WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.490 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:02.490 --> 00:00:04.482 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:04.482 --> 00:00:05.478 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:05.478 --> 00:00:11.270 align:middle line:90% 00:00:11.270 --> 00:00:13.280 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: OK, any questions? 00:00:13.280 --> 00:00:16.650 align:middle line:84% Problem set 4 was just turned in. 00:00:16.650 --> 00:00:21.110 align:middle line:84% A couple people have asked for and been granted 00:00:21.110 --> 00:00:23.450 align:middle line:90% small extensions on that. 00:00:23.450 --> 00:00:27.030 align:middle line:84% I'm not going to be talking through the solution set today. 00:00:27.030 --> 00:00:29.570 align:middle line:84% But anything that came up that you found 00:00:29.570 --> 00:00:33.500 align:middle line:90% interesting appalling, strange? 00:00:33.500 --> 00:00:34.247 align:middle line:90% Adam? 00:00:34.247 --> 00:00:36.080 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: For the t and the i, I used that o 00:00:36.080 --> 00:00:37.778 align:middle line:90% of n factorial algorithm. 00:00:37.778 --> 00:00:40.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: The o of n factorial algorithm, 00:00:40.320 --> 00:00:43.250 align:middle line:90% how high can n get? 00:00:43.250 --> 00:00:44.672 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 25. 00:00:44.672 --> 00:00:47.930 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 25, for what? 00:00:47.930 --> 00:00:49.370 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: If I had 25 notes and I 00:00:49.370 --> 00:00:51.440 align:middle line:84% was trying to find optic or OPTC, 00:00:51.440 --> 00:00:53.900 align:middle line:84% it turns off within a few seconds. 00:00:53.900 --> 00:00:55.400 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: So you 00:00:55.400 --> 00:00:59.550 align:middle line:84% have an o of n factorial algorithm, which is usually 00:00:59.550 --> 00:01:03.010 align:middle line:84% one of the worst you'd ever be thinking about, 00:01:03.010 --> 00:01:04.410 align:middle line:90% except for n to the n. 00:01:04.410 --> 00:01:05.602 align:middle line:90% N to the n is worse, right? 00:01:05.602 --> 00:01:06.310 align:middle line:90% I can't remember. 00:01:06.310 --> 00:01:09.188 align:middle line:84% These are the types of things, as a professional music person, 00:01:09.188 --> 00:01:10.480 align:middle line:90% you don't really have to think. 00:01:10.480 --> 00:01:12.460 align:middle line:84% Once you're thinking about things this bad, 00:01:12.460 --> 00:01:13.270 align:middle line:90% you usually don't. 00:01:13.270 --> 00:01:19.230 align:middle line:84% But yeah, 25 was the number that I was weirdly thinking 00:01:19.230 --> 00:01:20.520 align:middle line:90% that would constrain n. 00:01:20.520 --> 00:01:23.370 align:middle line:84% Anybody have a different number that often comes up 00:01:23.370 --> 00:01:25.700 align:middle line:90% in music for the max, the n? 00:01:25.700 --> 00:01:26.200 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:01:26.200 --> 00:01:26.742 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 12. 00:01:26.742 --> 00:01:29.160 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 12, with 12 pitches. 00:01:29.160 --> 00:01:34.240 align:middle line:84% You can end up with an algorithm that is o of 12 factorial-- 00:01:34.240 --> 00:01:38.760 align:middle line:84% which is decently big but not too bad-- 00:01:38.760 --> 00:01:41.470 align:middle line:90% which reduces to o of? 00:01:41.470 --> 00:01:41.970 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 1. 00:01:41.970 --> 00:01:43.303 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 1. 00:01:43.303 --> 00:01:46.710 align:middle line:90% Very slow 1, but o of 1. 00:01:46.710 --> 00:01:48.730 align:middle line:84% I don't think that would be that bad. 00:01:48.730 --> 00:01:55.440 align:middle line:84% I believe there is an algorithm that runs in o of n time, 00:01:55.440 --> 00:01:57.430 align:middle line:90% I believe. 00:01:57.430 --> 00:01:59.050 align:middle line:90% It might be o of n squared. 00:01:59.050 --> 00:02:00.180 align:middle line:90% I'll look back at it. 00:02:00.180 --> 00:02:03.000 align:middle line:84% There is a way to go better, but good. 00:02:03.000 --> 00:02:05.160 align:middle line:84% For this class, again, you're not 00:02:05.160 --> 00:02:07.770 align:middle line:84% going to be quizzed on your algorithmic complexity 00:02:07.770 --> 00:02:12.180 align:middle line:84% of your work, but it's always a good thing 00:02:12.180 --> 00:02:15.310 align:middle line:84% to be thinking about as we do things. 00:02:15.310 --> 00:02:20.640 align:middle line:84% I took the summer to look through all the places where 00:02:20.640 --> 00:02:22.390 align:middle line:90% I wasn't using heap tables. 00:02:22.390 --> 00:02:24.510 align:middle line:90% I don't know if anybody-- 00:02:24.510 --> 00:02:31.290 align:middle line:84% do they cover heaps in 6009 or in-- 00:02:31.290 --> 00:02:32.646 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 6006. 00:02:32.646 --> 00:02:34.650 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 6006, OK. 00:02:34.650 --> 00:02:38.100 align:middle line:84% The idea of an organization that allows you to, at any point, 00:02:38.100 --> 00:02:42.180 align:middle line:84% get the smallest or the largest value, but not everything else 00:02:42.180 --> 00:02:42.840 align:middle line:90% is sorted. 00:02:42.840 --> 00:02:46.830 align:middle line:84% That can be a very useful tool quite often. 00:02:46.830 --> 00:02:47.490 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:02:47.490 --> 00:02:49.407 align:middle line:84% Most of the things aren't going to be on that. 00:02:49.407 --> 00:02:52.890 align:middle line:84% Any other questions or weird concerns that come up? 00:02:52.890 --> 00:02:56.555 align:middle line:84% I'll be curious, after class, to figure out where 25 comes from. 00:02:56.555 --> 00:02:57.930 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I just put in 25 notes. 00:02:57.930 --> 00:02:59.837 align:middle line:84% And then, c actually killed a lot of them. 00:02:59.837 --> 00:03:01.670 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: As long as you 00:03:01.670 --> 00:03:03.920 align:middle line:90% do your cardinality or your-- 00:03:03.920 --> 00:03:06.170 align:middle line:90% what's the other one? 00:03:06.170 --> 00:03:06.920 align:middle line:90% o? 00:03:06.920 --> 00:03:08.840 align:middle line:90% What's the octave? 00:03:08.840 --> 00:03:11.150 align:middle line:84% Sorry, I was hearing optic, but you were saying 00:03:11.150 --> 00:03:12.300 align:middle line:90% octave, which is correct. 00:03:12.300 --> 00:03:17.930 align:middle line:84% As long as you've done something like that, the OPC, which 00:03:17.930 --> 00:03:23.930 align:middle line:84% is almost always a requirement for using t or i 00:03:23.930 --> 00:03:26.160 align:middle line:90% the transposition operation-- 00:03:26.160 --> 00:03:28.730 align:middle line:90% 00:03:28.730 --> 00:03:31.700 align:middle line:84% the transposition and inversion operations can, in some cases, 00:03:31.700 --> 00:03:36.350 align:middle line:84% not be well defined, especially if you're thinking of a chord. 00:03:36.350 --> 00:03:41.090 align:middle line:84% When you invert, the order of the notes change. 00:03:41.090 --> 00:03:44.280 align:middle line:84% In a melody, the order obviously matters more. 00:03:44.280 --> 00:03:44.930 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:03:44.930 --> 00:03:45.800 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:03:45.800 --> 00:03:47.342 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Can you give some intuition 00:03:47.342 --> 00:03:49.198 align:middle line:90% for when inversion is useful? 00:03:49.198 --> 00:03:50.990 align:middle line:84% Doing the assignment, it's just hard for me 00:03:50.990 --> 00:03:52.120 align:middle line:90% to wrap my mind around. 00:03:52.120 --> 00:03:54.370 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah, when is it useful? 00:03:54.370 --> 00:03:57.010 align:middle line:84% One of the first reasons why it can 00:03:57.010 --> 00:03:59.380 align:middle line:84% be useful is a lot of composers have 00:03:59.380 --> 00:04:03.530 align:middle line:84% thought it's useful, including tonal composers like Bach. 00:04:03.530 --> 00:04:08.260 align:middle line:84% But 20th century composers like Arnold Schoenberg or Karlheinz 00:04:08.260 --> 00:04:12.800 align:middle line:84% Stockhausen, they've used inversion symmetry a lot. 00:04:12.800 --> 00:04:14.560 align:middle line:84% The other thing is that things that 00:04:14.560 --> 00:04:19.120 align:middle line:84% are inversions of each other have 00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:21.820 align:middle line:90% the same interval structure. 00:04:21.820 --> 00:04:24.740 align:middle line:84% If you're playing with a piece and you're thinking about oh, 00:04:24.740 --> 00:04:31.660 align:middle line:84% how can I reuse those intervals, that can be a place that's done. 00:04:31.660 --> 00:04:37.480 align:middle line:84% I think you can Google online people singing "Happy Birthday" 00:04:37.480 --> 00:04:40.030 align:middle line:84% in inversion and stuff like that. 00:04:40.030 --> 00:04:41.800 align:middle line:84% Quite a number of people do hear it 00:04:41.800 --> 00:04:45.040 align:middle line:84% in special cases as an equivalence class, 00:04:45.040 --> 00:04:49.580 align:middle line:84% as we saw with the Gustav Holst example, 00:04:49.580 --> 00:04:53.520 align:middle line:84% where the sixth time through the Chaconne theme, 00:04:53.520 --> 00:04:55.080 align:middle line:90% he decides to play upside down. 00:04:55.080 --> 00:04:57.440 align:middle line:84% Do you remember that from the band thing that we have? 00:04:57.440 --> 00:05:01.250 align:middle line:84% That's one of the places that's there. 00:05:01.250 --> 00:05:06.660 align:middle line:84% I think we've moved to a world that's different from even 25, 00:05:06.660 --> 00:05:08.970 align:middle line:84% 30 years ago, where it was this notion that, oh, 00:05:08.970 --> 00:05:11.960 align:middle line:84% eventually, we're all going to hear inversions the way 00:05:11.960 --> 00:05:13.460 align:middle line:90% we hear transpositions. 00:05:13.460 --> 00:05:16.460 align:middle line:84% I think that that's not something composers 00:05:16.460 --> 00:05:18.920 align:middle line:90% are asserting as much. 00:05:18.920 --> 00:05:21.800 align:middle line:90% Great question. 00:05:21.800 --> 00:05:24.290 align:middle line:90% Other things? 00:05:24.290 --> 00:05:26.510 align:middle line:84% There was one case that I haven't 00:05:26.510 --> 00:05:30.810 align:middle line:84% run your things through that is interesting, that almost all-- 00:05:30.810 --> 00:05:33.570 align:middle line:90% 00:05:33.570 --> 00:05:38.975 align:middle line:84% I'll just go over here-- almost all musical structures that 00:05:38.975 --> 00:05:43.370 align:middle line:84% are built on the same numbers of intervals, 00:05:43.370 --> 00:05:49.160 align:middle line:84% once you do reduce them, octave equivalent so on-- such as here, 00:05:49.160 --> 00:05:52.530 align:middle line:84% we have a major third, especially if we 00:05:52.530 --> 00:05:53.730 align:middle line:90% don't care about spelling. 00:05:53.730 --> 00:05:57.060 align:middle line:90% Here, we have a minor third. 00:05:57.060 --> 00:05:58.880 align:middle line:84% Together, we have a perfect fifth. 00:05:58.880 --> 00:06:02.580 align:middle line:90% 00:06:02.580 --> 00:06:06.040 align:middle line:84% Here, we have minor, major perfect fifth. 00:06:06.040 --> 00:06:08.310 align:middle line:90% major triad, minor triad. 00:06:08.310 --> 00:06:14.550 align:middle line:84% Most cases, chords that have the same interval content, 00:06:14.550 --> 00:06:19.500 align:middle line:84% can be transposed or inverted to make each other. 00:06:19.500 --> 00:06:27.150 align:middle line:84% The cool thing is there's a very few exceptions to that rule. 00:06:27.150 --> 00:06:33.720 align:middle line:84% The most famous one is, any transposition or inversion 00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:35.430 align:middle line:90% of this-- 00:06:35.430 --> 00:06:39.535 align:middle line:84% I'll use pitch class numbers 0, 1, 3, 7-- 00:06:39.535 --> 00:06:46.050 align:middle line:90% 00:06:46.050 --> 00:07:01.380 align:middle line:84% 0, 1, 4-- that's an E. 4, 6, 0, 1, 4, 6. 00:07:01.380 --> 00:07:03.400 align:middle line:84% Somebody, while I'm getting a new pen, 00:07:03.400 --> 00:07:08.320 align:middle line:84% verify those have the same interval content. 00:07:08.320 --> 00:07:13.680 align:middle line:84% Do they both have a semitone somewhere? 00:07:13.680 --> 00:07:17.260 align:middle line:84% Yeah, between the 0 and the 1, right? 00:07:17.260 --> 00:07:20.440 align:middle line:84% Sorry, you do need that better pen before you do it. 00:07:20.440 --> 00:07:21.800 align:middle line:90% Do they both have a whole step? 00:07:21.800 --> 00:07:25.020 align:middle line:90% 00:07:25.020 --> 00:07:27.400 align:middle line:84% Yeah, where's the whole step in the first one? 00:07:27.400 --> 00:07:28.332 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Is it 3? 00:07:28.332 --> 00:07:29.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 1 to 3? 00:07:29.040 --> 00:07:30.790 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 1 to 3, yes. 00:07:30.790 --> 00:07:32.887 align:middle line:84% It's written this way with spelling thing, 00:07:32.887 --> 00:07:33.970 align:middle line:90% so it's a little bit hard. 00:07:33.970 --> 00:07:35.510 align:middle line:90% Do they both have a minor third? 00:07:35.510 --> 00:07:37.920 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yes. 00:07:37.920 --> 00:07:40.920 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Do they both have a major third? 00:07:40.920 --> 00:07:41.850 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yes. 00:07:41.850 --> 00:07:42.790 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: This one's a little bit harder. 00:07:42.790 --> 00:07:44.920 align:middle line:90% Yeah, so 2 things at 4. 00:07:44.920 --> 00:07:46.043 align:middle line:90% There's the major third. 00:07:46.043 --> 00:07:46.960 align:middle line:90% There's a major third. 00:07:46.960 --> 00:07:51.400 align:middle line:84% Do they both have a perfect fourth? 00:07:51.400 --> 00:07:52.438 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yeah. 00:07:52.438 --> 00:07:53.980 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Where's 00:07:53.980 --> 00:07:57.310 align:middle line:90% the perfect fourth in this? 00:07:57.310 --> 00:08:00.850 align:middle line:90% This one's pretty easy. 00:08:00.850 --> 00:08:03.100 align:middle line:84% Here, the perfect fourth is because we 00:08:03.100 --> 00:08:05.050 align:middle line:90% have octave equivalents. 00:08:05.050 --> 00:08:09.970 align:middle line:84% We just move this one up and then, we get a perfect fourth. 00:08:09.970 --> 00:08:14.215 align:middle line:84% Do they have a tritone, [INAUDIBLE] augmented triad? 00:08:14.215 --> 00:08:16.090 align:middle line:84% Yeah, this one's pretty easy, because there's 00:08:16.090 --> 00:08:18.130 align:middle line:84% a tritone from the lowest to highest. 00:08:18.130 --> 00:08:22.000 align:middle line:84% Here, it's between the first and the last. 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:23.740 align:middle line:84% This one's particularly interesting, 00:08:23.740 --> 00:08:31.720 align:middle line:84% because any four-note chord will have six intervals in it. 00:08:31.720 --> 00:08:36.770 align:middle line:84% If we think of how many semitones, how many whole steps, 00:08:36.770 --> 00:08:39.770 align:middle line:84% how many minor thirds, major thirds, perfect fourths, 00:08:39.770 --> 00:08:41.559 align:middle line:84% tritones, and everything else above that 00:08:41.559 --> 00:08:43.549 align:middle line:90% is just an inversion of these. 00:08:43.549 --> 00:08:46.510 align:middle line:90% They each have one. 00:08:46.510 --> 00:08:48.686 align:middle line:84% It's called the all-interval tetrachords. 00:08:48.686 --> 00:08:51.310 align:middle line:90% 00:08:51.310 --> 00:08:54.940 align:middle line:84% The fascinating thing is that you cannot invert one to make 00:08:54.940 --> 00:08:56.080 align:middle line:90% the other. 00:08:56.080 --> 00:08:58.690 align:middle line:84% There's only a few things like this. 00:08:58.690 --> 00:09:00.203 align:middle line:90% They're called z-related. 00:09:00.203 --> 00:09:03.100 align:middle line:90% 00:09:03.100 --> 00:09:06.220 align:middle line:84% Nobody really knows what the z stands for. 00:09:06.220 --> 00:09:09.550 align:middle line:84% It's not a Russian propaganda thing or whatever. 00:09:09.550 --> 00:09:12.533 align:middle line:84% They're z-related and they always come in pairs. 00:09:12.533 --> 00:09:16.600 align:middle line:90% 00:09:16.600 --> 00:09:21.160 align:middle line:84% If we used a 16-tone system, then all the z-related things 00:09:21.160 --> 00:09:23.770 align:middle line:90% come in triples. 00:09:23.770 --> 00:09:25.340 align:middle line:84% Somebody has worked out the math. 00:09:25.340 --> 00:09:28.720 align:middle line:84% If we use a 30-tone system, they all come in groups of 5. 00:09:28.720 --> 00:09:31.870 align:middle line:84% It's one of these things that, those of us in music theory, 00:09:31.870 --> 00:09:35.140 align:middle line:84% have never worked with a mathematician 00:09:35.140 --> 00:09:37.930 align:middle line:84% to figure out what the general pattern is of where 00:09:37.930 --> 00:09:41.210 align:middle line:90% z-related systems come. 00:09:41.210 --> 00:09:44.090 align:middle line:84% Nice little aside, but kind of the fun things 00:09:44.090 --> 00:09:47.930 align:middle line:84% you can do if you're doing a little bit more pure math 00:09:47.930 --> 00:09:50.100 align:middle line:90% side and less computation. 00:09:50.100 --> 00:09:50.600 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Jake? 00:09:50.600 --> 00:09:52.670 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: That would be an interesting, fun project. 00:09:52.670 --> 00:09:54.590 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: That would be-- 00:09:54.590 --> 00:09:56.330 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE]. 00:09:56.330 --> 00:09:57.830 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: --that 00:09:57.830 --> 00:10:02.420 align:middle line:84% would be a final project that, have a backup plan. 00:10:02.420 --> 00:10:06.090 align:middle line:84% Do not vet your entire grade on being able to figure it out. 00:10:06.090 --> 00:10:13.400 align:middle line:84% But yeah, enumerating various things would be great. 00:10:13.400 --> 00:10:16.485 align:middle line:84% And a lot of people who are interested in post-tonal music 00:10:16.485 --> 00:10:17.610 align:middle line:90% will be interested in that. 00:10:17.610 --> 00:10:23.220 align:middle line:84% Good, OK, let's move off the computer. 00:10:23.220 --> 00:10:25.790 align:middle line:84% We've gone from computer to math. 00:10:25.790 --> 00:10:27.240 align:middle line:90% Let's go to pure music. 00:10:27.240 --> 00:10:29.870 align:middle line:84% I'm going to play in a second-- but you can get started-- 00:10:29.870 --> 00:10:32.850 align:middle line:84% that chorale I've passed out for you, the class theme, 00:10:32.850 --> 00:10:36.320 align:middle line:84% "Chorale Alleluia," "Alleluia Chorale." 00:10:36.320 --> 00:10:40.160 align:middle line:84% Your job, talk with other people around this. 00:10:40.160 --> 00:10:43.950 align:middle line:90% 00:10:43.950 --> 00:10:46.620 align:middle line:84% Let's spend five minutes just doing 00:10:46.620 --> 00:10:50.220 align:middle line:84% whatever Roman numeral or other analysis 00:10:50.220 --> 00:10:54.097 align:middle line:84% you've been taught on this project. 00:10:54.097 --> 00:10:56.430 align:middle line:84% Let's not all start at the beginning, so that some of us 00:10:56.430 --> 00:10:59.250 align:middle line:84% can have some interesting comments about the end 00:10:59.250 --> 00:11:02.820 align:middle line:90% or something. 00:11:02.820 --> 00:11:06.480 align:middle line:84% Five minutes until I give more instructions. 00:11:06.480 --> 00:11:08.813 align:middle line:84% If you talk with each other, you'll make fewer mistakes. 00:11:08.813 --> 00:11:15.810 align:middle line:90% 00:11:15.810 --> 00:11:21.240 align:middle line:84% OK, let's bring it back for a second. 00:11:21.240 --> 00:11:27.030 align:middle line:84% Everybody, I'm going to start by asking people for something 00:11:27.030 --> 00:11:28.900 align:middle line:90% that they found interesting. 00:11:28.900 --> 00:11:32.460 align:middle line:90% 00:11:32.460 --> 00:11:37.044 align:middle line:84% Let's number our measures, so measure one, two, three, four, 00:11:37.044 --> 00:11:40.297 align:middle line:90% five, six, seven, eight, nine. 00:11:40.297 --> 00:11:41.255 align:middle line:90% Did I count that right? 00:11:41.255 --> 00:11:43.980 align:middle line:90% 00:11:43.980 --> 00:11:45.540 align:middle line:84% When you say, if there's something 00:11:45.540 --> 00:11:51.510 align:middle line:84% interesting in a specific place, that I want to know it. 00:11:51.510 --> 00:11:53.680 align:middle line:90% We'll jump around a little bit. 00:11:53.680 --> 00:11:56.110 align:middle line:84% Jason, what did you find that's interesting? 00:11:56.110 --> 00:11:59.190 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I believe the phrase starting 00:11:59.190 --> 00:12:01.980 align:middle line:84% at the end of the first measure, the Alleluia, 00:12:01.980 --> 00:12:05.640 align:middle line:84% I think it's 5, 1, 5 1 and then, in A major. 00:12:05.640 --> 00:12:07.890 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 5, 1, 5, 1. 00:12:07.890 --> 00:12:10.540 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The following one is basically 5, 1, 5, 1, 00:12:10.540 --> 00:12:12.725 align:middle line:90% but in F-sharp minor instead. 00:12:12.725 --> 00:12:14.670 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Oh, so you're 00:12:14.670 --> 00:12:18.360 align:middle line:84% interesting thing is that we have some sort of-- 00:12:18.360 --> 00:12:21.390 align:middle line:84% I don't know, what do you call it-- modulating sequence? 00:12:21.390 --> 00:12:27.990 align:middle line:84% Modulating or repetition on different keys, this 00:12:27.990 --> 00:12:31.950 align:middle line:84% is the one that I wanted to get rid of. 00:12:31.950 --> 00:12:34.050 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:12:34.050 --> 00:12:35.015 align:middle line:90% Let's see. 00:12:35.015 --> 00:12:37.950 align:middle line:90% 00:12:37.950 --> 00:12:40.540 align:middle line:84% Who hasn't been called on in a while? 00:12:40.540 --> 00:12:41.420 align:middle line:90% Angelica? 00:12:41.420 --> 00:12:44.673 align:middle line:90% 00:12:44.673 --> 00:12:46.090 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: This is the [INAUDIBLE]. 00:12:46.090 --> 00:12:48.230 align:middle line:84% It's weird that they chose the F-sharp minor, 00:12:48.230 --> 00:12:52.070 align:middle line:84% because if you look at it A major, 00:12:52.070 --> 00:12:56.440 align:middle line:84% it's like it goes to the major third a lot, [INAUDIBLE]. 00:12:56.440 --> 00:13:00.010 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: So we're starting in A major 00:13:00.010 --> 00:13:01.702 align:middle line:90% and then, it goes to the-- 00:13:01.702 --> 00:13:02.410 align:middle line:90% what did you say? 00:13:02.410 --> 00:13:04.240 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Then, it goes to F-sharp minor. 00:13:04.240 --> 00:13:07.870 align:middle line:84% It's a [INAUDIBLE] to go from A major, 00:13:07.870 --> 00:13:12.270 align:middle line:84% because it goes between a sixth and a major third. 00:13:12.270 --> 00:13:14.770 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: It goes down a sixth and then, 00:13:14.770 --> 00:13:15.140 align:middle line:90% what? 00:13:15.140 --> 00:13:17.015 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Then, it goes between a major third 00:13:17.015 --> 00:13:18.487 align:middle line:84% and the sixth chord, minor sixth. 00:13:18.487 --> 00:13:21.070 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: It goes from a minor sixth chord 00:13:21.070 --> 00:13:23.510 align:middle line:84% to a major sixth chord at some point. 00:13:23.510 --> 00:13:26.410 align:middle line:84% Cool, great, super, very interesting. 00:13:26.410 --> 00:13:29.620 align:middle line:90% We'll keep going. 00:13:29.620 --> 00:13:30.790 align:middle line:90% Who hasn't been called? 00:13:30.790 --> 00:13:33.460 align:middle line:90% Jordan? 00:13:33.460 --> 00:13:35.680 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Something interesting, I guess, is-- 00:13:35.680 --> 00:13:39.340 align:middle line:84% I was trying to figure out what the chord was, that measure two, 00:13:39.340 --> 00:13:41.860 align:middle line:90% the last chord? 00:13:41.860 --> 00:13:43.270 align:middle line:90% I don't know what to call that. 00:13:43.270 --> 00:13:46.000 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah, who 00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:49.300 align:middle line:90% gave a label to a chord here? 00:13:49.300 --> 00:13:50.150 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:13:50.150 --> 00:13:52.880 align:middle line:84% Let's see, Matthew, what label did you give it? 00:13:52.880 --> 00:13:53.980 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: V 6 of VI. 00:13:53.980 --> 00:13:56.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: V 6 of VI. 00:13:56.320 --> 00:13:59.950 align:middle line:84% For those who don't yet translating 00:13:59.950 --> 00:14:04.650 align:middle line:84% those numbers to symbols, were you thinking of something like? 00:14:04.650 --> 00:14:07.660 align:middle line:90% 00:14:07.660 --> 00:14:09.340 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yes. 00:14:09.340 --> 00:14:11.230 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: OK. 00:14:11.230 --> 00:14:14.440 align:middle line:84% Over time, you do learn to hear the lower cases and the slashes 00:14:14.440 --> 00:14:18.770 align:middle line:84% and the things, what's in Roman numerals and what's in Arabic. 00:14:18.770 --> 00:14:22.400 align:middle line:84% Anybody give a different thing for that? 00:14:22.400 --> 00:14:22.900 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:14:22.900 --> 00:14:24.610 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I kind of have a Java question. 00:14:24.610 --> 00:14:24.760 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Just 00:14:24.760 --> 00:14:26.860 align:middle line:84% let me-- let's finish on this particular question. 00:14:26.860 --> 00:14:27.100 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: It is. 00:14:27.100 --> 00:14:27.310 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: It is? 00:14:27.310 --> 00:14:28.900 align:middle line:90% OK, go ahead. 00:14:28.900 --> 00:14:32.360 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I worked from the end. 00:14:32.360 --> 00:14:35.360 align:middle line:84% I just kind of assumed it was an F-sharp minor, like this 00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:37.925 align:middle line:90% was just like the V 6. 00:14:37.925 --> 00:14:40.050 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: This was just in V 6. 00:14:40.050 --> 00:14:42.217 align:middle line:84% Good, so I think we're getting to the next question. 00:14:42.217 --> 00:14:46.460 align:middle line:84% How many people noted a key change in the piece? 00:14:46.460 --> 00:14:48.450 align:middle line:84% Not everybody got far enough to do this. 00:14:48.450 --> 00:14:50.600 align:middle line:90% One person did, two people. 00:14:50.600 --> 00:14:53.700 align:middle line:90% You presumably did or did not? 00:14:53.700 --> 00:14:56.190 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I only got halfway through measure three. 00:14:56.190 --> 00:14:57.940 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: That's fine. 00:14:57.940 --> 00:14:59.330 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:14:59.330 --> 00:15:02.720 align:middle line:90% Anybody not find a key change? 00:15:02.720 --> 00:15:04.250 align:middle line:90% John. 00:15:04.250 --> 00:15:08.100 align:middle line:84% For those who did think of a key change, 00:15:08.100 --> 00:15:11.450 align:middle line:84% where did you put the key change? 00:15:11.450 --> 00:15:12.360 align:middle line:90% Adam? 00:15:12.360 --> 00:15:13.680 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Between measure seven and eight. 00:15:13.680 --> 00:15:15.555 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Between measure 00:15:15.555 --> 00:15:18.110 align:middle line:84% seven and eight, five, six, seven, 00:15:18.110 --> 00:15:20.910 align:middle line:90% between here a key change. 00:15:20.910 --> 00:15:22.650 align:middle line:90% Good, any other things? 00:15:22.650 --> 00:15:23.150 align:middle line:90% Jason? 00:15:23.150 --> 00:15:24.775 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I didn't get that far, but it 00:15:24.775 --> 00:15:28.160 align:middle line:84% does feel like there is a key change between two and three. 00:15:28.160 --> 00:15:31.880 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Between two and three, great. 00:15:31.880 --> 00:15:33.673 align:middle line:90% Where would we put it exactly? 00:15:33.673 --> 00:15:40.220 align:middle line:90% 00:15:40.220 --> 00:15:44.240 align:middle line:84% If you are buying Jason's thing, is it-- 00:15:44.240 --> 00:15:48.830 align:middle line:84% if you're going with Jason's, where would you put that? 00:15:48.830 --> 00:15:51.500 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: In between the two measures of that eight letter 00:15:51.500 --> 00:15:55.250 align:middle line:84% word, within the fermata, second measure of third and fourth 00:15:55.250 --> 00:15:55.770 align:middle line:90% beats. 00:15:55.770 --> 00:15:57.603 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Second measure 00:15:57.603 --> 00:15:59.900 align:middle line:84% between third and fourth beat, just after the fermata. 00:15:59.900 --> 00:16:01.855 align:middle line:84% Anybody would place another place? 00:16:01.855 --> 00:16:05.210 align:middle line:90% 00:16:05.210 --> 00:16:08.630 align:middle line:84% Anybody think that it might be ambiguous, 00:16:08.630 --> 00:16:10.580 align:middle line:84% and that we might be kind of floating 00:16:10.580 --> 00:16:14.280 align:middle line:84% between two keys for a while when we do certain key changes? 00:16:14.280 --> 00:16:16.580 align:middle line:90% Anyone ever think that? 00:16:16.580 --> 00:16:20.420 align:middle line:84% There's a type of p-chord, that chord 00:16:20.420 --> 00:16:23.700 align:middle line:84% thing that begins with a p, that some people use for that. 00:16:23.700 --> 00:16:25.190 align:middle line:90% Yeah, John? 00:16:25.190 --> 00:16:26.330 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Picardy? 00:16:26.330 --> 00:16:27.860 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Picardy is a type of chord. 00:16:27.860 --> 00:16:29.210 align:middle line:90% It does apply to this piece. 00:16:29.210 --> 00:16:33.810 align:middle line:84% Where do we see some that might be a Picardy? 00:16:33.810 --> 00:16:40.860 align:middle line:84% Anybody, Picardy third, a major third in a minor context? 00:16:40.860 --> 00:16:41.430 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:16:41.430 --> 00:16:42.460 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: The very last chord? 00:16:42.460 --> 00:16:43.860 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Very last chord, yep. 00:16:43.860 --> 00:16:45.460 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think the key word you were looking for is pivot. 00:16:45.460 --> 00:16:46.710 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Pivot, yep. 00:16:46.710 --> 00:16:48.180 align:middle line:90% We went with two different ones. 00:16:48.180 --> 00:16:51.210 align:middle line:84% We got two different great p-chords. 00:16:51.210 --> 00:16:53.760 align:middle line:84% Pivot chords are what some people 00:16:53.760 --> 00:16:56.010 align:middle line:84% use to say that oh, you know, this 00:16:56.010 --> 00:16:59.400 align:middle line:84% is the moment when we're in two keys for a while. 00:16:59.400 --> 00:17:02.220 align:middle line:84% I remember asking my teacher, OK, well, 00:17:02.220 --> 00:17:03.510 align:middle line:90% can there be a pivot region? 00:17:03.510 --> 00:17:05.079 align:middle line:90% One teacher said, no. 00:17:05.079 --> 00:17:06.730 align:middle line:84% You choose a chord and stick to it. 00:17:06.730 --> 00:17:08.950 align:middle line:84% And then, another teacher said, no, of course. 00:17:08.950 --> 00:17:11.250 align:middle line:90% There could be. 00:17:11.250 --> 00:17:13.230 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:17:13.230 --> 00:17:16.200 align:middle line:84% A couple of things, for those who did do the end 00:17:16.200 --> 00:17:18.480 align:middle line:84% or get to the end, how many thought 00:17:18.480 --> 00:17:21.780 align:middle line:90% we were in A major at the end? 00:17:21.780 --> 00:17:25.200 align:middle line:84% How many thought we were in F-sharp major? 00:17:25.200 --> 00:17:28.170 align:middle line:84% How many thought we were in F-sharp minor? 00:17:28.170 --> 00:17:32.740 align:middle line:84% A couple, how many thought we were in another key altogether, 00:17:32.740 --> 00:17:34.640 align:middle line:90% D Locrian? 00:17:34.640 --> 00:17:35.140 align:middle line:90% No? 00:17:35.140 --> 00:17:36.080 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:17:36.080 --> 00:17:38.800 align:middle line:84% Whew, that last one is the only one that I wouldn't have liked. 00:17:38.800 --> 00:17:42.220 align:middle line:84% Somebody who thought we were in F-sharp major, 00:17:42.220 --> 00:17:46.240 align:middle line:84% explain to the F-sharp minor people why they're wrong. 00:17:46.240 --> 00:17:48.242 align:middle line:90% Yeah, go ahead. 00:17:48.242 --> 00:17:50.200 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: All the A-sharps in the last two bars 00:17:50.200 --> 00:17:50.930 align:middle line:90% are indicators. 00:17:50.930 --> 00:17:54.040 align:middle line:84% But also, I think we thought that the fermata measures 00:17:54.040 --> 00:17:59.510 align:middle line:84% seven sounded like the dominant V of an F-sharp minor, 00:17:59.510 --> 00:18:01.452 align:middle line:84% but it ended up resolving into F-sharp major 00:18:01.452 --> 00:18:03.910 align:middle line:84% in the next chord, which kind of persists into the next two 00:18:03.910 --> 00:18:04.410 align:middle line:90% measures. 00:18:04.410 --> 00:18:06.220 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: OK, good. 00:18:06.220 --> 00:18:08.860 align:middle line:84% A couple of things that I heard that's always 00:18:08.860 --> 00:18:12.730 align:middle line:84% a very good way of not necessarily 00:18:12.730 --> 00:18:15.880 align:middle line:84% winning, but advancing an analysis argument, he said, 00:18:15.880 --> 00:18:17.230 align:middle line:90% it sounded like. 00:18:17.230 --> 00:18:19.528 align:middle line:84% Good, always thinking, let our ears do it, 00:18:19.528 --> 00:18:21.070 align:middle line:84% not just what's written on the paper. 00:18:21.070 --> 00:18:25.690 align:middle line:84% Somebody who was an F-sharp minor winner, 00:18:25.690 --> 00:18:28.190 align:middle line:84% try to convince the F-sharp major people that they're wrong. 00:18:28.190 --> 00:18:29.170 align:middle line:90% Yeah, John? 00:18:29.170 --> 00:18:31.490 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Quite a bit of the piece, like here, 00:18:31.490 --> 00:18:34.570 align:middle line:90% hints a lot at F-sharp minor. 00:18:34.570 --> 00:18:39.700 align:middle line:84% You have a lot of C-sharp major chords leading to F-sharp minor. 00:18:39.700 --> 00:18:41.830 align:middle line:84% The last two measures can be seen as Bach 00:18:41.830 --> 00:18:45.760 align:middle line:84% just kind of stylizing things while keeping it still 00:18:45.760 --> 00:18:48.370 align:middle line:90% in F-sharp, F-sharp minor. 00:18:48.370 --> 00:18:50.750 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: So a stylization, 00:18:50.750 --> 00:18:51.860 align:middle line:90% but that doesn't change? 00:18:51.860 --> 00:18:53.318 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] technique is. 00:18:53.318 --> 00:18:55.210 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah, so we 00:18:55.210 --> 00:18:58.270 align:middle line:90% can have a disagreement on this. 00:18:58.270 --> 00:19:00.140 align:middle line:84% I'm not going to say, at this moment, 00:19:00.140 --> 00:19:03.310 align:middle line:84% which side I'm more on because I can 00:19:03.310 --> 00:19:05.543 align:middle line:90% see the validity of both sides. 00:19:05.543 --> 00:19:09.550 align:middle line:90% 00:19:09.550 --> 00:19:12.220 align:middle line:84% Because I know the world of Bach, 00:19:12.220 --> 00:19:15.530 align:middle line:84% I myself cannot really hear it as oh, 00:19:15.530 --> 00:19:19.370 align:middle line:84% we're still in A major and we are ending on the sixth chord 00:19:19.370 --> 00:19:22.160 align:middle line:84% and the sixth chords are very important. 00:19:22.160 --> 00:19:23.770 align:middle line:84% But on the other hand, if I listen 00:19:23.770 --> 00:19:26.040 align:middle line:84% to a lot more contemporary popular music 00:19:26.040 --> 00:19:30.240 align:middle line:84% where VI is a perfectly valid chord to begin on 00:19:30.240 --> 00:19:35.440 align:middle line:84% and occasionally to end on, seems quite possible. 00:19:35.440 --> 00:19:35.970 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:19:35.970 --> 00:19:39.840 align:middle line:84% So we just spent 30 minutes looking 00:19:39.840 --> 00:19:45.720 align:middle line:90% at one chorale in particular. 00:19:45.720 --> 00:19:48.850 align:middle line:84% That's not something we're going to do very often in this class. 00:19:48.850 --> 00:19:52.260 align:middle line:84% But that is the normal way of analyzing music, right? 00:19:52.260 --> 00:19:56.280 align:middle line:84% So what I want to do is to bring up 00:19:56.280 --> 00:19:59.820 align:middle line:84% the concepts of what we're doing with corpus analysis, which 00:19:59.820 --> 00:20:02.010 align:middle line:84% is what we're going to be doing for most 00:20:02.010 --> 00:20:06.570 align:middle line:90% of the rest of this unit. 00:20:06.570 --> 00:20:08.730 align:middle line:84% I'll just put this up for a second. 00:20:08.730 --> 00:20:12.940 align:middle line:90% There's a way I can blink this. 00:20:12.940 --> 00:20:13.565 align:middle line:90% Does that work? 00:20:13.565 --> 00:20:16.080 align:middle line:90% 00:20:16.080 --> 00:20:19.290 align:middle line:90% Yep, there we go. 00:20:19.290 --> 00:20:21.900 align:middle line:84% We often think-- you may have heard 00:20:21.900 --> 00:20:26.090 align:middle line:84% this in one of your literature classes about close reading, 00:20:26.090 --> 00:20:30.950 align:middle line:84% where you're looking through and finding all of Mark Twain's 00:20:30.950 --> 00:20:35.370 align:middle line:84% metaphors, or all of Jane Austen's foreshadowings, 00:20:35.370 --> 00:20:38.090 align:middle line:84% and how many Greek-rooted words are 00:20:38.090 --> 00:20:40.640 align:middle line:84% used in this sentence, this paragraph, 00:20:40.640 --> 00:20:45.200 align:middle line:84% compared to the Latin words or the Anglo-Saxon ones. 00:20:45.200 --> 00:20:49.466 align:middle line:84% Close reading is the main type of literary analysis. 00:20:49.466 --> 00:20:54.110 align:middle line:90% 00:20:54.110 --> 00:20:57.810 align:middle line:84% It goes back to the '80s, but really, in the last 20 years, 00:20:57.810 --> 00:21:02.600 align:middle line:84% there's been a movement associated with the computer 00:21:02.600 --> 00:21:06.770 align:middle line:90% called distant reading. 00:21:06.770 --> 00:21:08.610 align:middle line:84% Other people were doing this before, 00:21:08.610 --> 00:21:12.950 align:middle line:84% but the term is connected to a literary critic named 00:21:12.950 --> 00:21:14.810 align:middle line:90% Franco Moretti. 00:21:14.810 --> 00:21:17.690 align:middle line:84% That's not going to be on an exam or anything. 00:21:17.690 --> 00:21:20.570 align:middle line:84% The notion is that distant reading is something 00:21:20.570 --> 00:21:24.420 align:middle line:84% you do when you're not close enough to the text 00:21:24.420 --> 00:21:30.100 align:middle line:84% to really make these kinds of precise arguments, 00:21:30.100 --> 00:21:34.990 align:middle line:84% but you are far enough away that you can see not just one text, 00:21:34.990 --> 00:21:35.903 align:middle line:90% but multiple texts. 00:21:35.903 --> 00:21:38.490 align:middle line:90% 00:21:38.490 --> 00:21:43.500 align:middle line:84% Some of us who work on corpus studies in music 00:21:43.500 --> 00:21:46.260 align:middle line:84% have started replacing these terms 00:21:46.260 --> 00:21:52.200 align:middle line:84% with close listening, which is conventional music 00:21:52.200 --> 00:22:08.315 align:middle line:84% analysis, and distant listening, which is corpus studies. 00:22:08.315 --> 00:22:16.530 align:middle line:90% 00:22:16.530 --> 00:22:21.580 align:middle line:84% What do you think some of the things 00:22:21.580 --> 00:22:25.360 align:middle line:84% that we can do with close reading 00:22:25.360 --> 00:22:27.820 align:middle line:90% or close listening better-- 00:22:27.820 --> 00:22:30.340 align:middle line:84% close analysis, whatever you want to call it-- better 00:22:30.340 --> 00:22:31.696 align:middle line:90% than distant analysis? 00:22:31.696 --> 00:22:34.960 align:middle line:90% 00:22:34.960 --> 00:22:38.870 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Close analysis, we can look for specific phrases, 00:22:38.870 --> 00:22:40.330 align:middle line:90% motifs, like that. 00:22:40.330 --> 00:22:43.050 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Specific phrases or motifs, yep. 00:22:43.050 --> 00:22:53.200 align:middle line:90% 00:22:53.200 --> 00:22:54.495 align:middle line:90% Anything else, you think? 00:22:54.495 --> 00:22:57.100 align:middle line:90% 00:22:57.100 --> 00:23:00.470 align:middle line:84% Let's think of the world we're in today, 00:23:00.470 --> 00:23:03.680 align:middle line:84% not the world of 5,000 years in the future, 00:23:03.680 --> 00:23:06.700 align:middle line:84% or maybe five minutes, depending on what happened at OpenAI 00:23:06.700 --> 00:23:13.810 align:middle line:84% today, where the computer can do many things that it can't do. 00:23:13.810 --> 00:23:16.833 align:middle line:84% What are some things that we're going to start losing? 00:23:16.833 --> 00:23:22.300 align:middle line:90% 00:23:22.300 --> 00:23:22.840 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:23:22.840 --> 00:23:23.485 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I have a question. 00:23:23.485 --> 00:23:24.943 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah? 00:23:24.943 --> 00:23:27.648 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: What makes distance listening 00:23:27.648 --> 00:23:28.940 align:middle line:90% different than close listening. 00:23:28.940 --> 00:23:32.200 align:middle line:84% Because in a corpus study, you can study everything 00:23:32.200 --> 00:23:33.682 align:middle line:90% in close listening. 00:23:33.682 --> 00:23:35.140 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Sure. 00:23:35.140 --> 00:23:38.500 align:middle line:84% Let's think of some of the things. 00:23:38.500 --> 00:23:40.130 align:middle line:84% Let's think of some of the things. 00:23:40.130 --> 00:23:42.340 align:middle line:90% We'll go back to literature. 00:23:42.340 --> 00:23:43.990 align:middle line:84% What are some of the things that humans 00:23:43.990 --> 00:23:47.050 align:middle line:84% are good at in picking out of literature 00:23:47.050 --> 00:23:50.200 align:middle line:84% that computers are still not very good at? 00:23:50.200 --> 00:23:52.340 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: More abstract. 00:23:52.340 --> 00:23:55.360 align:middle line:84% We can be like, oh, this is an allusion to Shakespeare. 00:23:55.360 --> 00:23:57.640 align:middle line:84% Similarly, we can notice patterns 00:23:57.640 --> 00:24:02.080 align:middle line:84% that are hard to really condense into one formula or function. 00:24:02.080 --> 00:24:05.890 align:middle line:84% Or it can be like, oh, this is a similar melody to something that 00:24:05.890 --> 00:24:07.280 align:middle line:90% was used previously. 00:24:07.280 --> 00:24:09.280 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: That's a good one. 00:24:09.280 --> 00:24:10.540 align:middle line:90% Other things? 00:24:10.540 --> 00:24:13.810 align:middle line:90% What about for you? 00:24:13.810 --> 00:24:17.630 align:middle line:84% Let's start with one that's in my head, 00:24:17.630 --> 00:24:22.280 align:middle line:84% but I really want to make sure we don't lose track of this. 00:24:22.280 --> 00:24:25.400 align:middle line:84% Anyone have a piece of music they love? 00:24:25.400 --> 00:24:26.430 align:middle line:90% OK, almost everybody. 00:24:26.430 --> 00:24:28.160 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:24:28.160 --> 00:24:30.365 align:middle line:84% How did you fall in love with that piece of music? 00:24:30.365 --> 00:24:33.557 align:middle line:90% 00:24:33.557 --> 00:24:34.640 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Listening to it. 00:24:34.640 --> 00:24:36.440 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Listening to it, good. 00:24:36.440 --> 00:24:38.030 align:middle line:84% How many people have fallen in love 00:24:38.030 --> 00:24:40.765 align:middle line:84% with a piece of music via corpus studies? 00:24:40.765 --> 00:24:43.910 align:middle line:90% 00:24:43.910 --> 00:24:48.020 align:middle line:90% Ooh, this one has 47% of sharps. 00:24:48.020 --> 00:24:52.460 align:middle line:84% Let's not forget that the reason why 00:24:52.460 --> 00:24:57.380 align:middle line:84% we make music and listen to it is the enjoyment 00:24:57.380 --> 00:25:01.700 align:middle line:90% happens at the close level. 00:25:01.700 --> 00:25:04.640 align:middle line:84% The other thing I was thinking of, with the literature, 00:25:04.640 --> 00:25:10.200 align:middle line:84% is this character, I'm reading Crying in H Mart right now. 00:25:10.200 --> 00:25:12.180 align:middle line:84% I don't know if anyone knows this memoir. 00:25:12.180 --> 00:25:15.980 align:middle line:84% But one of the characters in it is going through a very similar 00:25:15.980 --> 00:25:20.550 align:middle line:84% experience that I went through in my life, with a family death, 00:25:20.550 --> 00:25:25.430 align:middle line:84% and it was very deeply resonating with me. 00:25:25.430 --> 00:25:29.135 align:middle line:90% Resonance outside your life-- 00:25:29.135 --> 00:25:32.588 align:middle line:90% 00:25:32.588 --> 00:25:34.130 align:middle line:84% not outside your life, I can't really 00:25:34.130 --> 00:25:37.400 align:middle line:84% everything outside my life-- outside the text. 00:25:37.400 --> 00:25:41.463 align:middle line:84% We'll use text to mean both literature and music. 00:25:41.463 --> 00:25:44.768 align:middle line:90% 00:25:44.768 --> 00:25:45.560 align:middle line:90% There is something. 00:25:45.560 --> 00:25:49.040 align:middle line:84% What are some things, however, that distant listening 00:25:49.040 --> 00:25:51.180 align:middle line:84% or distant reading, that is to say, 00:25:51.180 --> 00:25:54.380 align:middle line:84% having a computer look at 1,000 pieces, 00:25:54.380 --> 00:25:57.890 align:middle line:84% might do better than close reading-- 00:25:57.890 --> 00:26:00.720 align:middle line:84% let's first assume we have infinite time-- 00:26:00.720 --> 00:26:09.020 align:middle line:90% than close reading 1,000 pieces? 00:26:09.020 --> 00:26:09.590 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:26:09.590 --> 00:26:11.570 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: They can allow you to, more effectively when listening 00:26:11.570 --> 00:26:13.370 align:middle line:84% to a new piece, guess who the composer was 00:26:13.370 --> 00:26:14.730 align:middle line:90% or what the time period was. 00:26:14.730 --> 00:26:16.470 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: OK. 00:26:16.470 --> 00:26:24.540 align:middle line:84% So you could use that distance for guessing 00:26:24.540 --> 00:26:32.130 align:middle line:90% genre or period or authorship. 00:26:32.130 --> 00:26:35.590 align:middle line:84% You might be able to do that with the 1,000 scores, 00:26:35.590 --> 00:26:37.570 align:middle line:84% but that would take a lot longer. 00:26:37.570 --> 00:26:38.190 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:26:38.190 --> 00:26:40.360 align:middle line:84% What are other things we want to solve? 00:26:40.360 --> 00:26:40.900 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:26:40.900 --> 00:26:43.590 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think it could do with a less abstract way 00:26:43.590 --> 00:26:45.820 align:middle line:84% of describing any patterns you might hear. 00:26:45.820 --> 00:26:47.860 align:middle line:84% It's easy to say something sounds similar, 00:26:47.860 --> 00:26:51.312 align:middle line:84% but actually analyzing it gives you words to put that into. 00:26:51.312 --> 00:26:52.770 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: So it 00:26:52.770 --> 00:26:59.220 align:middle line:84% gives you words for describing, gives words 00:26:59.220 --> 00:27:00.776 align:middle line:90% for describing similarity. 00:27:00.776 --> 00:27:05.400 align:middle line:90% 00:27:05.400 --> 00:27:10.030 align:middle line:84% And what else besides words for describing similarity? 00:27:10.030 --> 00:27:11.610 align:middle line:84% What are some other things that we 00:27:11.610 --> 00:27:15.350 align:middle line:90% like to get out of this class? 00:27:15.350 --> 00:27:15.850 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:27:15.850 --> 00:27:16.600 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Numbers. 00:27:16.600 --> 00:27:18.762 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Numbers, statistics. 00:27:18.762 --> 00:27:23.110 align:middle line:90% 00:27:23.110 --> 00:27:28.040 align:middle line:84% These are some of the reasons why we want to be thinking this. 00:27:28.040 --> 00:27:30.430 align:middle line:90% But I think-- 00:27:30.430 --> 00:27:33.790 align:middle line:84% I'll just say, because I'm a couple of minutes behind where 00:27:33.790 --> 00:27:40.120 align:middle line:84% I'd like to be-- that the most effective way of working 00:27:40.120 --> 00:27:45.820 align:middle line:84% with any of new genre, new style, new anything 00:27:45.820 --> 00:27:49.340 align:middle line:84% is to start with close listening, close reading. 00:27:49.340 --> 00:27:51.440 align:middle line:84% Start with the analysis that you've done now 00:27:51.440 --> 00:27:55.330 align:middle line:84% and try to do things by hand before moving 00:27:55.330 --> 00:27:57.230 align:middle line:90% to the programming. 00:27:57.230 --> 00:27:59.360 align:middle line:84% How are we going to do distant listening? 00:27:59.360 --> 00:28:01.820 align:middle line:84% How are we going to teach the computer to do this? 00:28:01.820 --> 00:28:05.350 align:middle line:84% Because there's something that didn't come up, 00:28:05.350 --> 00:28:10.490 align:middle line:84% that the ambiguity and the types of oh, 00:28:10.490 --> 00:28:13.000 align:middle line:84% I'm going to have to make a judgment call on this, on where 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:14.540 align:middle line:90% the modulation happened. 00:28:14.540 --> 00:28:20.890 align:middle line:84% Or is this really V6 of VI, or did we already jump directly 00:28:20.890 --> 00:28:21.920 align:middle line:90% to the new key? 00:28:21.920 --> 00:28:26.080 align:middle line:84% Or is this thing that I'm labeling actually 00:28:26.080 --> 00:28:27.277 align:middle line:90% a chord at all? 00:28:27.277 --> 00:28:29.110 align:middle line:84% Or is it a whole bunch of passing tones that 00:28:29.110 --> 00:28:30.560 align:middle line:90% happen to look like a chord? 00:28:30.560 --> 00:28:36.580 align:middle line:84% These kinds of ambiguities are things that, I think, 00:28:36.580 --> 00:28:39.200 align:middle line:84% will come up when you're doing the close listening, 00:28:39.200 --> 00:28:41.530 align:middle line:90% close analysis. 00:28:41.530 --> 00:28:44.530 align:middle line:84% You'll know you have to account for them in some way 00:28:44.530 --> 00:28:46.123 align:middle line:90% during the distant analysis. 00:28:46.123 --> 00:28:48.040 align:middle line:84% And sometimes, accounting for them in some way 00:28:48.040 --> 00:28:49.870 align:middle line:84% is just leaving a footnote saying, 00:28:49.870 --> 00:28:51.890 align:middle line:84% there's this really complex problem, 00:28:51.890 --> 00:28:55.150 align:middle line:84% but I only saw it twice in close listening 00:28:55.150 --> 00:28:58.510 align:middle line:84% to four pieces, so hopefully we can ignore it 00:28:58.510 --> 00:29:02.080 align:middle line:84% as a rounding error, but at least declaring that. 00:29:02.080 --> 00:29:04.700 align:middle line:84% Then, when you've done your corpus study, 00:29:04.700 --> 00:29:09.320 align:middle line:84% there's something really valuable about finding things 00:29:09.320 --> 00:29:10.470 align:middle line:90% that are interesting there. 00:29:10.470 --> 00:29:10.970 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:29:10.970 --> 00:29:14.510 align:middle line:84% What's that piece that completely throws-- 00:29:14.510 --> 00:29:17.370 align:middle line:84% that outlier piece that completely throws out, 00:29:17.370 --> 00:29:20.765 align:middle line:84% and going back and listening to it. 00:29:20.765 --> 00:29:23.390 align:middle line:84% Maybe, it doesn't even have to be close listening, but actually 00:29:23.390 --> 00:29:28.520 align:middle line:84% just human listening, so that we get what's the end result, why 00:29:28.520 --> 00:29:29.440 align:middle line:90% we do any of this? 00:29:29.440 --> 00:29:34.910 align:middle line:90% 00:29:34.910 --> 00:29:38.730 align:middle line:84% So we can get to the enjoyment, the point of trying to do. 00:29:38.730 --> 00:29:41.810 align:middle line:84% One of my dream projects, you all 00:29:41.810 --> 00:29:45.120 align:middle line:84% have heard of IMSLP, huge music score. 00:29:45.120 --> 00:29:49.760 align:middle line:84% I want to find the most interesting, unusual piece 00:29:49.760 --> 00:29:54.680 align:middle line:84% by every minor composer that's on there, that has the one 00:29:54.680 --> 00:29:59.300 align:middle line:84% piece that this one forgotten person, that she or he wrote, 00:29:59.300 --> 00:30:01.962 align:middle line:84% that we should actually be listening to. 00:30:01.962 --> 00:30:03.420 align:middle line:84% Maybe, it's not even the one piece, 00:30:03.420 --> 00:30:10.290 align:middle line:84% this 1/32 excerpt that Gruber wrote that I don't know 00:30:10.290 --> 00:30:13.220 align:middle line:90% and I'd love to know it. 00:30:13.220 --> 00:30:15.330 align:middle line:84% We're not there yet, not there yet. 00:30:15.330 --> 00:30:17.835 align:middle line:90% But maybe, we can get there. 00:30:17.835 --> 00:30:18.335 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:30:18.335 --> 00:30:22.365 align:middle line:90% 00:30:22.365 --> 00:30:23.990 align:middle line:84% The next thing you're going to be doing 00:30:23.990 --> 00:30:26.990 align:middle line:84% is trying to figure out what kinds of things 00:30:26.990 --> 00:30:29.250 align:middle line:84% we can do this kind of close analysis on. 00:30:29.250 --> 00:30:33.900 align:middle line:84% We did the Irish music corpus in class on Wednesday. 00:30:33.900 --> 00:30:37.610 align:middle line:84% That was a pretty small corpus, was 60 pieces or something. 00:30:37.610 --> 00:30:41.270 align:middle line:84% Then online, I gave you tools for using the entire Bach 00:30:41.270 --> 00:30:42.560 align:middle line:90% chorale corpus. 00:30:42.560 --> 00:30:46.980 align:middle line:84% If you want to find anything super unusual in there, 00:30:46.980 --> 00:30:51.170 align:middle line:84% that can be a good place, but be boring 00:30:51.170 --> 00:30:54.080 align:middle line:90% if those are the only two ones. 00:30:54.080 --> 00:30:57.440 align:middle line:84% Your next problem set, and it's up, is problem set five. 00:30:57.440 --> 00:31:02.000 align:middle line:90% Let me put this back up here. 00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:07.240 align:middle line:84% This one, what we want to do is in groups of two, 00:31:07.240 --> 00:31:09.850 align:middle line:84% prepare three to five page short paper-- 00:31:09.850 --> 00:31:15.240 align:middle line:84% three pages is totally fine, five pages, sometimes, 00:31:15.240 --> 00:31:17.190 align:middle line:84% might be something that you want to do-- 00:31:17.190 --> 00:31:22.200 align:middle line:84% that tries to figure out some corpus that's out there that's 00:31:22.200 --> 00:31:29.610 align:middle line:84% been active in the past 10 years and try to figure out 00:31:29.610 --> 00:31:35.310 align:middle line:84% how it works and why it's out there and what its extent is. 00:31:35.310 --> 00:31:37.510 align:middle line:84% What are the goals of the project? 00:31:37.510 --> 00:31:39.370 align:middle line:90% Who are the participants? 00:31:39.370 --> 00:31:42.040 align:middle line:84% How are the scores or other musical data encoded? 00:31:42.040 --> 00:31:45.640 align:middle line:84% I think I've forgotten to put on here, what's actually in there? 00:31:45.640 --> 00:31:47.980 align:middle line:84% What's the project actually trying to do? 00:31:47.980 --> 00:31:50.320 align:middle line:84% I suppose that's the goal of the project, 00:31:50.320 --> 00:31:51.730 align:middle line:90% but what pieces are collected? 00:31:51.730 --> 00:31:54.240 align:middle line:84% What is the overall extent of the problem? 00:31:54.240 --> 00:31:57.340 align:middle line:90% What is it trying to solve? 00:31:57.340 --> 00:31:59.370 align:middle line:84% By doing this, how much of the problem 00:31:59.370 --> 00:32:03.240 align:middle line:84% do you think could be reasonably solved in a limited timetable? 00:32:03.240 --> 00:32:06.250 align:middle line:84% You don't have to do all of these, except for the first one. 00:32:06.250 --> 00:32:08.530 align:middle line:90% We'll get to the last one. 00:32:08.530 --> 00:32:11.410 align:middle line:84% What are the strengths and weaknesses? 00:32:11.410 --> 00:32:13.880 align:middle line:84% What could you do with this corpus? 00:32:13.880 --> 00:32:17.050 align:middle line:84% What questions, relevant to this class, 00:32:17.050 --> 00:32:21.580 align:middle line:90% could you answer by having this? 00:32:21.580 --> 00:32:24.880 align:middle line:84% Just like we did with the what questions could you 00:32:24.880 --> 00:32:28.480 align:middle line:84% answer with a whole collection of Bach chorales-- 00:32:28.480 --> 00:32:31.990 align:middle line:84% was that set p set one or three or something like that? 00:32:31.990 --> 00:32:34.820 align:middle line:84% You don't need to use the corpus to answer it. 00:32:34.820 --> 00:32:39.130 align:middle line:84% You're not being asked to download and do the things. 00:32:39.130 --> 00:32:42.370 align:middle line:84% Anyhow, you'll probably need to know a little bit 00:32:42.370 --> 00:32:45.910 align:middle line:84% about the kinds of music and the problems associated 00:32:45.910 --> 00:32:48.340 align:middle line:84% with the project and what they're trying to do. 00:32:48.340 --> 00:32:53.860 align:middle line:84% My preference is that you focus on a corpus of musical scores-- 00:32:53.860 --> 00:32:55.370 align:middle line:90% sorry, it's too high up there-- 00:32:55.370 --> 00:32:58.760 align:middle line:84% scores that can be readable by Music21 or something else. 00:32:58.760 --> 00:33:01.240 align:middle line:84% But if something really grabs you and you're like, 00:33:01.240 --> 00:33:04.940 align:middle line:84% this is the music I really like and it's all audio, 00:33:04.940 --> 00:33:09.080 align:middle line:84% it's all images or something like that, go ahead and do that. 00:33:09.080 --> 00:33:11.590 align:middle line:84% Just the only two things I'm going to say, 00:33:11.590 --> 00:33:14.320 align:middle line:90% IMSLP and Wikipedia are out. 00:33:14.320 --> 00:33:16.060 align:middle line:90% Too obvious, right? 00:33:16.060 --> 00:33:19.690 align:middle line:84% I've given some places that you can begin. 00:33:19.690 --> 00:33:22.790 align:middle line:84% Some of them, I was nice enough to give the links and other ones 00:33:22.790 --> 00:33:27.250 align:middle line:84% I'm like, no, and then, some directories of projects 00:33:27.250 --> 00:33:33.160 align:middle line:84% and what you're going to be asked for-- 00:33:33.160 --> 00:33:40.720 align:middle line:84% URLs, screenshots, how deeply the questions you were answered. 00:33:40.720 --> 00:33:42.530 align:middle line:84% Hope that you'll find this kind of fun. 00:33:42.530 --> 00:33:43.405 align:middle line:90% It's due in a week. 00:33:43.405 --> 00:33:46.900 align:middle line:84% What I want to do is give you now 00:33:46.900 --> 00:33:50.200 align:middle line:84% 10 minutes to find the person that you 00:33:50.200 --> 00:33:51.980 align:middle line:90% want to do this work with. 00:33:51.980 --> 00:33:55.720 align:middle line:84% The only caveat is you cannot have been in the same p set two 00:33:55.720 --> 00:33:56.330 align:middle line:90% group. 00:33:56.330 --> 00:33:59.680 align:middle line:84% That's just because when we do a lot of group work 00:33:59.680 --> 00:34:02.990 align:middle line:84% and you have group grades, I want make sure that you're 00:34:02.990 --> 00:34:05.370 align:middle line:90% getting things from you. 00:34:05.370 --> 00:34:07.430 align:middle line:90% And so, we rotate that around. 00:34:07.430 --> 00:34:11.540 align:middle line:84% Start talking about what potential types of things 00:34:11.540 --> 00:34:13.739 align:middle line:90% you've seen or you've done. 00:34:13.739 --> 00:34:16.699 align:middle line:84% This is a good time to Google and mess around 00:34:16.699 --> 00:34:20.780 align:middle line:84% on the internet in class with your professor's blessing. 00:34:20.780 --> 00:34:23.517 align:middle line:84% A couple of things going on here that 00:34:23.517 --> 00:34:25.100 align:middle line:84% just want to make sure that we get to, 00:34:25.100 --> 00:34:28.699 align:middle line:90% we're doing these big topics-- 00:34:28.699 --> 00:34:32.699 align:middle line:84% corpus studies, representation intervals and stuff like that. 00:34:32.699 --> 00:34:35.810 align:middle line:84% But then, along the way, there's a bunch of little things 00:34:35.810 --> 00:34:39.110 align:middle line:84% that will make your life easier that eventually, you'll 00:34:39.110 --> 00:34:42.800 align:middle line:84% need to know how to deal with clefs and stuff. 00:34:42.800 --> 00:34:45.260 align:middle line:84% Make sure, if you haven't been reading through parts 00:34:45.260 --> 00:34:51.000 align:middle line:84% of the Music21 user's guide, that you continue to do that 00:34:51.000 --> 00:34:54.290 align:middle line:84% and that this is a place where you want to know something, 00:34:54.290 --> 00:34:57.720 align:middle line:84% there is the user's guide and the complete reference. 00:34:57.720 --> 00:35:00.590 align:middle line:84% The complete reference doesn't really distinguish between what 00:35:00.590 --> 00:35:02.970 align:middle line:90% is important and what isn't. 00:35:02.970 --> 00:35:06.740 align:middle line:84% Whereas, hopefully, we've done a decent job explaining that. 00:35:06.740 --> 00:35:14.090 align:middle line:84% You should have, by now, read through up to chapter 6 here, 00:35:14.090 --> 00:35:15.260 align:middle line:90% if you haven't. 00:35:15.260 --> 00:35:18.110 align:middle line:84% Most MIT students probably won't need 00:35:18.110 --> 00:35:21.680 align:middle line:84% to go through chapter 5 on recursion and lists of lists 00:35:21.680 --> 00:35:23.600 align:middle line:90% if you're in this. 00:35:23.600 --> 00:35:25.670 align:middle line:84% We've skipped chords and something 00:35:25.670 --> 00:35:28.010 align:middle line:90% called Chordify for a bit. 00:35:28.010 --> 00:35:29.930 align:middle line:90% I think you can-- 00:35:29.930 --> 00:35:32.330 align:middle line:90% well, we'll get to that later. 00:35:32.330 --> 00:35:38.170 align:middle line:84% But definitely start reading through the Music21 object 00:35:38.170 --> 00:35:38.670 align:middle line:90% thing. 00:35:38.670 --> 00:35:41.790 align:middle line:90% What is a Music21 object? 00:35:41.790 --> 00:35:44.720 align:middle line:84% You'll see durations are not Music21 objects. 00:35:44.720 --> 00:35:49.730 align:middle line:84% Not everything that's in Music21 is one. 00:35:49.730 --> 00:35:51.770 align:middle line:84% Basically, the easiest definition 00:35:51.770 --> 00:35:55.500 align:middle line:84% is a Music21 object is something that can go into a stream. 00:35:55.500 --> 00:35:57.570 align:middle line:90% It knows how to position itself. 00:35:57.570 --> 00:36:02.430 align:middle line:84% It has a duration and some other things. 00:36:02.430 --> 00:36:05.310 align:middle line:84% We want to go through this at some point, 00:36:05.310 --> 00:36:09.450 align:middle line:84% just that when I'm giving an assignment, 00:36:09.450 --> 00:36:12.330 align:middle line:84% everything's unlocked here, how you can give. 00:36:12.330 --> 00:36:16.140 align:middle line:84% Who has worked with JavaScript DOM manipulation, 00:36:16.140 --> 00:36:17.500 align:middle line:90% like get elements by clef? 00:36:17.500 --> 00:36:19.680 align:middle line:84% So quite a number of people have. 00:36:19.680 --> 00:36:23.520 align:middle line:84% Tried to make Music21 to be a lot like the version 00:36:23.520 --> 00:36:29.580 align:middle line:84% of JavaScript that was around at the time in 20 whenever it was, 00:36:29.580 --> 00:36:31.530 align:middle line:90% 2006, 2007. 00:36:31.530 --> 00:36:34.530 align:middle line:84% There's things like getElementById, 00:36:34.530 --> 00:36:36.460 align:middle line:90% get ElementByGroup. 00:36:36.460 --> 00:36:41.760 align:middle line:84% Group is equivalent in Music21 to JavaScript 00:36:41.760 --> 00:36:45.750 align:middle line:84% class, the class of multiple things, the dot selector. 00:36:45.750 --> 00:36:52.300 align:middle line:84% Multiple things can be in the same group and so on. 00:36:52.300 --> 00:36:55.050 align:middle line:84% And then, there's a nice little discussion 00:36:55.050 --> 00:36:59.760 align:middle line:84% of the thing that will probably drive you baffled 00:36:59.760 --> 00:37:02.400 align:middle line:84% at some point, the active site, which 00:37:02.400 --> 00:37:04.260 align:middle line:90% is telling you which stream is. 00:37:04.260 --> 00:37:07.470 align:middle line:84% We still haven't figured out who, 00:37:07.470 --> 00:37:09.435 align:middle line:84% that one bug that we saw in class, 00:37:09.435 --> 00:37:10.810 align:middle line:84% with the active site being wrong, 00:37:10.810 --> 00:37:13.800 align:middle line:84% or the get context by clef being wrong. 00:37:13.800 --> 00:37:18.360 align:middle line:84% This chapter just goes through the basic things. 00:37:18.360 --> 00:37:22.350 align:middle line:84% It will tell you how to sort objects, which will sometimes 00:37:22.350 --> 00:37:25.770 align:middle line:84% be useful, how to move two things at the same place 00:37:25.770 --> 00:37:28.590 align:middle line:90% and what sorting is. 00:37:28.590 --> 00:37:33.660 align:middle line:84% The next chapter has a little bit 00:37:33.660 --> 00:37:35.950 align:middle line:84% of the details on how things work, 00:37:35.950 --> 00:37:38.520 align:middle line:84% how you can transpose a note, and how 00:37:38.520 --> 00:37:41.460 align:middle line:84% you can get back from the transposed note 00:37:41.460 --> 00:37:43.920 align:middle line:84% to its original note, and so on, except you're not-- 00:37:43.920 --> 00:37:46.600 align:middle line:84% yeah, I think transpose is about to be unlocked 00:37:46.600 --> 00:37:50.490 align:middle line:84% for you, because you've just done all of this work 00:37:50.490 --> 00:37:53.290 align:middle line:84% and a bunch of other little things. 00:37:53.290 --> 00:37:56.420 align:middle line:84% But that's kind of a little bit boring one. 00:37:56.420 --> 00:37:57.420 align:middle line:90% Read through that. 00:37:57.420 --> 00:38:01.010 align:middle line:84% Read through the time signatures and beats and the keys 00:38:01.010 --> 00:38:02.550 align:middle line:90% and key signatures. 00:38:02.550 --> 00:38:06.560 align:middle line:84% This last one lets you do your first little algorithmic 00:38:06.560 --> 00:38:13.200 align:middle line:84% composition exercise toward the very end. 00:38:13.200 --> 00:38:15.070 align:middle line:90% Sorry, scrolling fast. 00:38:15.070 --> 00:38:18.890 align:middle line:90% 00:38:18.890 --> 00:38:23.190 align:middle line:84% Here we go, where we can create a little melody, 00:38:23.190 --> 00:38:28.460 align:middle line:84% something like this, and automatically change it 00:38:28.460 --> 00:38:30.860 align:middle line:90% and have-- 00:38:30.860 --> 00:38:34.165 align:middle line:84% I don't know why sometimes this goes-- 00:38:34.165 --> 00:38:34.790 align:middle line:90% [MUSIC PLAYING] 00:38:34.790 --> 00:38:36.920 align:middle line:84% --have a piece of music that I remember having 00:38:36.920 --> 00:38:38.755 align:middle line:90% to play a lot in junior high. 00:38:38.755 --> 00:38:44.700 align:middle line:90% 00:38:44.700 --> 00:38:45.200 align:middle line:90% [MUSIC ENDS] 00:38:45.200 --> 00:38:49.130 align:middle line:84% It's nice to make little algorithmic pieces before we 00:38:49.130 --> 00:38:53.210 align:middle line:84% write our first true algorithmic composition, for which 00:38:53.210 --> 00:38:56.088 align:middle line:90% will be problem set eight. 00:38:56.088 --> 00:38:58.130 align:middle line:84% Those are some of the things that you've probably 00:38:58.130 --> 00:38:59.490 align:middle line:90% been looking at. 00:38:59.490 --> 00:39:02.970 align:middle line:84% Also, optionally, you might want to go through clefs, 00:39:02.970 --> 00:39:04.540 align:middle line:90% articulations and ornaments. 00:39:04.540 --> 00:39:06.590 align:middle line:84% We'll do a little bit of that now. 00:39:06.590 --> 00:39:11.940 align:middle line:84% We're not going to get time to get to intervals right now OK, 00:39:11.940 --> 00:39:14.990 align:middle line:90% so let's play with a little bit. 00:39:14.990 --> 00:39:17.340 align:middle line:84% If you have a second and you have your laptop out 00:39:17.340 --> 00:39:20.420 align:middle line:84% and if you have Jupyter able to be got up-- sorry 00:39:20.420 --> 00:39:25.640 align:middle line:84% I should have said that five minutes ago, like always. 00:39:25.640 --> 00:39:27.950 align:middle line:84% Like the way the conductor says, I 00:39:27.950 --> 00:39:30.650 align:middle line:84% want you to play a little bit louder and make 00:39:30.650 --> 00:39:34.460 align:middle line:84% sure you basically separate all the notes of 32 measures 00:39:34.460 --> 00:39:36.086 align:middle line:90% after A. 00:39:36.086 --> 00:39:40.350 align:middle line:84% The worst order, sorry about that. 00:39:40.350 --> 00:39:43.285 align:middle line:84% That's just me vamping while we give this a chance to-- 00:39:43.285 --> 00:39:45.980 align:middle line:90% 00:39:45.980 --> 00:39:50.970 align:middle line:84% who cannot see a Jupyter Notebook that it's on? 00:39:50.970 --> 00:39:52.330 align:middle line:90% Suppose you can all see mine. 00:39:52.330 --> 00:39:55.180 align:middle line:84% So given the time, with 10 minutes, 00:39:55.180 --> 00:40:03.900 align:middle line:84% let's do a little bit of more work on things. 00:40:03.900 --> 00:40:07.060 align:middle line:84% I'm going to import corpus, stream, note, meter. 00:40:07.060 --> 00:40:13.350 align:middle line:84% And we're going to look at a couple other little things 00:40:13.350 --> 00:40:17.370 align:middle line:84% in a piece by Joseph Haydn, so corpus parse. 00:40:17.370 --> 00:40:23.380 align:middle line:84% I'm going to assign it to Haydn, Haydn "Opus One," number one, 00:40:23.380 --> 00:40:26.580 align:middle line:90% movement one. 00:40:26.580 --> 00:40:29.580 align:middle line:84% That thing gives everybody a chance to do it. 00:40:29.580 --> 00:40:32.600 align:middle line:84% You can show it when you're ready. 00:40:32.600 --> 00:40:41.280 align:middle line:90% 00:40:41.280 --> 00:40:44.790 align:middle line:84% This is the first string quartet that Haydn ever 00:40:44.790 --> 00:40:49.680 align:middle line:84% published pretty young, even though he was mostly 00:40:49.680 --> 00:40:54.960 align:middle line:84% an old man, thought of as a old man composer. 00:40:54.960 --> 00:41:00.120 align:middle line:84% Start with our close listening for even just a few seconds, 00:41:00.120 --> 00:41:04.050 align:middle line:84% until I grabbed the recording of this. 00:41:04.050 --> 00:41:07.656 align:middle line:84% What's interesting about the opening to anybody? 00:41:07.656 --> 00:41:10.930 align:middle line:90% 00:41:10.930 --> 00:41:11.430 align:middle line:90% John? 00:41:11.430 --> 00:41:12.780 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: It's in unison. 00:41:12.780 --> 00:41:14.822 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: It's all in unison. 00:41:14.822 --> 00:41:20.612 align:middle line:90% [JOSEPH HAYDN - "OPUS ONE"] 00:41:20.612 --> 00:41:22.070 align:middle line:84% Do we hear that it's all in unison? 00:41:22.070 --> 00:41:37.235 align:middle line:90% 00:41:37.235 --> 00:41:38.610 align:middle line:84% I didn't give you the second page 00:41:38.610 --> 00:41:40.240 align:middle line:84% because I did it in the notebook. 00:41:40.240 --> 00:41:43.210 align:middle line:84% Just remember, you can always show, 00:41:43.210 --> 00:41:51.780 align:middle line:84% haydn.show(musicxml.pdf) to get it or just to get the whole 00:41:51.780 --> 00:41:52.540 align:middle line:90% thing up. 00:41:52.540 --> 00:41:55.360 align:middle line:84% OK, so it's all in unison at the beginning. 00:41:55.360 --> 00:41:57.870 align:middle line:90% 00:41:57.870 --> 00:42:00.600 align:middle line:84% We're not going to do another thing 00:42:00.600 --> 00:42:03.450 align:middle line:84% like we did with trying to figure out where 00:42:03.450 --> 00:42:06.340 align:middle line:90% are the notes outside the key. 00:42:06.340 --> 00:42:10.680 align:middle line:84% But go ahead and tell me, how many notes 00:42:10.680 --> 00:42:13.080 align:middle line:90% are there in this piece? 00:42:13.080 --> 00:42:15.510 align:middle line:84% So when you've got it, I'm not going 00:42:15.510 --> 00:42:17.650 align:middle line:84% to call on the first person to shout out. 00:42:17.650 --> 00:42:24.240 align:middle line:84% But let's just be sure we can still do something like that. 00:42:24.240 --> 00:42:26.842 align:middle line:84% What is the question that we're trying to do, somebody? 00:42:26.842 --> 00:42:28.300 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: How many notes are there? 00:42:28.300 --> 00:42:29.340 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: How many notes are there 00:42:29.340 --> 00:42:30.035 align:middle line:90% in this piece? 00:42:30.035 --> 00:42:35.370 align:middle line:90% 00:42:35.370 --> 00:42:41.010 align:middle line:84% who hasn't been called on very much? 00:42:41.010 --> 00:42:42.400 align:middle line:90% You haven't been called on. 00:42:42.400 --> 00:42:45.400 align:middle line:90% Usually, I pick on you too much. 00:42:45.400 --> 00:42:47.710 align:middle line:90% What did you do on your thing? 00:42:47.710 --> 00:42:51.280 align:middle line:84% I assume you started with haydn.something. 00:42:51.280 --> 00:42:52.940 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Yeah, well, I just did a for. 00:42:52.940 --> 00:42:54.773 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: For, OK, good. 00:42:54.773 --> 00:42:58.190 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I did for n in haydn and then, index note.note 00:42:58.190 --> 00:42:59.153 align:middle line:90% and I counted. 00:42:59.153 --> 00:43:00.820 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: note.note. 00:43:00.820 --> 00:43:02.320 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Actually, counter as well. 00:43:02.320 --> 00:43:04.480 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Counter, good. 00:43:04.480 --> 00:43:10.360 align:middle line:84% i equals 0, right? i plus equals 1 and then i, good. 00:43:10.360 --> 00:43:15.490 align:middle line:84% We use-- what kind of iteration does this do? 00:43:15.490 --> 00:43:16.240 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Recurse. 00:43:16.240 --> 00:43:19.561 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Recurse, good. 00:43:19.561 --> 00:43:21.530 align:middle line:90% So somebody get that number? 00:43:21.530 --> 00:43:22.190 align:middle line:90% That's good. 00:43:22.190 --> 00:43:25.420 align:middle line:84% I saw a lot of fors in the middle there. 00:43:25.420 --> 00:43:27.632 align:middle line:84% What's another way we could do this? 00:43:27.632 --> 00:43:29.090 align:middle line:84% Does somebody have a different way? 00:43:29.090 --> 00:43:30.640 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:43:30.640 --> 00:43:32.994 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: haydn.recurse.getElements. 00:43:32.994 --> 00:43:34.911 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: haydn.recurse.ge 00:43:34.911 --> 00:43:46.310 align:middle line:84% tElementsByClass('note.Note') And then? 00:43:46.310 --> 00:43:47.100 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Hold on. 00:43:47.100 --> 00:43:47.630 align:middle line:90% Oh. 00:43:47.630 --> 00:43:49.620 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Like, yeah. 00:43:49.620 --> 00:43:51.980 align:middle line:84% It's when you forget to put that at the beginning 00:43:51.980 --> 00:43:54.630 align:middle line:84% that you really wish Python were more like JavaScript or Java, 00:43:54.630 --> 00:43:57.050 align:middle line:84% where you could just do dot length at the end. 00:43:57.050 --> 00:43:57.840 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:43:57.840 --> 00:44:00.350 align:middle line:84% Any other ways that people did it? 00:44:00.350 --> 00:44:03.690 align:middle line:90% OK, enough note counting. 00:44:03.690 --> 00:44:10.490 align:middle line:84% By the way, you hope that this should-- 00:44:10.490 --> 00:44:17.510 align:middle line:84% len-- also get something pretty similar, so flattening. 00:44:17.510 --> 00:44:20.730 align:middle line:84% It doesn't matter which order you're iterating through. 00:44:20.730 --> 00:44:23.360 align:middle line:84% You're still going to hit every single thing, right? 00:44:23.360 --> 00:44:25.160 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:44:25.160 --> 00:44:28.950 align:middle line:84% OK so, let's grab the viola part. 00:44:28.950 --> 00:44:32.180 align:middle line:84% I'll call it via equals and take a second 00:44:32.180 --> 00:44:35.365 align:middle line:84% to see if you can remember how to do that. 00:44:35.365 --> 00:44:38.870 align:middle line:90% 00:44:38.870 --> 00:44:40.470 align:middle line:84% What the question is going to be, 00:44:40.470 --> 00:44:43.400 align:middle line:84% this will be one of the last-- second to last thing. 00:44:43.400 --> 00:44:44.630 align:middle line:90% Get the viola part. 00:44:44.630 --> 00:44:48.450 align:middle line:84% Let's change its clef to treble clef, 00:44:48.450 --> 00:44:51.380 align:middle line:84% because it will be a little bit harder for us 00:44:51.380 --> 00:44:54.080 align:middle line:90% to read who are not violists. 00:44:54.080 --> 00:44:56.933 align:middle line:90% [STUDENTS DISCUSS] 00:44:56.933 --> 00:44:59.750 align:middle line:90% 00:44:59.750 --> 00:45:04.472 align:middle line:84% You might need to, from Music21, import clef. 00:45:04.472 --> 00:45:05.180 align:middle line:90% I can't remember. 00:45:05.180 --> 00:45:18.110 align:middle line:90% 00:45:18.110 --> 00:45:19.970 align:middle line:84% Has everyone gotten-- raise your hand 00:45:19.970 --> 00:45:21.750 align:middle line:84% if you've gotten the viola part out, 00:45:21.750 --> 00:45:23.100 align:middle line:90% even if you not get the clef. 00:45:23.100 --> 00:45:24.560 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:45:24.560 --> 00:45:27.830 align:middle line:84% I'm going to put in what I did to get that, 00:45:27.830 --> 00:45:29.165 align:middle line:90% haydn.parts['viola']. 00:45:29.165 --> 00:45:31.895 align:middle line:90% 00:45:31.895 --> 00:45:33.800 align:middle line:90% Notice, it's not case sensitive. 00:45:33.800 --> 00:45:37.760 align:middle line:84% Let me just make sure I got the right one. 00:45:37.760 --> 00:45:41.780 align:middle line:84% You could also have done index one, two, three, two. 00:45:41.780 --> 00:45:42.280 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:45:42.280 --> 00:45:43.740 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:45:43.740 --> 00:45:46.290 align:middle line:90% Keep going on that. 00:45:46.290 --> 00:45:51.540 align:middle line:84% I'm going to go through a couple of ways I did it, viola-- 00:45:51.540 --> 00:45:54.750 align:middle line:84% we can call it alto clef, hopefully, 00:45:54.750 --> 00:45:58.680 align:middle line:84% it's that-- equals what? viola clef. 00:45:58.680 --> 00:46:01.440 align:middle line:90% Clef.first. 00:46:01.440 --> 00:46:06.180 align:middle line:84% Hopefully, that's right, or viola.recurse.ge 00:46:06.180 --> 00:46:08.370 align:middle line:90% tElementsByClass-- 00:46:08.370 --> 00:46:12.180 align:middle line:90% clef-- whatever. 00:46:12.180 --> 00:46:13.060 align:middle line:90% Do this one. 00:46:13.060 --> 00:46:16.150 align:middle line:84% Here's one of the ways that you could do that. 00:46:16.150 --> 00:46:21.850 align:middle line:84% I'll just give the way that's probably not the best way, 00:46:21.850 --> 00:46:25.630 align:middle line:84% but looking at the time, I'll explain the best way later. 00:46:25.630 --> 00:46:27.708 align:middle line:90% We can put it as a G2 clef. 00:46:27.708 --> 00:46:28.750 align:middle line:90% We're going to change it. 00:46:28.750 --> 00:46:32.322 align:middle line:90% 00:46:32.322 --> 00:46:36.120 align:middle line:84% The piece should be beginning with a bunch of B flats 00:46:36.120 --> 00:46:37.480 align:middle line:90% and it still is. 00:46:37.480 --> 00:46:39.700 align:middle line:90% So that's one way to do it. 00:46:39.700 --> 00:46:42.640 align:middle line:84% I want to just point out two things here. 00:46:42.640 --> 00:46:46.508 align:middle line:84% Notice, we did not change the stem directions of anything, 00:46:46.508 --> 00:46:47.800 align:middle line:90% so it looks a little bit weird. 00:46:47.800 --> 00:46:51.030 align:middle line:84% It looks very weird when you go from treble clef to bass clef 00:46:51.030 --> 00:46:52.150 align:middle line:90% or something like that. 00:46:52.150 --> 00:46:58.480 align:middle line:84% The other thing is, what do you call it, altoc? 00:46:58.480 --> 00:47:02.190 align:middle line:84% Now, we have a particular subclass of clefs 00:47:02.190 --> 00:47:05.670 align:middle line:84% so that clefs are in a taxonomic-- or alto 00:47:05.670 --> 00:47:10.080 align:middle line:84% clef is in a taxonomy or meronymy with a generic clef. 00:47:10.080 --> 00:47:11.160 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Taxonomy? 00:47:11.160 --> 00:47:12.940 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Alto clef is another clef. 00:47:12.940 --> 00:47:13.440 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:47:13.440 --> 00:47:15.513 align:middle line:90% So we might be having a problem. 00:47:15.513 --> 00:47:18.180 align:middle line:84% We might need to see if there's a way we can actually replace it 00:47:18.180 --> 00:47:19.120 align:middle line:90% with another clef. 00:47:19.120 --> 00:47:19.960 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:47:19.960 --> 00:47:21.280 align:middle line:90% I did broke my promise. 00:47:21.280 --> 00:47:23.820 align:middle line:90% You're 20 seconds late. 00:47:23.820 --> 00:47:26.480 align:middle line:90% Thanks, great class. 00:47:26.480 --> 00:47:37.000 align:middle line:90%