that we use for kingdom,
phylum, what kind of a thing

00:02:24.780 --> 00:02:25.900 align:middle line:90%
is something.

00:02:25.900 --> 00:02:31.810 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, so a note has a lot
of different parameters.

00:02:31.810 --> 00:02:34.630 align:middle line:84%
And it's made up of a lot
of different parameters.

00:02:34.630 --> 00:02:38.950 align:middle line:84%
I think it's something that
maybe just sounds so obvious,

00:02:38.950 --> 00:02:43.020 align:middle line:84%
but this was a really
revolutionary way of thinking

00:02:43.020 --> 00:02:44.560 align:middle line:90%
about some of these things.

00:02:44.560 --> 00:02:48.878 align:middle line:84%
And this diagram has become
one of the legendary diagrams

00:02:48.878 --> 00:02:49.420 align:middle line:90%
in the field.

00:02:49.420 --> 00:02:51.820 align:middle line:84%
Every field has these
legendary diagrams.

00:02:51.820 --> 00:02:54.360 align:middle line:84%
And I know that
Dr. Selfridge-Field

00:02:54.360 --> 00:02:56.990 align:middle line:84%
would have drawn that
flat a little bit better

00:02:56.990 --> 00:02:59.640 align:middle line:84%
if she had known that this
was going to become so famous.

00:02:59.640 --> 00:03:01.890 align:middle line:84%
But yeah, this is
the one that we go,

00:03:01.890 --> 00:03:04.200 align:middle line:84%
oh, yeah, we're talking
about components of a note,

00:03:04.200 --> 00:03:07.850 align:middle line:84%
and we're going to argue
about certain things.

00:03:07.850 --> 00:03:12.830 align:middle line:84%
And we can see that some
of these things are--

00:03:12.830 --> 00:03:15.420 align:middle line:84%
what kind of a
thing is duration?

00:03:15.420 --> 00:03:17.910 align:middle line:84%
She talks about, is
it a graphical thing?

00:03:17.910 --> 00:03:19.260 align:middle line:90%
Can you see duration?

00:03:19.260 --> 00:03:26.570 align:middle line:90%


00:03:26.570 --> 00:03:27.980 align:middle line:90%
That's interesting.

00:03:27.980 --> 00:03:28.860 align:middle line:90%
That's good.

00:03:28.860 --> 00:03:33.020 align:middle line:84%
It's good that you're
puzzling over it.

00:03:33.020 --> 00:03:36.170 align:middle line:84%
Well, let's try to
figure out the context

00:03:36.170 --> 00:03:39.030 align:middle line:84%
that I'm talking about when
we talk about duration.

00:03:39.030 --> 00:03:43.700 align:middle line:84%
She talks about three contexts
that musical representation

00:03:43.700 --> 00:03:45.230 align:middle line:90%
happens in.

00:03:45.230 --> 00:03:47.880 align:middle line:84%
I don't know if
you remember them--

00:03:47.880 --> 00:03:51.050 align:middle line:90%
three contexts.

00:03:51.050 --> 00:03:57.680 align:middle line:84%
It's a big part of one of the
early parts of her article.

00:03:57.680 --> 00:04:01.780 align:middle line:84%
Give the first letter
of each of them.

00:04:01.780 --> 00:04:09.110 align:middle line:90%


00:04:09.110 --> 00:04:11.080 align:middle line:90%
Some trigger?

00:04:11.080 --> 00:04:11.580 align:middle line:90%
Let me see.

00:04:11.580 --> 00:04:14.947 align:middle line:84%
What are some ways
music is represented?

00:04:14.947 --> 00:04:15.780 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Graphical?

00:04:15.780 --> 00:04:17.399 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: The graphical.

00:04:17.399 --> 00:04:19.170 align:middle line:90%
Yep, the graphical.

00:04:19.170 --> 00:04:20.754 align:middle line:90%
How it looks, right?

00:04:20.754 --> 00:04:25.130 align:middle line:90%


00:04:25.130 --> 00:04:25.790 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:04:25.790 --> 00:04:27.950 align:middle line:84%
Let's fill out the other
two before getting back

00:04:27.950 --> 00:04:29.520 align:middle line:84%
to the question I
was talking about.

00:04:29.520 --> 00:04:30.360 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, go ahead.

00:04:30.360 --> 00:04:31.100 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Sound.

00:04:31.100 --> 00:04:31.760 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: What's that?

00:04:31.760 --> 00:04:32.594 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: The sound.

00:04:32.594 --> 00:04:35.070 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Sound.

00:04:35.070 --> 00:04:35.570 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:04:35.570 --> 00:04:43.700 align:middle line:84%
And then the other one she uses
two words at different points

00:04:43.700 --> 00:04:44.550 align:middle line:90%
of the graph.

00:04:44.550 --> 00:04:48.290 align:middle line:90%
The sound, graphical.

00:04:48.290 --> 00:04:49.760 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Is there
also semantical?

00:04:49.760 --> 00:04:51.830 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Semantic, yep.

00:04:51.830 --> 00:04:54.700 align:middle line:90%
And semantic or semantical.

00:04:54.700 --> 00:04:56.290 align:middle line:90%
I like semantical.

00:04:56.290 --> 00:04:59.360 align:middle line:90%
And what would the L be?

00:04:59.360 --> 00:05:02.390 align:middle line:84%
It's a synonym in
this case for--

00:05:02.390 --> 00:05:03.140 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Logical?

00:05:03.140 --> 00:05:04.473 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Logical, yeah.

00:05:04.473 --> 00:05:06.140 align:middle line:84%
So the semantic--
yeah, you're right.

00:05:06.140 --> 00:05:09.880 align:middle line:90%
It should be -al, logical.

00:05:09.880 --> 00:05:10.570 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:05:10.570 --> 00:05:13.670 align:middle line:90%
So what's duration in this?

00:05:13.670 --> 00:05:18.893 align:middle line:84%
Which context are we talking
about in this diagram?

00:05:18.893 --> 00:05:23.536 align:middle line:90%


00:05:23.536 --> 00:05:25.000 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Graphical.

00:05:25.000 --> 00:05:26.620 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: What's that?

00:05:26.620 --> 00:05:27.710 align:middle line:90%
I just can't hear.

00:05:27.710 --> 00:05:29.200 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Graphical and logical?

00:05:29.200 --> 00:05:30.765 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Graphical and?

00:05:30.765 --> 00:05:31.640 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Or logical.

00:05:31.640 --> 00:05:33.557 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Graphical
or logical, great.

00:05:33.557 --> 00:05:34.820 align:middle line:90%
So definitely not sound.

00:05:34.820 --> 00:05:38.566 align:middle line:84%
Are we all in
agreement with Jake

00:05:38.566 --> 00:05:42.010 align:middle line:84%
that this doesn't sound
very good unless you have

00:05:42.010 --> 00:05:43.850 align:middle line:90%
a good internal imagination?

00:05:43.850 --> 00:05:46.000 align:middle line:90%
This We're not hearing anything.

00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:46.640 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:05:46.640 --> 00:05:50.710 align:middle line:90%
So what's-- who--

00:05:50.710 --> 00:05:53.800 align:middle line:84%
you got to take a stand on
this, even if you're wrong.

00:05:53.800 --> 00:05:57.520 align:middle line:84%
Who wants to say that
this duration here is

00:05:57.520 --> 00:06:00.230 align:middle line:90%
more in the graphical domain?

00:06:00.230 --> 00:06:01.730 align:middle line:84%
I mean, we're seeing
a picture here.

00:06:01.730 --> 00:06:02.230 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:06:02.230 --> 00:06:04.490 align:middle line:84%
And who thinks it's more
in the logical domain?

00:06:04.490 --> 00:06:05.510 align:middle line:90%
Great, great.

00:06:05.510 --> 00:06:06.010 align:middle line:90%
Super.

00:06:06.010 --> 00:06:07.850 align:middle line:84%
So we have a little
bit of disagreement.

00:06:07.850 --> 00:06:09.380 align:middle line:84%
More people on the
graphical side.

00:06:09.380 --> 00:06:13.480 align:middle line:84%
What would be the argument
that it's a graphical duration?

00:06:13.480 --> 00:06:15.860 align:middle line:84%
Somebody who went
for the graphical?

00:06:15.860 --> 00:06:17.050 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Vanessa?

00:06:17.050 --> 00:06:18.987 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: It's a
visual representation.

00:06:18.987 --> 00:06:21.070 align:middle line:84%
There are tons of different
visual representations

00:06:21.070 --> 00:06:23.330 align:middle line:84%
that represent how long
a note is supposed to be.

00:06:23.330 --> 00:06:25.030 align:middle line:84%
So you can look at
it, and it'll make

00:06:25.030 --> 00:06:25.960 align:middle line:90%
sense what it's supposed to be.

00:06:25.960 --> 00:06:26.510 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Great.

00:06:26.510 --> 00:06:27.010 align:middle line:90%
Super.

00:06:27.010 --> 00:06:28.510 align:middle line:84%
So we can look at
it, and we can see

00:06:28.510 --> 00:06:30.500 align:middle line:84%
what's going to be--
we're seeing a graphic,

00:06:30.500 --> 00:06:32.510 align:middle line:84%
and we see the
graphic and go there.

00:06:32.510 --> 00:06:35.745 align:middle line:84%
Who wants to make an argument
for the logical on this?

00:06:35.745 --> 00:06:38.662 align:middle line:90%


00:06:38.662 --> 00:06:39.620 align:middle line:90%
There are three people.

00:06:39.620 --> 00:06:40.263 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:06:40.263 --> 00:06:41.930 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I guess
even just seeing this,

00:06:41.930 --> 00:06:46.130 align:middle line:84%
it's all relative to other parts
of the-- you need the context,

00:06:46.130 --> 00:06:49.330 align:middle line:84%
like the semantical context,
of beats per minute or--

00:06:49.330 --> 00:06:50.240 align:middle line:90%
yeah.

00:06:50.240 --> 00:06:51.810 align:middle line:84%
And at the time so
you can share it.

00:06:51.810 --> 00:06:52.810 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Right.

00:06:52.810 --> 00:06:54.620 align:middle line:84%
So we're going
quite a bit further

00:06:54.620 --> 00:06:56.360 align:middle line:84%
in saying, yeah, the
duration only makes

00:06:56.360 --> 00:06:57.960 align:middle line:90%
sense in a larger context.

00:06:57.960 --> 00:06:58.520 align:middle line:90%
Thanks.

00:06:58.520 --> 00:07:00.110 align:middle line:90%
Super.

00:07:00.110 --> 00:07:03.950 align:middle line:84%
Let me come up with
two ways that you

00:07:03.950 --> 00:07:06.630 align:middle line:90%
might describe something.

00:07:06.630 --> 00:07:07.420 align:middle line:90%
We'll stop there.

00:07:07.420 --> 00:07:21.410 align:middle line:90%


00:07:21.410 --> 00:07:26.360 align:middle line:84%
Describe what I did, what I have
on the board, in the most purely

00:07:26.360 --> 00:07:28.393 align:middle line:90%
graphical description possible.

00:07:28.393 --> 00:07:32.450 align:middle line:90%


00:07:32.450 --> 00:07:33.770 align:middle line:90%
So I want to take--

00:07:33.770 --> 00:07:35.300 align:middle line:90%
yeah, John?

00:07:35.300 --> 00:07:38.120 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: There's
three notes of equal.

00:07:38.120 --> 00:07:40.500 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: There's
three notes of equal duration.

00:07:40.500 --> 00:07:41.000 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:46.790 align:middle line:90%


00:07:46.790 --> 00:07:48.970 align:middle line:90%
Dur.

00:07:48.970 --> 00:07:50.380 align:middle line:90%
Dur.

00:07:50.380 --> 00:07:52.750 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, not der.

00:07:52.750 --> 00:07:56.570 align:middle line:84%
Anyone want to see if we can
go even more graphically?

00:07:56.570 --> 00:07:57.100 align:middle line:90%
Yes.

00:07:57.100 --> 00:07:58.330 align:middle line:90%
Go ahead, Jason.

00:07:58.330 --> 00:08:02.500 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Two vertical lines
with three filled in circles

00:08:02.500 --> 00:08:04.562 align:middle line:90%
with sticks attached.

00:08:04.562 --> 00:08:06.520 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Two
vertical lines with three

00:08:06.520 --> 00:08:08.570 align:middle line:84%
filled in circles
with sticks attached.

00:08:08.570 --> 00:08:11.290 align:middle line:84%
I like everything about
that except the word that

00:08:11.290 --> 00:08:13.400 align:middle line:90%
came before attached.

00:08:13.400 --> 00:08:14.633 align:middle line:90%
Why don't I like "sticks?"

00:08:14.633 --> 00:08:18.760 align:middle line:90%


00:08:18.760 --> 00:08:20.140 align:middle line:90%
I like stems even less.

00:08:20.140 --> 00:08:21.220 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Lines?

00:08:21.220 --> 00:08:22.220 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Lines?

00:08:22.220 --> 00:08:27.040 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, what don't I like about
stems if we're going for sticks?

00:08:27.040 --> 00:08:27.940 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Adam?

00:08:27.940 --> 00:08:30.700 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: They already
give a contextualization

00:08:30.700 --> 00:08:31.762 align:middle line:90%
for an abstract symbol.

00:08:31.762 --> 00:08:34.220 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yes, we're
already abstracting something.

00:08:34.220 --> 00:08:36.994 align:middle line:90%
Jason, that was fantastic.

00:08:36.994 --> 00:08:38.630 align:middle line:90%
And Adam, great, too.

00:08:38.630 --> 00:08:39.380 align:middle line:90%
Yeah.

00:08:39.380 --> 00:08:40.370 align:middle line:90%
So we can go--

00:08:40.370 --> 00:08:43.690 align:middle line:84%
we're already making
assumptions that, well, a line

00:08:43.690 --> 00:08:45.200 align:middle line:90%
could represent a stick.

00:08:45.200 --> 00:08:48.040 align:middle line:90%
So it was John's--

00:08:48.040 --> 00:08:50.340 align:middle line:84%
I think that three
notes of equal durations

00:08:50.340 --> 00:08:52.450 align:middle line:90%
is a great description.

00:08:52.450 --> 00:08:57.190 align:middle line:84%
But which one-- but
three filled in circles.

00:08:57.190 --> 00:09:00.210 align:middle line:90%
And by the way, we're already--

00:09:00.210 --> 00:09:03.600 align:middle line:84%
we're already doing
some sort of--

00:09:03.600 --> 00:09:06.270 align:middle line:84%
we're already
interpreting a little bit

00:09:06.270 --> 00:09:13.120 align:middle line:84%
that a bunch of continuous lines
that are ovaline and stick out.

00:09:13.120 --> 00:09:16.480 align:middle line:84%
We think, oh, that kind
of represents a circle.

00:09:16.480 --> 00:09:18.000 align:middle line:84%
But yeah, but
we'll go with that.

00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:27.780 align:middle line:84%
Three filled-in circles between
two lines with more lines.

00:09:27.780 --> 00:09:29.860 align:middle line:90%
Something like that.

00:09:29.860 --> 00:09:33.000 align:middle line:84%
Which one of these
does Selfridge-Field

00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:35.670 align:middle line:84%
consider to be on the
graphical domain and which

00:09:35.670 --> 00:09:36.863 align:middle line:90%
one to be on the logical?

00:09:36.863 --> 00:09:42.780 align:middle line:90%


00:09:42.780 --> 00:09:44.940 align:middle line:90%
Too obvious?

00:09:44.940 --> 00:09:47.030 align:middle line:90%
Shout it out.

00:09:47.030 --> 00:09:49.310 align:middle line:90%
Graphical or logical?

00:09:49.310 --> 00:09:50.610 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Graphical.

00:09:50.610 --> 00:09:51.110 align:middle line:90%
Logical.

00:09:51.110 --> 00:09:58.850 align:middle line:90%


00:09:58.850 --> 00:10:00.920 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Describe the thing

00:10:00.920 --> 00:10:05.260 align:middle line:84%
that is pointing to you in the
most graphical form you can.

00:10:05.260 --> 00:10:08.510 align:middle line:90%


00:10:08.510 --> 00:10:10.550 align:middle line:84%
Does anyone want to
take a shot at this?

00:10:10.550 --> 00:10:13.340 align:middle line:84%
Matthew, do you want to take
a shot, what it's pointing to,

00:10:13.340 --> 00:10:15.320 align:middle line:90%
the most graphical?

00:10:15.320 --> 00:10:19.370 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: It's a flag hanging
off the end of the stem.

00:10:19.370 --> 00:10:21.830 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: It's a
flag hanging off of a stem.

00:10:21.830 --> 00:10:26.210 align:middle line:90%
Who wants to go even further?

00:10:26.210 --> 00:10:28.010 align:middle line:90%
Back, this corner?

00:10:28.010 --> 00:10:28.600 align:middle line:90%
Take a shot.

00:10:28.600 --> 00:10:33.110 align:middle line:90%


00:10:33.110 --> 00:10:37.953 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: A strip that
decreases in width in a curled--

00:10:37.953 --> 00:10:39.620 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: A
strip that decreases

00:10:39.620 --> 00:10:42.480 align:middle line:90%
in width in a curled manner.

00:10:42.480 --> 00:10:43.010 align:middle line:90%
Yeah.

00:10:43.010 --> 00:10:46.430 align:middle line:84%
So I think we can go
further even than a flag.

00:10:46.430 --> 00:10:49.990 align:middle line:90%
But we have curled strip thing.

00:10:49.990 --> 00:10:54.050 align:middle line:84%
Your interpretation
says, oh, that's a flag.

00:10:54.050 --> 00:10:58.820 align:middle line:84%
And then there's a next level up
says flags represent duration.

00:10:58.820 --> 00:11:01.210 align:middle line:84%
So we can go in
all these worlds.

00:11:01.210 --> 00:11:05.110 align:middle line:84%
And why I love this
article, even though it's

00:11:05.110 --> 00:11:12.535 align:middle line:84%
now over 20 years old, is that
nobody puts out so clearly to me

00:11:12.535 --> 00:11:16.430 align:middle line:84%
to think about what all
these things actually mean.

00:11:16.430 --> 00:11:18.740 align:middle line:90%
So we have three domains.

00:11:18.740 --> 00:11:20.800 align:middle line:90%
Let's talk about the sound--

00:11:20.800 --> 00:11:23.110 align:middle line:84%
the context, she says,
is the term she uses.

00:11:23.110 --> 00:11:24.680 align:middle line:90%
I call them domains in my head.

00:11:24.680 --> 00:11:26.590 align:middle line:90%
We'll use her term, context.

00:11:26.590 --> 00:11:32.140 align:middle line:84%
Sound, graphical, or she
mostly uses the word logical.

00:11:32.140 --> 00:11:40.060 align:middle line:84%
But semantic or semantical
is also a term that's used.

00:11:40.060 --> 00:11:44.250 align:middle line:84%
And that one is
coming up a lot more.

00:11:44.250 --> 00:11:48.430 align:middle line:90%
Together, these last two parts--

00:11:48.430 --> 00:11:51.188 align:middle line:84%
and we're pretty good at
distinguishing between sound

00:11:51.188 --> 00:11:52.480 align:middle line:90%
and either of these other ones.

00:11:52.480 --> 00:11:52.980 align:middle line:90%
Right?

00:11:52.980 --> 00:11:55.350 align:middle line:90%
Yeah.

00:11:55.350 --> 00:11:59.070 align:middle line:84%
Together these last two, we'll
sometimes put them together

00:11:59.070 --> 00:11:59.670 align:middle line:90%
as symbolic.

00:11:59.670 --> 00:12:03.540 align:middle line:90%


00:12:03.540 --> 00:12:06.990 align:middle line:84%
These are things that
deal with symbols

00:12:06.990 --> 00:12:09.580 align:middle line:84%
on a page or
conceptually on a page,

00:12:09.580 --> 00:12:13.920 align:middle line:84%
or conceptually written
or conceptually written.

00:12:13.920 --> 00:12:14.520 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:12:14.520 --> 00:12:19.620 align:middle line:84%
Now, she says in her
article which one of these

00:12:19.620 --> 00:12:21.123 align:middle line:90%
holds the most interest.

00:12:21.123 --> 00:12:23.860 align:middle line:90%


00:12:23.860 --> 00:12:24.360 align:middle line:90%
Talking.

00:12:24.360 --> 00:12:30.080 align:middle line:90%


00:12:30.080 --> 00:12:31.660 align:middle line:90%
No one remember this?

00:12:31.660 --> 00:12:32.200 align:middle line:90%
It's OK.

00:12:32.200 --> 00:12:34.767 align:middle line:84%
It's a longish
article, But yeah?

00:12:34.767 --> 00:12:35.850 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Is it graphical?

00:12:35.850 --> 00:12:37.740 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Graphical.

00:12:37.740 --> 00:12:38.980 align:middle line:90%
Unfortunately not.

00:12:38.980 --> 00:12:39.760 align:middle line:90%
But thanks.

00:12:39.760 --> 00:12:41.900 align:middle line:90%
Thanks for taking a bold stand.

00:12:41.900 --> 00:12:42.540 align:middle line:90%
Stuff's good.

00:12:42.540 --> 00:12:44.370 align:middle line:90%
We've eliminated graphical.

00:12:44.370 --> 00:12:47.180 align:middle line:90%
Which one?

00:12:47.180 --> 00:12:48.610 align:middle line:90%
Want to take a guess?

00:12:48.610 --> 00:12:52.160 align:middle line:90%


00:12:52.160 --> 00:12:53.997 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I'm
going to say sound.

00:12:53.997 --> 00:12:55.580 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
You would say sound,

00:12:55.580 --> 00:13:01.230 align:middle line:84%
and you would be with
most human beings.

00:13:01.230 --> 00:13:04.460 align:middle line:84%
Because most people
buy many more CDs

00:13:04.460 --> 00:13:08.580 align:middle line:84%
than they buy abstract musical
scores encoded in computers.

00:13:08.580 --> 00:13:12.150 align:middle line:90%
But she's really on the logical.

00:13:12.150 --> 00:13:15.410 align:middle line:90%
So it's good.

00:13:15.410 --> 00:13:16.770 align:middle line:90%
So sound, yeah.

00:13:16.770 --> 00:13:19.590 align:middle line:84%
Sound is what most of
us work with in music.

00:13:19.590 --> 00:13:23.490 align:middle line:84%
But for her purposes, for the
purposes of representation,

00:13:23.490 --> 00:13:27.060 align:middle line:84%
she especially-- she was really
interested in logical things.

00:13:27.060 --> 00:13:28.100 align:middle line:90%
Thanks.

00:13:28.100 --> 00:13:28.710 align:middle line:90%
Right.

00:13:28.710 --> 00:13:32.100 align:middle line:84%
Everybody who didn't speak was
thinking of logical and things.

00:13:32.100 --> 00:13:37.850 align:middle line:84%
No, thank you, bold people,
for taking a stab at this.

00:13:37.850 --> 00:13:38.610 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:13:38.610 --> 00:13:43.720 align:middle line:84%
So one of the things that she
talks about later on-- do you

00:13:43.720 --> 00:13:46.130 align:middle line:84%
remember that she talks
about musical scores?

00:13:46.130 --> 00:13:52.810 align:middle line:84%
And anyone remember any sorts
of musical scores she brings in?

00:13:52.810 --> 00:13:55.830 align:middle line:84%
Some funny ones and
some pretty normal ones.

00:13:55.830 --> 00:13:59.020 align:middle line:90%


00:13:59.020 --> 00:14:02.440 align:middle line:84%
We had a lot more fun on
our problem set this weekend

00:14:02.440 --> 00:14:04.070 align:middle line:90%
than reading time.

00:14:04.070 --> 00:14:08.670 align:middle line:84%
I can tell went in, but not
in the depth that usual.

00:14:08.670 --> 00:14:12.070 align:middle line:90%


00:14:12.070 --> 00:14:14.530 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Second trio from
the Mozart clarinet quintet?

00:14:14.530 --> 00:14:17.440 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Second trio
from the Mozart clarinet quintet

00:14:17.440 --> 00:14:18.560 align:middle line:90%
was the first one.

00:14:18.560 --> 00:14:20.240 align:middle line:90%
She also-- thank you.

00:14:20.240 --> 00:14:21.927 align:middle line:90%
Thank you, Jake.

00:14:21.927 --> 00:14:23.510 align:middle line:84%
You're allowed to
have computers open,

00:14:23.510 --> 00:14:25.850 align:middle line:84%
so you can also look
at these if you want.

00:14:25.850 --> 00:14:28.370 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, she also
talks-- oops, sorry.

00:14:28.370 --> 00:14:29.090 align:middle line:90%
Thank you.

00:14:29.090 --> 00:14:33.550 align:middle line:84%
Somebody-- I'm going to get an
assigned task for each person

00:14:33.550 --> 00:14:35.630 align:middle line:84%
to fix various
stupid Cuthbertisms.

00:14:35.630 --> 00:14:39.400 align:middle line:84%
So I'm going to want one
person to be the "we can't see

00:14:39.400 --> 00:14:43.620 align:middle line:84%
anything" task and one person
for the "the thing is rolled

00:14:43.620 --> 00:14:44.120 align:middle line:90%
up."

00:14:44.120 --> 00:14:44.840 align:middle line:90%
OK, yeah.

00:14:44.840 --> 00:14:47.050 align:middle line:84%
So this particular
one-- she also does

00:14:47.050 --> 00:14:50.020 align:middle line:84%
some other things,
including Gregorian chant,

00:14:50.020 --> 00:14:54.370 align:middle line:84%
a lot of things representing a
music historical perspective.

00:14:54.370 --> 00:14:57.010 align:middle line:90%
And each one chosen--

00:14:57.010 --> 00:14:59.440 align:middle line:84%
many of the later ones
chosen because they

00:14:59.440 --> 00:15:04.390 align:middle line:84%
have a particular interest and
difficulty in representing.

00:15:04.390 --> 00:15:09.280 align:middle line:84%
Part of your problem set two
is to make a contribution

00:15:09.280 --> 00:15:14.500 align:middle line:84%
to that set of repertory,
that when you say

00:15:14.500 --> 00:15:17.530 align:middle line:84%
and you will hear
software people coming up

00:15:17.530 --> 00:15:20.170 align:middle line:84%
with things who haven't been
taking the full liberal arts

00:15:20.170 --> 00:15:22.690 align:middle line:84%
education in music, oh,
I have a system that

00:15:22.690 --> 00:15:24.170 align:middle line:90%
can represent all music.

00:15:24.170 --> 00:15:25.970 align:middle line:90%
I want to be like, great.

00:15:25.970 --> 00:15:27.550 align:middle line:90%
Here's DDR.

00:15:27.550 --> 00:15:29.210 align:middle line:84%
Show me how your
system represents it.

00:15:29.210 --> 00:15:32.180 align:middle line:90%
Here's South Indian music.

00:15:32.180 --> 00:15:32.840 align:middle line:90%
How does it?

00:15:32.840 --> 00:15:35.600 align:middle line:90%
So these are all challenges.

00:15:35.600 --> 00:15:38.600 align:middle line:84%
And there'll never be a system
that can represent all of them.

00:15:38.600 --> 00:15:46.180 align:middle line:84%
But hence why most of us will
avoid the "all music" things.

00:15:46.180 --> 00:15:51.640 align:middle line:84%
This particular score has
had about as much impact

00:15:51.640 --> 00:15:55.960 align:middle line:84%
from the article as
this diagram had.

00:15:55.960 --> 00:16:00.670 align:middle line:84%
It's become the "Hello, World--"
a little bit more complex than

00:16:00.670 --> 00:16:04.340 align:middle line:84%
"Hello, World--" of music
representation encoding.

00:16:04.340 --> 00:16:07.840 align:middle line:84%
Anyone know from computers
explain what a "Hello, World"

00:16:07.840 --> 00:16:10.260 align:middle line:90%
is?

00:16:10.260 --> 00:16:10.760 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:16:10.760 --> 00:16:12.220 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Kind of the basic
file that everyone writes

00:16:12.220 --> 00:16:13.495 align:middle line:90%
at the beginning as a sample.

00:16:13.495 --> 00:16:13.900 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yep.

00:16:13.900 --> 00:16:15.320 align:middle line:84%
And what do you do
with "Hello, World?

00:16:15.320 --> 00:16:15.790 align:middle line:90%
You?

00:16:15.790 --> 00:16:16.670 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: You print it out.

00:16:16.670 --> 00:16:18.260 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Print it out somewhere.

00:16:18.260 --> 00:16:18.760 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:16:18.760 --> 00:16:21.820 align:middle line:84%
And some languages, you
put that backslash n.

00:16:21.820 --> 00:16:23.300 align:middle line:90%
Otherwise, nothing prints.

00:16:23.300 --> 00:16:24.110 align:middle line:90%
Yep, great.

00:16:24.110 --> 00:16:27.070 align:middle line:84%
So it's how do you do
something very simple

00:16:27.070 --> 00:16:28.340 align:middle line:90%
in a programming language?

00:16:28.340 --> 00:16:31.160 align:middle line:84%
This piece, or at least
the clarinet part,

00:16:31.160 --> 00:16:37.180 align:middle line:84%
the top part of the five, has
become that piece, at least one

00:16:37.180 --> 00:16:37.680 align:middle line:90%
of it.

00:16:37.680 --> 00:16:40.280 align:middle line:84%
So I think we should
at least hear it once

00:16:40.280 --> 00:16:41.580 align:middle line:90%
so we can get it in our head.

00:16:41.580 --> 00:16:49.130 align:middle line:84%
Oh, and just so I can hear,
kind of go "whoop" when--

00:16:49.130 --> 00:16:50.900 align:middle line:84%
you might do it
involuntarily-- when

00:16:50.900 --> 00:16:54.390 align:middle line:84%
something happens that's not in
this score, from this recording.

00:16:54.390 --> 00:16:57.318 align:middle line:90%
[MUSIC PLAYING]

00:16:57.318 --> 00:17:28.400 align:middle line:90%


00:17:28.400 --> 00:17:29.280 align:middle line:90%
No, Adam got it.

00:17:29.280 --> 00:17:32.030 align:middle line:90%
Anybody else?

00:17:32.030 --> 00:17:34.169 align:middle line:90%
Jeff, what was--

00:17:34.169 --> 00:17:36.752 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: It kind of glazed over
the triplet at the beginning.

00:17:36.752 --> 00:17:38.877 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: It glazed
over the triplet, yeah.

00:17:38.877 --> 00:17:40.342 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:17:40.342 --> 00:17:43.210 align:middle line:84%
Which is kind of a
problematic performance

00:17:43.210 --> 00:17:45.730 align:middle line:84%
for this particular one because
one of the reasons why this

00:17:45.730 --> 00:17:48.130 align:middle line:84%
was almost certainly
chosen was, can your system

00:17:48.130 --> 00:17:50.305 align:middle line:90%
represent triplets?

00:17:50.305 --> 00:17:53.080 align:middle line:84%
The performers
playing on a clarinet

00:17:53.080 --> 00:17:57.100 align:middle line:84%
that we hypothesize Mozart
originally wrote this for that

00:17:57.100 --> 00:17:59.660 align:middle line:84%
could go two notes
lower than this,

00:17:59.660 --> 00:18:03.520 align:middle line:84%
and so played those low
notes instead of starting

00:18:03.520 --> 00:18:04.610 align:middle line:90%
high and going down.

00:18:04.610 --> 00:18:05.710 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:18:05.710 --> 00:18:09.830 align:middle line:84%
So this is the "Hello, World"
piece that you'll be getting.

00:18:09.830 --> 00:18:14.480 align:middle line:84%
Any other thoughts about
Eleanor Suffrage-Field's work?

00:18:14.480 --> 00:18:17.580 align:middle line:84%
We'll come back to her more
as the semester comes on.

00:18:17.580 --> 00:18:21.790 align:middle line:90%


00:18:21.790 --> 00:18:27.620 align:middle line:84%
Well, just a reminder, there's
one exam in this class.

00:18:27.620 --> 00:18:32.290 align:middle line:84%
And it's the midterm, but it's
about 2/3 of the way through

00:18:32.290 --> 00:18:32.870 align:middle line:90%
the semester.

00:18:32.870 --> 00:18:36.880 align:middle line:84%
And it's the only one that's
not based at all on programming

00:18:36.880 --> 00:18:40.853 align:middle line:84%
but based on readings
and the big thoughts.

00:18:40.853 --> 00:18:42.270 align:middle line:84%
I put it that way
so that you have

00:18:42.270 --> 00:18:44.562 align:middle line:84%
these readings and big thoughts
going through your head

00:18:44.562 --> 00:18:46.800 align:middle line:84%
as you start working
on your final projects.

00:18:46.800 --> 00:18:48.060 align:middle line:90%
I think this is--

00:18:48.060 --> 00:18:50.070 align:middle line:84%
I think you can
pretty much count

00:18:50.070 --> 00:18:52.650 align:middle line:84%
that some thoughts of this
and some of these questions

00:18:52.650 --> 00:18:53.470 align:middle line:90%
might be on there.

00:18:53.470 --> 00:18:56.470 align:middle line:84%
So give it another read
when you get a chance.

00:18:56.470 --> 00:19:03.300 align:middle line:84%
And let's move on to
Nicholas Cook's comparative

00:19:03.300 --> 00:19:06.550 align:middle line:84%
versus computational
musicology article.

00:19:06.550 --> 00:19:08.160 align:middle line:84%
And here, I've given
you the questions

00:19:08.160 --> 00:19:12.420 align:middle line:84%
I'm going to be asking, written
down on the outline today.

00:19:12.420 --> 00:19:17.105 align:middle line:84%
And so take a second to
jot down some of the notes.

00:19:17.105 --> 00:19:18.480 align:middle line:84%
So you probably
already have them

00:19:18.480 --> 00:19:23.270 align:middle line:84%
because I gave you these
also on the Canvas site

00:19:23.270 --> 00:19:27.060 align:middle line:90%
you've been thinking about.

00:19:27.060 --> 00:19:30.600 align:middle line:84%
Take a second while I
play a little example

00:19:30.600 --> 00:19:37.020 align:middle line:84%
from the first piece
that he discusses.

00:19:37.020 --> 00:19:38.952 align:middle line:90%
[MUSIC PLAYING]

00:19:38.952 --> 00:20:19.640 align:middle line:90%


00:20:19.640 --> 00:20:23.965 align:middle line:84%
Anyone know 2001, Space
Odyssey is one of the pieces?

00:20:23.965 --> 00:20:28.040 align:middle line:90%


00:20:28.040 --> 00:20:33.957 align:middle line:84%
OK, so we'll get back to this
and what he uses this piece

00:20:33.957 --> 00:20:34.790 align:middle line:90%
for in a little bit.

00:20:34.790 --> 00:20:39.280 align:middle line:84%
But first thing is kind of
the fundamental question,

00:20:39.280 --> 00:20:42.140 align:middle line:84%
a couple of the fundamental
questions about--

00:20:42.140 --> 00:20:44.440 align:middle line:84%
what does he mean,
there's no such thing

00:20:44.440 --> 00:20:48.640 align:middle line:84%
as a good or bad
representation of music per se?

00:20:48.640 --> 00:20:51.070 align:middle line:90%
Vanessa?

00:20:51.070 --> 00:20:54.100 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Just to the
point is that all that's

00:20:54.100 --> 00:20:57.160 align:middle line:84%
particularly good or bad about
it is depending on what you're

00:20:57.160 --> 00:20:58.365 align:middle line:90%
attempting to use it for.

00:20:58.365 --> 00:20:59.740 align:middle line:84%
So there are
different situations

00:20:59.740 --> 00:21:01.198 align:middle line:84%
where certain
characteristics might

00:21:01.198 --> 00:21:02.690 align:middle line:90%
be more beneficial than others.

00:21:02.690 --> 00:21:05.153 align:middle line:84%
And in that scenario, you can
make a good or a bad choice.

00:21:05.153 --> 00:21:06.820 align:middle line:84%
But it doesn't mean
that it's all-around

00:21:06.820 --> 00:21:07.630 align:middle line:90%
a good or a bad choice.

00:21:07.630 --> 00:21:08.630 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Great.

00:21:08.630 --> 00:21:09.860 align:middle line:90%
So, fantastic.

00:21:09.860 --> 00:21:12.890 align:middle line:84%
I think that really captures
a lot of what Cook is saying.

00:21:12.890 --> 00:21:17.320 align:middle line:84%
It all depends on what you're
trying to get out of it, what

00:21:17.320 --> 00:21:18.290 align:middle line:90%
are you trying to do.

00:21:18.290 --> 00:21:21.460 align:middle line:84%
So some of your
own representations

00:21:21.460 --> 00:21:25.090 align:middle line:84%
are going to be really bad
representations, even if you get

00:21:25.090 --> 00:21:29.610 align:middle line:90%
an A-plus for certain things.

00:21:29.610 --> 00:21:33.060 align:middle line:84%
Oh, did I have the
whole recording going?

00:21:33.060 --> 00:21:35.550 align:middle line:84%
But they could be
great representations

00:21:35.550 --> 00:21:37.320 align:middle line:90%
for some other things.

00:21:37.320 --> 00:21:40.800 align:middle line:84%
Somebody want to give an
example, either from the reading

00:21:40.800 --> 00:21:43.388 align:middle line:84%
or from your own
thoughts, but maybe

00:21:43.388 --> 00:21:45.180 align:middle line:84%
preferably from the
reading if you have it,

00:21:45.180 --> 00:21:52.617 align:middle line:84%
of what one representation that
would be bad in a specific case

00:21:52.617 --> 00:21:54.450 align:middle line:84%
and the same representation,
how it could be

00:21:54.450 --> 00:21:57.870 align:middle line:90%
really good for something else?

00:21:57.870 --> 00:21:59.227 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, go ahead, Shruti.

00:21:59.227 --> 00:22:01.810 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I guess I just wanted
to tell, but at the beginning,

00:22:01.810 --> 00:22:04.523 align:middle line:84%
they had a lot of charts
that represented pieces.

00:22:04.523 --> 00:22:05.940 align:middle line:84%
And they mentioned
that this would

00:22:05.940 --> 00:22:09.240 align:middle line:84%
be really good for comparing
the formats of different pieces

00:22:09.240 --> 00:22:12.130 align:middle line:84%
to each other or finding
similarities between repertoire.

00:22:12.130 --> 00:22:13.830 align:middle line:84%
But for example, a
performer wouldn't

00:22:13.830 --> 00:22:15.570 align:middle line:84%
be able to use this
representation.

00:22:15.570 --> 00:22:16.737 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Fantastic.

00:22:16.737 --> 00:22:21.060 align:middle line:84%
So Cook begins his article by
showing certain charts that

00:22:21.060 --> 00:22:25.540 align:middle line:84%
might help compare
similarities across pieces

00:22:25.540 --> 00:22:27.780 align:middle line:84%
but not be very good
for a performer.

00:22:27.780 --> 00:22:32.760 align:middle line:84%
So this is from the same
piece, from "Lux Aeterna,"

00:22:32.760 --> 00:22:37.880 align:middle line:84%
one of the parts showing at any
given moment what the full range

00:22:37.880 --> 00:22:39.130 align:middle line:90%
of the piece is.

00:22:39.130 --> 00:22:42.401 align:middle line:90%


00:22:42.401 --> 00:22:45.050 align:middle line:84%
What can you say
about what happens

00:22:45.050 --> 00:22:49.826 align:middle line:84%
to the range of the piece
around measure 60 to 65?

00:22:49.826 --> 00:22:55.610 align:middle line:90%


00:22:55.610 --> 00:22:58.610 align:middle line:90%
Does anyone want to take a--

00:22:58.610 --> 00:23:00.860 align:middle line:90%
yeah, go ahead.

00:23:00.860 --> 00:23:03.320 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: The average pitch
just increases overall.

00:23:03.320 --> 00:23:05.377 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
The average pitch?

00:23:05.377 --> 00:23:06.210 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Frequency?

00:23:06.210 --> 00:23:07.377 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Frequency.

00:23:07.377 --> 00:23:11.440 align:middle line:84%
The average frequency
increases quite a bit there.

00:23:11.440 --> 00:23:13.340 align:middle line:84%
Anything else you
could say about it

00:23:13.340 --> 00:23:16.230 align:middle line:84%
that's going more specific
even that the average pitch?

00:23:16.230 --> 00:23:19.480 align:middle line:84%
Because that's also a very good
representation, average pitch.

00:23:19.480 --> 00:23:19.980 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Adam?

00:23:19.980 --> 00:23:21.020 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: There's a
descending sequence

00:23:21.020 --> 00:23:23.220 align:middle line:84%
that goes throughout the
canon and alto chord.

00:23:23.220 --> 00:23:24.680 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
There's-- yeah,

00:23:24.680 --> 00:23:28.100 align:middle line:84%
there's a descending line
sequence, something like that,

00:23:28.100 --> 00:23:29.530 align:middle line:90%
that's continuing on.

00:23:29.530 --> 00:23:32.733 align:middle line:84%
And then it continues,
but what else happens?

00:23:32.733 --> 00:23:35.770 align:middle line:90%


00:23:35.770 --> 00:23:36.610 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Jason?

00:23:36.610 --> 00:23:38.960 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: A bunch of
voices up here in the top?

00:23:38.960 --> 00:23:39.960 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Great.

00:23:39.960 --> 00:23:43.360 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, a bunch of voices
come in at the top.

00:23:43.360 --> 00:23:47.860 align:middle line:84%
And the topmost ones maybe also
have a descending sequence.

00:23:47.860 --> 00:23:49.460 align:middle line:90%
That's great.

00:23:49.460 --> 00:23:53.120 align:middle line:84%
Now, you can get all of
this from a musical score,

00:23:53.120 --> 00:23:57.160 align:middle line:90%
but we'll go back here.

00:23:57.160 --> 00:24:02.740 align:middle line:84%
Where's the first point that
there's two different notes?

00:24:02.740 --> 00:24:03.850 align:middle line:90%
This measure?

00:24:03.850 --> 00:24:05.900 align:middle line:90%
Here, here, here.

00:24:05.900 --> 00:24:10.450 align:middle line:90%


00:24:10.450 --> 00:24:11.510 align:middle line:90%
You could do it.

00:24:11.510 --> 00:24:12.440 align:middle line:90%
You can do it.

00:24:12.440 --> 00:24:17.537 align:middle line:84%
But that is what this is not
a very good representation of.

00:24:17.537 --> 00:24:20.120 align:middle line:84%
On the other hand, it's a very
good representation for seeing,

00:24:20.120 --> 00:24:21.745 align:middle line:84%
oh, my gosh, I'm
going to have to count

00:24:21.745 --> 00:24:25.721 align:middle line:84%
really hard if I want to get in
exactly at that right moment.

00:24:25.721 --> 00:24:29.920 align:middle line:84%
But second representation
showing the number of different

00:24:29.920 --> 00:24:31.010 align:middle line:90%
notes.

00:24:31.010 --> 00:24:34.090 align:middle line:84%
Pitch count graph-- how many
different notes are being sung--

00:24:34.090 --> 00:24:36.880 align:middle line:90%
is a very good representation.

00:24:36.880 --> 00:24:38.810 align:middle line:90%
If you just wanted to--

00:24:38.810 --> 00:24:42.158 align:middle line:84%
now you're doing your next
horror film or something.

00:24:42.158 --> 00:24:43.700 align:middle line:84%
And you're a big
Stanley Kubrick fan,

00:24:43.700 --> 00:24:46.700 align:middle line:84%
so you're going to rip
off what he did in 2001.

00:24:46.700 --> 00:24:50.480 align:middle line:84%
But you just need a five-second
clip for your scariest part.

00:24:50.480 --> 00:24:52.298 align:middle line:90%
Where are you going to choose?

00:24:52.298 --> 00:24:53.340 align:middle line:90%
Give me a measure number.

00:24:53.340 --> 00:24:57.990 align:middle line:90%


00:24:57.990 --> 00:24:58.990 align:middle line:90%
Adam, give me something.

00:24:58.990 --> 00:25:00.200 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: 52, 53.

00:25:00.200 --> 00:25:01.310 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 52, 53.

00:25:01.310 --> 00:25:02.840 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, right?

00:25:02.840 --> 00:25:04.690 align:middle line:84%
We have a whole bunch
of different pitches,

00:25:04.690 --> 00:25:06.680 align:middle line:90%
all sounding at the same time.

00:25:06.680 --> 00:25:07.970 align:middle line:90%
That could be really tense.

00:25:07.970 --> 00:25:10.360 align:middle line:84%
I think this is
talking about pitches

00:25:10.360 --> 00:25:12.320 align:middle line:90%
without octave, pitch classes.

00:25:12.320 --> 00:25:14.020 align:middle line:90%
You all know that term now.

00:25:14.020 --> 00:25:15.830 align:middle line:84%
So yeah, a lot of
things happening.

00:25:15.830 --> 00:25:20.980 align:middle line:84%
Very easy to do in this graph
but very hard to do in others.

00:25:20.980 --> 00:25:26.610 align:middle line:84%
So goes through some of
the different things.

00:25:26.610 --> 00:25:29.310 align:middle line:90%
Now-- oh.

00:25:29.310 --> 00:25:31.810 align:middle line:84%
This-- sorry, I
just forgot on this.

00:25:31.810 --> 00:25:38.640 align:middle line:84%
This one-- can you perform
from this one, from this graph?

00:25:38.640 --> 00:25:39.760 align:middle line:90%
See a lot of nos.

00:25:39.760 --> 00:25:43.200 align:middle line:84%
I see some ups. I
see some-- yeah.

00:25:43.200 --> 00:25:47.280 align:middle line:84%
It's not the best
thing for being

00:25:47.280 --> 00:25:49.030 align:middle line:90%
able to perform that piece.

00:25:49.030 --> 00:25:52.290 align:middle line:84%
Probably not the best thing, but
you can almost perform from it

00:25:52.290 --> 00:25:54.880 align:middle line:90%
from the range graph thing.

00:25:54.880 --> 00:25:59.700 align:middle line:84%
So there's some things
that are in between better.

00:25:59.700 --> 00:26:01.420 align:middle line:90%
The pitch count graph--

00:26:01.420 --> 00:26:03.180 align:middle line:90%
can you perform from this?

00:26:03.180 --> 00:26:04.350 align:middle line:90%
No.

00:26:04.350 --> 00:26:07.060 align:middle line:84%
Though you could-- I mean,
thinking about in the future,

00:26:07.060 --> 00:26:09.300 align:middle line:84%
you could take a piece
of this pitch count graph

00:26:09.300 --> 00:26:12.690 align:middle line:84%
and use a computer to write
a different piece that had

00:26:12.690 --> 00:26:14.820 align:middle line:90%
the same pitch count profile.

00:26:14.820 --> 00:26:18.120 align:middle line:84%
And it might be an
interesting type of thing.

00:26:18.120 --> 00:26:21.230 align:middle line:84%
But yeah, you couldn't
perform the same piece

00:26:21.230 --> 00:26:26.230 align:middle line:84%
for some ontological
definition of the same piece.

00:26:26.230 --> 00:26:26.730 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:26:26.730 --> 00:26:28.400 align:middle line:90%
We can skip the entrance graph.

00:26:28.400 --> 00:26:32.150 align:middle line:90%
The second piece talks about--

00:26:32.150 --> 00:26:35.550 align:middle line:84%
oh, this is the Bartok
string quartet, number 4.

00:26:35.550 --> 00:26:36.500 align:middle line:90%
Oops.

00:26:36.500 --> 00:26:38.160 align:middle line:90%
We'll get a tiny--

00:26:38.160 --> 00:26:41.360 align:middle line:84%
if it's working-- few seconds
of that, if it doesn't give me

00:26:41.360 --> 00:26:44.300 align:middle line:90%
a YouTube ad.

00:26:44.300 --> 00:26:44.900 align:middle line:90%
Nope.

00:26:44.900 --> 00:26:47.810 align:middle line:90%
OK.

00:26:47.810 --> 00:26:50.930 align:middle line:90%
Bartok, similar era.

00:26:50.930 --> 00:26:54.770 align:middle line:84%
A little bit earlier
composer, also Hungarian.

00:26:54.770 --> 00:26:57.050 align:middle line:90%
So this is showing--

00:26:57.050 --> 00:26:58.200 align:middle line:90%
what is this showing?

00:26:58.200 --> 00:26:59.270 align:middle line:90%
Anyone remember?

00:26:59.270 --> 00:27:03.620 align:middle line:84%
Somebody who I haven't
heard from yet?

00:27:03.620 --> 00:27:05.800 align:middle line:90%
Jonathan, do you remember this?

00:27:05.800 --> 00:27:08.870 align:middle line:90%


00:27:08.870 --> 00:27:10.130 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Sound waves?

00:27:10.130 --> 00:27:11.380 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Sound waves.

00:27:11.380 --> 00:27:12.960 align:middle line:90%
What particular parts of it?

00:27:12.960 --> 00:27:14.950 align:middle line:90%
Anybody have that?

00:27:14.950 --> 00:27:17.222 align:middle line:90%


00:27:17.222 --> 00:27:18.180 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: I'm not sure.

00:27:18.180 --> 00:27:18.660 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
You're not sure.

00:27:18.660 --> 00:27:19.160 align:middle line:90%
OK, good.

00:27:19.160 --> 00:27:19.660 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:27:19.660 --> 00:27:21.070 align:middle line:84%
"Not sure" saves
the whole class.

00:27:21.070 --> 00:27:22.410 align:middle line:90%
OK, Super!

00:27:22.410 --> 00:27:23.350 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Harmonics?

00:27:23.350 --> 00:27:24.517 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Harmonics?

00:27:24.517 --> 00:27:26.960 align:middle line:90%
No, not exactly.

00:27:26.960 --> 00:27:27.520 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:27:27.520 --> 00:27:28.353 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Amplitude.

00:27:28.353 --> 00:27:31.690 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Amplitude--
how loud each part is.

00:27:31.690 --> 00:27:33.860 align:middle line:84%
What does it mean when the
viola is really, really,

00:27:33.860 --> 00:27:36.220 align:middle line:90%
really, really quiet?

00:27:36.220 --> 00:27:37.240 align:middle line:90%
It's not playing, yep.

00:27:37.240 --> 00:27:39.100 align:middle line:84%
So you can quickly
see which parts

00:27:39.100 --> 00:27:42.400 align:middle line:84%
are playing where and then
somehow make a composite that

00:27:42.400 --> 00:27:45.550 align:middle line:90%
is more like the--

00:27:45.550 --> 00:27:49.044 align:middle line:84%
what do you call it, the
amplitude wave type--

00:27:49.044 --> 00:27:53.050 align:middle line:84%
the sound wave of
the piece as a whole.

00:27:53.050 --> 00:27:55.810 align:middle line:90%
So yeah.

00:27:55.810 --> 00:27:57.830 align:middle line:84%
This is one of the
ones in that article,

00:27:57.830 --> 00:27:59.705 align:middle line:84%
one of the moments, that
I'm always like, eh,

00:27:59.705 --> 00:28:01.220 align:middle line:90%
doesn't get so much out of it.

00:28:01.220 --> 00:28:05.900 align:middle line:84%
But because this is the type of
thing computational people do,

00:28:05.900 --> 00:28:09.610 align:middle line:84%
wrote my own program to
generate the same thing.

00:28:09.610 --> 00:28:18.250 align:middle line:84%
This is a piece by Joseph
Haydn around, I guess, 1790,

00:28:18.250 --> 00:28:20.830 align:middle line:90%
called "The Surprise Symphony."

00:28:20.830 --> 00:28:24.340 align:middle line:84%
Anyone know where the surprise
happens from looking at this?

00:28:24.340 --> 00:28:25.270 align:middle line:90%
Yeah.

00:28:25.270 --> 00:28:29.060 align:middle line:84%
So sometimes these
things can be very great.

00:28:29.060 --> 00:28:31.480 align:middle line:84%
I didn't even realize,
though, that the dynamics

00:28:31.480 --> 00:28:34.190 align:middle line:84%
were kind of thinning
out leading up to it.

00:28:34.190 --> 00:28:38.680 align:middle line:84%
I always knew that there was one
gigantic chord right about here.

00:28:38.680 --> 00:28:41.590 align:middle line:84%
I'll go on, and you can see
the various other places

00:28:41.590 --> 00:28:42.740 align:middle line:90%
that these things happen.

00:28:42.740 --> 00:28:48.580 align:middle line:84%
So these can be good
representations for some things.

00:28:48.580 --> 00:28:51.320 align:middle line:84%
So what's this Humdrum
that he's talking about?

00:28:51.320 --> 00:28:54.710 align:middle line:90%
Anybody remember this part?

00:28:54.710 --> 00:28:56.320 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:28:56.320 --> 00:28:59.740 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: It's a framework
which [INAUDIBLE] serves

00:28:59.740 --> 00:29:04.350 align:middle line:84%
as a way to manipulate
data into new units.

00:29:04.350 --> 00:29:05.350 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Great.

00:29:05.350 --> 00:29:08.380 align:middle line:84%
So it's a-- I think I heard
it's a framework that's

00:29:08.380 --> 00:29:13.460 align:middle line:84%
used to manipulate musical
data in the Unix terminal.

00:29:13.460 --> 00:29:14.740 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:29:14.740 --> 00:29:17.090 align:middle line:84%
It's written by--
it was originally

00:29:17.090 --> 00:29:21.020 align:middle line:84%
written by music
cognition and perception

00:29:21.020 --> 00:29:24.890 align:middle line:84%
and theory specialist,
David Huron,

00:29:24.890 --> 00:29:28.340 align:middle line:84%
who we're going to read a lot
about what he used Humdrum

00:29:28.340 --> 00:29:31.440 align:middle line:90%
to demonstrate new about music.

00:29:31.440 --> 00:29:35.300 align:middle line:84%
But right now, we're
looking at, oh, what he did.

00:29:35.300 --> 00:29:41.630 align:middle line:84%
Humdrum is in many ways
the predecessor to music21.

00:29:41.630 --> 00:29:47.250 align:middle line:84%
And a lecture that David Huron,
the inventor, gave when I was--

00:29:47.250 --> 00:29:50.700 align:middle line:84%
I think I was a first-year
grad student-- changed my life.

00:29:50.700 --> 00:29:51.630 align:middle line:90%
I'm like, oh, my gosh.

00:29:51.630 --> 00:29:52.380 align:middle line:90%
I want to do this.

00:29:52.380 --> 00:29:55.650 align:middle line:84%
But your system, the
system, was already 10,

00:29:55.650 --> 00:29:57.900 align:middle line:90%
15 years old by then--

00:29:57.900 --> 00:29:59.070 align:middle line:90%
20 years old maybe.

00:29:59.070 --> 00:30:04.490 align:middle line:84%
And we have these things
called objects now.

00:30:04.490 --> 00:30:05.940 align:middle line:90%
So it's non-object oriented.

00:30:05.940 --> 00:30:09.090 align:middle line:84%
It's shell scripting things,
which is pretty cool.

00:30:09.090 --> 00:30:13.790 align:middle line:84%
Did anyone ever pipe a script
from one thing to the next?

00:30:13.790 --> 00:30:16.450 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, you input,
send it to a program.

00:30:16.450 --> 00:30:18.920 align:middle line:90%
Input text, usually, or bytes.

00:30:18.920 --> 00:30:20.193 align:middle line:90%
And it sends something out.

00:30:20.193 --> 00:30:21.860 align:middle line:84%
And you can send it
to the next program.

00:30:21.860 --> 00:30:23.800 align:middle line:84%
So you could have
one program that

00:30:23.800 --> 00:30:26.925 align:middle line:84%
just goes through and strips
all the ties from notes.

00:30:26.925 --> 00:30:28.300 align:middle line:84%
And then you have
another program

00:30:28.300 --> 00:30:32.500 align:middle line:84%
that labels the pitch
classes of everything.

00:30:32.500 --> 00:30:34.370 align:middle line:90%
Very, very cool.

00:30:34.370 --> 00:30:36.680 align:middle line:90%
Very new things.

00:30:36.680 --> 00:30:40.410 align:middle line:84%
And so Humdrum had its own
format, which was called--

00:30:40.410 --> 00:30:42.160 align:middle line:84%
actually, I'm going
to jump through-- some

00:30:42.160 --> 00:30:44.410 align:middle line:84%
of these questions
don't seem as relevant

00:30:44.410 --> 00:30:46.760 align:middle line:84%
for class discussion--
called kern,

00:30:46.760 --> 00:30:51.530 align:middle line:84%
which was basically a musical
score turned sideways.

00:30:51.530 --> 00:30:55.040 align:middle line:84%
So first part going
vertically here,

00:30:55.040 --> 00:31:00.220 align:middle line:84%
second part vertically
here, third part, and so on.

00:31:00.220 --> 00:31:05.330 align:middle line:84%
And so this was a way that
meant that looking horizontally,

00:31:05.330 --> 00:31:08.200 align:middle line:84%
you could see anything that
was happening at the same time.

00:31:08.200 --> 00:31:11.740 align:middle line:84%
And very useful back
before graphical editors,

00:31:11.740 --> 00:31:14.210 align:middle line:90%
where you can tab among them.

00:31:14.210 --> 00:31:16.980 align:middle line:90%


00:31:16.980 --> 00:31:26.010 align:middle line:84%
Contrasting in the article
was this particular format,

00:31:26.010 --> 00:31:26.950 align:middle line:90%
EsAC code.

00:31:26.950 --> 00:31:28.690 align:middle line:90%
And this was one of the ones--

00:31:28.690 --> 00:31:31.560 align:middle line:90%
how do we read this?

00:31:31.560 --> 00:31:33.000 align:middle line:90%
Some people-- good.

00:31:33.000 --> 00:31:36.930 align:middle line:84%
Great, but I want to get some
more reluctant participants,

00:31:36.930 --> 00:31:39.030 align:middle line:90%
then we'll come back.

00:31:39.030 --> 00:31:42.840 align:middle line:84%
Anyone want to take a
guess what anything means?

00:31:42.840 --> 00:31:43.620 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, John?

00:31:43.620 --> 00:31:45.610 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Looks like
some of figured bass.

00:31:45.610 --> 00:31:47.443 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Some
sort of figured bass.

00:31:47.443 --> 00:31:49.620 align:middle line:84%
Yeah, it does totally
look like that.

00:31:49.620 --> 00:31:53.920 align:middle line:84%
Not exactly what it actually is,
but great, great first guess.

00:31:53.920 --> 00:31:56.730 align:middle line:84%
What numbers do
you see that make

00:31:56.730 --> 00:31:58.130 align:middle line:90%
you think it's figured bass?

00:31:58.130 --> 00:31:59.130 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Scale degrees.

00:31:59.130 --> 00:32:00.060 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Scale degrees, yeah.

00:32:00.060 --> 00:32:02.320 align:middle line:84%
So something maybe to
do with scale degrees.

00:32:02.320 --> 00:32:06.610 align:middle line:90%
Do we see 8s and 9s or zeros?

00:32:06.610 --> 00:32:07.330 align:middle line:90%
No, no.

00:32:07.330 --> 00:32:10.770 align:middle line:90%
So that could be a good thing.

00:32:10.770 --> 00:32:11.650 align:middle line:90%
So great.

00:32:11.650 --> 00:32:12.560 align:middle line:90%
Great guess.

00:32:12.560 --> 00:32:16.040 align:middle line:84%
Moved us toward the
right direction.

00:32:16.040 --> 00:32:17.370 align:middle line:90%
These are scale degrees.

00:32:17.370 --> 00:32:20.900 align:middle line:84%
What's all this
other stuff might be?

00:32:20.900 --> 00:32:22.072 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Hannah?

00:32:22.072 --> 00:32:23.780 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Just the
sharps, and the dashes

00:32:23.780 --> 00:32:25.410 align:middle line:90%
represent the accidentals?

00:32:25.410 --> 00:32:29.750 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So sharps
is probably a good one.

00:32:29.750 --> 00:32:32.750 align:middle line:84%
So this piece would have
a lot of accidentals

00:32:32.750 --> 00:32:33.858 align:middle line:90%
if the underscore did.

00:32:33.858 --> 00:32:34.400 align:middle line:90%
And it might.

00:32:34.400 --> 00:32:36.385 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I meant
the shorter dash.

00:32:36.385 --> 00:32:38.010 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Oh, the shorter dash?

00:32:38.010 --> 00:32:40.127 align:middle line:84%
Well, can you tell
me where one is?

00:32:40.127 --> 00:32:41.960 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I guess in
the first line, the one

00:32:41.960 --> 00:32:42.840 align:middle line:90%
before the seventh.

00:32:42.840 --> 00:32:43.850 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yeah,
it should be like,

00:32:43.850 --> 00:32:45.930 align:middle line:84%
can somebody point out
one that I can reach?

00:32:45.930 --> 00:32:47.520 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, this one or this one.

00:32:47.520 --> 00:32:48.960 align:middle line:90%
Good, good.

00:32:48.960 --> 00:32:51.590 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, so minus signs.

00:32:51.590 --> 00:32:57.140 align:middle line:84%
I think we've already seen that
as a way of representing maybe

00:32:57.140 --> 00:32:59.120 align:middle line:90%
flats and sharps.

00:32:59.120 --> 00:33:01.640 align:middle line:84%
When we say there is no such
thing as a good representation

00:33:01.640 --> 00:33:03.410 align:middle line:84%
or a bad representation
per se, I

00:33:03.410 --> 00:33:06.020 align:middle line:84%
will say it is a bad
representation if this means

00:33:06.020 --> 00:33:07.560 align:middle line:90%
flat and that means sharp.

00:33:07.560 --> 00:33:10.620 align:middle line:84%
But if we reverse them--
so I'll assume that.

00:33:10.620 --> 00:33:11.390 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:33:11.390 --> 00:33:15.620 align:middle line:84%
What are some of the
other symbols we see?

00:33:15.620 --> 00:33:16.970 align:middle line:90%
Adam?

00:33:16.970 --> 00:33:18.943 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Symbols
in the melody are--

00:33:18.943 --> 00:33:21.360 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: What's some
other things we see up here?

00:33:21.360 --> 00:33:22.680 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Top is the composer.

00:33:22.680 --> 00:33:24.740 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Top
is the composer, maybe.

00:33:24.740 --> 00:33:27.290 align:middle line:90%
Boehme.

00:33:27.290 --> 00:33:29.400 align:middle line:84%
It's not actually,
but good guess.

00:33:29.400 --> 00:33:30.800 align:middle line:90%
Good guess.

00:33:30.800 --> 00:33:31.345 align:middle line:90%
That's great.

00:33:31.345 --> 00:33:34.130 align:middle line:90%


00:33:34.130 --> 00:33:35.990 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Vincent?

00:33:35.990 --> 00:33:36.920 align:middle line:90%
Sorry, sorry.

00:33:36.920 --> 00:33:38.300 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Vincent, and then--

00:33:38.300 --> 00:33:40.170 align:middle line:84%
I don't think he's going
to find everything.

00:33:40.170 --> 00:33:40.695 align:middle line:90%
Yep?

00:33:40.695 --> 00:33:42.570 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: The underscores
represent duration.

00:33:42.570 --> 00:33:46.168 align:middle line:84%
And then the 16 in the key
sounds like the lowest.

00:33:46.168 --> 00:33:47.210 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: OK, OK.

00:33:47.210 --> 00:33:48.675 align:middle line:90%
Good, good.

00:33:48.675 --> 00:33:49.800 align:middle line:90%
We'll start with one thing.

00:33:49.800 --> 00:33:51.750 align:middle line:84%
The underscores might
represent duration.

00:33:51.750 --> 00:33:56.920 align:middle line:90%
So what does that mean?

00:33:56.920 --> 00:33:58.170 align:middle line:90%
Think about that for a second.

00:33:58.170 --> 00:33:58.760 align:middle line:90%
We'll come back.

00:33:58.760 --> 00:34:00.180 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: That is totally
what I was going to say.

00:34:00.180 --> 00:34:02.120 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: OK, well,
then fill it out a little bit.

00:34:02.120 --> 00:34:04.710 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Well, I was going
to guess that one underscore

00:34:04.710 --> 00:34:07.390 align:middle line:84%
would be some standard, maybe
a quarter note or something

00:34:07.390 --> 00:34:07.890 align:middle line:90%
like that.

00:34:07.890 --> 00:34:09.969 align:middle line:90%
And then two is more.

00:34:09.969 --> 00:34:12.324 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yep,
and then two is more.

00:34:12.324 --> 00:34:15.139 align:middle line:84%
It's a fixed-width font,
but it's still hard to see.

00:34:15.139 --> 00:34:19.420 align:middle line:84%
What are the lengths
that we see the most?

00:34:19.420 --> 00:34:22.600 align:middle line:90%
One, two.

00:34:22.600 --> 00:34:25.989 align:middle line:90%
Do we see three a lot?

00:34:25.989 --> 00:34:28.177 align:middle line:90%
Not too many.

00:34:28.177 --> 00:34:29.260 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: End of the line?

00:34:29.260 --> 00:34:30.159 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
End of the line.

00:34:30.159 --> 00:34:31.520 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Every other line.

00:34:31.520 --> 00:34:32.350 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Yeah, so there's

00:34:32.350 --> 00:34:33.620 align:middle line:90%
some places where you see two.

00:34:33.620 --> 00:34:34.239 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:34:34.239 --> 00:34:38.920 align:middle line:84%
So that might have
something to do with things.

00:34:38.920 --> 00:34:40.989 align:middle line:84%
Any places where
there's two that

00:34:40.989 --> 00:34:49.150 align:middle line:84%
are numbers that are without
a separating underscore?

00:34:49.150 --> 00:34:50.531 align:middle line:90%
John, where do you see one?

00:34:50.531 --> 00:34:51.739 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: In the bottom left.

00:34:51.739 --> 00:34:52.429 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Bottom left.

00:34:52.429 --> 00:34:52.630 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:34:52.630 --> 00:34:53.810 align:middle line:90%
Thanks for finding one.

00:34:53.810 --> 00:34:54.560 align:middle line:90%
I can point to.

00:34:54.560 --> 00:34:55.639 align:middle line:90%
Yep.

00:34:55.639 --> 00:34:57.780 align:middle line:90%
And what's right preceding it?

00:34:57.780 --> 00:34:58.840 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: A period.

00:34:58.840 --> 00:34:59.882 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Period.

00:34:59.882 --> 00:35:02.110 align:middle line:90%
What period might represent?

00:35:02.110 --> 00:35:02.800 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Rest.

00:35:02.800 --> 00:35:04.810 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Might represent a rest.

00:35:04.810 --> 00:35:06.080 align:middle line:90%
What else might it represent?

00:35:06.080 --> 00:35:08.415 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:35:08.415 --> 00:35:09.270 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: A dot.

00:35:09.270 --> 00:35:10.270 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: A dot.

00:35:10.270 --> 00:35:12.540 align:middle line:84%
So it could be one
of those things.

00:35:12.540 --> 00:35:15.000 align:middle line:90%
Quite often after-- let's see.

00:35:15.000 --> 00:35:16.500 align:middle line:84%
So one of the ways
we can figure out

00:35:16.500 --> 00:35:18.240 align:middle line:84%
is if we get a
particular length,

00:35:18.240 --> 00:35:21.010 align:middle line:84%
and then does
everything else work?

00:35:21.010 --> 00:35:24.130 align:middle line:84%
What do you think
the space means?

00:35:24.130 --> 00:35:24.902 align:middle line:90%
Go ahead.

00:35:24.902 --> 00:35:26.110 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Measure separation.

00:35:26.110 --> 00:35:27.652 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Measure separation.

00:35:27.652 --> 00:35:32.380 align:middle line:84%
So some measures seem to be
a lot shorter than others.

00:35:32.380 --> 00:35:35.560 align:middle line:84%
But yeah, it could be a
measure of separation.

00:35:35.560 --> 00:35:37.980 align:middle line:84%
It could also be, as a
lot of these formats are,

00:35:37.980 --> 00:35:40.260 align:middle line:84%
just to make it
easier for us to read.

00:35:40.260 --> 00:35:42.060 align:middle line:84%
That there's a
certain readability

00:35:42.060 --> 00:35:43.350 align:middle line:90%
that's built into some.

00:35:43.350 --> 00:35:45.210 align:middle line:90%
Good, good.

00:35:45.210 --> 00:35:48.570 align:middle line:84%
And Vincent, you were starting
to say something about the 16

00:35:48.570 --> 00:35:51.365 align:middle line:84%
up there having
something to do with the?

00:35:51.365 --> 00:35:53.740 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: So how the underscore
represents duration, also

00:35:53.740 --> 00:35:56.010 align:middle line:90%
how one or two.

00:35:56.010 --> 00:35:58.710 align:middle line:84%
But those would all be multiples
of whatever is specified

00:35:58.710 --> 00:35:59.890 align:middle line:90%
there would be the 16.

00:35:59.890 --> 00:36:04.560 align:middle line:84%
So the first one would be two
16th notes or an eighth note.

00:36:04.560 --> 00:36:07.647 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So this
would be two 16th notes?

00:36:07.647 --> 00:36:09.814 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: So we got that 5
where there's one listed.

00:36:09.814 --> 00:36:10.970 align:middle line:90%
51.

00:36:10.970 --> 00:36:12.040 align:middle line:90%
And then, say, the 6/4.

00:36:12.040 --> 00:36:13.040 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Great.

00:36:13.040 --> 00:36:13.670 align:middle line:90%
So let's see.

00:36:13.670 --> 00:36:15.540 align:middle line:84%
What do you think a
4/5 means, everybody?

00:36:15.540 --> 00:36:16.590 align:middle line:90%
4/4, right?

00:36:16.590 --> 00:36:17.168 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:36:17.168 --> 00:36:18.710 align:middle line:84%
Do you want to say
something on that?

00:36:18.710 --> 00:36:20.240 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Yeah, yeah.

00:36:20.240 --> 00:36:22.050 align:middle line:84%
Basically along these
lines-- and yeah,

00:36:22.050 --> 00:36:24.633 align:middle line:84%
I think the thing that you're
probably trying to get to now is

00:36:24.633 --> 00:36:27.860 align:middle line:84%
that it doesn't quite seem to
add up if it's 4/4 and each one

00:36:27.860 --> 00:36:31.320 align:middle line:90%
with a 1 is a 16th.

00:36:31.320 --> 00:36:33.420 align:middle line:84%
So there are a lot of
measures with three.

00:36:33.420 --> 00:36:36.740 align:middle line:84%
And I believe it's
two underscores.

00:36:36.740 --> 00:36:38.837 align:middle line:84%
I'm sorry to make
you point super high.

00:36:38.837 --> 00:36:40.170 align:middle line:90%
Maybe there's an example, lower.

00:36:40.170 --> 00:36:44.130 align:middle line:84%
But the top line, the first one,
it seems like the full measure.

00:36:44.130 --> 00:36:44.690 align:middle line:90%
Yeah.

00:36:44.690 --> 00:36:46.620 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So
that's two underscores.

00:36:46.620 --> 00:36:49.140 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Yeah.

00:36:49.140 --> 00:36:51.140 align:middle line:84%
Which would imply that
they're all quarter notes

00:36:51.140 --> 00:36:53.705 align:middle line:84%
if it's in 4/4,
which means that--

00:36:53.705 --> 00:36:56.460 align:middle line:84%
and then the one right
below it has the exact same

00:36:56.460 --> 00:36:58.475 align:middle line:90%
but in the last--

00:36:58.475 --> 00:37:00.600 align:middle line:84%
with the duration of the
quarter note splits it up.

00:37:00.600 --> 00:37:02.892 align:middle line:84%
So those seem like eighth
notes rather than 16th notes.

00:37:02.892 --> 00:37:04.030 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Great.

00:37:04.030 --> 00:37:05.230 align:middle line:90%
Super.

00:37:05.230 --> 00:37:07.840 align:middle line:90%
Awesome.

00:37:07.840 --> 00:37:10.775 align:middle line:84%
Wait, let's do a tiny
bit of the metadata.

00:37:10.775 --> 00:37:11.650 align:middle line:90%
You can take a guess.

00:37:11.650 --> 00:37:13.490 align:middle line:90%
What language is the metadata?

00:37:13.490 --> 00:37:16.090 align:middle line:90%


00:37:16.090 --> 00:37:17.992 align:middle line:90%
Anybody know?

00:37:17.992 --> 00:37:19.030 align:middle line:90%
Let's see.

00:37:19.030 --> 00:37:20.420 align:middle line:90%
I just want to-- yeah, Jason?

00:37:20.420 --> 00:37:23.577 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I think this is the
EsAC code from the reading?

00:37:23.577 --> 00:37:25.160 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Yep, this EsAC code.

00:37:25.160 --> 00:37:27.070 align:middle line:90%
And what's the EsAC--

00:37:27.070 --> 00:37:29.360 align:middle line:84%
or Essen, is the two
ways of putting it.

00:37:29.360 --> 00:37:29.860 align:middle line:90%
Yep.

00:37:29.860 --> 00:37:32.180 align:middle line:90%
And anyone know where Essen is?

00:37:32.180 --> 00:37:32.990 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:37:32.990 --> 00:37:33.740 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Germany.

00:37:33.740 --> 00:37:34.823 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Germany.

00:37:34.823 --> 00:37:36.170 align:middle line:90%
Do we see some German things?

00:37:36.170 --> 00:37:36.670 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:37:36.670 --> 00:37:39.350 align:middle line:90%
So this is a very famous piece.

00:37:39.350 --> 00:37:42.820 align:middle line:84%
And I want to say, as you're
choosing things to represent

00:37:42.820 --> 00:37:46.400 align:middle line:84%
and choosing things in it,
and Nicholas cook is amazing,

00:37:46.400 --> 00:37:49.390 align:middle line:84%
I think Nicholas Cook
chose the absolute worst

00:37:49.390 --> 00:37:55.670 align:middle line:84%
piece he possibly could have
chosen to be the demonstration.

00:37:55.670 --> 00:38:00.025 align:middle line:84%
And I've thought
of switching out--

00:38:00.025 --> 00:38:02.600 align:middle line:84%
C U T might be-- it does
not stand for Cuthbert.

00:38:02.600 --> 00:38:04.390 align:middle line:90%
It's assigned about the title.

00:38:04.390 --> 00:38:06.990 align:middle line:90%
Germany, Germany-- anyone else--

00:38:06.990 --> 00:38:08.970 align:middle line:90%
over all.

00:38:08.970 --> 00:38:12.120 align:middle line:90%
It's the Nazi national anthem.

00:38:12.120 --> 00:38:15.340 align:middle line:90%
So I wish that he had chosen--

00:38:15.340 --> 00:38:19.380 align:middle line:84%
But fortunately, if
we crop off the top,

00:38:19.380 --> 00:38:23.310 align:middle line:84%
it is also the pre-Nazi national
anthem with different words

00:38:23.310 --> 00:38:27.900 align:middle line:84%
and the current national anthem
and a piece composed by Joseph

00:38:27.900 --> 00:38:30.900 align:middle line:84%
Haydn, so the "Surprise
Symphony" composer

00:38:30.900 --> 00:38:33.400 align:middle line:90%
And I wanted to put it up.

00:38:33.400 --> 00:38:34.650 align:middle line:90%
It's rather small.

00:38:34.650 --> 00:38:39.250 align:middle line:84%
Might need to zoom in or get up,
or you can look at the article.

00:38:39.250 --> 00:38:43.480 align:middle line:84%
See if you can now read the
notation from hearing this,

00:38:43.480 --> 00:38:45.660 align:middle line:84%
assuming YouTube is
going to work this time.

00:38:45.660 --> 00:38:48.340 align:middle line:90%
And this is the modern words.

00:38:48.340 --> 00:38:51.525 align:middle line:90%
[MUSIC PLAYING]

00:38:51.525 --> 00:38:53.670 align:middle line:90%


00:38:53.670 --> 00:38:54.245 align:middle line:90%
Second line.

00:38:54.245 --> 00:38:56.845 align:middle line:90%


00:38:56.845 --> 00:38:59.635 align:middle line:90%
3, 1, 5.

00:38:59.635 --> 00:39:05.040 align:middle line:90%
1, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2.

00:39:05.040 --> 00:39:08.840 align:middle line:90%


00:39:08.840 --> 00:39:09.815 align:middle line:90%
My, was that a flat!

00:39:09.815 --> 00:39:12.770 align:middle line:90%


00:39:12.770 --> 00:39:14.185 align:middle line:90%
Might be an octave sign.

00:39:14.185 --> 00:39:24.898 align:middle line:90%


00:39:24.898 --> 00:39:25.440 align:middle line:90%
You can hear.

00:39:25.440 --> 00:39:27.350 align:middle line:84%
The sharps are definitely
sharps, those who

00:39:27.350 --> 00:39:28.980 align:middle line:90%
can hear secondary dominants.

00:39:28.980 --> 00:39:33.470 align:middle line:90%


00:39:33.470 --> 00:39:37.160 align:middle line:84%
Anyhow, we don't need
to hear the rest.

00:39:37.160 --> 00:39:38.112 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

00:39:38.112 --> 00:39:39.570 align:middle line:84%
You win the World
Cup more than us.

00:39:39.570 --> 00:39:40.070 align:middle line:90%
We know.

00:39:40.070 --> 00:39:44.180 align:middle line:90%


00:39:44.180 --> 00:39:47.460 align:middle line:90%
So two more questions.

00:39:47.460 --> 00:39:52.700 align:middle line:84%
One I didn't put on here before
we move on to another topic.

00:39:52.700 --> 00:39:56.570 align:middle line:84%
What does comparative
musicology mean?

00:39:56.570 --> 00:39:58.310 align:middle line:84%
And how does it
have anything to do

00:39:58.310 --> 00:40:00.150 align:middle line:90%
with computational musicology?

00:40:00.150 --> 00:40:03.970 align:middle line:84%
And that's the main title
of the piece, the article.

00:40:03.970 --> 00:40:06.490 align:middle line:90%


00:40:06.490 --> 00:40:08.390 align:middle line:90%
Let's take the first one.

00:40:08.390 --> 00:40:10.890 align:middle line:90%
What is comparative musicology?

00:40:10.890 --> 00:40:19.330 align:middle line:90%


00:40:19.330 --> 00:40:21.260 align:middle line:84%
You can probably figure
it out from the words.

00:40:21.260 --> 00:40:22.240 align:middle line:90%
So yep?

00:40:22.240 --> 00:40:25.060 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: I believe it was
just the concept of comparing

00:40:25.060 --> 00:40:28.240 align:middle line:84%
music to each other, regardless
of where they're necessarily

00:40:28.240 --> 00:40:28.880 align:middle line:90%
from.

00:40:28.880 --> 00:40:30.160 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yeah.

00:40:30.160 --> 00:40:32.470 align:middle line:84%
So it's comparing
pieces of music

00:40:32.470 --> 00:40:35.592 align:middle line:84%
to each other but not
necessarily close things.

00:40:35.592 --> 00:40:37.300 align:middle line:84%
Not, oh, let's look
at the first movement

00:40:37.300 --> 00:40:38.930 align:middle line:84%
and compare it to
the second movement.

00:40:38.930 --> 00:40:40.510 align:middle line:90%
But let's look at--

00:40:40.510 --> 00:40:44.300 align:middle line:84%
oh, let's look at a
nationalist song from Germany,

00:40:44.300 --> 00:40:46.870 align:middle line:84%
and let's look at a
nationalist song from Kenya

00:40:46.870 --> 00:40:48.950 align:middle line:84%
and see if they
have any connection.

00:40:48.950 --> 00:40:52.370 align:middle line:90%
Let's look at-- oh, shoot.

00:40:52.370 --> 00:40:55.030 align:middle line:84%
I forgot to put it
into the slides.

00:40:55.030 --> 00:40:58.280 align:middle line:84%
The person-- I'm
blanking on her name.

00:40:58.280 --> 00:40:59.710 align:middle line:90%
I'm not checking my email.

00:40:59.710 --> 00:41:03.880 align:middle line:84%
I have the picture to put into
the slide, and I didn't get--

00:41:03.880 --> 00:41:06.930 align:middle line:90%
her name is Trehub.

00:41:06.930 --> 00:41:07.920 align:middle line:90%
Sorry.

00:41:07.920 --> 00:41:10.230 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, Trehub.

00:41:10.230 --> 00:41:12.660 align:middle line:90%
Big New York Times obituary.

00:41:12.660 --> 00:41:14.940 align:middle line:84%
And I have a notification
that won't get--

00:41:14.940 --> 00:41:16.960 align:middle line:90%
Sandra Trehub, the pioneer--

00:41:16.960 --> 00:41:19.140 align:middle line:84%
one of the pioneers
in the psychology

00:41:19.140 --> 00:41:24.790 align:middle line:84%
of comparative musicology
died very recently.

00:41:24.790 --> 00:41:28.080 align:middle line:84%
And she was the one who
famously did experiments

00:41:28.080 --> 00:41:31.780 align:middle line:84%
to show that people
could identify--

00:41:31.780 --> 00:41:34.660 align:middle line:84%
here are two songs
from the same culture.

00:41:34.660 --> 00:41:37.680 align:middle line:84%
Which one is the lullaby,
and which one is not?

00:41:37.680 --> 00:41:39.600 align:middle line:90%
all throughout the world.

00:41:39.600 --> 00:41:44.790 align:middle line:84%
And this experiment's been
replicated with other musics

00:41:44.790 --> 00:41:49.360 align:middle line:84%
quite a lot recently over
in the lab at Harvard.

00:41:49.360 --> 00:41:50.770 align:middle line:90%
But she was a big one.

00:41:50.770 --> 00:41:55.140 align:middle line:84%
So this notion of
looking across cultures.

00:41:55.140 --> 00:41:57.160 align:middle line:90%
Anybody take in this class--

00:41:57.160 --> 00:41:59.240 align:middle line:90%
I think a couple people have--

00:41:59.240 --> 00:42:02.790 align:middle line:84%
Intro to Global
Music or World Music?

00:42:02.790 --> 00:42:04.080 align:middle line:90%
Yeah, great.

00:42:04.080 --> 00:42:09.110 align:middle line:84%
So did the word "comparative"
musicology come up much

00:42:09.110 --> 00:42:10.225 align:middle line:90%
in your class?

00:42:10.225 --> 00:42:11.100 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Not really.

00:42:11.100 --> 00:42:11.510 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Not really.

00:42:11.510 --> 00:42:12.010 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:42:12.010 --> 00:42:13.760 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: In the paper,
it says that that

00:42:13.760 --> 00:42:15.175 align:middle line:90%
was what it used to be.

00:42:15.175 --> 00:42:17.550 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: That's what
used to be ethnomusicology,

00:42:17.550 --> 00:42:19.730 align:middle line:90%
the study of music and cultures.

00:42:19.730 --> 00:42:23.155 align:middle line:84%
And it-- yeah, did
you want to add?

00:42:23.155 --> 00:42:24.780 align:middle line:84%
You also didn't see
it in your classes?

00:42:24.780 --> 00:42:25.280 align:middle line:90%
Yeah.

00:42:25.280 --> 00:42:28.520 align:middle line:84%
So comparative
approaches of looking

00:42:28.520 --> 00:42:32.420 align:middle line:84%
at things from here
and there and saying

00:42:32.420 --> 00:42:36.080 align:middle line:90%
what's similar to them got a--

00:42:36.080 --> 00:42:39.810 align:middle line:84%
gave way to modern
ethnomusicology,

00:42:39.810 --> 00:42:42.630 align:middle line:84%
which is the study of
music in its culture.

00:42:42.630 --> 00:42:45.510 align:middle line:84%
And so the notion that
you go to a culture.

00:42:45.510 --> 00:42:48.360 align:middle line:84%
You get to know the
culture very well.

00:42:48.360 --> 00:42:50.390 align:middle line:84%
And then learn from
how the culture

00:42:50.390 --> 00:42:53.690 align:middle line:84%
itself is describing
its music in order

00:42:53.690 --> 00:42:57.090 align:middle line:90%
to say something valuable.

00:42:57.090 --> 00:42:59.870 align:middle line:84%
And that the more you
get to know one culture

00:42:59.870 --> 00:43:03.320 align:middle line:84%
and the less you spend
time comparing this culture

00:43:03.320 --> 00:43:08.450 align:middle line:84%
in Paraguay to that culture
in Lapland, the more

00:43:08.450 --> 00:43:10.700 align:middle line:84%
that you just focus
on one place, the more

00:43:10.700 --> 00:43:13.220 align:middle line:90%
depth of knowledge you'll get.

00:43:13.220 --> 00:43:17.720 align:middle line:84%
And in part because the
early negative history

00:43:17.720 --> 00:43:24.090 align:middle line:84%
of comparative musicology
deserves its very bad rap.

00:43:24.090 --> 00:43:26.340 align:middle line:84%
And we have to still be
really careful for it.

00:43:26.340 --> 00:43:29.450 align:middle line:84%
Because we're always
going to be comparing--

00:43:29.450 --> 00:43:30.800 align:middle line:90%
what are the countries I keep--

00:43:30.800 --> 00:43:36.800 align:middle line:84%
Paraguay and Lapland and
Kenya and Okinawa and Japan

00:43:36.800 --> 00:43:38.250 align:middle line:90%
and all these things together.

00:43:38.250 --> 00:43:39.875 align:middle line:84%
And then we're also
going to compare it

00:43:39.875 --> 00:43:43.760 align:middle line:84%
with Beethoven's Ninth Symphony
in order to demonstrate what,

00:43:43.760 --> 00:43:46.820 align:middle line:84%
if you're a German
around 1914 or a German

00:43:46.820 --> 00:43:49.490 align:middle line:84%
around 1933, what is the
conclusion you will always

00:43:49.490 --> 00:43:53.600 align:middle line:84%
come after comparing
all these things?

00:43:53.600 --> 00:43:55.310 align:middle line:84%
Is someone going
to take a guess?

00:43:55.310 --> 00:43:56.550 align:middle line:90%
Thinking a hypothetical mind.

00:43:56.550 --> 00:43:57.050 align:middle line:90%
What's that?

00:43:57.050 --> 00:43:58.217 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Yours is the best.

00:43:58.217 --> 00:44:00.190 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: But
whose is the best?

00:44:00.190 --> 00:44:02.177 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Whoever
you identify with.

00:44:02.177 --> 00:44:03.760 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Yeah, and the people

00:44:03.760 --> 00:44:07.780 align:middle line:84%
doing this were mostly
white Europeans.

00:44:07.780 --> 00:44:13.690 align:middle line:84%
So the comparativist project,
while it gathered a lot of data,

00:44:13.690 --> 00:44:18.460 align:middle line:84%
we would now say it was
embodied in the narrative

00:44:18.460 --> 00:44:20.300 align:middle line:90%
of white supremacy.

00:44:20.300 --> 00:44:22.730 align:middle line:84%
Oh, now, this class can't
be shown in Florida.

00:44:22.730 --> 00:44:25.345 align:middle line:90%
[LAUGHTER]

00:44:25.345 --> 00:44:27.205 align:middle line:90%


00:44:27.205 --> 00:44:28.970 align:middle line:84%
And that really,
really happened.

00:44:28.970 --> 00:44:31.910 align:middle line:90%
And the issue is--

00:44:31.910 --> 00:44:36.850 align:middle line:84%
and so ethnomusicology, this
focus, trying to say, let's

00:44:36.850 --> 00:44:42.091 align:middle line:84%
stop making this
comparative type of project

00:44:42.091 --> 00:44:44.080 align:middle line:84%
so that we can
actually understand

00:44:44.080 --> 00:44:48.490 align:middle line:84%
why individual pieces
of music are great

00:44:48.490 --> 00:44:51.730 align:middle line:84%
and interesting and
valuable and meaningful

00:44:51.730 --> 00:44:54.910 align:middle line:84%
and touching to people
all over the world.

00:44:54.910 --> 00:44:58.120 align:middle line:84%
And a lot of people,
even in Germany,

00:44:58.120 --> 00:45:00.990 align:middle line:84%
don't like Beethoven's
Ninth Symphony.

00:45:00.990 --> 00:45:03.310 align:middle line:90%
So working as particular things.

00:45:03.310 --> 00:45:05.760 align:middle line:84%
And then the irony
that comes out

00:45:05.760 --> 00:45:09.330 align:middle line:84%
is that the
comparativists were still

00:45:09.330 --> 00:45:11.670 align:middle line:84%
looking at a small
number of pieces

00:45:11.670 --> 00:45:15.820 align:middle line:84%
to compare, Quite often you
look at comparative musicology,

00:45:15.820 --> 00:45:19.470 align:middle line:84%
also called systematic
at that time,

00:45:19.470 --> 00:45:21.497 align:middle line:90%
systematic musicological works.

00:45:21.497 --> 00:45:23.580 align:middle line:84%
We're talking about one
piece from here, one piece

00:45:23.580 --> 00:45:26.340 align:middle line:84%
from here because that's
all that people had.

00:45:26.340 --> 00:45:28.650 align:middle line:84%
And so this goes
out of style right

00:45:28.650 --> 00:45:32.610 align:middle line:90%
when this thing comes along.

00:45:32.610 --> 00:45:36.880 align:middle line:84%
And suddenly-- I mean, not this
particular lightweight thing,

00:45:36.880 --> 00:45:40.410 align:middle line:84%
but the gigantic, honking
ones that you can still see

00:45:40.410 --> 00:45:42.720 align:middle line:84%
in the computer
museums and stuff--

00:45:42.720 --> 00:45:47.610 align:middle line:84%
that we're able to compare
large numbers of information

00:45:47.610 --> 00:45:51.830 align:middle line:84%
and at least encode
their biases.

00:45:51.830 --> 00:45:56.430 align:middle line:84%
If not, at least you could see
what had been encoded into it.

00:45:56.430 --> 00:45:59.900 align:middle line:84%
So this is where the
comparativist project

00:45:59.900 --> 00:46:05.990 align:middle line:84%
comes together with the
computational project.

00:46:05.990 --> 00:46:13.260 align:middle line:84%
But as you can see, the danger
is that by using a computer,

00:46:13.260 --> 00:46:17.660 align:middle line:84%
we can still be replicating
the kinds of mistakes

00:46:17.660 --> 00:46:19.945 align:middle line:90%
that were made quite a bit ago.

00:46:19.945 --> 00:46:23.240 align:middle line:90%


00:46:23.240 --> 00:46:26.550 align:middle line:84%
So we're going to have
to be hyper vigilant.

00:46:26.550 --> 00:46:27.215 align:middle line:90%
The more--

00:46:27.215 --> 00:46:27.840 align:middle line:90%
[MUSIC PLAYING]

00:46:27.840 --> 00:46:29.390 align:middle line:90%
Ooh, bad!

00:46:29.390 --> 00:46:31.140 align:middle line:90%
Hyper vigilant against that.

00:46:31.140 --> 00:46:33.650 align:middle line:90%
[STUDENTS LAUGH]

00:46:33.650 --> 00:46:35.820 align:middle line:90%
We're getting hyper vigilant.

00:46:35.820 --> 00:46:40.100 align:middle line:84%
And it probably
means that sometimes

00:46:40.100 --> 00:46:46.220 align:middle line:84%
that we shouldn't be
focusing on musical things

00:46:46.220 --> 00:46:49.620 align:middle line:84%
for major projects that we
don't know anything about.

00:46:49.620 --> 00:46:53.080 align:middle line:84%
So I'm very glad that the
encoding of South Indian

00:46:53.080 --> 00:46:58.010 align:middle line:84%
music that we have somebody
in the group who is an expert.

00:46:58.010 --> 00:46:59.890 align:middle line:90%
can I call you an expert on it?

00:46:59.890 --> 00:47:04.100 align:middle line:84%
A very, very strong
understanding of this and that

00:47:04.100 --> 00:47:07.540 align:middle line:84%
we want to get to know
our repertories before we

00:47:07.540 --> 00:47:09.100 align:middle line:90%
work too much on them.

00:47:09.100 --> 00:47:13.220 align:middle line:84%
And I think it kind comes
back to this anyhow,

00:47:13.220 --> 00:47:17.060 align:middle line:84%
even for repertories that might
be more conventionally studied.

00:47:17.060 --> 00:47:20.230 align:middle line:84%
So we're going to look
at some pieces in a bit.

00:47:20.230 --> 00:47:24.190 align:middle line:84%
And we're going to start by
jumping into a particular Bach

00:47:24.190 --> 00:47:25.240 align:middle line:90%
chorale.

00:47:25.240 --> 00:47:28.522 align:middle line:84%
And I want everybody
at some point

00:47:28.522 --> 00:47:29.980 align:middle line:84%
to do all the things
they're trying

00:47:29.980 --> 00:47:33.710 align:middle line:84%
to get into the style
of that piece by hand.

00:47:33.710 --> 00:47:38.170 align:middle line:84%
Because we want to be able to
at least be a little expert

00:47:38.170 --> 00:47:40.420 align:middle line:84%
ourselves on a
particular repertory

00:47:40.420 --> 00:47:43.300 align:middle line:84%
before we turn it
over to the computer.

00:47:43.300 --> 00:47:46.880 align:middle line:84%
Helps to avoid the
GI/GO or GIGO problem.

00:47:46.880 --> 00:47:48.050 align:middle line:90%
Anyone know what that is?

00:47:48.050 --> 00:47:49.983 align:middle line:90%
GI/GO?

00:47:49.983 --> 00:47:51.400 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Garbage
in, garbage out.

00:47:51.400 --> 00:47:53.150 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Garbage in, garbage out.

00:47:53.150 --> 00:47:57.010 align:middle line:84%
So we want to make sure that
we're not putting garbage in.

00:47:57.010 --> 00:47:58.260 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:47:58.260 --> 00:48:01.060 align:middle line:84%
I think I'm going to skip
number three for now.

00:48:01.060 --> 00:48:03.750 align:middle line:84%
We'll do it, the
site Score to Sound

00:48:03.750 --> 00:48:06.250 align:middle line:84%
because that one's a
little bit me talking more.

00:48:06.250 --> 00:48:09.160 align:middle line:84%
And let's jump to a
little bit of programming

00:48:09.160 --> 00:48:11.980 align:middle line:84%
because we haven't done
that in class in a while.

00:48:11.980 --> 00:48:14.130 align:middle line:84%
So go ahead and
take a second or two

00:48:14.130 --> 00:48:18.660 align:middle line:84%
and grab a Jupyter
Notebook while I

00:48:18.660 --> 00:48:23.800 align:middle line:84%
try to get my screen set up
to have two things at once.

00:48:23.800 --> 00:48:25.290 align:middle line:90%
How about that?

00:48:25.290 --> 00:48:26.890 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:48:26.890 --> 00:48:28.950 align:middle line:84%
We're going to do
some unlocking.

00:48:28.950 --> 00:48:32.400 align:middle line:84%
Note that this means that from
here on out, unless you're

00:48:32.400 --> 00:48:36.030 align:middle line:84%
told otherwise, you
may use these materials

00:48:36.030 --> 00:48:38.860 align:middle line:84%
in any problem
set going forward.

00:48:38.860 --> 00:48:42.970 align:middle line:84%
So you've already unlocked
the pitch module, lowercase p,

00:48:42.970 --> 00:48:44.200 align:middle line:90%
meaning it's a module.

00:48:44.200 --> 00:48:49.100 align:middle line:84%
And we'll also unlock
the note and the duration

00:48:49.100 --> 00:48:50.425 align:middle line:90%
modules right now.

00:48:50.425 --> 00:48:53.120 align:middle line:90%


00:48:53.120 --> 00:48:54.950 align:middle line:84%
And we don't even--
we're not even

00:48:54.950 --> 00:48:57.720 align:middle line:84%
really going to need the
pitch or the duration module.

00:48:57.720 --> 00:49:02.000 align:middle line:84%
So let's start with
everything on the note.

00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:06.170 align:middle line:84%
I'm going to need
to get this later.

00:49:06.170 --> 00:49:11.670 align:middle line:84%
Let's start with one
of my favorite notes.

00:49:11.670 --> 00:49:14.785 align:middle line:84%
I don't know why C-sharp 5
became one of my favorite notes.

00:49:14.785 --> 00:49:16.410 align:middle line:84%
I think it just
demonstrates something,

00:49:16.410 --> 00:49:18.330 align:middle line:84%
and it's right in the
middle of the screen.

00:49:18.330 --> 00:49:18.830 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:49:18.830 --> 00:49:25.220 align:middle line:84%
And always remember
that you can get

00:49:25.220 --> 00:49:30.360 align:middle line:84%
a list of what
any object can do.

00:49:30.360 --> 00:49:32.640 align:middle line:84%
And by the way, you
all got its upper.

00:49:32.640 --> 00:49:37.280 align:middle line:84%
And the class rule is I go
too fast, you say slow down.

00:49:37.280 --> 00:49:38.370 align:middle line:90%
Everybody practice that.

00:49:38.370 --> 00:49:39.450 align:middle line:90%
Say it out.

00:49:39.450 --> 00:49:40.370 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Slow down.

00:49:40.370 --> 00:49:40.890 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Slow down.

00:49:40.890 --> 00:49:41.150 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:49:41.150 --> 00:49:43.608 align:middle line:84%
You don't want me to slow down
right now, but at some point

00:49:43.608 --> 00:49:44.130 align:middle line:90%
you will.

00:49:44.130 --> 00:49:45.460 align:middle line:90%
And just shout it out.

00:49:45.460 --> 00:49:46.040 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:49:46.040 --> 00:49:47.950 align:middle line:90%
So you can always get this.

00:49:47.950 --> 00:49:51.393 align:middle line:84%
Python unhelpfully gives
it in alphabetical order,

00:49:51.393 --> 00:49:53.560 align:middle line:84%
which means the things you
don't want to know about,

00:49:53.560 --> 00:49:55.460 align:middle line:90%
the private things, come first.

00:49:55.460 --> 00:49:59.390 align:middle line:84%
But you can see some of the
things are happening here.

00:49:59.390 --> 00:50:03.070 align:middle line:84%
And very nicely you'll
see that duration

00:50:03.070 --> 00:50:05.710 align:middle line:84%
is one of the
attributes or properties

00:50:05.710 --> 00:50:09.020 align:middle line:90%
or something of a note.

00:50:09.020 --> 00:50:14.960 align:middle line:84%
And pitch is also a
property of a note.

00:50:14.960 --> 00:50:16.460 align:middle line:90%
So that's pretty good.

00:50:16.460 --> 00:50:19.210 align:middle line:90%
Yep.

00:50:19.210 --> 00:50:24.470 align:middle line:84%
So we can get that pitch
from the note object.

00:50:24.470 --> 00:50:30.723 align:middle line:84%
And it looks pretty similar
to the other note things.

00:50:30.723 --> 00:50:33.790 align:middle line:90%


00:50:33.790 --> 00:50:36.830 align:middle line:84%
So can we get the
octave of a note?

00:50:36.830 --> 00:50:38.630 align:middle line:90%
Yes, we can.

00:50:38.630 --> 00:50:41.180 align:middle line:90%
Can we get the name of the note?

00:50:41.180 --> 00:50:42.520 align:middle line:90%
Yes, we can.

00:50:42.520 --> 00:50:44.680 align:middle line:84%
What are some other
things we did with pitch?

00:50:44.680 --> 00:50:48.390 align:middle line:84%
Can we get the
accidental from a pitch?

00:50:48.390 --> 00:50:48.960 align:middle line:90%
Yep.

00:50:48.960 --> 00:50:53.590 align:middle line:84%
Can we get the
accidental of note?

00:50:53.590 --> 00:50:54.900 align:middle line:90%
No, we cannot.

00:50:54.900 --> 00:50:57.930 align:middle line:84%
So one of the things you'll
find in the music21--

00:50:57.930 --> 00:51:00.460 align:middle line:84%
and again, music21 is
just one framework.

00:51:00.460 --> 00:51:01.600 align:middle line:90%
You can use Humdrum.

00:51:01.600 --> 00:51:04.560 align:middle line:90%
You can build your own.

00:51:04.560 --> 00:51:06.870 align:middle line:84%
But one of the
things is it started

00:51:06.870 --> 00:51:12.030 align:middle line:84%
with that there's some
things about a pitch that

00:51:12.030 --> 00:51:15.270 align:middle line:84%
seemed like you're going to
use so often that we might

00:51:15.270 --> 00:51:20.020 align:middle line:84%
as well put it on the
note, make it a shortcut.

00:51:20.020 --> 00:51:23.320 align:middle line:84%
And then a lot of things
just too complicated.

00:51:23.320 --> 00:51:29.310 align:middle line:84%
So if you want something deeper,
go grab it from the accidental--

00:51:29.310 --> 00:51:33.030 align:middle line:90%
grab it from the pitch object.

00:51:33.030 --> 00:51:38.770 align:middle line:84%
Notes also have a
duration, note dot pitch.

00:51:38.770 --> 00:51:41.920 align:middle line:84%
And pitches do not
have a duration.

00:51:41.920 --> 00:51:46.730 align:middle line:84%
So this is going into the
logical representation mode that

00:51:46.730 --> 00:51:52.220 align:middle line:84%
some things have durations
and some things don't.

00:51:52.220 --> 00:51:55.830 align:middle line:84%
Let's see what we
can do with this.

00:51:55.830 --> 00:51:57.530 align:middle line:84%
Let's look at the
duration since we

00:51:57.530 --> 00:52:03.650 align:middle line:84%
haven't looked at the duration
module yet, or the duration

00:52:03.650 --> 00:52:05.360 align:middle line:90%
class.

00:52:05.360 --> 00:52:09.200 align:middle line:84%
So we have a duration, and we
can see some of the things.

00:52:09.200 --> 00:52:11.600 align:middle line:90%
Duration dot almond.

00:52:11.600 --> 00:52:15.290 align:middle line:84%
Unfortunately, I did not
go with that great idea.

00:52:15.290 --> 00:52:17.390 align:middle line:84%
Anyone remember what
I said I went with?

00:52:17.390 --> 00:52:19.520 align:middle line:90%
Boring term?

00:52:19.520 --> 00:52:21.830 align:middle line:90%
Type.

00:52:21.830 --> 00:52:24.330 align:middle line:84%
So everything starts
off as a quarter note,

00:52:24.330 --> 00:52:29.990 align:middle line:90%
but we can make it half.

00:52:29.990 --> 00:52:34.680 align:middle line:84%
And remember, early
on in the semester,

00:52:34.680 --> 00:52:37.190 align:middle line:84%
we talked about
representations of duration.

00:52:37.190 --> 00:52:40.890 align:middle line:90%
Before it was a duration of 1.

00:52:40.890 --> 00:52:43.290 align:middle line:84%
Now it's some of
a duration of 2.

00:52:43.290 --> 00:52:46.490 align:middle line:90%
Two whats?

00:52:46.490 --> 00:52:47.580 align:middle line:90%
Could be a lot of things.

00:52:47.580 --> 00:52:50.550 align:middle line:84%
It could be two seconds
with a tempo of 60.

00:52:50.550 --> 00:52:55.520 align:middle line:90%
Could be two beats, two ticks.

00:52:55.520 --> 00:53:00.710 align:middle line:84%
Music21 has chosen to
represent everything

00:53:00.710 --> 00:53:04.490 align:middle line:90%
in numbers of quarter notes.

00:53:04.490 --> 00:53:08.300 align:middle line:90%
So duration is 1.

00:53:08.300 --> 00:53:12.170 align:middle line:90%
Duration of 2 is a half note.

00:53:12.170 --> 00:53:15.750 align:middle line:90%
Let's have dots, 0.

00:53:15.750 --> 00:53:16.990 align:middle line:90%
So let's add some dots.

00:53:16.990 --> 00:53:20.690 align:middle line:90%


00:53:20.690 --> 00:53:24.650 align:middle line:84%
And now we've added
six dots to the notes.

00:53:24.650 --> 00:53:29.810 align:middle line:90%
And we get something like this.

00:53:29.810 --> 00:53:33.290 align:middle line:84%
My favorite random MIT thing
that you all can figure out

00:53:33.290 --> 00:53:36.695 align:middle line:90%
based on that thing--

00:53:36.695 --> 00:53:42.546 align:middle line:84%
what is the limit of a half note
as the dots approaches infinity?

00:53:42.546 --> 00:53:46.990 align:middle line:90%


00:53:46.990 --> 00:53:47.890 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Whole note.

00:53:47.890 --> 00:53:49.098 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Whole note.

00:53:49.098 --> 00:53:49.670 align:middle line:90%
Good, good.

00:53:49.670 --> 00:53:51.170 align:middle line:84%
You all can play
with the Easter egg

00:53:51.170 --> 00:53:55.420 align:middle line:84%
and set the dots to infinity
later and see what happens.

00:53:55.420 --> 00:53:58.430 align:middle line:84%
OK, so we have some
of these things.

00:53:58.430 --> 00:54:01.280 align:middle line:84%
Let's put the dots back
down to, I don't know,

00:54:01.280 --> 00:54:03.430 align:middle line:90%
something manageable.

00:54:03.430 --> 00:54:06.340 align:middle line:90%
And quarter length.

00:54:06.340 --> 00:54:11.260 align:middle line:84%
Each of these things affects
each other's, and they're

00:54:11.260 --> 00:54:14.080 align:middle line:84%
almost all settable, so that can
be helpful in your programming,

00:54:14.080 --> 00:54:16.040 align:middle line:90%
like 3.5.

00:54:16.040 --> 00:54:22.240 align:middle line:84%
And now we get that it's
a double dotted note.

00:54:22.240 --> 00:54:26.600 align:middle line:84%
And probably a mistake
on my original part,

00:54:26.600 --> 00:54:30.200 align:middle line:84%
but everything most of
these objects are mutable.

00:54:30.200 --> 00:54:33.890 align:middle line:84%
So if we go back to the
original and duration,

00:54:33.890 --> 00:54:36.800 align:middle line:84%
it's still now has
the quarter length.

00:54:36.800 --> 00:54:39.730 align:middle line:84%
So you can change the
duration on the side.

00:54:39.730 --> 00:54:47.830 align:middle line:84%
Similarly with pitch
dot step, it's already

00:54:47.830 --> 00:54:52.410 align:middle line:84%
a C. We'll make it
a D. And now we've

00:54:52.410 --> 00:54:55.110 align:middle line:84%
changed the step
of the pitch to D

00:54:55.110 --> 00:54:57.910 align:middle line:90%
but not changed its accidental.

00:54:57.910 --> 00:55:00.580 align:middle line:90%
And now this is still on here.

00:55:00.580 --> 00:55:02.910 align:middle line:84%
Give everyone a second
or two to catch up.

00:55:02.910 --> 00:55:06.000 align:middle line:84%
I'll make it a little
smaller so that any parts

00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:08.610 align:middle line:90%
that people have missed.

00:55:08.610 --> 00:55:11.740 align:middle line:84%
You don't have to write down
everything that I write down.

00:55:11.740 --> 00:55:13.680 align:middle line:84%
Only write things
down as they're

00:55:13.680 --> 00:55:16.535 align:middle line:84%
helpful for you to finger
memory remember it.

00:55:16.535 --> 00:55:19.710 align:middle line:90%


00:55:19.710 --> 00:55:22.830 align:middle line:84%
That's all I'm going to talk
about with unlocking notes

00:55:22.830 --> 00:55:26.115 align:middle line:90%
and durations at this point.

00:55:26.115 --> 00:55:29.080 align:middle line:84%
I don't think I've put
a prominent enough link,

00:55:29.080 --> 00:55:30.010 align:middle line:90%
but you can Google it.

00:55:30.010 --> 00:55:32.830 align:middle line:84%
Music21 has a user's
guide, and so you've.

00:55:32.830 --> 00:55:38.370 align:middle line:84%
Kind of gone through chapters 1
through 2 in this class so far.

00:55:38.370 --> 00:55:41.470 align:middle line:84%
But let's unlock
some other things.

00:55:41.470 --> 00:55:44.030 align:middle line:90%


00:55:44.030 --> 00:55:47.450 align:middle line:90%
Unlocking scores.

00:55:47.450 --> 00:55:52.000 align:middle line:84%
So we're going to give you your
first larger representation

00:55:52.000 --> 00:55:52.500 align:middle line:90%
things.

00:55:52.500 --> 00:55:57.320 align:middle line:84%
And to do this, we're going
to from music21 import

00:55:57.320 --> 00:56:02.600 align:middle line:84%
a sign called stream and
a sign called corpus.

00:56:02.600 --> 00:56:05.420 align:middle line:90%
Oops, no trailing.

00:56:05.420 --> 00:56:08.990 align:middle line:84%
I was putting that there
because you can also import sign

00:56:08.990 --> 00:56:09.840 align:middle line:90%
called converter.

00:56:09.840 --> 00:56:11.870 align:middle line:90%
I'm not going to talk about it.

00:56:11.870 --> 00:56:14.210 align:middle line:84%
But converter is a
way of loading things

00:56:14.210 --> 00:56:16.080 align:middle line:90%
from your hard drive.

00:56:16.080 --> 00:56:22.370 align:middle line:84%
Corpus uses a batteries included
set of about 8,000 pieces that

00:56:22.370 --> 00:56:23.820 align:middle line:90%
come with music21.

00:56:23.820 --> 00:56:26.160 align:middle line:84%
So there's about
8,000 pieces in there,

00:56:26.160 --> 00:56:28.170 align:middle line:90%
and we'll grab one of them.

00:56:28.170 --> 00:56:32.545 align:middle line:84%
And when I'm not
thinking very much--

00:56:32.545 --> 00:56:34.800 align:middle line:90%
I apologize-- I go to Bach.

00:56:34.800 --> 00:56:36.830 align:middle line:90%
So we'll load from the corpus.

00:56:36.830 --> 00:56:38.890 align:middle line:84%
We're going to
parse, meaning make

00:56:38.890 --> 00:56:43.070 align:middle line:90%
sense of the representation.

00:56:43.070 --> 00:56:47.210 align:middle line:90%
Bach BWV 66.6.

00:56:47.210 --> 00:56:49.970 align:middle line:84%
BVW means the
Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis,

00:56:49.970 --> 00:56:53.450 align:middle line:90%
the Bach's work index.

00:56:53.450 --> 00:56:58.070 align:middle line:84%
And by Bach in this case, I
mean Johann Sebastian Bach,

00:56:58.070 --> 00:56:59.200 align:middle line:90%
Daddy Bach.

00:56:59.200 --> 00:57:00.710 align:middle line:84%
There's some other
Bachs in there.

00:57:00.710 --> 00:57:05.470 align:middle line:84%
And this is work number
66, sixth movement.

00:57:05.470 --> 00:57:08.260 align:middle line:84%
It's the one that we're
going to use quite a bit

00:57:08.260 --> 00:57:14.050 align:middle line:84%
because it's the smallest,
shortest chorale he wrote.

00:57:14.050 --> 00:57:19.390 align:middle line:84%
And what I'm going
to ask you to do over

00:57:19.390 --> 00:57:22.930 align:middle line:84%
the next couple of classes as
part of the avoiding garbage

00:57:22.930 --> 00:57:25.810 align:middle line:84%
in, garbage out, I
want you to learn

00:57:25.810 --> 00:57:29.010 align:middle line:84%
to sing your part
from this chorale.

00:57:29.010 --> 00:57:31.930 align:middle line:90%


00:57:31.930 --> 00:57:33.080 align:middle line:90%
Can you do that?

00:57:33.080 --> 00:57:37.690 align:middle line:84%
Can you go to the piano and
match pitch on one of the parts?

00:57:37.690 --> 00:57:42.760 align:middle line:84%
If you're really not feeling
very confident in your singing,

00:57:42.760 --> 00:57:46.050 align:middle line:84%
you can do the soprano
part at whatever

00:57:46.050 --> 00:57:48.190 align:middle line:90%
octave is most comfortable.

00:57:48.190 --> 00:57:51.100 align:middle line:84%
But it would be nice to be
able to sing this as a group.

00:57:51.100 --> 00:57:54.010 align:middle line:84%
And we'll come back to
this one next class.

00:57:54.010 --> 00:57:55.680 align:middle line:90%
So you now have--

00:57:55.680 --> 00:57:57.340 align:middle line:84%
sorry, I should
have slowed down.

00:57:57.340 --> 00:57:58.930 align:middle line:84%
I was talking about
something else.

00:57:58.930 --> 00:58:03.070 align:middle line:84%
Bach-- we're going to style
this piece as a variable.

00:58:03.070 --> 00:58:05.760 align:middle line:84%
And one of the things you're
going to find very helpful

00:58:05.760 --> 00:58:07.410 align:middle line:90%
is dot show.

00:58:07.410 --> 00:58:11.220 align:middle line:84%
Can you raise your hand if you
have gotten everything installed

00:58:11.220 --> 00:58:17.490 align:middle line:84%
so that you can see scores
when you call show on things?

00:58:17.490 --> 00:58:19.740 align:middle line:84%
Anybody still having
some difficulty?

00:58:19.740 --> 00:58:20.980 align:middle line:90%
Vic and Shawn, OK.

00:58:20.980 --> 00:58:21.850 align:middle line:90%
Great, super.

00:58:21.850 --> 00:58:26.790 align:middle line:84%
We'll make sure that we can
get that up and see if we

00:58:26.790 --> 00:58:28.750 align:middle line:90%
can get that straightened out.

00:58:28.750 --> 00:58:30.600 align:middle line:84%
There were some
helpful hints put

00:58:30.600 --> 00:58:33.440 align:middle line:84%
onto one of the
discussion points

00:58:33.440 --> 00:58:36.000 align:middle line:90%
about dealing with MuseScore 4.

00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:37.200 align:middle line:90%
But Vaughn'll get that.

00:58:37.200 --> 00:58:37.790 align:middle line:90%
Yeah?

00:58:37.790 --> 00:58:40.502 align:middle line:84%
AUDIENCE: Will we get this link
to this notebook by any chance?

00:58:40.502 --> 00:58:41.460 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yeah.

00:58:41.460 --> 00:58:42.600 align:middle line:90%
I can make sure to do that.

00:58:42.600 --> 00:58:45.980 align:middle line:84%
Just if there's something that
I create in the middle of class

00:58:45.980 --> 00:58:49.670 align:middle line:84%
and it's not a one-button thing
and you don't see it by 9:00 AM

00:58:49.670 --> 00:58:51.930 align:middle line:84%
the next day, just
drop me a line.

00:58:51.930 --> 00:58:53.220 align:middle line:90%
But I'll try to do that.

00:58:53.220 --> 00:58:55.350 align:middle line:84%
And sometimes I'll give
you the cleaned up one.

00:58:55.350 --> 00:58:57.990 align:middle line:84%
I should have a script
on my other monitor,

00:58:57.990 --> 00:58:59.400 align:middle line:90%
but I'm not getting it now.

00:58:59.400 --> 00:58:59.900 align:middle line:90%
Great.

00:58:59.900 --> 00:59:02.100 align:middle line:84%
So let's look at
that Bach thing.

00:59:02.100 --> 00:59:07.250 align:middle line:84%
It is something-- in
the project in music21,

00:59:07.250 --> 00:59:09.980 align:middle line:90%
stream is a-- what is it?

00:59:09.980 --> 00:59:11.310 align:middle line:90%
Shout it out.

00:59:11.310 --> 00:59:12.028 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Module.

00:59:12.028 --> 00:59:13.070 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Module.

00:59:13.070 --> 00:59:14.923 align:middle line:90%
And Score is a?

00:59:14.923 --> 00:59:15.590 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Class.

00:59:15.590 --> 00:59:16.710 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Class, class.

00:59:16.710 --> 00:59:17.210 align:middle line:90%
Good.

00:59:17.210 --> 00:59:20.030 align:middle line:84%
So this is an object of
class Score in the stream

00:59:20.030 --> 00:59:24.090 align:middle line:84%
module in the music21 package,
project, whatever you call it.

00:59:24.090 --> 00:59:26.000 align:middle line:84%
And this is the
particular memory location

00:59:26.000 --> 00:59:30.440 align:middle line:84%
that you can hack on my computer
to deal with the stream.

00:59:30.440 --> 00:59:34.420 align:middle line:84%
We can change-- we'll just
make this-- change its ID

00:59:34.420 --> 00:59:37.820 align:middle line:84%
to bach_short,
something like that.

00:59:37.820 --> 00:59:40.930 align:middle line:84%
And then we'll see
something nicer than just

00:59:40.930 --> 00:59:42.200 align:middle line:90%
a memory location.

00:59:42.200 --> 00:59:43.310 align:middle line:90%
That's sometimes helpful.

00:59:43.310 --> 00:59:51.400 align:middle line:84%
OK, so recall at the
beginning of the semester,

00:59:51.400 --> 00:59:53.480 align:middle line:90%
how many things are in Bach?

00:59:53.480 --> 00:59:55.570 align:middle line:84%
This was a trick question
on the first day.

00:59:55.570 --> 00:59:58.810 align:middle line:84%
You all stuck around while
a lot of trick questions.

00:59:58.810 --> 01:00:01.960 align:middle line:90%


01:00:01.960 --> 01:00:04.912 align:middle line:84%
There are six
things in the Bach.

01:00:04.912 --> 01:00:07.600 align:middle line:84%
What are two basic
answers that you

01:00:07.600 --> 01:00:11.920 align:middle line:84%
thought might be a good
answer to how many things

01:00:11.920 --> 01:00:13.210 align:middle line:90%
there are in the Bach?

01:00:13.210 --> 01:00:14.340 align:middle line:90%
Ballpark figures?

01:00:14.340 --> 01:00:17.650 align:middle line:90%


01:00:17.650 --> 01:00:18.233 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: 100?

01:00:18.233 --> 01:00:19.150 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 100.

01:00:19.150 --> 01:00:19.660 align:middle line:90%
Yep.

01:00:19.660 --> 01:00:20.330 align:middle line:90%
Why?

01:00:20.330 --> 01:00:22.023 align:middle line:90%
Maybe about 100 whats?

01:00:22.023 --> 01:00:22.690 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Notes.

01:00:22.690 --> 01:00:23.390 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Notes.

01:00:23.390 --> 01:00:23.770 align:middle line:90%
Good.

01:00:23.770 --> 01:00:25.270 align:middle line:84%
What's another
number that you might

01:00:25.270 --> 01:00:27.695 align:middle line:90%
have thought could be there?

01:00:27.695 --> 01:00:28.195 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: 4.

01:00:28.195 --> 01:00:28.660 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 4.

01:00:28.660 --> 01:00:29.167 align:middle line:90%
Why?

01:00:29.167 --> 01:00:30.250 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: Number of parts.

01:00:30.250 --> 01:00:31.000 align:middle line:84%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT:
Four of the parts.

01:00:31.000 --> 01:00:31.500 align:middle line:90%
Good.

01:00:31.500 --> 01:00:35.310 align:middle line:84%
So let's see what
those things are.

01:00:35.310 --> 01:00:38.598 align:middle line:84%
Well, one of the
things-- streams--

01:00:38.598 --> 01:00:40.890 align:middle line:84%
scores are a type of stream--
everything there's a type

01:00:40.890 --> 01:00:41.610 align:middle line:90%
of stream--

01:00:41.610 --> 01:00:46.420 align:middle line:90%
can be treated like lists.

01:00:46.420 --> 01:00:47.590 align:middle line:90%
So you can index them.

01:00:47.590 --> 01:00:49.900 align:middle line:90%
Get what zeroth object is.

01:00:49.900 --> 01:00:52.772 align:middle line:90%
Get the first object.

01:00:52.772 --> 01:00:53.880 align:middle line:90%
Ah, there's our part.

01:00:53.880 --> 01:00:56.520 align:middle line:90%
Second.

01:00:56.520 --> 01:00:58.710 align:middle line:90%
And so on.

01:00:58.710 --> 01:01:00.550 align:middle line:90%
So what's that last object?

01:01:00.550 --> 01:01:01.770 align:middle line:90%
Everyone remember Python?

01:01:01.770 --> 01:01:03.640 align:middle line:90%
Give me negative 1 indexing.

01:01:03.640 --> 01:01:08.940 align:middle line:84%
Ah, we have something that says,
all of these soprano, alto,

01:01:08.940 --> 01:01:12.840 align:middle line:84%
tenor, bass, all have
these, what do you call,

01:01:12.840 --> 01:01:16.570 align:middle line:84%
this pretty little
thing around them.

01:01:16.570 --> 01:01:18.310 align:middle line:90%
So that's how we get six things.

01:01:18.310 --> 01:01:21.330 align:middle line:84%
We have metadata, which
is data about data.

01:01:21.330 --> 01:01:25.360 align:middle line:84%
That is usually having the title
of it and things like that.

01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:26.770 align:middle line:90%
We'll get to metadata later.

01:01:26.770 --> 01:01:30.190 align:middle line:84%
But I know you want
to get-- so let's see.

01:01:30.190 --> 01:01:32.600 align:middle line:84%
What's an index I can
use to get something

01:01:32.600 --> 01:01:34.190 align:middle line:90%
that might have notes in it?

01:01:34.190 --> 01:01:34.880 align:middle line:90%
Zero?

01:01:34.880 --> 01:01:35.820 align:middle line:90%
Probably not.

01:01:35.820 --> 01:01:36.810 align:middle line:90%
Negative 1.

01:01:36.810 --> 01:01:38.245 align:middle line:90%
Which one do we want to look at?

01:01:38.245 --> 01:01:41.660 align:middle line:90%


01:01:41.660 --> 01:01:43.040 align:middle line:90%
Give me a number to put in here.

01:01:43.040 --> 01:01:43.880 align:middle line:90%
AUDIENCE: 2.

01:01:43.880 --> 01:01:46.580 align:middle line:90%
MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 2.

01:01:46.580 --> 01:01:49.470 align:middle line:84%
So the 2 is in this
case the alto part.

01:01:49.470 --> 01:01:52.880 align:middle line:84%
And you would think if you
don't get that metadata as 0

01:01:52.880 --> 01:01:55.430 align:middle line:90%
that this would be--

01:01:55.430 --> 01:01:59.790 align:middle line:84%
this might be that one
indexed or something.

01:01:59.790 --> 01:02:01.130 align:middle line:90%
One is soprano, too.

01:02:01.130 --> 01:02:05.090 align:middle line:84%
But no, it's 0 index
but the 0 is metadata.

01:02:05.090 --> 01:02:08.540 align:middle line:84%
There might be multiple things
at the beginning, not just

01:02:08.540 --> 01:02:09.420 align:middle line:90%
one metadata.

01:02:09.420 --> 01:02:10.340 align:middle line:90%
There could be more.

01:02:10.340 --> 01:02:11.730 align:middle line:90%
Could be metadata lists.

01:02:11.730 --> 01:02:14.880 align:middle line:84%
So you might not
always get this.

01:02:14.880 --> 01:02:19.280 align:middle line:84%
So you could do something
like this for B--

01:02:19.280 --> 01:02:23.240 align:middle line:84%
for thing-- I always
use thing in Bach

01:02:23.240 --> 01:02:24.600 align:middle line:90%
since I don't know what it is.

01:02:24.600 --> 01:02:37.110 align:middle line:84%
If isinstance thing music21 dot
stream dot part print thing.

01:02:37.110 --> 01:02:37.610 align:middle line:90%
Oops.

01:02:37.610 --> 01:02:38.420 align:middle line:90%
What did I do?

01:02:38.420 --> 01:02:40.850 align:middle line:90%
I didn't-- ah.

01:02:40.850 --> 01:02:41.900 align:middle line:90%
Sorry.

01:02:41.900 --> 01:02:45.140 align:middle line:84%
Stream dot part because
I imported that.

01:02:45.140 --> 01:02:47.540 align:middle line:90%
I imported stream into it.

01:02:47.540 --> 01:02:51.150 align:middle line:84%
So that can be one
way to get this.

01:02:51.150 --> 01:02:53.090 align:middle line:84%
I'm going to tell
you all of the most

01:02:53.090 --> 01:02:58.410 align:middle line:84%
general ways of doing things now
so that it forms a mental habit.

01:02:58.410 --> 01:03:03.260 align:middle line:90%
But we want to--

01:03:03.260 --> 01:03:06.380 align:middle line:84%
but just to know, you
will learn some shortcuts

01:03:06.380 --> 01:03:09.720 align:middle line:84%
so that you won't need to
have to code all this later.

01:03:09.720 --> 01:03:10.220 align:middle line:90%
Great.

01:03:10.220 --> 01:03:13.190 align:middle line:90%
So now we have all the parts.

01:03:13.190 --> 01:03:15.060 align:middle line:90%
Let's do this.

01:03:15.060 --> 01:03:17.130 align:middle line:90%
We got the Bach 2.

01:03:17.130 --> 01:03:17.720 align:middle line:90%
Let's see.

01:03:17.720 --> 01:03:22.680 align:middle line:84%
For thing in Bach 2,
let's just call that alto.

01:03:22.680 --> 01:03:24.600 align:middle line:90%
Let's call that alto.

01:03:24.600 --> 01:03:28.580 align:middle line:84%
Alto equals Bach 2
for thing in alto.

01:03:28.580 --> 01:03:29.930 align:middle line:90%
I always like good naming.

01:03:29.930 --> 01:03:31.062 align:middle line:90%
See, I'm calling it thing.

01:03:31.062 --> 01:03:32.770 align:middle line:84%
Things are the best
naming when you don't

01:03:32.770 --> 01:03:34.490 align:middle line:90%
know what something is yet.

01:03:34.490 --> 01:03:37.130 align:middle line:84%
I suppose you could call it
L for element or something.

01:03:37.130 --> 01:03:39.650 align:middle line:90%
Print thing.

01:03:39.650 --> 01:03:43.610 align:middle line:84%
Anyone recall from the
very fast thing first day

01:03:43.610 --> 01:03:46.510 align:middle line:90%
what is it going to be?

01:03:46.510 --> 01:03:52.330 align:middle line:84%
So it's a bunch of measures,
but also an instrument.

01:03:52.330 --> 01:03:55.000 align:middle line:84%
I think that that's been
fixed in the latest version,

01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:57.200 align:middle line:84%
and it looks like
everything else.

01:03:57.200 --> 01:03:59.330 align:middle line:84%
But yeah, so we have
an instrument there.

01:03:59.330 --> 01:04:01.420 align:middle line:90%
So we can do this again.

01:04:01.420 --> 01:04:02.440 align:middle line:90%
I'm going to copy.

01:04:02.440 --> 01:04:04.090 align:middle line:90%
I just copied here.

01:04:04.090 --> 01:04:07.180 align:middle line:84%
And I'm going to
go here and paste.

01:04:07.180 --> 01:04:10.400 align:middle line:84%
And we'll again do that
isinstance checking.

01:04:10.400 --> 01:04:15.130 align:middle line:84%
If isinstance-- that means
is a member of this class--

01:04:15.130 --> 01:04:23.270 align:middle line:84%
thing stream dot
measure, print thing OK,

01:04:23.270 --> 01:04:25.320 align:middle line:84%
now we've gotten
just the measures.

01:04:25.320 --> 01:04:29.310 align:middle line:90%
And we can get--

01:04:29.310 --> 01:04:34.900 align:middle line:84%
oh, I don't know--
measure 2 equals alto 3.

01:04:34.900 --> 01:04:35.920 align:middle line:90%
I think we got that.

01:04:35.920 --> 01:04:37.270 align:middle line:90%
Is that-- did I guess right?

01:04:37.270 --> 01:04:41.970 align:middle line:84%
And we can keep writing
the same type of thing.

01:04:41.970 --> 01:04:45.403 align:middle line:90%
For thing in M2.

01:04:45.403 --> 01:04:48.520 align:middle line:90%


01:04:48.520 --> 01:04:50.770 align:middle line:84%
We don't need that because
we're already in a measure.

01:04:50.770 --> 01:04:54.060 align:middle line:90%
And finally, we get to notes.

01:04:54.060 --> 01:04:57.600 align:middle line:90%
Finally, we get to notes.

01:04:57.600 --> 01:05:02.940 align:middle line:84%
So that's where I'm going
to end this part now.

01:05:02.940 --> 01:05:06.360 align:middle line:84%
I've given you a
very tedious way

01:05:06.360 --> 01:05:09.300 align:middle line:90%
to get two notes from a score--

01:05:09.300 --> 01:05:15.000 align:middle line:84%
that you go through,
all the parts of--

01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:17.350 align:middle line:84%
you go through everything
that's in the score,

01:05:17.350 --> 01:05:20.520 align:middle line:84%
find the things that
are parts, and then

01:05:20.520 --> 01:05:24.960 align:middle line:84%
you could do a next iteration
on here, another for loop,

01:05:24.960 --> 01:05:25.650 align:middle line:90%
another if.

01:05:25.650 --> 01:05:28.910 align:middle line:84%
Go through each of the
parts and figure out

01:05:28.910 --> 01:05:30.840 align:middle line:90%
everything that's a measure.

01:05:30.840 --> 01:05:32.930 align:middle line:90%
And what?

01:05:32.930 --> 01:05:33.543 align:middle line:90%
Oh, sorry.

01:05:33.543 --> 01:05:34.710 align:middle line:90%
Everything that's a measure.

01:05:34.710 --> 01:05:36.710 align:middle line:84%
And go through each of
the measures and do this.

01:05:36.710 --> 01:05:40.010 align:middle line:84%
A for loop within a for
loop within a for loop.

01:05:40.010 --> 01:05:44.670 align:middle line:84%
But we're going to learn some
better ways to do this later.

01:05:44.670 --> 01:05:46.970 align:middle line:84%
But I want to leave
you at least two days

01:05:46.970 --> 01:05:49.940 align:middle line:84%
with trying to do everything
the hard way before we start

01:05:49.940 --> 01:05:52.200 align:middle line:90%
to get to the easier ways.

01:05:52.200 --> 01:05:53.070 align:middle line:90%
So you can do this.

01:05:53.070 --> 01:05:55.080 align:middle line:90%
So that's that.

01:05:55.080 --> 01:06:00.720 align:middle line:84%
Your only assignment is continue
working on your problem sets

01:06:00.720 --> 01:06:05.080 align:middle line:84%
and to learn to sing your
little part of BWV 66.6.

01:06:05.080 --> 01:06:21.000 align:middle line:90%