WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.467 align:middle line:90% 00:00:01.467 --> 00:00:05.868 align:middle line:84% [SQUEAKING] [RUSTLING] [CLICKING] 00:00:05.868 --> 00:00:09.800 align:middle line:90% 00:00:09.800 --> 00:00:11.300 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: OK, we're 00:00:11.300 --> 00:00:14.810 align:middle line:84% going to go through a little bit of a topic 00:00:14.810 --> 00:00:18.630 align:middle line:84% that you've unlocked now with the end of problem set 3, 00:00:18.630 --> 00:00:21.240 align:middle line:84% which wasn't totally-- wasn't officially locked, 00:00:21.240 --> 00:00:23.220 align:middle line:84% but we didn't really talk about it. 00:00:23.220 --> 00:00:25.020 align:middle line:90% And that's stream filtering. 00:00:25.020 --> 00:00:27.650 align:middle line:84% So let me put this down, and let's do 00:00:27.650 --> 00:00:29.130 align:middle line:90% a little bit of Jupyter work. 00:00:29.130 --> 00:00:32.119 align:middle line:84% So go ahead and get yourself situated in that. 00:00:32.119 --> 00:00:34.465 align:middle line:90% I'll give you a second or two. 00:00:34.465 --> 00:00:37.130 align:middle line:90% 00:00:37.130 --> 00:00:37.983 align:middle line:90% Uh-oh. 00:00:37.983 --> 00:00:41.930 align:middle line:90% [SIDE CONVERSATION] 00:00:41.930 --> 00:00:48.110 align:middle line:84% And I think I saw scores generated in text for everybody. 00:00:48.110 --> 00:00:50.580 align:middle line:84% There was a great question on the list. 00:00:50.580 --> 00:00:55.730 align:middle line:84% What do you do if you're not yet on version 9, which none of us 00:00:55.730 --> 00:01:01.260 align:middle line:84% are, and you want to see more of the score, 00:01:01.260 --> 00:01:04.910 align:middle line:84% you can do show musicxml dot pdf. 00:01:04.910 --> 00:01:11.660 align:middle line:84% And if you have MuseScore, that will automatically 00:01:11.660 --> 00:01:14.820 align:middle line:84% generate your PDF of more than just the first page. 00:01:14.820 --> 00:01:21.372 align:middle line:84% You can also just do show musicxml. 00:01:21.372 --> 00:01:22.830 align:middle line:84% So those should be straight quotes. 00:01:22.830 --> 00:01:24.747 align:middle line:84% I'm just used to putting them as curly quotes. 00:01:24.747 --> 00:01:25.880 align:middle line:90% You all know that, right? 00:01:25.880 --> 00:01:30.650 align:middle line:84% And that will just open it in your favorite notation editor. 00:01:30.650 --> 00:01:31.740 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:01:31.740 --> 00:01:34.790 align:middle line:90% So let's get started with-- 00:01:34.790 --> 00:01:39.930 align:middle line:84% let's not load our favorite Bach chorale, 00:01:39.930 --> 00:01:42.830 align:middle line:84% but let's load our new favorite piece 00:01:42.830 --> 00:01:47.990 align:middle line:84% by a Boston-based composer, Amy Beach. 00:01:47.990 --> 00:01:50.690 align:middle line:90% And it's a piece for-- 00:01:50.690 --> 00:01:52.380 align:middle line:84% you see I even start typing Bach. 00:01:52.380 --> 00:01:54.488 align:middle line:90% It makes life-- oops. 00:01:54.488 --> 00:01:56.480 align:middle line:90% Aah! 00:01:56.480 --> 00:02:01.710 align:middle line:84% When I'm not teaching in the semester I have-- 00:02:01.710 --> 00:02:04.313 align:middle line:84% well, it's import star all right now, 00:02:04.313 --> 00:02:05.980 align:middle line:84% so we don't have to remember everything. 00:02:05.980 --> 00:02:09.120 align:middle line:84% But not every module is unlocked yet. 00:02:09.120 --> 00:02:10.960 align:middle line:84% Usually, when I'm not teaching class, 00:02:10.960 --> 00:02:14.940 align:middle line:84% I make it so that that's automatically imported for me 00:02:14.940 --> 00:02:16.630 align:middle line:90% so I don't have to type that. 00:02:16.630 --> 00:02:18.995 align:middle line:84% So if you see me make that mistake, that's what it is. 00:02:18.995 --> 00:02:22.410 align:middle line:90% 00:02:22.410 --> 00:02:26.190 align:middle line:84% We'll just start by looking at this piece. 00:02:26.190 --> 00:02:29.340 align:middle line:84% And it has a similar structure to the piece 00:02:29.340 --> 00:02:30.340 align:middle line:90% that we have been doing. 00:02:30.340 --> 00:02:33.460 align:middle line:84% Ooh, we have some layout errors today on my thing, 00:02:33.460 --> 00:02:37.770 align:middle line:84% but it's a piece called Prayer of a Tired Child 00:02:37.770 --> 00:02:41.650 align:middle line:84% For four Part Course of Women's Voices. 00:02:41.650 --> 00:02:51.820 align:middle line:84% And see that the four parts are soprano 1, soprano 2, alto 1, 00:02:51.820 --> 00:02:52.750 align:middle line:90% alto 2. 00:02:52.750 --> 00:02:55.640 align:middle line:84% And then there's a fifth part, the piano. 00:02:55.640 --> 00:02:58.230 align:middle line:90% And the piano part has-- 00:02:58.230 --> 00:03:02.900 align:middle line:84% well, we'll see what it is in just a bit. 00:03:02.900 --> 00:03:10.550 align:middle line:84% So how would we get the soprano 2 part? 00:03:10.550 --> 00:03:11.790 align:middle line:90% What do we want to do? 00:03:11.790 --> 00:03:15.510 align:middle line:84% You all have gotten pretty good at manual filtering. 00:03:15.510 --> 00:03:18.170 align:middle line:90% 00:03:18.170 --> 00:03:20.540 align:middle line:90% So beach dot something. 00:03:20.540 --> 00:03:23.860 align:middle line:84% Actually, talk with your neighbors a little bit 00:03:23.860 --> 00:03:24.360 align:middle line:90% about that. 00:03:24.360 --> 00:03:26.120 align:middle line:84% We have some odd number neighbors 00:03:26.120 --> 00:03:28.290 align:middle line:84% and try to talk through what you do. 00:03:28.290 --> 00:03:31.220 align:middle line:84% It's more important that you can explain things 00:03:31.220 --> 00:03:33.412 align:middle line:90% than do it instantly. 00:03:33.412 --> 00:03:36.230 align:middle line:90% [SIDE CONVERSATIONS] 00:03:36.230 --> 00:03:39.450 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: You want to get the soprano 2 part. 00:03:39.450 --> 00:03:43.186 align:middle line:90% [SIDE CONVERSATIONS] 00:03:43.186 --> 00:03:45.832 align:middle line:90% 00:03:45.832 --> 00:03:47.540 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: So good, good. 00:03:47.540 --> 00:03:48.230 align:middle line:90% One way. 00:03:48.230 --> 00:03:51.620 align:middle line:84% If you find one way, keep going for another or two 00:03:51.620 --> 00:03:52.380 align:middle line:90% until we get it. 00:03:52.380 --> 00:03:55.791 align:middle line:84% There's about five different ways. 00:03:55.791 --> 00:03:58.832 align:middle line:90% [SIDE CONVERSATIONS] 00:03:58.832 --> 00:04:00.540 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Not good here. 00:04:00.540 --> 00:04:03.620 align:middle line:90% 00:04:03.620 --> 00:04:08.600 align:middle line:84% Everybody, give a thumbs up if you think how to do it. 00:04:08.600 --> 00:04:11.960 align:middle line:90% If not, keep talking with-- 00:04:11.960 --> 00:04:14.787 align:middle line:84% because that's almost universal thumbs up. 00:04:14.787 --> 00:04:16.079 align:middle line:90% Jonathan, was that a thumbs up? 00:04:16.079 --> 00:04:16.680 align:middle line:90% Yep, good. 00:04:16.680 --> 00:04:18.890 align:middle line:90% OK, great. 00:04:18.890 --> 00:04:20.329 align:middle line:90% Let's see. 00:04:20.329 --> 00:04:22.740 align:middle line:90% Jordan, how would you do it? 00:04:22.740 --> 00:04:25.370 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Dot parts and brackets for 1. 00:04:25.370 --> 00:04:27.120 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Brackets for 1. 00:04:27.120 --> 00:04:27.620 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:04:27.620 --> 00:04:31.850 align:middle line:84% So we've already started with one of the things on today. 00:04:31.850 --> 00:04:36.200 align:middle line:84% This was in one of the users guide thing. 00:04:36.200 --> 00:04:41.450 align:middle line:84% Dot parts is a kind of filter that filters out everything 00:04:41.450 --> 00:04:44.210 align:middle line:90% that is not a part object. 00:04:44.210 --> 00:04:47.170 align:middle line:84% And so this will let you find things. 00:04:47.170 --> 00:04:47.670 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:04:47.670 --> 00:04:49.060 align:middle line:90% What's another way we can do it? 00:04:49.060 --> 00:04:53.810 align:middle line:90% 00:04:53.810 --> 00:04:56.750 align:middle line:90% Somebody else. 00:04:56.750 --> 00:04:58.830 align:middle line:84% Who have I not been calling on so much? 00:04:58.830 --> 00:05:00.530 align:middle line:90% Derek. 00:05:00.530 --> 00:05:03.290 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You can put in quotes the-- 00:05:03.290 --> 00:05:06.710 align:middle line:90% as the index. 00:05:06.710 --> 00:05:12.050 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: For the index to parts. 00:05:12.050 --> 00:05:12.860 align:middle line:90% Oops. 00:05:12.860 --> 00:05:15.640 align:middle line:84% Sometimes that autocomplete is less than helpful. 00:05:15.640 --> 00:05:18.800 align:middle line:90% 00:05:18.800 --> 00:05:19.910 align:middle line:90% Oops! 00:05:19.910 --> 00:05:20.800 align:middle line:90% What do I have to do? 00:05:20.800 --> 00:05:24.380 align:middle line:90% 00:05:24.380 --> 00:05:27.710 align:middle line:90% What am I looking for? 00:05:27.710 --> 00:05:29.000 align:middle line:90% Somebody help? 00:05:29.000 --> 00:05:30.240 align:middle line:90% Soprano 2. 00:05:30.240 --> 00:05:30.950 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:05:30.950 --> 00:05:31.590 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:05:31.590 --> 00:05:32.940 align:middle line:90% So it has to be exact. 00:05:32.940 --> 00:05:34.860 align:middle line:90% Does not grab the first one. 00:05:34.860 --> 00:05:36.660 align:middle line:90% That kind of makes that-- good. 00:05:36.660 --> 00:05:37.470 align:middle line:90% What's another way? 00:05:37.470 --> 00:05:38.110 align:middle line:90% Somebody else? 00:05:38.110 --> 00:05:40.920 align:middle line:90% 00:05:40.920 --> 00:05:41.420 align:middle line:90% Vanessa? 00:05:41.420 --> 00:05:41.780 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Is it by ID? 00:05:41.780 --> 00:05:42.800 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I did the first one. 00:05:42.800 --> 00:05:43.710 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: You did the first one? 00:05:43.710 --> 00:05:44.210 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:05:44.210 --> 00:05:45.020 align:middle line:90% Matthew? 00:05:45.020 --> 00:05:46.140 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: getElementById? 00:05:46.140 --> 00:05:47.473 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Good. 00:05:47.473 --> 00:05:52.850 align:middle line:90% getElementById Soprano II. 00:05:52.850 --> 00:05:58.120 align:middle line:84% That's helpful if you don't know, well, for instance-- 00:05:58.120 --> 00:06:00.010 align:middle line:90% well, not piano. 00:06:00.010 --> 00:06:07.850 align:middle line:84% Let's try that dot getElementById Piano. 00:06:07.850 --> 00:06:10.450 align:middle line:90% 00:06:10.450 --> 00:06:12.540 align:middle line:84% You actually get nothing in that case. 00:06:12.540 --> 00:06:15.190 align:middle line:90% 00:06:15.190 --> 00:06:18.790 align:middle line:84% Though, we'll see that there's some interesting things when 00:06:18.790 --> 00:06:20.860 align:middle line:90% it comes to piano. 00:06:20.860 --> 00:06:27.525 align:middle line:84% Let's do this for p in beach dot parts, print p. 00:06:27.525 --> 00:06:32.170 align:middle line:90% 00:06:32.170 --> 00:06:35.240 align:middle line:84% And we can actually see a couple of things here. 00:06:35.240 --> 00:06:38.560 align:middle line:84% One is that the piano is represented 00:06:38.560 --> 00:06:41.770 align:middle line:84% by 2 or something called a part staff that 00:06:41.770 --> 00:06:45.580 align:middle line:84% are separate parts in the ontology of music21. 00:06:45.580 --> 00:06:50.390 align:middle line:84% In a lot of other systems, they are the same part, 00:06:50.390 --> 00:06:52.850 align:middle line:84% and there are two staves within a part. 00:06:52.850 --> 00:06:55.600 align:middle line:84% And every one of these representation things 00:06:55.600 --> 00:06:58.940 align:middle line:90% has huge drawbacks to them. 00:06:58.940 --> 00:07:02.440 align:middle line:84% And when somebody comes up with a representation for piano music 00:07:02.440 --> 00:07:06.640 align:middle line:84% that does not have the drawback, you can please, please 00:07:06.640 --> 00:07:09.490 align:middle line:84% publish that and you will make the world so happy. 00:07:09.490 --> 00:07:16.370 align:middle line:84% Because everything is fine with treating a piano as two parts. 00:07:16.370 --> 00:07:17.535 align:middle line:90% Let's say it's in 3 over 4. 00:07:17.535 --> 00:07:22.330 align:middle line:90% 00:07:22.330 --> 00:07:24.550 align:middle line:84% As two separate parts as long as-- 00:07:24.550 --> 00:07:29.290 align:middle line:84% I'm trying to make this at least vaguely consonant-- 00:07:29.290 --> 00:07:32.260 align:middle line:84% as long as you do something like this. 00:07:32.260 --> 00:07:33.953 align:middle line:90% It's when you start doing-- 00:07:33.953 --> 00:07:41.110 align:middle line:90% 00:07:41.110 --> 00:07:43.680 align:middle line:84% that should go up to do proper stemming. 00:07:43.680 --> 00:07:48.280 align:middle line:90% 00:07:48.280 --> 00:07:50.890 align:middle line:84% That you have the problem, right? 00:07:50.890 --> 00:07:55.120 align:middle line:84% That suddenly, a musical melody that starts in one part 00:07:55.120 --> 00:07:56.960 align:middle line:90% continues into another part. 00:07:56.960 --> 00:08:02.320 align:middle line:84% Does your ontology allow for beams to cross parts? 00:08:02.320 --> 00:08:05.650 align:middle line:84% Well, I never-- you asked me to create an ontology for something 00:08:05.650 --> 00:08:07.283 align:middle line:84% that wasn't Western classical music, 00:08:07.283 --> 00:08:08.450 align:middle line:90% I have no ontology for that. 00:08:08.450 --> 00:08:12.590 align:middle line:84% Yeah, but this ends up being one of the main things. 00:08:12.590 --> 00:08:14.590 align:middle line:84% Whenever somebody says they've created 00:08:14.590 --> 00:08:19.240 align:middle line:84% a new way of representing classical music, the thing I 00:08:19.240 --> 00:08:20.810 align:middle line:84% always do, because I'm a smart aleck, 00:08:20.810 --> 00:08:22.310 align:middle line:84% and if you want to be a smart aleck, 00:08:22.310 --> 00:08:24.467 align:middle line:84% just always go up to that person who's like, oh, 00:08:24.467 --> 00:08:25.550 align:middle line:90% I have a much simpler way. 00:08:25.550 --> 00:08:28.480 align:middle line:84% Just ask them, How do you do cross-staff beams 00:08:28.480 --> 00:08:29.990 align:middle line:90% in your ontology? 00:08:29.990 --> 00:08:32.030 align:middle line:84% And if they go, well, we haven't gotten to that, 00:08:32.030 --> 00:08:36.669 align:middle line:84% this is the first thing that almost every ontology 00:08:36.669 --> 00:08:37.549 align:middle line:90% should start with. 00:08:37.549 --> 00:08:39.200 align:middle line:84% How do we represent cross-staff beams? 00:08:39.200 --> 00:08:41.470 align:middle line:84% If you figured out how to represent cross-staff beams 00:08:41.470 --> 00:08:44.840 align:middle line:90% or chords that span-- 00:08:44.840 --> 00:08:47.230 align:middle line:84% what would be a good chord on this? 00:08:47.230 --> 00:08:50.680 align:middle line:84% I guess we're in first inversion here. 00:08:50.680 --> 00:08:54.350 align:middle line:84% Chords that span multiple staves, you'll figure it out. 00:08:54.350 --> 00:08:57.610 align:middle line:84% The music21 ontology on this is bloop. 00:08:57.610 --> 00:09:00.320 align:middle line:84% It's really not what it should be. 00:09:00.320 --> 00:09:02.680 align:middle line:84% On the other hand, when you represent everything 00:09:02.680 --> 00:09:04.280 align:middle line:84% as one staff and you have to say, 00:09:04.280 --> 00:09:05.840 align:middle line:84% OK, well, this is a note on staff 1, 00:09:05.840 --> 00:09:12.490 align:middle line:84% this is a note on staff 2, then your left to right parser 00:09:12.490 --> 00:09:15.530 align:middle line:84% ends up failing quite a bit because you go left to right. 00:09:15.530 --> 00:09:18.440 align:middle line:84% And then you say, OK, now let's jump backwards a bit. 00:09:18.440 --> 00:09:22.460 align:middle line:84% And when you have some sort of array, 00:09:22.460 --> 00:09:25.880 align:middle line:84% some sort of a sequence of objects that go all in a row, 00:09:25.880 --> 00:09:29.530 align:middle line:84% but then sometimes jump backwards and fill things in, 00:09:29.530 --> 00:09:32.440 align:middle line:84% I guarantee you, you will be managing 00:09:32.440 --> 00:09:35.740 align:middle line:84% what we call cursor hell for the rest of your life, trying 00:09:35.740 --> 00:09:39.440 align:middle line:84% to figure out where you are left to right and how, 00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:45.090 align:middle line:84% if you're thinking about your big O algorithmic notation, 00:09:45.090 --> 00:09:47.630 align:middle line:90% how can we simplify things? 00:09:47.630 --> 00:09:50.720 align:middle line:84% How can we make walking through a score be O of n? 00:09:50.720 --> 00:09:53.110 align:middle line:90% Or how can we do-- 00:09:53.110 --> 00:09:56.480 align:middle line:84% if we guess a number between 1 and 100, 00:09:56.480 --> 00:09:58.210 align:middle line:84% I tell you higher or lower, what's 00:09:58.210 --> 00:10:01.353 align:middle line:90% the big O we're talking about? 00:10:01.353 --> 00:10:02.020 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Log n. 00:10:02.020 --> 00:10:03.395 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Log n. 00:10:03.395 --> 00:10:04.070 align:middle line:90% Good, good. 00:10:04.070 --> 00:10:05.140 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:10:05.140 --> 00:10:07.430 align:middle line:84% Some things MIT does really, really well with, 00:10:07.430 --> 00:10:08.450 align:middle line:90% and this is great. 00:10:08.450 --> 00:10:09.950 align:middle line:84% A lot of things I might use as well. 00:10:09.950 --> 00:10:11.440 align:middle line:90% Yeah, so you all know log n. 00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:15.070 align:middle line:84% Well, what happens to your log n guessing 00:10:15.070 --> 00:10:22.430 align:middle line:84% if you have an array of things that go 0, 1, 2, 5, 11, 14, 8, 00:10:22.430 --> 00:10:24.310 align:middle line:90% 2? 00:10:24.310 --> 00:10:26.680 align:middle line:84% Suddenly, what are we back to, to find 00:10:26.680 --> 00:10:28.000 align:middle line:90% any element in something? 00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:29.630 align:middle line:90% O of n. 00:10:29.630 --> 00:10:31.148 align:middle line:84% You have to look at every element. 00:10:31.148 --> 00:10:32.690 align:middle line:84% So you can't know where something is. 00:10:32.690 --> 00:10:33.470 align:middle line:90% Yes, Adam. 00:10:33.470 --> 00:10:35.933 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You were reciting the Catalan numbers for a bit. 00:10:35.933 --> 00:10:37.850 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: I think I was, yes. 00:10:37.850 --> 00:10:41.770 align:middle line:84% But something we will get to later 00:10:41.770 --> 00:10:50.530 align:middle line:84% in the class, the strong law of small numbers. 00:10:50.530 --> 00:10:52.400 align:middle line:90% You can look this up somewhere. 00:10:52.400 --> 00:10:56.930 align:middle line:90% It is the numbers-- 00:10:56.930 --> 00:10:58.390 align:middle line:90% numbers. 00:10:58.390 --> 00:11:03.880 align:middle line:84% It is one of the biggest mistakes with computational work 00:11:03.880 --> 00:11:07.870 align:middle line:84% in any non-traditionally computational field 00:11:07.870 --> 00:11:08.830 align:middle line:90% like musicology. 00:11:08.830 --> 00:11:11.080 align:middle line:84% And that is to say-- you don't have to look it up now. 00:11:11.080 --> 00:11:12.290 align:middle line:90% You can look at it later. 00:11:12.290 --> 00:11:15.217 align:middle line:84% Basically, there aren't enough small numbers for all the things 00:11:15.217 --> 00:11:15.800 align:middle line:90% that you want. 00:11:15.800 --> 00:11:17.650 align:middle line:84% So anytime you're giving out small numbers, 00:11:17.650 --> 00:11:19.610 align:middle line:84% there's almost always going to be a pattern. 00:11:19.610 --> 00:11:20.630 align:middle line:84% It's going to be Catalan numbers. 00:11:20.630 --> 00:11:22.088 align:middle line:84% It's going to be Fibonacci numbers. 00:11:22.088 --> 00:11:26.360 align:middle line:84% And people always find patterns in all these things. 00:11:26.360 --> 00:11:30.070 align:middle line:84% OK, that was a digression on a digression 00:11:30.070 --> 00:11:31.460 align:middle line:90% on a slight digression. 00:11:31.460 --> 00:11:33.558 align:middle line:84% So we'll go back to the main thing, 00:11:33.558 --> 00:11:34.850 align:middle line:90% which is finding parts in here. 00:11:34.850 --> 00:11:35.350 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:11:35.350 --> 00:11:39.280 align:middle line:84% So we have a way of going through and finding 00:11:39.280 --> 00:11:40.130 align:middle line:90% interesting parts. 00:11:40.130 --> 00:11:43.430 align:middle line:84% I'm going to turn this off so we can see better. 00:11:43.430 --> 00:11:44.600 align:middle line:90% Is that a little bit better? 00:11:44.600 --> 00:11:45.310 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:11:45.310 --> 00:11:46.070 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:11:46.070 --> 00:11:47.320 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:11:47.320 --> 00:11:48.020 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:11:48.020 --> 00:11:51.200 align:middle line:84% So we can figure out all the parts. 00:11:51.200 --> 00:11:53.500 align:middle line:84% Some of the other things, you can do it 00:11:53.500 --> 00:12:02.690 align:middle line:84% for for thing in beach dot recurse if isinstance-- 00:12:02.690 --> 00:12:03.970 align:middle line:90% help me. 00:12:03.970 --> 00:12:05.870 align:middle line:84% Let me start with this if isinstance. 00:12:05.870 --> 00:12:08.410 align:middle line:90% Be my GitHub autopilot. 00:12:08.410 --> 00:12:09.880 align:middle line:90% I've checked this. 00:12:09.880 --> 00:12:10.760 align:middle line:90% Oh good, good. 00:12:10.760 --> 00:12:12.650 align:middle line:84% Some people have played with this. 00:12:12.650 --> 00:12:13.833 align:middle line:90% If isinstance-- 00:12:13.833 --> 00:12:14.500 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Thing. 00:12:14.500 --> 00:12:16.208 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: --thing comma. 00:12:16.208 --> 00:12:17.325 align:middle line:90% What are we looking for? 00:12:17.325 --> 00:12:18.408 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Stream dot part. 00:12:18.408 --> 00:12:23.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Stream dot part if-- 00:12:23.320 --> 00:12:29.980 align:middle line:84% well, we can say here, we can start with this part_num equals 00:12:29.980 --> 00:12:31.670 align:middle line:90% 0 to 1 to negative 1. 00:12:31.670 --> 00:12:33.640 align:middle line:90% We'll say negative 1. 00:12:33.640 --> 00:12:37.750 align:middle line:90% part_num equals 1. 00:12:37.750 --> 00:12:43.900 align:middle line:84% Here, we'll say Soprano II equals none. 00:12:43.900 --> 00:12:49.790 align:middle line:84% part_num not equals 1, plus equals 1 if part_num equals-- 00:12:49.790 --> 00:12:50.290 align:middle line:90% wait. 00:12:50.290 --> 00:12:51.560 align:middle line:90% So we start with negative 1. 00:12:51.560 --> 00:12:54.790 align:middle line:90% So we get to 1. 00:12:54.790 --> 00:12:58.150 align:middle line:90% Soprano II equals thing. 00:12:58.150 --> 00:13:00.200 align:middle line:90% And let's see if that works. 00:13:00.200 --> 00:13:03.520 align:middle line:90% Coding on the fly. 00:13:03.520 --> 00:13:05.120 align:middle line:90% OK good, I can still do that. 00:13:05.120 --> 00:13:10.310 align:middle line:84% That's a really, really brutally awful way of doing it, right? 00:13:10.310 --> 00:13:12.120 align:middle line:90% But you can do it that way. 00:13:12.120 --> 00:13:16.780 align:middle line:90% 00:13:16.780 --> 00:13:20.360 align:middle line:84% So there's one other way that I'm going to get you. 00:13:20.360 --> 00:13:24.920 align:middle line:84% And why did I come back to the recurse way of doing this? 00:13:24.920 --> 00:13:27.580 align:middle line:84% Because there is one particular shortcut that you're 00:13:27.580 --> 00:13:30.130 align:middle line:90% going to find very useful. 00:13:30.130 --> 00:13:36.330 align:middle line:84% And that is-- so beach index, you know this one, right? 00:13:36.330 --> 00:13:37.670 align:middle line:90% Index 0. 00:13:37.670 --> 00:13:41.110 align:middle line:84% Oh, this one, for those of you who just assumed that everything 00:13:41.110 --> 00:13:43.240 align:middle line:84% starts with a lot of things, we have 00:13:43.240 --> 00:13:44.930 align:middle line:90% a whole bunch of text boxes. 00:13:44.930 --> 00:13:46.190 align:middle line:90% What happens around 10? 00:13:46.190 --> 00:13:49.000 align:middle line:84% We're still doing text boxes, which appear 00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:50.620 align:middle line:90% somewhere on-- oh, there we go. 00:13:50.620 --> 00:13:54.350 align:middle line:90% Part 19 is Soprano II. 00:13:54.350 --> 00:13:59.990 align:middle line:84% But here's another way that we can start getting to parts. 00:13:59.990 --> 00:14:03.650 align:middle line:84% This is a little bit different we have. 00:14:03.650 --> 00:14:07.733 align:middle line:84% But instead of putting a number in there, we can put in a class. 00:14:07.733 --> 00:14:11.500 align:middle line:90% 00:14:11.500 --> 00:14:14.240 align:middle line:84% And that lets us go through everything. 00:14:14.240 --> 00:14:21.690 align:middle line:84% So we can say for p in beach stream dot Part, print p. 00:14:21.690 --> 00:14:24.700 align:middle line:90% 00:14:24.700 --> 00:14:27.880 align:middle line:84% And that will be one of your simplest ways 00:14:27.880 --> 00:14:29.770 align:middle line:90% of going through things. 00:14:29.770 --> 00:14:36.673 align:middle line:84% For instance, for r in stream of beach-- 00:14:36.673 --> 00:14:38.090 align:middle line:84% sorry, I should scroll down a bit, 00:14:38.090 --> 00:14:44.020 align:middle line:90% beach notes dot rest print r. 00:14:44.020 --> 00:14:47.230 align:middle line:84% And now, you can quickly get a sense 00:14:47.230 --> 00:14:50.337 align:middle line:84% of what durations are used in every rest in the piece. 00:14:50.337 --> 00:14:52.420 align:middle line:84% Sorry, I'm not going to scroll down because people 00:14:52.420 --> 00:14:53.150 align:middle line:90% want to see that. 00:14:53.150 --> 00:14:56.510 align:middle line:84% Give you a chance to catch up and see, 00:14:56.510 --> 00:14:59.060 align:middle line:84% What are some of your favorite things? 00:14:59.060 --> 00:15:01.502 align:middle line:84% Does the piece have any clef changes? 00:15:01.502 --> 00:15:04.367 align:middle line:90% 00:15:04.367 --> 00:15:06.200 align:middle line:84% Or actually, let's just not say clef change. 00:15:06.200 --> 00:15:08.560 align:middle line:84% Does it have any time signature changes? 00:15:08.560 --> 00:15:13.610 align:middle line:84% So let's see how quickly you can have the computer figure out, 00:15:13.610 --> 00:15:17.860 align:middle line:84% does this piece, change time signature. 00:15:17.860 --> 00:15:20.770 align:middle line:90% Have any-- no. 00:15:20.770 --> 00:15:22.640 align:middle line:90% Are there any clef changes? 00:15:22.640 --> 00:15:24.730 align:middle line:90% Let's try that. 00:15:24.730 --> 00:15:27.200 align:middle line:90% It's all code, one behind you. 00:15:27.200 --> 00:15:29.363 align:middle line:84% All code doesn't have any time signature changes. 00:15:29.363 --> 00:15:35.800 align:middle line:90% 00:15:35.800 --> 00:15:37.230 align:middle line:90% In case you don't have this. 00:15:37.230 --> 00:15:46.180 align:middle line:90% 00:15:46.180 --> 00:15:47.990 align:middle line:84% What do we think about clef changes? 00:15:47.990 --> 00:15:51.010 align:middle line:90% Yes, no. 00:15:51.010 --> 00:15:51.520 align:middle line:90% No. 00:15:51.520 --> 00:15:52.600 align:middle line:90% We got yes. 00:15:52.600 --> 00:15:55.420 align:middle line:90% We got yes. 00:15:55.420 --> 00:15:59.290 align:middle line:84% We got yes, it does have some clef changes. 00:15:59.290 --> 00:16:01.340 align:middle line:90% So shall we do the same-- 00:16:01.340 --> 00:16:03.160 align:middle line:84% I'll let people have a little bit more, 00:16:03.160 --> 00:16:10.155 align:middle line:84% and then we'll let a yes give me the code for doing this. 00:16:10.155 --> 00:16:13.990 align:middle line:90% 00:16:13.990 --> 00:16:15.670 align:middle line:90% OK, I finished talking. 00:16:15.670 --> 00:16:17.260 align:middle line:90% Who's a yes? 00:16:17.260 --> 00:16:19.810 align:middle line:84% Jason, you were you yes or-- yeah. 00:16:19.810 --> 00:16:21.640 align:middle line:90% So what should I be typing? 00:16:21.640 --> 00:16:25.130 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: for thing in beach dot recurse-- 00:16:25.130 --> 00:16:26.980 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Beach recurse. 00:16:26.980 --> 00:16:29.285 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: --if isinstance. 00:16:29.285 --> 00:16:31.660 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: OK, let's go to the new thing. 00:16:31.660 --> 00:16:33.280 align:middle line:84% Instead of if isinstance, what do you 00:16:33.280 --> 00:16:35.130 align:middle line:90% want to do instead of that? 00:16:35.130 --> 00:16:36.960 align:middle line:84% You're on the right track, but now we 00:16:36.960 --> 00:16:38.370 align:middle line:90% have a new way of doing it. 00:16:38.370 --> 00:16:41.410 align:middle line:84% So this is a shortcut for recurse and things. 00:16:41.410 --> 00:16:41.910 align:middle line:90% Jonathan. 00:16:41.910 --> 00:16:42.965 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: clef dot Clef. 00:16:42.965 --> 00:16:43.620 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Clef dot Clef. 00:16:43.620 --> 00:16:44.120 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:16:44.120 --> 00:16:46.060 align:middle line:84% So it's basically the same thing. 00:16:46.060 --> 00:16:50.460 align:middle line:84% And, oh, here is something that came up in a couple of things. 00:16:50.460 --> 00:16:52.750 align:middle line:84% Now I know it's going to be a clef. 00:16:52.750 --> 00:16:55.050 align:middle line:90% So maybe thing isn't the best. 00:16:55.050 --> 00:16:57.780 align:middle line:90% So do you like that? 00:16:57.780 --> 00:17:00.160 align:middle line:90% No, this comes up a lot. 00:17:00.160 --> 00:17:02.200 align:middle line:90% What-- Adam doesn't like it. 00:17:02.200 --> 00:17:03.960 align:middle line:90% Somebody else? 00:17:03.960 --> 00:17:05.890 align:middle line:90% Anybody else not like this? 00:17:05.890 --> 00:17:07.800 align:middle line:84% Yeah, Paul, what do you not like about it? 00:17:07.800 --> 00:17:12.765 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Because clef is part of the music21 input. 00:17:12.765 --> 00:17:14.640 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yeah, because clef 00:17:14.640 --> 00:17:16.829 align:middle line:90% is part of the music21 input. 00:17:16.829 --> 00:17:22.500 align:middle line:84% Some people who hate that I recommend 00:17:22.500 --> 00:17:27.540 align:middle line:84% importing all of music21, so you could do this if you wanted. 00:17:27.540 --> 00:17:31.297 align:middle line:84% And then clef is only referenced with-- 00:17:31.297 --> 00:17:32.130 align:middle line:90% what do you call it? 00:17:32.130 --> 00:17:34.420 align:middle line:90% With a prefix of music21. 00:17:34.420 --> 00:17:37.120 align:middle line:84% And some people really insist on that. 00:17:37.120 --> 00:17:38.850 align:middle line:84% You might have a friend who talks about 00:17:38.850 --> 00:17:42.420 align:middle line:84% don't pollute your namespace by things you don't know, 00:17:42.420 --> 00:17:44.200 align:middle line:90% which can be pretty good advice. 00:17:44.200 --> 00:17:45.360 align:middle line:90% But, yeah, you can do that. 00:17:45.360 --> 00:17:48.100 align:middle line:90% So thing is not bad. 00:17:48.100 --> 00:17:52.260 align:middle line:84% I sometimes do leave off the vowel. 00:17:52.260 --> 00:17:53.740 align:middle line:90% Some people don't like that. 00:17:53.740 --> 00:17:57.390 align:middle line:84% Somebody in P set 3 did a lot of this with no 00:17:57.390 --> 00:17:59.800 align:middle line:84% putting an underscore afterwards. 00:17:59.800 --> 00:18:01.900 align:middle line:90% That's a pretty good thing. 00:18:01.900 --> 00:18:05.850 align:middle line:84% The other thing I will often do is just use the first letter, 00:18:05.850 --> 00:18:07.560 align:middle line:84% even though I usually like verbose things 00:18:07.560 --> 00:18:08.560 align:middle line:90% if I'm going to do that. 00:18:08.560 --> 00:18:09.900 align:middle line:90% So OK. 00:18:09.900 --> 00:18:15.900 align:middle line:84% And Jason or Jonathan, whoever was starting wants to go next. 00:18:15.900 --> 00:18:18.510 align:middle line:84% Print c, is that what you did, or? 00:18:18.510 --> 00:18:20.010 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:18:20.010 --> 00:18:21.690 align:middle line:90% Right. 00:18:21.690 --> 00:18:24.720 align:middle line:84% I'm going through well, and we have a clef change. 00:18:24.720 --> 00:18:25.540 align:middle line:90% So clef change. 00:18:25.540 --> 00:18:28.050 align:middle line:90% Anybody object? 00:18:28.050 --> 00:18:28.680 align:middle line:90% Angelica? 00:18:28.680 --> 00:18:33.615 align:middle line:84% [MUMBLES] Adam has a bit-- yeah, Vincent. 00:18:33.615 --> 00:18:35.490 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I tried that at first, but I really 00:18:35.490 --> 00:18:38.700 align:middle line:84% know if the bass clef maybe belonged to the piano 00:18:38.700 --> 00:18:40.740 align:middle line:90% part, piano change. 00:18:40.740 --> 00:18:43.440 align:middle line:84% And so maybe you can probably print out the part and then 00:18:43.440 --> 00:18:45.190 align:middle line:90% the clef that it corresponds to. 00:18:45.190 --> 00:18:45.805 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Oh, OK. 00:18:45.805 --> 00:18:46.860 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: It is just in the part. 00:18:46.860 --> 00:18:48.193 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Good. 00:18:48.193 --> 00:18:50.580 align:middle line:90% So what we could do, let's see. 00:18:50.580 --> 00:18:54.270 align:middle line:84% How can we get the part name on this? 00:18:54.270 --> 00:18:56.238 align:middle line:90% For-- yeah, go ahead. 00:18:56.238 --> 00:18:58.030 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I just have another form for that 00:18:58.030 --> 00:18:59.010 align:middle line:90% that leads to the parts bit. 00:18:59.010 --> 00:19:00.760 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: For p in beach. 00:19:00.760 --> 00:19:04.080 align:middle line:84% And now we'll-- so the difference by the way, 00:19:04.080 --> 00:19:06.730 align:middle line:90% dot parts is not recursive. 00:19:06.730 --> 00:19:11.770 align:middle line:84% But hopefully, the parts are at the top most level of the score. 00:19:11.770 --> 00:19:12.910 align:middle line:90% So it doesn't matter. 00:19:12.910 --> 00:19:19.110 align:middle line:84% We could do either way, yep, and then for print p, maybe. 00:19:19.110 --> 00:19:20.670 align:middle line:90% Print p. 00:19:20.670 --> 00:19:22.740 align:middle line:84% Actually, I usually like to do something 00:19:22.740 --> 00:19:25.410 align:middle line:84% like this when I have an outer loop. 00:19:25.410 --> 00:19:27.300 align:middle line:90% Oops. 00:19:27.300 --> 00:19:34.070 align:middle line:84% Then we'll do for c in beach clef dot Clef print c. 00:19:34.070 --> 00:19:41.910 align:middle line:90% 00:19:41.910 --> 00:19:43.123 align:middle line:90% What did I do wrong? 00:19:43.123 --> 00:19:44.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: It recurses. 00:19:44.040 --> 00:19:46.082 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: A recursing and beach. 00:19:46.082 --> 00:19:47.130 align:middle line:90% What should I be doing? 00:19:47.130 --> 00:19:48.010 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: p. 00:19:48.010 --> 00:19:49.802 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: p clef dot Clef. 00:19:49.802 --> 00:19:51.480 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:19:51.480 --> 00:19:54.960 align:middle line:84% In any life, don't let me make a fool of myself, especially not 00:19:54.960 --> 00:19:56.410 align:middle line:90% when we're filming this class. 00:19:56.410 --> 00:19:59.200 align:middle line:84% So yeah, call me out when I do something like that, but great. 00:19:59.200 --> 00:20:01.001 align:middle line:90% So now we can see, ah. 00:20:01.001 --> 00:20:07.260 align:middle line:90% 00:20:07.260 --> 00:20:09.410 align:middle line:90% Oh. 00:20:09.410 --> 00:20:12.460 align:middle line:84% So there actually is a clef change, 00:20:12.460 --> 00:20:15.130 align:middle line:84% but not in one of the voices I was thinking. 00:20:15.130 --> 00:20:19.450 align:middle line:84% None of the voices did, but the piano part does change clef. 00:20:19.450 --> 00:20:22.930 align:middle line:90% Here's another way we can this. 00:20:22.930 --> 00:20:26.680 align:middle line:84% I'm going to be unlocking some nice stream things for this. 00:20:26.680 --> 00:20:28.660 align:middle line:84% We can just skip that outer loop. 00:20:28.660 --> 00:20:32.340 align:middle line:84% For c-- you can just keep going and doing things-- 00:20:32.340 --> 00:20:38.550 align:middle line:90% in beach clef dot Clef. 00:20:38.550 --> 00:20:39.600 align:middle line:90% Let's do this. 00:20:39.600 --> 00:20:40.980 align:middle line:90% Print c comma. 00:20:40.980 --> 00:20:43.340 align:middle line:84% I'll let everybody get caught up on that. 00:20:43.340 --> 00:20:46.800 align:middle line:90% 00:20:46.800 --> 00:20:54.450 align:middle line:84% c dot getContextByClass stream dot part, and make sure to close 00:20:54.450 --> 00:20:57.270 align:middle line:90% your second parentheses. 00:20:57.270 --> 00:21:00.060 align:middle line:84% So this is a way of moving upward 00:21:00.060 --> 00:21:05.203 align:middle line:84% in a hierarchy to try to get what the most recent part is. 00:21:05.203 --> 00:21:12.180 align:middle line:90% 00:21:12.180 --> 00:21:16.020 align:middle line:84% Same type of information, but maybe a little bit easier 00:21:16.020 --> 00:21:18.960 align:middle line:90% for your computer to parse. 00:21:18.960 --> 00:21:21.070 align:middle line:84% What should we do if we want to know? 00:21:21.070 --> 00:21:25.980 align:middle line:84% Let's see where that bass clef change takes place. 00:21:25.980 --> 00:21:27.817 align:middle line:84% Let's assume it's like Wagner's Lohengrin, 00:21:27.817 --> 00:21:29.650 align:middle line:84% and we don't want to switch the whole thing. 00:21:29.650 --> 00:21:30.420 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Misha. 00:21:30.420 --> 00:21:33.128 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I can get contracts by class for a string, not measure. 00:21:33.128 --> 00:21:34.503 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Great. 00:21:34.503 --> 00:21:36.600 align:middle line:84% So I'm going to cut and paste because we 00:21:36.600 --> 00:21:42.310 align:middle line:84% don't want to spend this whole class watching me make typos. 00:21:42.310 --> 00:21:48.361 align:middle line:84% Context by class, stream dot Measure. 00:21:48.361 --> 00:21:49.772 align:middle line:90% Whoa, it's a lot of things. 00:21:49.772 --> 00:21:51.730 align:middle line:84% When you're zoomed in, you don't get very much. 00:21:51.730 --> 00:21:53.710 align:middle line:84% Maybe I should print that in separate lines, 00:21:53.710 --> 00:21:56.490 align:middle line:84% but I want to look at the bottom one. 00:21:56.490 --> 00:22:01.050 align:middle line:90% Measure 29 offset 112. 00:22:01.050 --> 00:22:07.660 align:middle line:84% Here's a trick that I explained at the beginning of this class. 00:22:07.660 --> 00:22:10.230 align:middle line:90% I'll open it up in a PDF reader. 00:22:10.230 --> 00:22:17.670 align:middle line:84% And hopefully, this one has measuring numbers defined. 00:22:17.670 --> 00:22:23.760 align:middle line:90% Yeah, 112. 00:22:23.760 --> 00:22:24.734 align:middle line:90% No, 29. 00:22:24.734 --> 00:22:25.234 align:middle line:90% Phew! 00:22:25.234 --> 00:22:26.160 align:middle line:90% 29. 00:22:26.160 --> 00:22:29.040 align:middle line:90% There we go. 00:22:29.040 --> 00:22:32.020 align:middle line:90% Finally, there. 00:22:32.020 --> 00:22:35.190 align:middle line:84% What is that-- give me some ideas. 00:22:35.190 --> 00:22:36.665 align:middle line:90% What's the piece scored for? 00:22:36.665 --> 00:22:39.780 align:middle line:90% 00:22:39.780 --> 00:22:43.133 align:middle line:84% What are the instruments in this? 00:22:43.133 --> 00:22:43.800 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Women. 00:22:43.800 --> 00:22:45.660 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Women's chorus and-- 00:22:45.660 --> 00:22:46.410 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Piano. 00:22:46.410 --> 00:22:48.150 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Piano. 00:22:48.150 --> 00:22:51.060 align:middle line:84% What are you going to guess, unless Amy Beach likes 00:22:51.060 --> 00:22:53.310 align:middle line:90% to use 20 million ledger lines. 00:22:53.310 --> 00:22:57.894 align:middle line:84% There's something about the piece. 00:22:57.894 --> 00:22:59.255 align:middle line:90% About the piano part. 00:22:59.255 --> 00:23:02.610 align:middle line:90% 00:23:02.610 --> 00:23:03.450 align:middle line:90% That's right. 00:23:03.450 --> 00:23:04.140 align:middle line:90% Misha. 00:23:04.140 --> 00:23:06.180 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: It's pretty high up relative to-- 00:23:06.180 --> 00:23:07.513 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:23:07.513 --> 00:23:10.110 align:middle line:84% So it's up with the voices the whole time 00:23:10.110 --> 00:23:13.030 align:middle line:90% until right at the very end. 00:23:13.030 --> 00:23:15.480 align:middle line:84% And so you can probably take a guess 00:23:15.480 --> 00:23:20.340 align:middle line:84% that something dramatically changes at the end. 00:23:20.340 --> 00:23:23.700 align:middle line:84% And it doesn't just go down because, well, we're 00:23:23.700 --> 00:23:25.870 align:middle line:90% tiny bit-- where's that note? 00:23:25.870 --> 00:23:28.158 align:middle line:84% We're tiny bit too low for treble clef. 00:23:28.158 --> 00:23:29.950 align:middle line:84% So we're going to drop down into bass clef. 00:23:29.950 --> 00:23:30.990 align:middle line:90% No. 00:23:30.990 --> 00:23:36.540 align:middle line:84% No, we get very, very low at the beginning. 00:23:36.540 --> 00:23:39.060 align:middle line:90% So you could think about it. 00:23:39.060 --> 00:23:41.130 align:middle line:84% Immediately, you could ask, What are 00:23:41.130 --> 00:23:45.210 align:middle line:84% pieces that have a dramatic change in range 00:23:45.210 --> 00:23:48.240 align:middle line:90% only at the very end? 00:23:48.240 --> 00:23:51.840 align:middle line:84% Anytime you see something like this, always be thinking of, 00:23:51.840 --> 00:23:55.360 align:middle line:84% What are the next three questions you can go from here? 00:23:55.360 --> 00:23:59.040 align:middle line:84% So this is pretty interesting type 00:23:59.040 --> 00:24:01.890 align:middle line:84% of research problem that becomes faster 00:24:01.890 --> 00:24:04.170 align:middle line:90% to find with the computer. 00:24:04.170 --> 00:24:06.600 align:middle line:84% We could also-- you all know how to find 00:24:06.600 --> 00:24:09.550 align:middle line:84% the highest or the lowest note in a part, right? 00:24:09.550 --> 00:24:10.110 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:24:10.110 --> 00:24:10.610 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:24:10.610 --> 00:24:13.950 align:middle line:84% You're all experts at that now after problem set 3. 00:24:13.950 --> 00:24:22.470 align:middle line:84% So we can figure out this thing from here. 00:24:22.470 --> 00:24:25.440 align:middle line:90% By the way, given the-- 00:24:25.440 --> 00:24:28.840 align:middle line:84% let's look at the beginning and stuff. 00:24:28.840 --> 00:24:31.587 align:middle line:84% And is there anything-- always take a second 00:24:31.587 --> 00:24:32.670 align:middle line:90% when you have a new piece. 00:24:32.670 --> 00:24:36.130 align:middle line:84% I should-- there isn't a good recording of this piece. 00:24:36.130 --> 00:24:40.572 align:middle line:84% If anybody sings in a four-part women's choir or a cappella 00:24:40.572 --> 00:24:42.030 align:middle line:84% group that could do it, it would be 00:24:42.030 --> 00:24:44.080 align:middle line:84% really nice to get a good recording of this. 00:24:44.080 --> 00:24:49.695 align:middle line:84% But where is the interest in this piece? 00:24:49.695 --> 00:24:54.270 align:middle line:84% Is it in soprano 1, soprano 2, alto 1, or alto 2? 00:24:54.270 --> 00:24:56.040 align:middle line:90% Or more than one place. 00:24:56.040 --> 00:24:59.000 align:middle line:84% Adam, so we'll give other people just a little bit of time. 00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:05.760 align:middle line:90% 00:25:05.760 --> 00:25:07.908 align:middle line:84% Adam, where do you think interest is? 00:25:07.908 --> 00:25:08.950 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: The middle two. 00:25:08.950 --> 00:25:10.700 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: The middle two. 00:25:10.700 --> 00:25:13.440 align:middle line:90% 00:25:13.440 --> 00:25:15.090 align:middle line:90% We asked this before. 00:25:15.090 --> 00:25:20.430 align:middle line:84% Who sings a middle voice, an alto, a mezzo soprano, 00:25:20.430 --> 00:25:22.350 align:middle line:90% tenor voice? 00:25:22.350 --> 00:25:23.230 align:middle line:90% Some people. 00:25:23.230 --> 00:25:26.792 align:middle line:84% How often is that the most interesting part in the piece? 00:25:26.792 --> 00:25:27.750 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Almost never. 00:25:27.750 --> 00:25:29.417 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Almost never. 00:25:29.417 --> 00:25:33.330 align:middle line:84% OK, so either Amy Beach is very, very kind 00:25:33.330 --> 00:25:39.240 align:middle line:84% to middle-voiced people, or there might be another reason. 00:25:39.240 --> 00:25:41.730 align:middle line:90% What's the name of this piece? 00:25:41.730 --> 00:25:43.240 align:middle line:90% I've told you a little bit ago. 00:25:43.240 --> 00:25:45.750 align:middle line:90% You have it on your computer. 00:25:45.750 --> 00:25:48.540 align:middle line:84% See how much that sticks in when we're doing 00:25:48.540 --> 00:25:49.960 align:middle line:90% these kind of corpus analysis. 00:25:49.960 --> 00:25:51.835 align:middle line:84% I'm going to give it back to you in a second. 00:25:51.835 --> 00:25:54.460 align:middle line:84% When we're given one of these corpus analyzes, 00:25:54.460 --> 00:25:57.060 align:middle line:84% try to think of what kinds of questions 00:25:57.060 --> 00:25:59.400 align:middle line:90% you might answer based on thing. 00:25:59.400 --> 00:26:01.630 align:middle line:90% Prayer of a Tired Child. 00:26:01.630 --> 00:26:03.240 align:middle line:90% How do you think-- 00:26:03.240 --> 00:26:05.560 align:middle line:84% I don't know why the layout is so bad today, 00:26:05.560 --> 00:26:10.440 align:middle line:84% but I think there might be any connection 00:26:10.440 --> 00:26:12.073 align:middle line:90% of the title to this opening? 00:26:12.073 --> 00:26:15.360 align:middle line:90% 00:26:15.360 --> 00:26:16.380 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:26:16.380 --> 00:26:18.100 align:middle line:84% I want to just spread it around it, yes. 00:26:18.100 --> 00:26:25.470 align:middle line:90% 00:26:25.470 --> 00:26:27.335 align:middle line:84% Well, first, what makes it a prayer? 00:26:27.335 --> 00:26:34.740 align:middle line:90% 00:26:34.740 --> 00:26:35.668 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:26:35.668 --> 00:26:37.210 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Starting with "Our Father." 00:26:37.210 --> 00:26:38.290 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Starting with "Our Father," 00:26:38.290 --> 00:26:38.790 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:26:38.790 --> 00:26:42.610 align:middle line:84% Depending on your religious tradition, for some Christians, 00:26:42.610 --> 00:26:44.520 align:middle line:84% that can be a pretty standard thing. 00:26:44.520 --> 00:26:49.393 align:middle line:84% What makes it, do you think, Prayer of a Tired Child? 00:26:49.393 --> 00:26:50.310 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I'm trying-- 00:26:50.310 --> 00:26:54.150 align:middle line:90% 00:26:54.150 --> 00:26:54.800 align:middle line:90% I'm not sure. 00:26:54.800 --> 00:26:56.050 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: OK. 00:26:56.050 --> 00:26:56.580 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:26:56.580 --> 00:26:57.820 align:middle line:90% Call on somebody else. 00:26:57.820 --> 00:27:00.390 align:middle line:84% Let's put somebody else on the spot. 00:27:00.390 --> 00:27:02.165 align:middle line:90% Vanessa, what makes it a tired? 00:27:02.165 --> 00:27:04.950 align:middle line:90% 00:27:04.950 --> 00:27:07.815 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I mean, she does, in fact, say here the 00:27:07.815 --> 00:27:09.190 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Title. 00:27:09.190 --> 00:27:10.240 align:middle line:90% OK, so the text. 00:27:10.240 --> 00:27:11.240 align:middle line:90% Definitely good. 00:27:11.240 --> 00:27:11.740 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:27:11.740 --> 00:27:13.360 align:middle line:90% Always go with that. 00:27:13.360 --> 00:27:14.610 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Angio. 00:27:14.610 --> 00:27:16.527 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think it's how soft it starts out. 00:27:16.527 --> 00:27:18.652 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: So it's definitely soft. 00:27:18.652 --> 00:27:20.170 align:middle line:90% Yeah, so we want to do that. 00:27:20.170 --> 00:27:20.700 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:27:20.700 --> 00:27:22.890 align:middle line:90% Anything else? 00:27:22.890 --> 00:27:24.000 align:middle line:90% Maybe Jonathan. 00:27:24.000 --> 00:27:26.070 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I mean to the part of distance. 00:27:26.070 --> 00:27:27.563 align:middle line:84% That seems to say no over and over. 00:27:27.563 --> 00:27:29.730 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Right, so what might that 00:27:29.730 --> 00:27:31.812 align:middle line:90% have to do with tiredness? 00:27:31.812 --> 00:27:33.520 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I mean, you're just not moving. 00:27:33.520 --> 00:27:34.510 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: You're just not moving. 00:27:34.510 --> 00:27:35.380 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:27:35.380 --> 00:27:37.950 align:middle line:84% You're either not moving because you're falling asleep, 00:27:37.950 --> 00:27:40.620 align:middle line:84% or you're not moving because you don't have the energy 00:27:40.620 --> 00:27:42.070 align:middle line:90% to move up or down. 00:27:42.070 --> 00:27:47.100 align:middle line:84% So this is one of the things you can start thinking about, how 00:27:47.100 --> 00:27:49.530 align:middle line:90% in a text can-- 00:27:49.530 --> 00:27:51.240 align:middle line:84% how might the text have something 00:27:51.240 --> 00:27:55.890 align:middle line:84% to do with the amount of motion in a piece? 00:27:55.890 --> 00:27:57.850 align:middle line:90% So we can look at that. 00:27:57.850 --> 00:28:01.620 align:middle line:84% And then finally, finally, you measure for-- 00:28:01.620 --> 00:28:03.610 align:middle line:90% they finally get to move. 00:28:03.610 --> 00:28:06.510 align:middle line:84% And which direction does the soprano 1 00:28:06.510 --> 00:28:09.005 align:middle line:84% move when it finally gets to move? 00:28:09.005 --> 00:28:09.630 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Down? 00:28:09.630 --> 00:28:10.480 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Down. 00:28:10.480 --> 00:28:11.383 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:28:11.383 --> 00:28:13.800 align:middle line:84% So these are some of the things that you guys were putting 00:28:13.800 --> 00:28:16.620 align:middle line:84% in your questions on the Bach chorales that 00:28:16.620 --> 00:28:20.373 align:middle line:84% can apply to other pieces, not just by Bach. 00:28:20.373 --> 00:28:21.540 align:middle line:90% By the way, how long-- yeah. 00:28:21.540 --> 00:28:24.040 align:middle line:84% Then when the lowest voice, I always want to say bass, 00:28:24.040 --> 00:28:28.230 align:middle line:84% but alto 2 moves, where does it finally go? 00:28:28.230 --> 00:28:31.230 align:middle line:90% Down also. 00:28:31.230 --> 00:28:31.990 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:28:31.990 --> 00:28:35.530 align:middle line:84% So some of the things we can do with this. 00:28:35.530 --> 00:28:39.510 align:middle line:84% Now, let's get back to filtering back to the piece. 00:28:39.510 --> 00:28:45.130 align:middle line:84% Let's say we want to see this measure here. 00:28:45.130 --> 00:28:49.260 align:middle line:84% Let's grab the entire context for where 00:28:49.260 --> 00:28:51.580 align:middle line:90% this happens and just show it. 00:28:51.580 --> 00:28:56.010 align:middle line:84% So what we can do is we can do beach dot measures, 00:28:56.010 --> 00:29:00.546 align:middle line:90% let's say 28 to 30, dot show. 00:29:00.546 --> 00:29:04.890 align:middle line:90% 00:29:04.890 --> 00:29:06.600 align:middle line:90% Hopefully, I got the right one. 00:29:06.600 --> 00:29:07.100 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:29:07.100 --> 00:29:12.830 align:middle line:90% 00:29:12.830 --> 00:29:15.290 align:middle line:84% So, whoa, everything gets cleaned up 00:29:15.290 --> 00:29:17.930 align:middle line:90% when I don't show the beginning. 00:29:17.930 --> 00:29:21.440 align:middle line:84% So you can get-- another one of these commonly used filters 00:29:21.440 --> 00:29:23.270 align:middle line:90% is the measures thing. 00:29:23.270 --> 00:29:29.370 align:middle line:84% Now, I don't know if this was a mistake in ontology or not, 00:29:29.370 --> 00:29:36.620 align:middle line:84% but I've decided that measures will be based on how 00:29:36.620 --> 00:29:38.490 align:middle line:90% a musician thinks of them. 00:29:38.490 --> 00:29:46.430 align:middle line:84% So 28 to 30 is measure number 28 to measure number 30 inclusive. 00:29:46.430 --> 00:29:48.270 align:middle line:90% So some of you guys saw this. 00:29:48.270 --> 00:29:49.820 align:middle line:84% What are some things that can cause 00:29:49.820 --> 00:29:54.590 align:middle line:84% the number of, let's say, bar lines minus 1 00:29:54.590 --> 00:29:59.977 align:middle line:84% to be not the same as the measure number, 00:29:59.977 --> 00:30:00.810 align:middle line:90% the highest measure? 00:30:00.810 --> 00:30:02.780 align:middle line:84% What are some things that might look 00:30:02.780 --> 00:30:05.720 align:middle line:84% like measures that don't get counted as measure numbers 00:30:05.720 --> 00:30:06.930 align:middle line:90% in your experience? 00:30:06.930 --> 00:30:07.580 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Vanessa? 00:30:07.580 --> 00:30:08.330 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Pickups. 00:30:08.330 --> 00:30:09.860 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Pickups. 00:30:09.860 --> 00:30:10.830 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:30:10.830 --> 00:30:11.330 align:middle line:90% Pickups. 00:30:11.330 --> 00:30:13.580 align:middle line:84% So did you have another one that you're saying? 00:30:13.580 --> 00:30:14.200 align:middle line:90% No. 00:30:14.200 --> 00:30:14.700 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:30:14.700 --> 00:30:18.560 align:middle line:90% Anybody else think of something? 00:30:18.560 --> 00:30:21.290 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: If you have a Coda, you do that. 00:30:21.290 --> 00:30:24.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Ah, if you have a Coda or a repeat, 00:30:24.320 --> 00:30:26.990 align:middle line:84% and then you expand the repeat, we 00:30:26.990 --> 00:30:30.870 align:middle line:84% tend to call that measure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 00:30:30.870 --> 00:30:33.740 align:middle line:84% Well, we'll say 6 because you usually repeat in even numbered 00:30:33.740 --> 00:30:34.280 align:middle line:90% measures. 00:30:34.280 --> 00:30:35.760 align:middle line:90% And then you repeat it. 00:30:35.760 --> 00:30:42.410 align:middle line:84% We'll sometimes call that like 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a. 00:30:42.410 --> 00:30:46.680 align:middle line:84% The measure after 6 is usually 7. 00:30:46.680 --> 00:30:49.800 align:middle line:84% It is not 13 if you repeat, right? 00:30:49.800 --> 00:30:52.010 align:middle line:90% We don't count that. 00:30:52.010 --> 00:30:54.660 align:middle line:84% Here's another commonly encountered one. 00:30:54.660 --> 00:30:56.770 align:middle line:84% Especially, it seems to happen in 3 4. 00:30:56.770 --> 00:30:59.630 align:middle line:90% 00:30:59.630 --> 00:31:00.830 align:middle line:90% Here. 00:31:00.830 --> 00:31:04.400 align:middle line:90% Sorry, let me start that again. 00:31:04.400 --> 00:31:05.820 align:middle line:90% Pick up measure. 00:31:05.820 --> 00:31:08.892 align:middle line:90% [SCAT SINGING] 00:31:08.892 --> 00:31:18.076 align:middle line:90% 00:31:18.076 --> 00:31:22.220 align:middle line:90% We want to see this, et cetera. 00:31:22.220 --> 00:31:26.990 align:middle line:84% Where you have an incomplete measure or repeat sign, and then 00:31:26.990 --> 00:31:31.070 align:middle line:84% you begin the pickup again afterwards. 00:31:31.070 --> 00:31:38.930 align:middle line:84% Generally, we'd call this measure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 00:31:38.930 --> 00:31:41.210 align:middle line:84% But most computer representations 00:31:41.210 --> 00:31:43.280 align:middle line:84% will represent this as a measure and this 00:31:43.280 --> 00:31:47.930 align:middle line:84% as a measure that are both part of the same conceptual measure. 00:31:47.930 --> 00:31:48.770 align:middle line:90% Why? 00:31:48.770 --> 00:31:52.670 align:middle line:84% It's easier sometimes to only look for repeat signs 00:31:52.670 --> 00:31:57.350 align:middle line:84% at the ends of measures, and not have to look between every note 00:31:57.350 --> 00:31:59.070 align:middle line:90% to see if there's a repeat sign. 00:31:59.070 --> 00:32:02.010 align:middle line:84% So those are some of the reasons that might call off. 00:32:02.010 --> 00:32:05.720 align:middle line:84% So here's how we can do it this way. 00:32:05.720 --> 00:32:08.930 align:middle line:84% Another thing that you'll find quite often, 00:32:08.930 --> 00:32:15.390 align:middle line:84% and it said what the offset of that-- offset 112, we could say, 00:32:15.390 --> 00:32:25.550 align:middle line:84% well, piano left hand equals beach dot parts, the final part. 00:32:25.550 --> 00:32:30.980 align:middle line:84% And then piano left hand getElementsByOffset. 00:32:30.980 --> 00:32:34.040 align:middle line:90% 00:32:34.040 --> 00:32:35.750 align:middle line:90% What do we say? 00:32:35.750 --> 00:32:42.230 align:middle line:84% Well, let's grab a little bit of context, 100 to 150. 00:32:42.230 --> 00:32:42.770 align:middle line:90% Oops. 00:32:42.770 --> 00:32:50.840 align:middle line:84% And we want to cast that into a list or something like that. 00:32:50.840 --> 00:32:59.490 align:middle line:84% And so that lets you get things from within a smaller area. 00:32:59.490 --> 00:33:01.250 align:middle line:90% You'll find there is also-- 00:33:01.250 --> 00:33:04.170 align:middle line:84% because getElementsByOffset is not recursive. 00:33:04.170 --> 00:33:07.640 align:middle line:84% There is a recursive version, getElementsByOffset 00:33:07.640 --> 00:33:08.640 align:middle line:90% in hierarchy. 00:33:08.640 --> 00:33:13.580 align:middle line:84% And I wish I had come up with a shorter name for that, but-- 00:33:13.580 --> 00:33:16.310 align:middle line:84% so you can be able to find anything 00:33:16.310 --> 00:33:20.150 align:middle line:84% at a particular element within a hierarchy. 00:33:20.150 --> 00:33:22.190 align:middle line:84% So these are some standard things. 00:33:22.190 --> 00:33:24.650 align:middle line:84% Some other people were putting in using 00:33:24.650 --> 00:33:27.840 align:middle line:84% lambda filters in some of the code do that. 00:33:27.840 --> 00:33:30.900 align:middle line:84% Who has worked with a lambda filter before in their life? 00:33:30.900 --> 00:33:32.255 align:middle line:90% Not every-- but most people. 00:33:32.255 --> 00:33:32.755 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:33:32.755 --> 00:33:35.600 align:middle line:84% So you can write a little piece of code 00:33:35.600 --> 00:33:39.380 align:middle line:84% to say, just get me things that are on here. 00:33:39.380 --> 00:33:45.290 align:middle line:84% One reason you might want to use some of these built-in features 00:33:45.290 --> 00:33:47.270 align:middle line:84% is that it's a little bit expensive 00:33:47.270 --> 00:33:48.900 align:middle line:90% to iterate over a stream. 00:33:48.900 --> 00:33:53.480 align:middle line:84% So the filters do sort of a pre-iteration. 00:33:53.480 --> 00:33:56.090 align:middle line:84% For those who are in finance, it's 00:33:56.090 --> 00:34:01.250 align:middle line:84% kind of like a tax-exempt savings plan. 00:34:01.250 --> 00:34:05.330 align:middle line:84% You only get out the elements and unwrap them 00:34:05.330 --> 00:34:09.068 align:middle line:84% and make them look really nice once you have them. 00:34:09.068 --> 00:34:11.610 align:middle line:84% Peek under here, see if there's anything else I wanted to do. 00:34:11.610 --> 00:34:15.710 align:middle line:90% Nope, that's basically it on-- 00:34:15.710 --> 00:34:16.679 align:middle line:90% any other questions? 00:34:16.679 --> 00:34:17.179 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:34:17.179 --> 00:34:17.969 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yeah. 00:34:17.969 --> 00:34:21.199 align:middle line:84% So during the piece, I figured like we covered this 00:34:21.199 --> 00:34:25.400 align:middle line:84% at some point in class, but when you flatten, 00:34:25.400 --> 00:34:31.489 align:middle line:84% it loses some of the information when I try to then get context 00:34:31.489 --> 00:34:33.139 align:middle line:90% by class. 00:34:33.139 --> 00:34:35.540 align:middle line:84% Like, for example I think, yeah, it 00:34:35.540 --> 00:34:38.258 align:middle line:84% assumes everything is the last part even though it's not. 00:34:38.258 --> 00:34:40.050 align:middle line:84% Is that because of how flattening there is? 00:34:40.050 --> 00:34:42.217 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yeah, it's because it's-- 00:34:42.217 --> 00:34:44.130 align:middle line:90% here, so let's do this. 00:34:44.130 --> 00:34:49.760 align:middle line:84% We'll say beach flat equals beach dot flatten. 00:34:49.760 --> 00:34:57.440 align:middle line:84% And now here, we'll look at the first like 100 things in beach 00:34:57.440 --> 00:34:59.300 align:middle line:90% flat. 00:34:59.300 --> 00:35:02.510 align:middle line:84% And yeah, so we get everything that's here. 00:35:02.510 --> 00:35:08.610 align:middle line:84% And within that, so we're getting all these things here. 00:35:08.610 --> 00:35:12.800 align:middle line:84% Almost all the other get contexts will work really well. 00:35:12.800 --> 00:35:15.410 align:middle line:84% We'll get to slurs and dynamics and how 00:35:15.410 --> 00:35:18.660 align:middle line:84% they're represented because they're fascinating later. 00:35:18.660 --> 00:35:24.830 align:middle line:84% But the thing is beach flat itself is a score with, 00:35:24.830 --> 00:35:25.980 align:middle line:90% in this case-- sorry. 00:35:25.980 --> 00:35:29.498 align:middle line:84% So in some cases, if you flatten a part, it becomes a part. 00:35:29.498 --> 00:35:31.290 align:middle line:84% If you flatten a score, it becomes a score. 00:35:31.290 --> 00:35:32.930 align:middle line:84% So if you flatten the part, you won't 00:35:32.930 --> 00:35:35.400 align:middle line:84% be able to get its original part context, 00:35:35.400 --> 00:35:38.430 align:middle line:84% but you should be able to get it with this. 00:35:38.430 --> 00:35:40.340 align:middle line:90% Were you not able to-- 00:35:40.340 --> 00:35:44.210 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Yeah, like if you iterate through these and then-- 00:35:44.210 --> 00:35:46.710 align:middle line:84% through the notes in the flat, for example, 00:35:46.710 --> 00:35:50.908 align:middle line:84% will you be able to get the correct-- all the parts? 00:35:50.908 --> 00:35:52.700 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yep, let's see-- 00:35:52.700 --> 00:35:55.155 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: If they should be different. 00:35:55.155 --> 00:35:58.310 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Let's hope so. 00:35:58.310 --> 00:36:01.315 align:middle line:90% Class stream dot part. 00:36:01.315 --> 00:36:04.970 align:middle line:90% 00:36:04.970 --> 00:36:07.157 align:middle line:90% Sorry, it's at the very end. 00:36:07.157 --> 00:36:08.240 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I think that's-- 00:36:08.240 --> 00:36:12.200 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Oh, interesting. 00:36:12.200 --> 00:36:15.170 align:middle line:90% That seems to be a bug. 00:36:15.170 --> 00:36:16.530 align:middle line:90% I'll look into that. 00:36:16.530 --> 00:36:21.230 align:middle line:84% See what might have caused that to come in. 00:36:21.230 --> 00:36:22.920 align:middle line:84% We have a pretty rigorous testing, 00:36:22.920 --> 00:36:26.852 align:middle line:84% but I don't remember ever testing on that particular one. 00:36:26.852 --> 00:36:28.310 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: That's what we have here. 00:36:28.310 --> 00:36:30.560 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yep, that's why I have you. 00:36:30.560 --> 00:36:31.280 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:36:31.280 --> 00:36:33.140 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:36:33.140 --> 00:36:34.880 align:middle line:90% Yeah, that'll be interesting. 00:36:34.880 --> 00:36:37.310 align:middle line:84% What you might be able to do, I'm 00:36:37.310 --> 00:36:40.430 align:middle line:84% not going to try to-- no part of this class is 00:36:40.430 --> 00:36:44.970 align:middle line:84% about working around music21 bugs, though you will find them. 00:36:44.970 --> 00:36:49.000 align:middle line:84% Let's see what happens if we do get context by class stream dot 00:36:49.000 --> 00:36:49.942 align:middle line:90% measure. 00:36:49.942 --> 00:36:50.442 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:36:50.442 --> 00:36:53.000 align:middle line:90% 00:36:53.000 --> 00:36:55.230 align:middle line:90% OK, so that one does change. 00:36:55.230 --> 00:36:56.760 align:middle line:90% So I suppose you could do this. 00:36:56.760 --> 00:36:58.460 align:middle line:84% You get the streams measures context 00:36:58.460 --> 00:37:07.400 align:middle line:84% and then get that measures context by class part. 00:37:07.400 --> 00:37:09.750 align:middle line:90% And now we have different stuff. 00:37:09.750 --> 00:37:12.320 align:middle line:84% I'll try to figure out exactly what's happening 00:37:12.320 --> 00:37:16.587 align:middle line:90% to not make that work properly. 00:37:16.587 --> 00:37:18.920 align:middle line:84% But it was happening with the Bach chorales also, right? 00:37:18.920 --> 00:37:20.340 align:middle line:90% So it's not a piano bug. 00:37:20.340 --> 00:37:23.360 align:middle line:84% The piano parsing still has bugs. 00:37:23.360 --> 00:37:26.210 align:middle line:84% That's why you're not going to be working too often with piano 00:37:26.210 --> 00:37:27.030 align:middle line:90% scores. 00:37:27.030 --> 00:37:29.550 align:middle line:90% Only when I've really done that. 00:37:29.550 --> 00:37:30.390 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:37:30.390 --> 00:37:34.790 align:middle line:84% Any other things before we move on to the next and most fun 00:37:34.790 --> 00:37:38.420 align:middle line:90% topic for a little bit? 00:37:38.420 --> 00:37:41.450 align:middle line:84% OK, I'm going to move over to the board for a little bit. 00:37:41.450 --> 00:37:45.930 align:middle line:84% And let's just do some by hand warm-ups. 00:37:45.930 --> 00:37:48.985 align:middle line:84% We're going to be moving on to intervals for a bit. 00:37:48.985 --> 00:37:51.710 align:middle line:90% 00:37:51.710 --> 00:37:56.270 align:middle line:90% And these will all-- 00:37:56.270 --> 00:37:59.480 align:middle line:84% supposedly notes that are supposed to be lined up. 00:37:59.480 --> 00:38:00.810 align:middle line:90% Just write them down here. 00:38:00.810 --> 00:38:07.730 align:middle line:84% I'll give them as number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 00:38:07.730 --> 00:38:09.350 align:middle line:90% Why don't you just say-- 00:38:09.350 --> 00:38:11.460 align:middle line:84% and actually, I won't put them as chords. 00:38:11.460 --> 00:38:13.670 align:middle line:84% I'll always put them here so that there's 00:38:13.670 --> 00:38:15.895 align:middle line:90% a directionality on them. 00:38:15.895 --> 00:38:20.750 align:middle line:90% 00:38:20.750 --> 00:38:27.770 align:middle line:84% And go ahead and work through as I'm writing them 00:38:27.770 --> 00:38:31.952 align:middle line:84% what the interval is in terms of not number of semitones, 00:38:31.952 --> 00:38:33.410 align:middle line:84% but we'll call it-- sometimes we'll 00:38:33.410 --> 00:38:35.280 align:middle line:90% call this the diatonic interval. 00:38:35.280 --> 00:38:37.890 align:middle line:84% These are one of these things people haven't completely done. 00:38:37.890 --> 00:38:40.970 align:middle line:84% So like major third, perfect fourth, 00:38:40.970 --> 00:38:42.650 align:middle line:84% things like that for all of these. 00:38:42.650 --> 00:38:45.560 align:middle line:90% Just do it as a review. 00:38:45.560 --> 00:38:47.780 align:middle line:90% Second one is always right. 00:38:47.780 --> 00:39:25.270 align:middle line:90% 00:39:25.270 --> 00:39:26.140 align:middle line:90% Sorry. 00:39:26.140 --> 00:39:28.605 align:middle line:84% Sorry, I'm going to change number 4 for a second. 00:39:28.605 --> 00:39:31.300 align:middle line:90% 00:39:31.300 --> 00:39:33.898 align:middle line:90% I want to have at least one. 00:39:33.898 --> 00:39:34.940 align:middle line:90% Goes the other direction. 00:39:34.940 --> 00:39:39.070 align:middle line:90% I'll put this up for a second. 00:39:39.070 --> 00:39:40.940 align:middle line:84% OK, just so we're on the same page. 00:39:40.940 --> 00:39:42.430 align:middle line:90% Everybody, just one second. 00:39:42.430 --> 00:39:44.630 align:middle line:84% Everybody shout out number 1 on the count of 3. 00:39:44.630 --> 00:39:46.583 align:middle line:90% 1, 2, 3. 00:39:46.583 --> 00:39:47.500 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Major third. 00:39:47.500 --> 00:39:48.050 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Major third. 00:39:48.050 --> 00:39:48.550 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:39:48.550 --> 00:39:50.890 align:middle line:90% Keep working. 00:39:50.890 --> 00:39:54.070 align:middle line:84% I just want to make sure we're all using the same system. 00:39:54.070 --> 00:39:55.692 align:middle line:90% So let's get back together. 00:39:55.692 --> 00:39:57.150 align:middle line:84% Even if you don't have them all, we 00:39:57.150 --> 00:40:00.220 align:middle line:90% have a major third at the top. 00:40:00.220 --> 00:40:03.610 align:middle line:90% And we'll start with Angelica. 00:40:03.610 --> 00:40:07.120 align:middle line:84% And we'll move-- no, we'll move this way. 00:40:07.120 --> 00:40:09.562 align:middle line:90% What did you get for this one? 00:40:09.562 --> 00:40:10.270 align:middle line:90% Do you have that? 00:40:10.270 --> 00:40:11.080 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Diminished fifth. 00:40:11.080 --> 00:40:12.913 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Diminished fifth. 00:40:12.913 --> 00:40:15.100 align:middle line:90% Anybody get another answer? 00:40:15.100 --> 00:40:15.880 align:middle line:90% It's good. 00:40:15.880 --> 00:40:16.480 align:middle line:90% Anyone? 00:40:16.480 --> 00:40:17.300 align:middle line:90% Any other answers? 00:40:17.300 --> 00:40:17.800 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:40:17.800 --> 00:40:19.010 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Diminished 12th. 00:40:19.010 --> 00:40:20.802 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Diminished 12th. 00:40:20.802 --> 00:40:22.540 align:middle line:90% Ah. 00:40:22.540 --> 00:40:25.150 align:middle line:90% Any other answers? 00:40:25.150 --> 00:40:27.520 align:middle line:90% Augmented fourth, anybody? 00:40:27.520 --> 00:40:30.610 align:middle line:84% We have augmented fourth on the table. 00:40:30.610 --> 00:40:32.095 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:40:32.095 --> 00:40:34.840 align:middle line:84% So we have a couple of different contexts 00:40:34.840 --> 00:40:37.190 align:middle line:84% where any of these things can be right. 00:40:37.190 --> 00:40:42.640 align:middle line:84% Oh, and on this one also, I should have been pretty anal 00:40:42.640 --> 00:40:43.540 align:middle line:90% from the beginning. 00:40:43.540 --> 00:40:47.090 align:middle line:84% If I want to say a direction before the major third, 00:40:47.090 --> 00:40:48.850 align:middle line:90% what do we want to say? 00:40:48.850 --> 00:40:51.860 align:middle line:84% Up or let's be a little bit more elevated. 00:40:51.860 --> 00:40:53.907 align:middle line:90% It is an-- 00:40:53.907 --> 00:40:54.740 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Ascending. 00:40:54.740 --> 00:40:57.710 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: --ascending major third. 00:40:57.710 --> 00:40:58.210 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:40:58.210 --> 00:40:59.150 align:middle line:90% This is an ascending. 00:40:59.150 --> 00:41:00.942 align:middle line:84% I'm just going to do that for a little bit, 00:41:00.942 --> 00:41:02.620 align:middle line:90% so we can keep going with that. 00:41:02.620 --> 00:41:05.600 align:middle line:90% So it's a diminished fifth. 00:41:05.600 --> 00:41:09.970 align:middle line:84% What's a context where diminished fifth is as good 00:41:09.970 --> 00:41:12.590 align:middle line:84% an answer as diminished 12th and what's one that doesn't? 00:41:12.590 --> 00:41:13.690 align:middle line:90% What are we assuming? 00:41:13.690 --> 00:41:14.307 align:middle line:90% Which type? 00:41:14.307 --> 00:41:15.890 align:middle line:84% You've been doing some of the reading. 00:41:15.890 --> 00:41:18.730 align:middle line:84% What's the equivalence class that we're 00:41:18.730 --> 00:41:21.047 align:middle line:90% using that allows this? 00:41:21.047 --> 00:41:22.420 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Octave equivalence. 00:41:22.420 --> 00:41:24.337 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Octave equivalence. 00:41:24.337 --> 00:41:28.720 align:middle line:84% So the O of OPEC, if we allow the O equivalence class, 00:41:28.720 --> 00:41:34.000 align:middle line:84% then we don't care if it's diminished fifth or diminished 00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:34.970 align:middle line:90% 12th. 00:41:34.970 --> 00:41:39.370 align:middle line:84% When might-- who is a stakeholder who might care 00:41:39.370 --> 00:41:41.960 align:middle line:90% about, Can you sing this-- 00:41:41.960 --> 00:41:43.310 align:middle line:90% can you sing this piece? 00:41:43.310 --> 00:41:47.200 align:middle line:84% It has a whole bunch of diminished fifths in it. 00:41:47.200 --> 00:41:48.680 align:middle line:90% I go, yeah, no problem. 00:41:48.680 --> 00:41:49.820 align:middle line:90% I'm an experienced singer. 00:41:49.820 --> 00:41:50.320 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:41:50.320 --> 00:41:52.690 align:middle line:90% So you're going to sing-- 00:41:52.690 --> 00:41:53.890 align:middle line:90% what note's that? 00:41:53.890 --> 00:41:55.900 align:middle line:84% You're going to sing this note, and then you're 00:41:55.900 --> 00:41:59.090 align:middle line:90% going to sing this note. 00:41:59.090 --> 00:42:01.970 align:middle line:84% You said you had no problem singing diminished fifths, 00:42:01.970 --> 00:42:02.720 align:middle line:90% right? 00:42:02.720 --> 00:42:08.080 align:middle line:84% So there are contexts where we will very much care about not 00:42:08.080 --> 00:42:09.290 align:middle line:90% having octave equivalents. 00:42:09.290 --> 00:42:10.832 align:middle line:84% And there's other ones where we will. 00:42:10.832 --> 00:42:13.480 align:middle line:90% 00:42:13.480 --> 00:42:17.660 align:middle line:84% I'll give you the music21 terms for how these things work. 00:42:17.660 --> 00:42:20.590 align:middle line:84% But we sometimes call this a simple versus a compound 00:42:20.590 --> 00:42:21.500 align:middle line:90% interval. 00:42:21.500 --> 00:42:24.020 align:middle line:84% So sometimes we care only about simple intervals. 00:42:24.020 --> 00:42:26.590 align:middle line:84% Sometimes we care about compound. 00:42:26.590 --> 00:42:29.890 align:middle line:84% When's a time that we might be OK with calling it 00:42:29.890 --> 00:42:31.130 align:middle line:90% an augmented fourth? 00:42:31.130 --> 00:42:35.250 align:middle line:84% What equivalence class might be in play? 00:42:35.250 --> 00:42:39.148 align:middle line:90% 00:42:39.148 --> 00:42:39.940 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Spelling? 00:42:39.940 --> 00:42:41.720 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Spelling or enharmonic? 00:42:41.720 --> 00:42:42.220 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:42:42.220 --> 00:42:46.960 align:middle line:84% So if spelling doesn't matter, what's 00:42:46.960 --> 00:42:50.860 align:middle line:90% an app that you might make-- 00:42:50.860 --> 00:42:54.340 align:middle line:84% I have made, I suppose-- where when 00:42:54.340 --> 00:42:58.160 align:middle line:84% you're doing this kind of interval identification, 00:42:58.160 --> 00:43:01.330 align:middle line:84% you want to be careful and turn off spelling for a bit? 00:43:01.330 --> 00:43:06.460 align:middle line:84% What's a context of interval identification, where 00:43:06.460 --> 00:43:11.950 align:middle line:84% you don't want to be too uptight about whether they hear it as-- 00:43:11.950 --> 00:43:15.670 align:middle line:84% whether I gave it away kind of diminished fifth 00:43:15.670 --> 00:43:17.050 align:middle line:90% or augmented fourth? 00:43:17.050 --> 00:43:17.550 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:43:17.550 --> 00:43:19.217 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: It's the one where you're just 00:43:19.217 --> 00:43:21.050 align:middle line:84% trying to train your interval training. 00:43:21.050 --> 00:43:22.925 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yeah, where you're 00:43:22.925 --> 00:43:24.790 align:middle line:90% doing ear training, right? 00:43:24.790 --> 00:43:26.980 align:middle line:84% You can't usually hear the difference 00:43:26.980 --> 00:43:29.770 align:middle line:84% between a diminished fourth and augmented fifth, 00:43:29.770 --> 00:43:32.140 align:middle line:84% at least not till you hear the next note, right? 00:43:32.140 --> 00:43:33.890 align:middle line:84% When you hear the opening of The Simpsons, 00:43:33.890 --> 00:43:35.590 align:middle line:84% then you know it's augmented fourth 00:43:35.590 --> 00:43:38.320 align:middle line:84% and not a diminished fifth based on where it goes. 00:43:38.320 --> 00:43:39.730 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:43:39.730 --> 00:43:42.620 align:middle line:90% OK, then next one. 00:43:42.620 --> 00:43:43.640 align:middle line:90% Let's keep going. 00:43:43.640 --> 00:43:45.473 align:middle line:84% I don't want to spend too much time on this. 00:43:45.473 --> 00:43:48.220 align:middle line:90% I want to get some programming. 00:43:48.220 --> 00:43:50.600 align:middle line:84% Paul, do you want to take a shot on this one? 00:43:50.600 --> 00:43:52.470 align:middle line:90% You can take a shot or pass. 00:43:52.470 --> 00:43:52.970 align:middle line:90% Go ahead. 00:43:52.970 --> 00:43:54.275 align:middle line:90% But you take a shot. 00:43:54.275 --> 00:43:55.400 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Augmented second. 00:43:55.400 --> 00:43:56.240 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Augmented second. 00:43:56.240 --> 00:43:58.547 align:middle line:84% And just to be pedantic, what direction? 00:43:58.547 --> 00:43:59.380 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Ascending. 00:43:59.380 --> 00:44:01.010 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Ascending augmented second. 00:44:01.010 --> 00:44:02.080 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:44:02.080 --> 00:44:03.940 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:44:03.940 --> 00:44:06.430 align:middle line:84% I don't think there's any way that you could 00:44:06.430 --> 00:44:08.330 align:middle line:90% say it's an augmented ninth. 00:44:08.330 --> 00:44:11.450 align:middle line:84% You can always reduce the octave, but you cannot-- 00:44:11.450 --> 00:44:13.755 align:middle line:84% it's an interesting non equivalence class, right? 00:44:13.755 --> 00:44:16.280 align:middle line:84% You would never be allowed to call that augmented ninth. 00:44:16.280 --> 00:44:18.175 align:middle line:84% But you can call this one a diminished fifth. 00:44:18.175 --> 00:44:18.675 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:44:18.675 --> 00:44:22.330 align:middle line:90% 00:44:22.330 --> 00:44:24.190 align:middle line:90% Number 4. 00:44:24.190 --> 00:44:26.290 align:middle line:90% Let's continue, Jonathan. 00:44:26.290 --> 00:44:27.987 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Descending augmented octave. 00:44:27.987 --> 00:44:29.320 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Good. 00:44:29.320 --> 00:44:35.590 align:middle line:84% Descending augmented and augmented octave. 00:44:35.590 --> 00:44:36.190 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:44:36.190 --> 00:44:40.030 align:middle line:84% Now let's keep going around to Matthew. 00:44:40.030 --> 00:44:43.030 align:middle line:84% What do you want to call number 5? 00:44:43.030 --> 00:44:44.810 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: For lack of a better word, 00:44:44.810 --> 00:44:47.410 align:middle line:84% I might say augmented augmented augmented second? 00:44:47.410 --> 00:44:48.910 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Augmented 00:44:48.910 --> 00:44:50.750 align:middle line:90% augmented augmented second. 00:44:50.750 --> 00:44:54.100 align:middle line:90% Everyone agree with that? 00:44:54.100 --> 00:44:56.180 align:middle line:90% Well, let's look at this. 00:44:56.180 --> 00:45:01.990 align:middle line:90% So D to E is what kind? 00:45:01.990 --> 00:45:03.080 align:middle line:90% What's that note? 00:45:03.080 --> 00:45:05.120 align:middle line:84% What's that interval-- major second. 00:45:05.120 --> 00:45:08.544 align:middle line:90% So D to E sharp is? 00:45:08.544 --> 00:45:09.430 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Augmented. 00:45:09.430 --> 00:45:10.220 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Augmented. 00:45:10.220 --> 00:45:12.352 align:middle line:84% So anything bigger than major is augmented. 00:45:12.352 --> 00:45:13.810 align:middle line:84% I want to make sure that this year, 00:45:13.810 --> 00:45:18.383 align:middle line:84% we don't lose any points on the problem set from us 00:45:18.383 --> 00:45:19.550 align:middle line:90% teaching the computer wrong. 00:45:19.550 --> 00:45:20.050 align:middle line:90% So good. 00:45:20.050 --> 00:45:20.960 align:middle line:90% Augmented second. 00:45:20.960 --> 00:45:23.400 align:middle line:90% So what's this going to be? 00:45:23.400 --> 00:45:24.280 align:middle line:90% [INTERPOSING VOICES] 00:45:24.280 --> 00:45:25.780 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Augmented 00:45:25.780 --> 00:45:27.900 align:middle line:84% augmented second or doubly augmented second. 00:45:27.900 --> 00:45:28.400 align:middle line:90% So good. 00:45:28.400 --> 00:45:31.070 align:middle line:90% So what do we have to add? 00:45:31.070 --> 00:45:32.035 align:middle line:90% What do we-- 00:45:32.035 --> 00:45:33.160 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Triply augmented. 00:45:33.160 --> 00:45:36.842 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Triply augmented second. 00:45:36.842 --> 00:45:37.780 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Quadruple. 00:45:37.780 --> 00:45:40.030 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Quadruple augmented second. 00:45:40.030 --> 00:45:43.670 align:middle line:84% You know those quadruple augmented seconds. 00:45:43.670 --> 00:45:45.640 align:middle line:90% [PLAYING NOTES] 00:45:45.640 --> 00:45:48.370 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:45:48.370 --> 00:45:50.510 align:middle line:90% Let's do your tonal theory. 00:45:50.510 --> 00:45:53.200 align:middle line:90% Is that consonant or dissonant? 00:45:53.200 --> 00:45:54.117 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Consonant. 00:45:54.117 --> 00:45:54.950 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Consonant. 00:45:54.950 --> 00:45:56.492 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Consonant. 00:45:56.492 --> 00:45:58.690 align:middle line:90% Anybody else? 00:45:58.690 --> 00:46:03.460 align:middle line:84% All diminished or augmented intervals or doubly diminished 00:46:03.460 --> 00:46:07.450 align:middle line:84% or doubly augmented, whatever are traditionally 00:46:07.450 --> 00:46:12.640 align:middle line:84% considered dissonances, No matter what they sound like. 00:46:12.640 --> 00:46:16.370 align:middle line:84% So if you doubly augment, triply augmented, quadruply augment, 00:46:16.370 --> 00:46:19.990 align:middle line:84% they will generally be regarded as dissonances 00:46:19.990 --> 00:46:22.480 align:middle line:84% because they're either a dissonance, 00:46:22.480 --> 00:46:24.770 align:middle line:90% or you have written them wrong. 00:46:24.770 --> 00:46:27.890 align:middle line:84% And the one that comes up is an augmented second, 00:46:27.890 --> 00:46:31.970 align:middle line:84% which sounds just like the beautiful minor third there. 00:46:31.970 --> 00:46:34.600 align:middle line:84% So we have quadruple augmented-- you were very, very close, 00:46:34.600 --> 00:46:35.100 align:middle line:90% by the way. 00:46:35.100 --> 00:46:37.720 align:middle line:90% You should feel proud on that. 00:46:37.720 --> 00:46:39.490 align:middle line:90% Quadruply augmented second. 00:46:39.490 --> 00:46:40.757 align:middle line:90% Ascending or descending? 00:46:40.757 --> 00:46:41.590 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Ascending? 00:46:41.590 --> 00:46:43.132 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Ascending. 00:46:43.132 --> 00:46:43.870 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:46:43.870 --> 00:46:44.510 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:46:44.510 --> 00:46:46.540 align:middle line:90% And Misha, you get this one? 00:46:46.540 --> 00:46:47.720 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: I'm not sure. 00:46:47.720 --> 00:46:48.290 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: OK, good. 00:46:48.290 --> 00:46:49.450 align:middle line:90% Pass on to Jason? 00:46:49.450 --> 00:46:50.090 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:46:50.090 --> 00:46:52.843 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Doubly diminished-- make doubly diminished second. 00:46:52.843 --> 00:46:55.010 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Doubly diminished second. 00:46:55.010 --> 00:46:57.080 align:middle line:90% Let's double-check that here. 00:46:57.080 --> 00:46:58.940 align:middle line:90% That's a minor second, right? 00:46:58.940 --> 00:47:01.790 align:middle line:90% So diminished second. 00:47:01.790 --> 00:47:03.820 align:middle line:90% Doubly diminished second. 00:47:03.820 --> 00:47:04.930 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:47:04.930 --> 00:47:07.572 align:middle line:90% Ascending or descending? 00:47:07.572 --> 00:47:09.280 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Spelt this way, it's ascending. 00:47:09.280 --> 00:47:11.697 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Spelt this way, it's ascending. 00:47:11.697 --> 00:47:13.163 align:middle line:84% And so let's hear those two notes. 00:47:13.163 --> 00:47:15.762 align:middle line:90% 00:47:15.762 --> 00:47:17.680 align:middle line:90% [PLAYING NOTES] 00:47:17.680 --> 00:47:19.383 align:middle line:84% Ascending doubly diminished second. 00:47:19.383 --> 00:47:20.925 align:middle line:84% Anyone want to make another argument? 00:47:20.925 --> 00:47:23.246 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: [LAUGHS] 00:47:23.246 --> 00:47:24.118 align:middle line:90% 00:47:24.118 --> 00:47:25.660 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Yes, Adam. 00:47:25.660 --> 00:47:28.090 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Just consider what the final pitches are actually. 00:47:28.090 --> 00:47:29.660 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: What the final pitches are. 00:47:29.660 --> 00:47:31.360 align:middle line:84% What do you mean by final pitches? 00:47:31.360 --> 00:47:33.250 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Actually, it turns out to be an F and the E. 00:47:33.250 --> 00:47:35.708 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Eventually, it turns out to be-- 00:47:35.708 --> 00:47:39.520 align:middle line:84% Adam has an ontology that privileges the ear 00:47:39.520 --> 00:47:41.000 align:middle line:90% over the written ontology. 00:47:41.000 --> 00:47:43.320 align:middle line:84% That will do him very well in most contexts, 00:47:43.320 --> 00:47:46.220 align:middle line:84% except for in a sheet music factory, right? 00:47:46.220 --> 00:47:46.920 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:47:46.920 --> 00:47:50.010 align:middle line:84% So sometimes we want that, sometimes we won't. 00:47:50.010 --> 00:47:51.960 align:middle line:90% But yeah, so you could do that. 00:47:51.960 --> 00:47:55.610 align:middle line:90% Any other argument about when? 00:47:55.610 --> 00:48:01.680 align:middle line:84% So we have ascending but sounds ascending or descending 00:48:01.680 --> 00:48:04.040 align:middle line:90% sounds ascending. 00:48:04.040 --> 00:48:07.790 align:middle line:84% If you wanted to say I'm on MIDI note, what is that? 00:48:07.790 --> 00:48:09.440 align:middle line:90% 65. 00:48:09.440 --> 00:48:11.000 align:middle line:90% This is MIDI note 65. 00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:14.030 align:middle line:90% And this one is MIDI note 64. 00:48:14.030 --> 00:48:17.690 align:middle line:84% What's the chromatic number of semitones distance? 00:48:17.690 --> 00:48:20.060 align:middle line:90% Sorry for writing so small. 00:48:20.060 --> 00:48:23.090 align:middle line:90% Minus 1, right? 00:48:23.090 --> 00:48:26.480 align:middle line:84% So if we don't care about spelling, 00:48:26.480 --> 00:48:29.690 align:middle line:90% it is a negative interval. 00:48:29.690 --> 00:48:34.400 align:middle line:84% Here is a context where you might care about how 00:48:34.400 --> 00:48:36.470 align:middle line:90% it's written, in particular. 00:48:36.470 --> 00:48:41.380 align:middle line:84% Let's say for some deranged reason, 00:48:41.380 --> 00:48:45.370 align:middle line:84% you needed to write this as a chord. 00:48:45.370 --> 00:48:47.080 align:middle line:90% Oops, sorry. 00:48:47.080 --> 00:48:52.120 align:middle line:84% There are certain rules about where the accidentals go 00:48:52.120 --> 00:48:55.245 align:middle line:90% from bottom note to next note. 00:48:55.245 --> 00:48:59.320 align:middle line:90% 00:48:59.320 --> 00:49:02.930 align:middle line:84% So these are some of the things that come up with computers. 00:49:02.930 --> 00:49:06.930 align:middle line:84% These are underdefined parts of music theory. 00:49:06.930 --> 00:49:12.310 align:middle line:90% 00:49:12.310 --> 00:49:14.860 align:middle line:84% Underdefined parts of music theory 00:49:14.860 --> 00:49:19.300 align:middle line:84% that will come up quite often, that nobody 00:49:19.300 --> 00:49:22.490 align:middle line:84% has absolutely decided on these things. 00:49:22.490 --> 00:49:27.170 align:middle line:84% Because you will see that they do come up in real music, 00:49:27.170 --> 00:49:28.820 align:middle line:90% but they're very, very rare. 00:49:28.820 --> 00:49:34.660 align:middle line:84% And I mean, believe the number of doubly diminished octaves 00:49:34.660 --> 00:49:39.210 align:middle line:84% in the music21 corpus of tonal music of music of 18th, 00:49:39.210 --> 00:49:40.560 align:middle line:90% 19th century. 00:49:40.560 --> 00:49:42.600 align:middle line:84% Out of millions of notes, there's 00:49:42.600 --> 00:49:45.480 align:middle line:90% about 28 times that it happens. 00:49:45.480 --> 00:49:47.260 align:middle line:84% It happens once in the Beach-- no, 00:49:47.260 --> 00:49:49.380 align:middle line:84% it happens in the Clara Schumann piece. 00:49:49.380 --> 00:49:53.290 align:middle line:84% So it does happen in pretty normal music. 00:49:53.290 --> 00:49:57.370 align:middle line:84% But when you see this, what do you think is happening, 00:49:57.370 --> 00:50:00.455 align:middle line:84% by the way when you might have this happening at the same time? 00:50:00.455 --> 00:50:03.540 align:middle line:90% 00:50:03.540 --> 00:50:04.370 align:middle line:90% What's the context? 00:50:04.370 --> 00:50:04.870 align:middle line:90% Adam. 00:50:04.870 --> 00:50:06.490 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The two parts are having a crossover. 00:50:06.490 --> 00:50:07.720 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Two parts are having a crossover. 00:50:07.720 --> 00:50:09.460 align:middle line:90% What's the top part doing? 00:50:09.460 --> 00:50:11.338 align:middle line:90% The one that starts off higher? 00:50:11.338 --> 00:50:12.880 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The top part is going down. 00:50:12.880 --> 00:50:13.840 align:middle line:84% It's the one with the right note. 00:50:13.840 --> 00:50:14.955 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: The one with the-- 00:50:14.955 --> 00:50:16.170 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: The F. 00:50:16.170 --> 00:50:17.080 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: --F flat. 00:50:17.080 --> 00:50:18.663 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so sometimes when you're writing 00:50:18.663 --> 00:50:20.710 align:middle line:84% a chromatic scale for an instrument or something, 00:50:20.710 --> 00:50:22.990 align:middle line:90% you'll use a lot of flats. 00:50:22.990 --> 00:50:26.130 align:middle line:84% And then the other one could be going up. 00:50:26.130 --> 00:50:29.250 align:middle line:84% And I think you'll find that this happens in John Philip 00:50:29.250 --> 00:50:30.910 align:middle line:90% Sousa's march, The Thunderer. 00:50:30.910 --> 00:50:33.040 align:middle line:90% [SCAT SINGING] 00:50:33.040 --> 00:50:33.540 align:middle line:90% 00:50:33.540 --> 00:50:34.900 align:middle line:90% It's a melody in the baseline. 00:50:34.900 --> 00:50:37.510 align:middle line:90% [SCAT SINGING] 00:50:37.510 --> 00:50:38.550 align:middle line:90% And that there's-- 00:50:38.550 --> 00:50:41.190 align:middle line:84% I think that's one where there's a double-- there's either 00:50:41.190 --> 00:50:44.740 align:middle line:84% a diminished octave or a doubly missed octave in the piano part. 00:50:44.740 --> 00:50:46.350 align:middle line:84% And in the instrumental parts, you 00:50:46.350 --> 00:50:49.620 align:middle line:84% get these doubly diminished seconds and diminished seconds 00:50:49.620 --> 00:50:50.800 align:middle line:90% that happen there. 00:50:50.800 --> 00:50:52.290 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:50:52.290 --> 00:50:55.290 align:middle line:84% So one of the debates is whether or not 00:50:55.290 --> 00:50:59.160 align:middle line:84% this number tells you ascending or descending 00:50:59.160 --> 00:51:00.250 align:middle line:90% versus the other one. 00:51:00.250 --> 00:51:03.120 align:middle line:90% Now, last one. 00:51:03.120 --> 00:51:05.520 align:middle line:90% We ended with Jason-- 00:51:05.520 --> 00:51:06.520 align:middle line:90% Vincent, did you-- no. 00:51:06.520 --> 00:51:07.380 align:middle line:90% Go ahead. 00:51:07.380 --> 00:51:10.350 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: We diminished unison? 00:51:10.350 --> 00:51:11.350 align:middle line:90% Diminish one? 00:51:11.350 --> 00:51:13.920 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Diminish one. 00:51:13.920 --> 00:51:16.680 align:middle line:90% Ascending or descending? 00:51:16.680 --> 00:51:17.305 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Null. 00:51:17.305 --> 00:51:18.638 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Null. 00:51:18.638 --> 00:51:19.770 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 00:51:19.770 --> 00:51:23.100 align:middle line:90% Null pointer exception. 00:51:23.100 --> 00:51:25.410 align:middle line:84% What do you want to call it then? 00:51:25.410 --> 00:51:28.180 align:middle line:84% Let's come up with a music term besides null. 00:51:28.180 --> 00:51:29.610 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Like a new term? 00:51:29.610 --> 00:51:30.480 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: No, anyone 00:51:30.480 --> 00:51:32.998 align:middle line:84% know a music term that's neither ascending or descending 00:51:32.998 --> 00:51:33.665 align:middle line:90% for an interval? 00:51:33.665 --> 00:51:36.480 align:middle line:90% 00:51:36.480 --> 00:51:38.800 align:middle line:84% You don't usually use it in intervals, 00:51:38.800 --> 00:51:43.350 align:middle line:84% but you might use it for types of motion. 00:51:43.350 --> 00:51:47.050 align:middle line:84% For stationary, we use another one, sometimes oblique. 00:51:47.050 --> 00:51:48.400 align:middle line:90% Has anyone heard that term? 00:51:48.400 --> 00:51:48.900 align:middle line:90% No. 00:51:48.900 --> 00:51:51.510 align:middle line:84% OK, so some people have when-- there's some motion 00:51:51.510 --> 00:51:52.630 align:middle line:90% and some not motion. 00:51:52.630 --> 00:51:54.930 align:middle line:90% So some people say that. 00:51:54.930 --> 00:51:56.920 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so there's kind of a debate. 00:51:56.920 --> 00:51:58.680 align:middle line:90% So you could say it's no motion. 00:51:58.680 --> 00:52:01.050 align:middle line:90% It's a diminished unison. 00:52:01.050 --> 00:52:03.450 align:middle line:84% The other thing that some people want to do 00:52:03.450 --> 00:52:06.310 align:middle line:84% is to make everything always be positive. 00:52:06.310 --> 00:52:07.920 align:middle line:84% So you can call this also-- what's 00:52:07.920 --> 00:52:09.510 align:middle line:90% another term we could also say? 00:52:09.510 --> 00:52:12.580 align:middle line:84% I'm just going to get a fresh thing over here 00:52:12.580 --> 00:52:17.830 align:middle line:84% so we can look at that from E-natural to E-flat. 00:52:17.830 --> 00:52:20.730 align:middle line:84% We can call this diminished unison. 00:52:20.730 --> 00:52:22.410 align:middle line:90% What would we also call this? 00:52:22.410 --> 00:52:23.790 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Augmented unison. 00:52:23.790 --> 00:52:25.623 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Augmented unison. 00:52:25.623 --> 00:52:30.355 align:middle line:84% And then what's the directionality? 00:52:30.355 --> 00:52:31.230 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Descending. 00:52:31.230 --> 00:52:32.813 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT A. CUTHBERT: Descending. 00:52:32.813 --> 00:52:37.870 align:middle line:84% So some people-- descending augmented unisons. 00:52:37.870 --> 00:52:42.840 align:middle line:84% Some People who have done some programming things have thought 00:52:42.840 --> 00:52:46.710 align:middle line:84% about maybe the diminished unison 00:52:46.710 --> 00:52:49.770 align:middle line:84% should vanish from our vocabulary 00:52:49.770 --> 00:52:55.290 align:middle line:84% because it's unclear whether music works like integer 00:52:55.290 --> 00:53:00.700 align:middle line:84% multiplication, that if you have a descending diminished unison, 00:53:00.700 --> 00:53:04.980 align:middle line:84% descending diminished unison, does that 00:53:04.980 --> 00:53:07.980 align:middle line:84% mean descending multiplied by diminished unison, which 00:53:07.980 --> 00:53:08.620 align:middle line:90% is negative? 00:53:08.620 --> 00:53:10.960 align:middle line:84% Negative and negative means you're going up. 00:53:10.960 --> 00:53:13.300 align:middle line:84% A negative times a negative is a positive. 00:53:13.300 --> 00:53:16.770 align:middle line:84% At least the descending augmented unison 00:53:16.770 --> 00:53:19.950 align:middle line:90% escapes that argument. 00:53:19.950 --> 00:53:21.900 align:middle line:84% So some of the weird things that come up. 00:53:21.900 --> 00:53:22.450 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:53:22.450 --> 00:53:24.180 align:middle line:90% Let's start. 00:53:24.180 --> 00:53:26.910 align:middle line:84% Any questions on this before we move on? 00:53:26.910 --> 00:53:27.870 align:middle line:90% Thanks. 00:53:27.870 --> 00:53:31.530 align:middle line:84% Let's get a head start on one of the hardest parts of problem set 00:53:31.530 --> 00:53:32.490 align:middle line:90% 4. 00:53:32.490 --> 00:53:38.130 align:middle line:84% What I'd like you to do is given two music21 notes, 00:53:38.130 --> 00:53:43.660 align:middle line:84% first, give me what the number 1, 2, 3-- 00:53:43.660 --> 00:53:46.090 align:middle line:84% we sometimes call this the generic interval. 00:53:46.090 --> 00:53:49.060 align:middle line:84% Some people use the term diatonic interval for this. 00:53:49.060 --> 00:53:51.240 align:middle line:84% But we'll use diatonic interval for things 00:53:51.240 --> 00:53:55.450 align:middle line:84% like perfect unison, major second, minor third, and so on. 00:53:55.450 --> 00:53:58.934 align:middle line:84% First, given any two notes, what's 00:53:58.934 --> 00:54:02.890 align:middle line:84% the generic interval between them? 00:54:02.890 --> 00:54:06.840 align:middle line:84% And then let's see if we can work up to what 00:54:06.840 --> 00:54:10.410 align:middle line:90% the diatonic interval is. 00:54:10.410 --> 00:54:12.660 align:middle line:84% Just as a reminder, there is a class 00:54:12.660 --> 00:54:16.180 align:middle line:84% called interval is still locked on this. 00:54:16.180 --> 00:54:18.910 align:middle line:84% So we'll do this for about the last six minutes. 00:54:18.910 --> 00:54:21.880 align:middle line:84% And that's how we'll end the class today. 00:54:21.880 --> 00:54:24.430 align:middle line:84% I'll just be going around and helping people get started. 00:54:24.430 --> 00:54:25.980 align:middle line:90% Thanks. 00:54:25.980 --> 00:54:31.000 align:middle line:90%