WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.932 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:01.932 --> 00:00:03.864 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:03.864 --> 00:00:07.245 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:07.245 --> 00:00:10.225 align:middle line:90% 00:00:10.225 --> 00:00:11.600 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: OK. 00:00:11.600 --> 00:00:13.170 align:middle line:90% Welcome, everybody. 00:00:13.170 --> 00:00:18.410 align:middle line:84% Wonderful, warm February Friday here. 00:00:18.410 --> 00:00:21.920 align:middle line:84% And we're continuing with our second topic 00:00:21.920 --> 00:00:25.220 align:middle line:84% for the class, the first one being about notes, 00:00:25.220 --> 00:00:26.850 align:middle line:90% pitches, durations. 00:00:26.850 --> 00:00:33.410 align:middle line:84% And now we're getting how to represent bigger musical scores. 00:00:33.410 --> 00:00:35.300 align:middle line:84% I'm going to start, though, by jumping back 00:00:35.300 --> 00:00:37.620 align:middle line:90% to topic one for a second. 00:00:37.620 --> 00:00:40.710 align:middle line:84% And I want to talk through a couple of things. 00:00:40.710 --> 00:00:45.440 align:middle line:90% First, great job on Pset1. 00:00:45.440 --> 00:00:48.470 align:middle line:84% And I can say it's nice when you can say that to the whole class 00:00:48.470 --> 00:00:52.110 align:middle line:84% without putting, for the most part, Pset1 was really great. 00:00:52.110 --> 00:00:54.845 align:middle line:84% No, every single Pset1 was very strong. 00:00:54.845 --> 00:00:57.620 align:middle line:90% 00:00:57.620 --> 00:01:01.100 align:middle line:84% And that's my quick two second overview 00:01:01.100 --> 00:01:03.110 align:middle line:84% of having the computer automatically go 00:01:03.110 --> 00:01:06.600 align:middle line:84% through and just spit out every error that it detected. 00:01:06.600 --> 00:01:09.680 align:middle line:84% And I'll go through it by hand and figure out 00:01:09.680 --> 00:01:12.140 align:middle line:84% places where there might be partial credit where 00:01:12.140 --> 00:01:16.250 align:middle line:84% a mistake early on was causing cascading problems, 00:01:16.250 --> 00:01:18.050 align:middle line:90% and things of that sort. 00:01:18.050 --> 00:01:21.840 align:middle line:84% But some really, really great things happening. 00:01:21.840 --> 00:01:28.290 align:middle line:84% You guys seem to be really strong on pitch names, 00:01:28.290 --> 00:01:31.050 align:middle line:84% on representation, on manipulating, transposing. 00:01:31.050 --> 00:01:34.910 align:middle line:84% Some really, really good work with inversions, 00:01:34.910 --> 00:01:37.850 align:middle line:84% for the most part, which is some of the most challenging parts 00:01:37.850 --> 00:01:38.940 align:middle line:90% of the problem set. 00:01:38.940 --> 00:01:45.470 align:middle line:84% And yeah, so I'd love to dwell for the next hour on everything 00:01:45.470 --> 00:01:47.300 align:middle line:90% you all did right. 00:01:47.300 --> 00:01:49.590 align:middle line:84% Give yourselves thumbs up for that. 00:01:49.590 --> 00:01:52.370 align:middle line:84% But let's talk a little bit on a couple of the things that 00:01:52.370 --> 00:01:55.040 align:middle line:84% were challenging on the problem set, some of them 00:01:55.040 --> 00:01:59.640 align:middle line:84% that maybe I could have done better, some of them maybe 00:01:59.640 --> 00:02:03.450 align:middle line:84% we all could have just thought that one little bit harder. 00:02:03.450 --> 00:02:09.860 align:middle line:84% Let's start with the concept of pitch class. 00:02:09.860 --> 00:02:11.580 align:middle line:84% How many pitch classes are there? 00:02:11.580 --> 00:02:13.045 align:middle line:90% Let's shout it out on three. 00:02:13.045 --> 00:02:14.700 align:middle line:90% 1, 2, 3. 00:02:14.700 --> 00:02:15.300 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 12. 00:02:15.300 --> 00:02:15.750 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 12. 00:02:15.750 --> 00:02:16.890 align:middle line:90% And they're, what? 00:02:16.890 --> 00:02:18.090 align:middle line:90% One to 12? 00:02:18.090 --> 00:02:18.877 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 0 to 11. 00:02:18.877 --> 00:02:20.460 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 0 to 11. 00:02:20.460 --> 00:02:20.960 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:02:20.960 --> 00:02:21.540 align:middle line:90% Super. 00:02:21.540 --> 00:02:23.940 align:middle line:90% So we almost all got that. 00:02:23.940 --> 00:02:28.590 align:middle line:84% And what's a note that's pitch class zero? 00:02:28.590 --> 00:02:29.090 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: C. 00:02:29.090 --> 00:02:30.673 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: C, good. 00:02:30.673 --> 00:02:35.100 align:middle line:84% So let's see if we know our major scales pretty well. 00:02:35.100 --> 00:02:38.138 align:middle line:90% Pitch class four? 00:02:38.138 --> 00:02:39.070 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: E. 00:02:39.070 --> 00:02:40.653 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: E, good. 00:02:40.653 --> 00:02:45.373 align:middle line:90% So four is E. E flat? 00:02:45.373 --> 00:02:46.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Three. 00:02:46.040 --> 00:02:47.540 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Three. 00:02:47.540 --> 00:02:49.040 align:middle line:90% 00:02:49.040 --> 00:02:50.630 align:middle line:90% E double flat? 00:02:50.630 --> 00:02:51.320 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Two. 00:02:51.320 --> 00:02:52.130 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Two. 00:02:52.130 --> 00:02:53.010 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:02:53.010 --> 00:02:54.457 align:middle line:90% Triple flat? 00:02:54.457 --> 00:02:55.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: One. 00:02:55.040 --> 00:02:56.330 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Quadruple flat? 00:02:56.330 --> 00:02:56.985 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Zero. 00:02:56.985 --> 00:02:58.860 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Quintuple flat? 00:02:58.860 --> 00:02:59.720 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 11. 00:02:59.720 --> 00:03:01.095 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: 11. 00:03:01.095 --> 00:03:04.460 align:middle line:84% So this ends up being-- this was one of the challenge, 00:03:04.460 --> 00:03:08.000 align:middle line:90% that there's a modulo operator. 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:11.990 align:middle line:84% Trying to make sure everything is between 0 and 11 00:03:11.990 --> 00:03:15.450 align:middle line:84% at first, when you're looking at the names. 00:03:15.450 --> 00:03:16.080 align:middle line:90% See? 00:03:16.080 --> 00:03:18.290 align:middle line:84% And so almost everybody somewhere 00:03:18.290 --> 00:03:24.860 align:middle line:84% encoded a array that looks something like this, I think. 00:03:24.860 --> 00:03:27.540 align:middle line:90% 5, 7-- am I getting this right? 00:03:27.540 --> 00:03:29.540 align:middle line:90% 9, 11. 00:03:29.540 --> 00:03:32.580 align:middle line:84% Who did something like that at some point? 00:03:32.580 --> 00:03:33.080 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:03:33.080 --> 00:03:36.140 align:middle line:84% And then so if you didn't do that 00:03:36.140 --> 00:03:41.078 align:middle line:84% and you encoded all of them, then the hard part was enhar-- 00:03:41.078 --> 00:03:41.870 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: --monics. 00:03:41.870 --> 00:03:42.120 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: --monics, yeah. 00:03:42.120 --> 00:03:44.910 align:middle line:84% If you said that one is C sharp-- 00:03:44.910 --> 00:03:46.400 align:middle line:90% ooh, it's also D flat. 00:03:46.400 --> 00:03:47.490 align:middle line:90% OK, I think I've got it. 00:03:47.490 --> 00:03:54.930 align:middle line:84% But it's also very, very odd notes like B double sharp. 00:03:54.930 --> 00:03:55.430 align:middle line:90% Oops. 00:03:55.430 --> 00:03:56.805 align:middle line:84% I should do a proper double sharp 00:03:56.805 --> 00:03:59.900 align:middle line:84% and not a programmer's double sharp, right? 00:03:59.900 --> 00:04:00.770 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:04:00.770 --> 00:04:02.383 align:middle line:90% Things like that. 00:04:02.383 --> 00:04:03.300 align:middle line:90% That's correct, right? 00:04:03.300 --> 00:04:04.490 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:04:04.490 --> 00:04:06.360 align:middle line:84% So if you did something like this, 00:04:06.360 --> 00:04:09.860 align:middle line:84% there's that weird thing that a lot of people 00:04:09.860 --> 00:04:13.460 align:middle line:84% forgot that when you get your modulo to get everything 00:04:13.460 --> 00:04:18.089 align:middle line:84% into 0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 by stripping off the accidentals, 00:04:18.089 --> 00:04:19.519 align:middle line:90% then you start adding-- 00:04:19.519 --> 00:04:20.160 align:middle line:90% what is it? 00:04:20.160 --> 00:04:24.300 align:middle line:84% You subtract one for every flat, add one for every sharp 00:04:24.300 --> 00:04:25.350 align:middle line:90% so you can do-- 00:04:25.350 --> 00:04:27.770 align:middle line:84% you can have your computer be very smart, at first, 00:04:27.770 --> 00:04:30.050 align:middle line:90% with things that-- 00:04:30.050 --> 00:04:32.468 align:middle line:90% that's a E double sharp. 00:04:32.468 --> 00:04:33.760 align:middle line:90% My handwriting will get better. 00:04:33.760 --> 00:04:36.380 align:middle line:90% 00:04:36.380 --> 00:04:37.350 align:middle line:90% And you can do that. 00:04:37.350 --> 00:04:43.550 align:middle line:84% But remembering at the end that, oh, if B is 11, 00:04:43.550 --> 00:04:53.090 align:middle line:84% that B sharp is not 11 plus one, but 11 plus one-- 00:04:53.090 --> 00:04:56.150 align:middle line:84% what do I want to put after that? 00:04:56.150 --> 00:04:57.020 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Mod 12. 00:04:57.020 --> 00:04:57.990 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Mod 12. 00:04:57.990 --> 00:04:58.550 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:04:58.550 --> 00:05:01.340 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:05:01.340 --> 00:05:03.630 align:middle line:90% So that was one thing. 00:05:03.630 --> 00:05:06.930 align:middle line:84% The other thing that came up quite a bit-- 00:05:06.930 --> 00:05:08.630 align:middle line:84% and you're going to think that this 00:05:08.630 --> 00:05:12.750 align:middle line:90% is a pretty dirty trick for me. 00:05:12.750 --> 00:05:14.305 align:middle line:90% Let's start with this. 00:05:14.305 --> 00:05:19.280 align:middle line:90% 00:05:19.280 --> 00:05:22.680 align:middle line:90% This is pitch set one. 00:05:22.680 --> 00:05:25.820 align:middle line:90% This is pitch set two. 00:05:25.820 --> 00:05:27.560 align:middle line:90% Is there a way we-- 00:05:27.560 --> 00:05:30.920 align:middle line:84% is there an axis of inversion somewhere 00:05:30.920 --> 00:05:34.930 align:middle line:84% that will let us transform pitch? set one to pitch set two? 00:05:34.930 --> 00:05:40.100 align:middle line:90% 00:05:40.100 --> 00:05:40.880 align:middle line:90% No. 00:05:40.880 --> 00:05:42.780 align:middle line:90% I'm seeing some no's. 00:05:42.780 --> 00:05:47.780 align:middle line:84% Matthew, you had the first head rock. 00:05:47.780 --> 00:05:50.400 align:middle line:84% How did you compute that very fast? 00:05:50.400 --> 00:05:57.110 align:middle line:84% Did you try all 132 possible axes of rotation and saw 00:05:57.110 --> 00:05:58.610 align:middle line:90% that there were none? 00:05:58.610 --> 00:06:00.230 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The way that I did it was 00:06:00.230 --> 00:06:02.638 align:middle line:84% I made sure that the intervals of one 00:06:02.638 --> 00:06:04.680 align:middle line:84% were the negatives of the intervals of the other. 00:06:04.680 --> 00:06:04.880 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Great. 00:06:04.880 --> 00:06:06.960 align:middle line:84% So when we're talking about the intervals of one, 00:06:06.960 --> 00:06:08.960 align:middle line:84% the intervals pitch set one, what's the interval 00:06:08.960 --> 00:06:12.860 align:middle line:90% that we're looking at here? 00:06:12.860 --> 00:06:14.060 align:middle line:90% What do we call-- 00:06:14.060 --> 00:06:15.290 align:middle line:90% two? 00:06:15.290 --> 00:06:17.090 align:middle line:90% And what's the interval here? 00:06:17.090 --> 00:06:17.840 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Two. 00:06:17.840 --> 00:06:18.570 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: One. 00:06:18.570 --> 00:06:20.070 align:middle line:84% If we're thinking of chromatic, what 00:06:20.070 --> 00:06:23.910 align:middle line:84% if we're thinking of it in more of our traditional tonal space? 00:06:23.910 --> 00:06:25.380 align:middle line:84% What do we want to call this one? 00:06:25.380 --> 00:06:26.510 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Whole step. 00:06:26.510 --> 00:06:27.050 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: What's that? 00:06:27.050 --> 00:06:27.540 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Whole step? 00:06:27.540 --> 00:06:28.440 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Whole step. 00:06:28.440 --> 00:06:28.940 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:06:28.940 --> 00:06:30.950 align:middle line:90% Another word for whole step? 00:06:30.950 --> 00:06:33.450 align:middle line:90% Usually major second, good. 00:06:33.450 --> 00:06:36.412 align:middle line:90% And here, half step or-- 00:06:36.412 --> 00:06:37.370 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Minor second. 00:06:37.370 --> 00:06:38.270 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: --minor second. 00:06:38.270 --> 00:06:38.880 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:06:38.880 --> 00:06:43.730 align:middle line:84% So you knew that you weren't going to be able to find that. 00:06:43.730 --> 00:06:46.020 align:middle line:84% You didn't need to do all the computation. 00:06:46.020 --> 00:06:48.955 align:middle line:84% Let's do one that's a little bit harder. 00:06:48.955 --> 00:06:55.490 align:middle line:90% 00:06:55.490 --> 00:07:01.920 align:middle line:90% Is there something like that? 00:07:01.920 --> 00:07:08.300 align:middle line:84% And can we find some of axis of inversion 00:07:08.300 --> 00:07:14.753 align:middle line:84% that allows us to transform it into that? 00:07:14.753 --> 00:07:17.320 align:middle line:90% 00:07:17.320 --> 00:07:17.820 align:middle line:90% Why? 00:07:17.820 --> 00:07:21.020 align:middle line:90% 00:07:21.020 --> 00:07:21.930 align:middle line:90% It's pretty obvious. 00:07:21.930 --> 00:07:25.160 align:middle line:84% So go ahead and always take the easy participation points 00:07:25.160 --> 00:07:27.860 align:middle line:90% when you can. 00:07:27.860 --> 00:07:29.060 align:middle line:90% Trudy? 00:07:29.060 --> 00:07:30.780 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: No, because one has four notes 00:07:30.780 --> 00:07:31.130 align:middle line:90% and the other has five. 00:07:31.130 --> 00:07:32.030 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: One has four notes 00:07:32.030 --> 00:07:33.540 align:middle line:84% and the other one has five notes. 00:07:33.540 --> 00:07:34.040 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:07:34.040 --> 00:07:37.130 align:middle line:90% 00:07:37.130 --> 00:07:41.810 align:middle line:84% I believe 15 out of the 17 problem sets turned in 00:07:41.810 --> 00:07:46.230 align:middle line:84% found that to be acceptable because you weren't comparing 00:07:46.230 --> 00:07:49.250 align:middle line:84% first the obvious thing, that they had to have 00:07:49.250 --> 00:07:52.100 align:middle line:90% the same number of notes. 00:07:52.100 --> 00:07:55.490 align:middle line:84% Which does happen quite often, that you're going along 00:07:55.490 --> 00:07:58.530 align:middle line:84% and you're thinking of here's a triad, here's a triad, 00:07:58.530 --> 00:08:00.240 align:middle line:84% here's a seventh chord, here's a triad. 00:08:00.240 --> 00:08:02.870 align:middle line:84% Is there a way that we can manipulate the first triad 00:08:02.870 --> 00:08:04.140 align:middle line:90% to be the second triad? 00:08:04.140 --> 00:08:04.670 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:08:04.670 --> 00:08:06.920 align:middle line:84% Is there a way that we can manipulate the second triad 00:08:06.920 --> 00:08:11.730 align:middle line:90% to be the seventh chord? 00:08:11.730 --> 00:08:12.960 align:middle line:90% The four note chord? 00:08:12.960 --> 00:08:16.060 align:middle line:84% Not with the tools that we've learned so far. 00:08:16.060 --> 00:08:17.520 align:middle line:90% So those are some things. 00:08:17.520 --> 00:08:21.260 align:middle line:90% And a very, very, very small-- 00:08:21.260 --> 00:08:24.380 align:middle line:84% this one, I think, is important because this will come up 00:08:24.380 --> 00:08:27.080 align:middle line:90% in real music everywhere. 00:08:27.080 --> 00:08:28.892 align:middle line:90% Very, very, very small problem. 00:08:28.892 --> 00:08:31.100 align:middle line:84% And this one-- this one you might hate your professor 00:08:31.100 --> 00:08:31.915 align:middle line:90% for doing it. 00:08:31.915 --> 00:08:35.000 align:middle line:90% 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:41.929 align:middle line:84% Can Pset1 be converted to Pset2 by inversion? 00:08:41.929 --> 00:08:44.670 align:middle line:84% Yes, because there's nothing here. 00:08:44.670 --> 00:08:46.130 align:middle line:84% You don't need to do any operation, 00:08:46.130 --> 00:08:47.720 align:middle line:84% or any operation you do to nothing 00:08:47.720 --> 00:08:50.280 align:middle line:84% can transform it into this, right? 00:08:50.280 --> 00:08:52.250 align:middle line:84% If you think about the reciprocal 00:08:52.250 --> 00:08:56.880 align:middle line:84% or the negation of an empty set, it'll be the empty set. 00:08:56.880 --> 00:09:02.750 align:middle line:84% And that one, I think I put 1/10 of 1% on because it's kind 00:09:02.750 --> 00:09:04.320 align:middle line:90% of a nasty thing. 00:09:04.320 --> 00:09:08.810 align:middle line:84% But it was one of the cases where unlike the four note 00:09:08.810 --> 00:09:13.910 align:middle line:84% thing where a lot of times, your algorithms 00:09:13.910 --> 00:09:16.830 align:middle line:84% were returning the incorrect answer, 00:09:16.830 --> 00:09:22.160 align:middle line:84% this one was causing the programs to crash quite a bit. 00:09:22.160 --> 00:09:26.840 align:middle line:84% A couple of years ago, my automatic assessment system 00:09:26.840 --> 00:09:27.500 align:middle line:90% didn't-- 00:09:27.500 --> 00:09:30.210 align:middle line:90% I stole it from Eran Egozy. 00:09:30.210 --> 00:09:32.340 align:middle line:90% He's very generous with that. 00:09:32.340 --> 00:09:34.290 align:middle line:84% Did not handle crashes very well. 00:09:34.290 --> 00:09:37.890 align:middle line:90% Now it does, so we'll see that. 00:09:37.890 --> 00:09:43.610 align:middle line:84% So that's a big parentheses around the fact 00:09:43.610 --> 00:09:47.700 align:middle line:84% that the P sets were great, were very, very strong. 00:09:47.700 --> 00:09:50.430 align:middle line:84% I think you should all be proud of that. 00:09:50.430 --> 00:09:53.520 align:middle line:84% But keep thinking of the corner cases. 00:09:53.520 --> 00:09:57.170 align:middle line:84% I especially liked how many test cases 00:09:57.170 --> 00:09:58.462 align:middle line:90% that I didn't write that I saw. 00:09:58.462 --> 00:10:00.795 align:middle line:84% I mean, I was going really, really fast through the code 00:10:00.795 --> 00:10:03.410 align:middle line:84% because you all just turned it in this morning or late 00:10:03.410 --> 00:10:04.020 align:middle line:90% last night. 00:10:04.020 --> 00:10:06.860 align:middle line:84% But for the most part, I was very 00:10:06.860 --> 00:10:10.220 align:middle line:84% impressed with how much people were trying to get at the corner 00:10:10.220 --> 00:10:12.350 align:middle line:84% cases and things, and that's a good thing 00:10:12.350 --> 00:10:17.720 align:middle line:84% to feel free to use that kind of collaborative discussion. 00:10:17.720 --> 00:10:20.570 align:middle line:84% And we're going to encourage some collaborative discussion 00:10:20.570 --> 00:10:23.240 align:middle line:84% in the next problem set coming right up. 00:10:23.240 --> 00:10:26.780 align:middle line:84% There was one other thing besides some reading and video 00:10:26.780 --> 00:10:31.590 align:middle line:84% watching that I asked you all to do, 00:10:31.590 --> 00:10:33.180 align:middle line:84% and I got some really great answers. 00:10:33.180 --> 00:10:35.360 align:middle line:84% And that was talking about various kinds 00:10:35.360 --> 00:10:37.670 align:middle line:84% of pitch representations, what you might do, 00:10:37.670 --> 00:10:41.970 align:middle line:84% and what some of the stakeholders might be. 00:10:41.970 --> 00:10:46.820 align:middle line:84% Who might want a particular pitch representation? 00:10:46.820 --> 00:10:49.620 align:middle line:84% And that might be different from somebody else. 00:10:49.620 --> 00:10:51.660 align:middle line:84% So anybody-- I read through them. 00:10:51.660 --> 00:10:55.970 align:middle line:84% I'm going to say some things too, especially things that I 00:10:55.970 --> 00:10:59.510 align:middle line:90% found really great. 00:10:59.510 --> 00:11:03.530 align:middle line:84% But anybody find anything that you thought was interesting? 00:11:03.530 --> 00:11:07.580 align:middle line:84% Two different groups or audiences or stakeholders that 00:11:07.580 --> 00:11:10.810 align:middle line:84% might prefer very different representations of pitches? 00:11:10.810 --> 00:11:14.090 align:middle line:90% 00:11:14.090 --> 00:11:15.188 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Vanessa? 00:11:15.188 --> 00:11:17.480 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think it's interesting to think people that 00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:20.720 align:middle line:84% are more into editing and really analyzing sound files might be 00:11:20.720 --> 00:11:22.520 align:middle line:84% a lot more interested in seeing frequency 00:11:22.520 --> 00:11:25.430 align:middle line:84% values, as opposed to if you have a musician who's reading 00:11:25.430 --> 00:11:27.620 align:middle line:84% sheet music, they look at a frequency value, 00:11:27.620 --> 00:11:29.520 align:middle line:90% doesn't mean anything to them. 00:11:29.520 --> 00:11:29.780 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:11:29.780 --> 00:11:32.390 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So they would want one of the letter and then 00:11:32.390 --> 00:11:34.850 align:middle line:84% octave values in order to be able to understand 00:11:34.850 --> 00:11:35.940 align:middle line:90% what you're talking about. 00:11:35.940 --> 00:11:36.380 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:11:36.380 --> 00:11:37.820 align:middle line:90% Yeah, totally. 00:11:37.820 --> 00:11:44.927 align:middle line:84% Nobody's going to see, I don't know, 519.8-- 00:11:44.927 --> 00:11:46.010 align:middle line:90% I'm just making these up-- 00:11:46.010 --> 00:11:56.640 align:middle line:84% 947.82 and be like, that's my most beautiful chord. 00:11:56.640 --> 00:11:58.310 align:middle line:90% I just love that. 00:11:58.310 --> 00:12:00.480 align:middle line:84% It's very hard to do on the guitar, 00:12:00.480 --> 00:12:02.090 align:middle line:84% but when you get it just right-- yeah. 00:12:02.090 --> 00:12:04.880 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so definitely different stakeholders 00:12:04.880 --> 00:12:09.900 align:middle line:84% for different places, different agendas. 00:12:09.900 --> 00:12:11.810 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:12:11.810 --> 00:12:12.530 align:middle line:90% Others? 00:12:12.530 --> 00:12:16.790 align:middle line:84% So we have sound editors and musicians, 00:12:16.790 --> 00:12:18.480 align:middle line:84% and we can refine that either way. 00:12:18.480 --> 00:12:21.410 align:middle line:90% Thanks, Vanessa, that's great. 00:12:21.410 --> 00:12:22.670 align:middle line:90% Anybody else? 00:12:22.670 --> 00:12:25.620 align:middle line:90% I think-- yeah, Matthew? 00:12:25.620 --> 00:12:28.020 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Some people care about enharmonic spelling. 00:12:28.020 --> 00:12:30.410 align:middle line:84% And for some people, that's just excess information 00:12:30.410 --> 00:12:31.423 align:middle line:90% that's useless. 00:12:31.423 --> 00:12:32.840 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yes. 00:12:32.840 --> 00:12:38.610 align:middle line:84% The big fight on enharmonic spelling. 00:12:38.610 --> 00:12:42.500 align:middle line:90% 00:12:42.500 --> 00:12:43.790 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:12:43.790 --> 00:12:49.890 align:middle line:84% I just got a bug report in Music21 on Wednesday 00:12:49.890 --> 00:12:54.353 align:middle line:84% that Music21 was not properly calling this-- 00:12:54.353 --> 00:12:57.620 align:middle line:90% 00:12:57.620 --> 00:12:59.900 align:middle line:84% let's see if I can even do it now. 00:12:59.900 --> 00:13:02.720 align:middle line:90% Maybe it was here. 00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:07.470 align:middle line:84% Was not properly calling this a dominant seventh chord, 00:13:07.470 --> 00:13:11.030 align:middle line:84% and was saying it was something else. 00:13:11.030 --> 00:13:12.933 align:middle line:90% But if we flip this-- 00:13:12.933 --> 00:13:15.860 align:middle line:90% 00:13:15.860 --> 00:13:16.370 align:middle line:90% here. 00:13:16.370 --> 00:13:18.410 align:middle line:84% Actually, maybe-- I hope I actually 00:13:18.410 --> 00:13:20.000 align:middle line:90% wrote a dominant seventh sign. 00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:24.020 align:middle line:84% That sounds like a dominant seventh chord. 00:13:24.020 --> 00:13:25.610 align:middle line:90% That's right, right? 00:13:25.610 --> 00:13:28.520 align:middle line:84% I'm not too far away from teaching music theory for a year 00:13:28.520 --> 00:13:29.040 align:middle line:90% or so. 00:13:29.040 --> 00:13:34.470 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so I am a stakeholder in enharmonic spelling. 00:13:34.470 --> 00:13:36.980 align:middle line:84% The bug report was from somebody who 00:13:36.980 --> 00:13:40.500 align:middle line:84% wasn't a stakeholder in enharmonic spelling. 00:13:40.500 --> 00:13:42.230 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:13:42.230 --> 00:13:45.210 align:middle line:84% Who might not care about enharmonic spelling? 00:13:45.210 --> 00:13:46.400 align:middle line:90% Yeah, go ahead. 00:13:46.400 --> 00:13:48.050 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I would say a guitarist 00:13:48.050 --> 00:13:49.517 align:middle line:90% who doesn't know sheet music. 00:13:49.517 --> 00:13:51.350 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah, totally. 00:13:51.350 --> 00:13:59.070 align:middle line:84% Or who doesn't-- maybe just be a little more generous. 00:13:59.070 --> 00:14:03.770 align:middle line:84% Maybe they know something, but it's translating from the sheet 00:14:03.770 --> 00:14:06.020 align:middle line:84% into the tablature into the position 00:14:06.020 --> 00:14:11.430 align:middle line:84% before translating to the next stage of mental processing. 00:14:11.430 --> 00:14:13.560 align:middle line:90% I mean, we do that a lot. 00:14:13.560 --> 00:14:16.940 align:middle line:84% People who are native speakers in two languages 00:14:16.940 --> 00:14:19.160 align:middle line:84% don't translate from one language to another 00:14:19.160 --> 00:14:24.480 align:middle line:84% before there's some kind of conception. 00:14:24.480 --> 00:14:26.370 align:middle line:84% Whereas when I'm learning a new language, 00:14:26.370 --> 00:14:28.820 align:middle line:84% it's always going through English 00:14:28.820 --> 00:14:30.510 align:middle line:90% before it has a meaning to me. 00:14:30.510 --> 00:14:33.230 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so somebody who plays guitar 00:14:33.230 --> 00:14:35.060 align:middle line:84% might be translating what they're 00:14:35.060 --> 00:14:39.510 align:middle line:84% seeing to a fret position and then saying, that's great. 00:14:39.510 --> 00:14:45.210 align:middle line:84% You see that quite often in a lot of fake book scores, 00:14:45.210 --> 00:14:47.390 align:middle line:90% in things where you'll see-- 00:14:47.390 --> 00:14:48.360 align:middle line:90% I don't know. 00:14:48.360 --> 00:14:49.730 align:middle line:90% We'll say same type of thing. 00:14:49.730 --> 00:14:52.890 align:middle line:84% You'll see E flat minor on something, 00:14:52.890 --> 00:14:59.390 align:middle line:84% and then you'll read on that, the chord-- 00:14:59.390 --> 00:15:02.540 align:middle line:90% I think that's right-- 00:15:02.540 --> 00:15:06.570 align:middle line:84% quite often, or something like that in a melody. 00:15:06.570 --> 00:15:09.960 align:middle line:90% And well, obviously, that's not. 00:15:09.960 --> 00:15:13.140 align:middle line:84% But because it's all about translating it first. 00:15:13.140 --> 00:15:13.650 align:middle line:90% That's good. 00:15:13.650 --> 00:15:14.150 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:15:14.150 --> 00:15:19.220 align:middle line:84% Other stakeholders or other interesting people who might use 00:15:19.220 --> 00:15:22.670 align:middle line:90% pitch in a different way? 00:15:22.670 --> 00:15:23.170 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:15:23.170 --> 00:15:24.628 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I've heard there's people 00:15:24.628 --> 00:15:26.630 align:middle line:84% who make incredible music, but they don't even 00:15:26.630 --> 00:15:28.010 align:middle line:90% know music theory at all. 00:15:28.010 --> 00:15:29.060 align:middle line:90% It's just like-- 00:15:29.060 --> 00:15:29.450 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:15:29.450 --> 00:15:30.780 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: --useless to ... 00:15:30.780 --> 00:15:32.613 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah, totally. 00:15:32.613 --> 00:15:38.540 align:middle line:84% There's a big, big area now of study on implied cognitions 00:15:38.540 --> 00:15:39.950 align:middle line:90% of music theory. 00:15:39.950 --> 00:15:44.420 align:middle line:84% That the idea being for some of the people who 00:15:44.420 --> 00:15:47.930 align:middle line:84% are working on this, that nobody who's 00:15:47.930 --> 00:15:52.400 align:middle line:84% making absolutely amazing music has no conception 00:15:52.400 --> 00:15:53.580 align:middle line:90% of what they're doing. 00:15:53.580 --> 00:15:56.220 align:middle line:84% They might not have the vocabulary to share it with us, 00:15:56.220 --> 00:15:58.230 align:middle line:84% but there's some sort of underlying conception. 00:15:58.230 --> 00:16:00.440 align:middle line:90% And how do we get at that? 00:16:00.440 --> 00:16:04.140 align:middle line:84% One of my colleagues-- one of your fellow professors 00:16:04.140 --> 00:16:06.510 align:middle line:84% you can take class with, Leslie Tilley, 00:16:06.510 --> 00:16:10.730 align:middle line:84% who teaches Rhythms of the World and the Balinese gamelan 00:16:10.730 --> 00:16:13.170 align:middle line:84% and Music of Bali and Indonesia-- 00:16:13.170 --> 00:16:18.980 align:middle line:84% thinks she just wrote a book that just won the big, big award 00:16:18.980 --> 00:16:21.770 align:middle line:84% in music theory, which is on trying to figure out 00:16:21.770 --> 00:16:26.810 align:middle line:84% what the conception of Balinese musicians who play these two 00:16:26.810 --> 00:16:28.760 align:middle line:84% people, who play these improvised 00:16:28.760 --> 00:16:32.960 align:middle line:84% drum patterns interlocking at huge, super, super fast 00:16:32.960 --> 00:16:33.690 align:middle line:90% intervals. 00:16:33.690 --> 00:16:37.230 align:middle line:84% But sometimes one of them stops a bit and does the other one, 00:16:37.230 --> 00:16:39.870 align:middle line:90% and they almost never miss. 00:16:39.870 --> 00:16:42.530 align:middle line:84% And when they do, just like a flubbed note, 00:16:42.530 --> 00:16:47.730 align:middle line:84% they laugh and say, oh, how did we screw that up? 00:16:47.730 --> 00:16:51.020 align:middle line:84% And her book begins with asking people, 00:16:51.020 --> 00:16:52.440 align:middle line:90% how do you how do you do this? 00:16:52.440 --> 00:16:54.698 align:middle line:84% They said, oh, you just play whatever you want. 00:16:54.698 --> 00:16:56.240 align:middle line:84% And so of course, you play something. 00:16:56.240 --> 00:16:57.750 align:middle line:90% No, no, not that. 00:16:57.750 --> 00:16:58.250 align:middle line:90% Not that. 00:16:58.250 --> 00:17:02.550 align:middle line:84% And so how do you get at the implied music theory conception? 00:17:02.550 --> 00:17:05.069 align:middle line:90% Super great question, Jordan. 00:17:05.069 --> 00:17:07.170 align:middle line:84% I keep saying, who are the people who do this? 00:17:07.170 --> 00:17:12.200 align:middle line:84% But some people in this class identified stakeholders 00:17:12.200 --> 00:17:15.230 align:middle line:90% that weren't people. 00:17:15.230 --> 00:17:16.579 align:middle line:90% Yeah, go ahead. 00:17:16.579 --> 00:17:19.349 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Like DAWs, the digital audio workstations. 00:17:19.349 --> 00:17:20.807 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:17:20.807 --> 00:17:23.599 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so we can give autonomy to a digital audio workstation 00:17:23.599 --> 00:17:28.460 align:middle line:84% or to a computer in general, or to a neural network. 00:17:28.460 --> 00:17:31.100 align:middle line:84% There's been a lot talk about autonomy and sentience 00:17:31.100 --> 00:17:32.560 align:middle line:90% in neural networks this week. 00:17:32.560 --> 00:17:35.750 align:middle line:90% 00:17:35.750 --> 00:17:40.170 align:middle line:84% And so why not talk about them as stakeholders? 00:17:40.170 --> 00:17:43.550 align:middle line:84% What makes it easier for a digital audio workstation 00:17:43.550 --> 00:17:45.950 align:middle line:90% to process a pitch? 00:17:45.950 --> 00:17:49.760 align:middle line:84% Usually, eliminate an harmonic spelling. 00:17:49.760 --> 00:17:52.100 align:middle line:90% It helps quite a bit. 00:17:52.100 --> 00:17:54.090 align:middle line:90% Yeah, great. 00:17:54.090 --> 00:17:56.610 align:middle line:84% Anything else that came up that you found? 00:17:56.610 --> 00:17:58.670 align:middle line:84% Especially if you read something-- 00:17:58.670 --> 00:18:00.900 align:middle line:84% and even you don't remember who it was, 00:18:00.900 --> 00:18:03.570 align:middle line:84% but somebody else's that you read and liked and you thought, 00:18:03.570 --> 00:18:04.945 align:middle line:84% oh, I wish I had thought of that. 00:18:04.945 --> 00:18:13.640 align:middle line:90% 00:18:13.640 --> 00:18:16.920 align:middle line:84% I'll see it when we go through the sheets and stuff. 00:18:16.920 --> 00:18:18.390 align:middle line:90% So that's great. 00:18:18.390 --> 00:18:21.990 align:middle line:84% That's mostly leaving aside topic one. 00:18:21.990 --> 00:18:24.060 align:middle line:84% Now, there's one more thing in topic one, 00:18:24.060 --> 00:18:26.910 align:middle line:84% and I've put it on video to watch this weekend. 00:18:26.910 --> 00:18:31.470 align:middle line:84% You will have unlocked your first Music21 module. 00:18:31.470 --> 00:18:34.530 align:middle line:84% So now in any problem set from now on, 00:18:34.530 --> 00:18:45.460 align:middle line:84% it will be fair game to say, from Music21, import pitch. 00:18:45.460 --> 00:18:47.990 align:middle line:90% 00:18:47.990 --> 00:18:48.650 align:middle line:90% And 00:18:48.650 --> 00:18:51.050 align:middle line:84% The video will go into more detail from this. 00:18:51.050 --> 00:18:53.280 align:middle line:90% pitch is lowercase in Python. 00:18:53.280 --> 00:18:57.050 align:middle line:84% What's that signified if you're importing science lowercase, 00:18:57.050 --> 00:19:01.070 align:middle line:84% Probably Well, actually-- well, OK. 00:19:01.070 --> 00:19:05.010 align:middle line:84% There's a pitch dot capital Pitch. 00:19:05.010 --> 00:19:10.910 align:middle line:84% What's the distinction between those two in this case? 00:19:10.910 --> 00:19:11.540 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Jordan? 00:19:11.540 --> 00:19:12.717 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: One is a class. 00:19:12.717 --> 00:19:14.550 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: One is a class 00:19:14.550 --> 00:19:16.675 align:middle line:90% and the other one is a what? 00:19:16.675 --> 00:19:20.000 align:middle line:90% 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:21.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: A folder. 00:19:21.040 --> 00:19:23.540 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: It acts exactly like a folder. 00:19:23.540 --> 00:19:24.420 align:middle line:90% Great answer. 00:19:24.420 --> 00:19:28.220 align:middle line:84% There's specific name that that's used in-- yeah, Jason? 00:19:28.220 --> 00:19:28.980 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Module? 00:19:28.980 --> 00:19:30.397 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Yep. 00:19:30.397 --> 00:19:32.238 align:middle line:90% So which one's which? 00:19:32.238 --> 00:19:33.530 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: That one's the class. 00:19:33.530 --> 00:19:34.500 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: That one's a class. 00:19:34.500 --> 00:19:35.987 align:middle line:90% I'm very bad at-- 00:19:35.987 --> 00:19:37.820 align:middle line:84% I turned around and you're pointing to the-- 00:19:37.820 --> 00:19:38.540 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Capital P. 00:19:38.540 --> 00:19:40.165 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Capital P 00:19:40.165 --> 00:19:43.320 align:middle line:84% is a class and lowercase one is the module. 00:19:43.320 --> 00:19:47.850 align:middle line:90% So you have everything module. 00:19:47.850 --> 00:19:48.350 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:19:48.350 --> 00:19:51.050 align:middle line:84% Everything that's in the pitch module 00:19:51.050 --> 00:19:54.980 align:middle line:84% is on because you will also find in there things like accidental, 00:19:54.980 --> 00:19:57.060 align:middle line:90% which is pretty helpful. 00:19:57.060 --> 00:20:00.890 align:middle line:84% So a module groups together related 00:20:00.890 --> 00:20:02.723 align:middle line:90% set of classes if you-- yeah? 00:20:02.723 --> 00:20:03.390 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Sorry. 00:20:03.390 --> 00:20:05.527 align:middle line:84% Just going back to the representation thing, 00:20:05.527 --> 00:20:07.610 align:middle line:84% I was wondering if there are any studies on people 00:20:07.610 --> 00:20:10.828 align:middle line:84% who don't have perfect pitch, but only relative pitch. 00:20:10.828 --> 00:20:12.620 align:middle line:84% Like, take the same piece of music and then 00:20:12.620 --> 00:20:13.640 align:middle line:90% just transcribe it. 00:20:13.640 --> 00:20:16.100 align:middle line:84% Is there any emotional difference 00:20:16.100 --> 00:20:18.683 align:middle line:84% to the matter of it's like, starting on D 00:20:18.683 --> 00:20:20.600 align:middle line:84% or starting on F to someone who doesn't have-- 00:20:20.600 --> 00:20:22.520 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Who doesn't have perfect pitch? 00:20:22.520 --> 00:20:23.910 align:middle line:90% I'll have to look that up. 00:20:23.910 --> 00:20:27.120 align:middle line:84% I imagine-- I mean, I don't have perfect pitch, 00:20:27.120 --> 00:20:31.110 align:middle line:84% but absolute pitch is the term that we're using more often now. 00:20:31.110 --> 00:20:33.600 align:middle line:84% I don't have perfect or absolute pitch, 00:20:33.600 --> 00:20:39.650 align:middle line:84% but there's definitely pieces that you play some song that I 00:20:39.650 --> 00:20:42.440 align:middle line:84% know really well, and you play it up a half step 00:20:42.440 --> 00:20:45.450 align:middle line:84% or up a whole step, it's going to impact me. 00:20:45.450 --> 00:20:50.790 align:middle line:84% Now, if it's a song, I don't know, I'm not entirely sure. 00:20:50.790 --> 00:20:56.540 align:middle line:84% But I'll see-- let me just make a note on that. 00:20:56.540 --> 00:21:00.470 align:middle line:84% I found in one unscientific study-- 00:21:00.470 --> 00:21:05.160 align:middle line:84% did that for a paper I was working on-- 00:21:05.160 --> 00:21:10.280 align:middle line:84% that there's a particular case where you can, 00:21:10.280 --> 00:21:14.960 align:middle line:84% very strangely-- the number of notes 00:21:14.960 --> 00:21:18.260 align:middle line:84% within a repetition of contour is 00:21:18.260 --> 00:21:23.720 align:middle line:84% decreasing but the number of repetitions of that contour 00:21:23.720 --> 00:21:26.190 align:middle line:84% before something changes is increasing. 00:21:26.190 --> 00:21:30.050 align:middle line:84% So the tempo, depending on if you hear the harmony 00:21:30.050 --> 00:21:32.510 align:middle line:84% or when the harmony changes, the harmonic 00:21:32.510 --> 00:21:34.830 align:middle line:90% changes as determinant of tempo. 00:21:34.830 --> 00:21:39.360 align:middle line:84% Or if you hear the repetition of contour as determinant of tempo, 00:21:39.360 --> 00:21:43.170 align:middle line:84% you can hear the same piece speeding up or slowing down. 00:21:43.170 --> 00:21:45.900 align:middle line:84% And a lot of people were like, oh, yeah. 00:21:45.900 --> 00:21:47.150 align:middle line:90% I hear this. 00:21:47.150 --> 00:21:50.610 align:middle line:84% But in that unscientific experiment, 00:21:50.610 --> 00:21:55.130 align:middle line:84% people with absolute pitch said, I 00:21:55.130 --> 00:21:59.400 align:middle line:84% don't hear repetition of contour when the notes are different. 00:21:59.400 --> 00:22:02.700 align:middle line:84% That doesn't seem, to me, a kind of repetition. 00:22:02.700 --> 00:22:05.580 align:middle line:84% So there are probably different ways we can do that. 00:22:05.580 --> 00:22:06.560 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:22:06.560 --> 00:22:09.020 align:middle line:90% Super great question. 00:22:09.020 --> 00:22:10.797 align:middle line:84% We'll put that aside when we edit it. 00:22:10.797 --> 00:22:12.380 align:middle line:84% We'll edit that about 10 seconds back, 00:22:12.380 --> 00:22:15.510 align:middle line:84% and we'll jump back to here just for a second. 00:22:15.510 --> 00:22:20.192 align:middle line:90% Don't be afraid of doing that. 00:22:20.192 --> 00:22:21.650 align:middle line:84% If it's something that I think it's 00:22:21.650 --> 00:22:24.090 align:middle line:84% going to be super confusing to everybody if we jump back, 00:22:24.090 --> 00:22:25.590 align:middle line:84% I'll say, we'll hold that for a bit. 00:22:25.590 --> 00:22:28.800 align:middle line:84% But I think we can still code switch. 00:22:28.800 --> 00:22:30.583 align:middle line:84% We can switch back and forth between what 00:22:30.583 --> 00:22:32.250 align:middle line:84% we were talking about 30 seconds earlier 00:22:32.250 --> 00:22:34.270 align:middle line:84% and what we were just talking about, right? 00:22:34.270 --> 00:22:34.770 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:22:34.770 --> 00:22:38.690 align:middle line:84% OK, so you're going to be able to import and use anything 00:22:38.690 --> 00:22:43.220 align:middle line:84% in the pitch module, as long as it doesn't have the word 00:22:43.220 --> 00:22:49.430 align:middle line:84% transpose in it somewhere because certain kinds 00:22:49.430 --> 00:22:53.000 align:middle line:84% of transposition will be things for us to work out 00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:55.130 align:middle line:84% in the next couple of problem sets. 00:22:55.130 --> 00:22:56.390 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:22:56.390 --> 00:22:58.940 align:middle line:84% So that's what's coming up, and then we'll be done with that. 00:22:58.940 --> 00:23:01.580 align:middle line:90% 00:23:01.580 --> 00:23:03.830 align:middle line:84% So last class, we were talking a lot more 00:23:03.830 --> 00:23:05.660 align:middle line:84% about moving from the representation 00:23:05.660 --> 00:23:08.000 align:middle line:84% of individual pitches, individual notes 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:09.630 align:middle line:90% into larger things. 00:23:09.630 --> 00:23:11.840 align:middle line:84% We might call it representation of a score 00:23:11.840 --> 00:23:17.810 align:middle line:84% or simply representation of music, something of that sort. 00:23:17.810 --> 00:23:20.390 align:middle line:84% I introduced a term that some of you 00:23:20.390 --> 00:23:26.580 align:middle line:84% already knew from other classes that goes back to philosophy, 00:23:26.580 --> 00:23:34.103 align:middle line:84% but has an interesting twist of a meaning in computer science. 00:23:34.103 --> 00:23:36.020 align:middle line:84% Anyone remember that term without looking down 00:23:36.020 --> 00:23:37.598 align:middle line:90% at the outline? 00:23:37.598 --> 00:23:38.390 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Ontology. 00:23:38.390 --> 00:23:40.265 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Ontology, good. 00:23:40.265 --> 00:23:43.040 align:middle line:90% 00:23:43.040 --> 00:23:46.820 align:middle line:84% And last class, we explored some of the things 00:23:46.820 --> 00:23:53.048 align:middle line:84% in the philosophical definition of essence of what something is. 00:23:53.048 --> 00:23:54.590 align:middle line:84% I remember some of the things that we 00:23:54.590 --> 00:23:58.520 align:middle line:84% had trouble defining when something ended and became 00:23:58.520 --> 00:24:01.250 align:middle line:90% something else. 00:24:01.250 --> 00:24:01.790 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:24:01.790 --> 00:24:02.780 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: We talked about notes. 00:24:02.780 --> 00:24:03.290 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Great. 00:24:03.290 --> 00:24:05.360 align:middle line:84% We talked about notes that we can't really 00:24:05.360 --> 00:24:07.890 align:middle line:90% tell is this one note? 00:24:07.890 --> 00:24:08.880 align:middle line:90% Is this two notes? 00:24:08.880 --> 00:24:09.960 align:middle line:90% Is this six notes? 00:24:09.960 --> 00:24:13.010 align:middle line:84% Is it an infinity of notes or 14 or-- 00:24:13.010 --> 00:24:14.360 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:24:14.360 --> 00:24:18.630 align:middle line:84% Then a larger system of musical notation, 00:24:18.630 --> 00:24:25.340 align:middle line:84% remember, we called it used in one part of the world. 00:24:25.340 --> 00:24:26.390 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:24:26.390 --> 00:24:27.350 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Common Western music notation? 00:24:27.350 --> 00:24:28.920 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Common Western music notation, 00:24:28.920 --> 00:24:29.420 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:24:29.420 --> 00:24:31.880 align:middle line:84% And we had some trouble distinguishing 00:24:31.880 --> 00:24:35.700 align:middle line:84% when what was common or what was Western about it. 00:24:35.700 --> 00:24:38.430 align:middle line:84% Or I suppose in one case, what was music about. 00:24:38.430 --> 00:24:42.510 align:middle line:90% It seemed to be on the edge. 00:24:42.510 --> 00:24:43.010 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:24:43.010 --> 00:24:46.460 align:middle line:84% Then we also brought up a little bit the computer science 00:24:46.460 --> 00:24:48.110 align:middle line:90% definition. 00:24:48.110 --> 00:24:51.110 align:middle line:84% And that's what we're going to be looking at a little bit 00:24:51.110 --> 00:24:54.050 align:middle line:84% now, but always feeling like we want to jump back 00:24:54.050 --> 00:24:57.260 align:middle line:84% to the philosophical definition because we don't want ideas 00:24:57.260 --> 00:24:59.870 align:middle line:84% from computer science always to-- 00:24:59.870 --> 00:25:02.870 align:middle line:84% what is easy to conceive of, we don't 00:25:02.870 --> 00:25:06.320 align:middle line:84% want that to limit our imagination of what we might be 00:25:06.320 --> 00:25:08.510 align:middle line:90% able to conceive in the future. 00:25:08.510 --> 00:25:12.740 align:middle line:84% So we talked about in the computer science definitions, 00:25:12.740 --> 00:25:13.920 align:middle line:90% there are various ones. 00:25:13.920 --> 00:25:15.660 align:middle line:84% There's ones that are more formalized. 00:25:15.660 --> 00:25:16.785 align:middle line:90% There's ones that are less. 00:25:16.785 --> 00:25:19.820 align:middle line:84% One that I keep in my head because I can remember it 00:25:19.820 --> 00:25:24.650 align:middle line:84% when I come up is when we're trying to represent something 00:25:24.650 --> 00:25:25.610 align:middle line:90% like music-- 00:25:25.610 --> 00:25:30.480 align:middle line:84% or you can be your ontology of a website or something. 00:25:30.480 --> 00:25:33.350 align:middle line:84% But when you're trying to think of a particular 00:25:33.350 --> 00:25:37.910 align:middle line:84% object that's either conceptual or reified-- 00:25:37.910 --> 00:25:41.150 align:middle line:84% really real-- I want to think about how is it made up 00:25:41.150 --> 00:25:45.050 align:middle line:90% of what objects are in it? 00:25:45.050 --> 00:25:53.870 align:middle line:84% What are the relationships between objects? 00:25:53.870 --> 00:25:58.370 align:middle line:84% And what are they called or what are their names? 00:25:58.370 --> 00:25:59.250 align:middle line:90% What was it? 00:25:59.250 --> 00:26:02.960 align:middle line:84% There was something-- it was like first or second class that 00:26:02.960 --> 00:26:03.920 align:middle line:90% we had a real-- 00:26:03.920 --> 00:26:06.800 align:middle line:84% oh, I remember now-- really hard time 00:26:06.800 --> 00:26:09.000 align:middle line:90% figuring out the name of it. 00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:11.270 align:middle line:90% And it had to do with the-- 00:26:11.270 --> 00:26:15.360 align:middle line:84% well, this is an eighth note and this one's a whole note. 00:26:15.360 --> 00:26:18.810 align:middle line:84% And so the blank of the note is eighth. 00:26:18.810 --> 00:26:20.280 align:middle line:90% The blank of the note is whole. 00:26:20.280 --> 00:26:21.828 align:middle line:90% What did we come up with? 00:26:21.828 --> 00:26:22.370 align:middle line:90% We had some-- 00:26:22.370 --> 00:26:22.580 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Almond. 00:26:22.580 --> 00:26:23.760 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: The almond of it. 00:26:23.760 --> 00:26:25.200 align:middle line:90% Yeah, we had the-- 00:26:25.200 --> 00:26:29.850 align:middle line:84% so sometimes pushing it way out there can make that. 00:26:29.850 --> 00:26:31.950 align:middle line:84% I mean, some of y'all have taken physics, 00:26:31.950 --> 00:26:36.310 align:middle line:84% that probably subatomic particles do not have a charm, 00:26:36.310 --> 00:26:38.290 align:middle line:90% a color, things like that. 00:26:38.290 --> 00:26:41.100 align:middle line:84% But these kinds of names can help us conceive 00:26:41.100 --> 00:26:43.150 align:middle line:90% of some property of something. 00:26:43.150 --> 00:26:45.100 align:middle line:84% So we might have the almond of a note. 00:26:45.100 --> 00:26:47.620 align:middle line:84% I think I went with something very generic-- 00:26:47.620 --> 00:26:48.970 align:middle line:90% the type of the note. 00:26:48.970 --> 00:26:52.380 align:middle line:84% But always avoid type if you can come up with something better 00:26:52.380 --> 00:26:57.670 align:middle line:84% because type, it's too valuable to use and too generic. 00:26:57.670 --> 00:27:00.460 align:middle line:84% So good, so what are things and what are they called? 00:27:00.460 --> 00:27:02.515 align:middle line:84% And I'm spending-- notice, what are the objects? 00:27:02.515 --> 00:27:04.390 align:middle line:84% You're going to be thinking about that a lot. 00:27:04.390 --> 00:27:05.430 align:middle line:90% What are the relationships? 00:27:05.430 --> 00:27:07.597 align:middle line:84% You're always going to be thinking about that a lot. 00:27:07.597 --> 00:27:10.950 align:middle line:84% But the name of something can really, really 00:27:10.950 --> 00:27:15.820 align:middle line:84% help somebody else understand how you're conceiving something. 00:27:15.820 --> 00:27:18.300 align:middle line:90% And it can be very, very hard. 00:27:18.300 --> 00:27:21.570 align:middle line:84% Some of you have probably heard the computer science joke 00:27:21.570 --> 00:27:24.510 align:middle line:84% that there's only three really difficult things 00:27:24.510 --> 00:27:26.160 align:middle line:90% in programming-- 00:27:26.160 --> 00:27:29.420 align:middle line:84% what to name something, and off by one errors. 00:27:29.420 --> 00:27:32.010 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHING] 00:27:32.010 --> 00:27:33.350 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:27:33.350 --> 00:27:33.850 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:27:33.850 --> 00:27:36.310 align:middle line:84% Some people hadn't heard that, and some other people have. 00:27:36.310 --> 00:27:41.470 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so what is something called and that. 00:27:41.470 --> 00:27:44.100 align:middle line:84% But we're going to jump now to what 00:27:44.100 --> 00:27:47.760 align:middle line:84% are the relationships between objects? 00:27:47.760 --> 00:27:49.530 align:middle line:84% What are some things in music that we 00:27:49.530 --> 00:27:51.900 align:middle line:90% might consider an object? 00:27:51.900 --> 00:27:53.800 align:middle line:90% Let's just rapid fire. 00:27:53.800 --> 00:27:55.865 align:middle line:90% Just shout out over each other. 00:27:55.865 --> 00:27:56.490 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Note. 00:27:56.490 --> 00:27:57.190 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Note. 00:27:57.190 --> 00:27:58.020 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:27:58.020 --> 00:27:59.080 align:middle line:90% Always take the easy one. 00:27:59.080 --> 00:28:00.520 align:middle line:84% Get the easy participation credit. 00:28:00.520 --> 00:28:01.230 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:28:01.230 --> 00:28:01.573 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Rest. 00:28:01.573 --> 00:28:03.406 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Rest, I heard. 00:28:03.406 --> 00:28:04.190 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:28:04.190 --> 00:28:04.940 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Measure. 00:28:04.940 --> 00:28:05.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Measure. 00:28:05.320 --> 00:28:06.282 align:middle line:90% Oh, that's good. 00:28:06.282 --> 00:28:06.990 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Phrase. 00:28:06.990 --> 00:28:09.660 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Phrase, ah. 00:28:09.660 --> 00:28:11.520 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:28:11.520 --> 00:28:13.170 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Articulation. 00:28:13.170 --> 00:28:14.970 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Articulation. 00:28:14.970 --> 00:28:15.600 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:28:15.600 --> 00:28:17.850 align:middle line:84% I'm going to stop writing down unless I hear something 00:28:17.850 --> 00:28:20.310 align:middle line:84% that I've never, never thought of. 00:28:20.310 --> 00:28:21.275 align:middle line:90% Good, what else? 00:28:21.275 --> 00:28:23.795 align:middle line:90% 00:28:23.795 --> 00:28:24.420 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Clef. 00:28:24.420 --> 00:28:25.510 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Clef, good. 00:28:25.510 --> 00:28:26.200 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: The whole score. 00:28:26.200 --> 00:28:27.190 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: The whole score. 00:28:27.190 --> 00:28:28.650 align:middle line:90% Good, the score. 00:28:28.650 --> 00:28:30.570 align:middle line:90% The dynamic. 00:28:30.570 --> 00:28:31.510 align:middle line:90% The instrument. 00:28:31.510 --> 00:28:33.750 align:middle line:90% Tempo. 00:28:33.750 --> 00:28:36.030 align:middle line:90% Name of the performer. 00:28:36.030 --> 00:28:38.820 align:middle line:84% Concert hall it was first performed in. 00:28:38.820 --> 00:28:40.175 align:middle line:90% Maybe, maybe not. 00:28:40.175 --> 00:28:41.550 align:middle line:84% We can kind of go-- but these are 00:28:41.550 --> 00:28:43.290 align:middle line:84% things we might represent when we're 00:28:43.290 --> 00:28:45.990 align:middle line:84% thinking about a performance of the music. 00:28:45.990 --> 00:28:47.040 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:28:47.040 --> 00:28:51.070 align:middle line:84% Anything else jumping on people's minds? 00:28:51.070 --> 00:28:54.748 align:middle line:84% Angelica, do you have one that you haven't heard? 00:28:54.748 --> 00:28:56.290 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The word beat or something. 00:28:56.290 --> 00:28:56.760 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Beat. 00:28:56.760 --> 00:28:57.370 align:middle line:90% Oh, yeah. 00:28:57.370 --> 00:28:58.650 align:middle line:90% Beat. 00:28:58.650 --> 00:29:01.500 align:middle line:84% See, that's great because that's something 00:29:01.500 --> 00:29:04.370 align:middle line:84% we don't see on the score but we're thinking all the time, 00:29:04.370 --> 00:29:04.870 align:middle line:90% right? 00:29:04.870 --> 00:29:05.640 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:29:05.640 --> 00:29:05.940 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Timbre? 00:29:05.940 --> 00:29:07.080 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Timbre. 00:29:07.080 --> 00:29:07.860 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:29:07.860 --> 00:29:13.020 align:middle line:84% The instrumental color or timbre. 00:29:13.020 --> 00:29:14.340 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:29:14.340 --> 00:29:17.250 align:middle line:84% So these are all different things 00:29:17.250 --> 00:29:20.530 align:middle line:84% that we might think of as objects. 00:29:20.530 --> 00:29:21.730 align:middle line:90% One of the things-- 00:29:21.730 --> 00:29:25.860 align:middle line:84% and some of them, we might not represent in every programming 00:29:25.860 --> 00:29:29.435 align:middle line:84% language as an actual object class, 00:29:29.435 --> 00:29:31.060 align:middle line:84% depending on your programming language. 00:29:31.060 --> 00:29:32.820 align:middle line:84% But there are things we can think of that 00:29:32.820 --> 00:29:37.380 align:middle line:90% have a particular noun-ness. 00:29:37.380 --> 00:29:38.850 align:middle line:90% Can you say noun-ness? 00:29:38.850 --> 00:29:43.020 align:middle line:84% That they act like nouns, that they have the essence of a noun 00:29:43.020 --> 00:29:44.590 align:middle line:90% as opposed to a verb. 00:29:44.590 --> 00:29:52.830 align:middle line:84% Nobody said that a fundamental object was transpose or perform, 00:29:52.830 --> 00:29:55.150 align:middle line:90% those verb-y things. 00:29:55.150 --> 00:29:57.540 align:middle line:84% So what we want to think of various ways 00:29:57.540 --> 00:30:01.020 align:middle line:90% that objects can be related. 00:30:01.020 --> 00:30:06.600 align:middle line:84% We talk often about taxonomies and meronomies. 00:30:06.600 --> 00:30:09.360 align:middle line:84% Has this come up in anybody else's in computer science 00:30:09.360 --> 00:30:10.800 align:middle line:90% classes? 00:30:10.800 --> 00:30:12.900 align:middle line:90% Doesn't come up in, what was it? 00:30:12.900 --> 00:30:14.920 align:middle line:90% 6.009, 6.1010? 00:30:14.920 --> 00:30:16.230 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:30:16.230 --> 00:30:19.100 align:middle line:84% But who has heard of a taxonomy in another concept? 00:30:19.100 --> 00:30:19.600 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:30:19.600 --> 00:30:22.402 align:middle line:84% Yeah, Karima, where have you heard it? 00:30:22.402 --> 00:30:23.360 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Like animals. 00:30:23.360 --> 00:30:24.260 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Animals. 00:30:24.260 --> 00:30:26.388 align:middle line:84% Kings play cards on fat green stools. 00:30:26.388 --> 00:30:27.430 align:middle line:90% Do they still teach that? 00:30:27.430 --> 00:30:29.410 align:middle line:90% Or kingdom, phylum. 00:30:29.410 --> 00:30:29.920 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:30:29.920 --> 00:30:31.447 align:middle line:90% I mean, now there's all these-- 00:30:31.447 --> 00:30:32.780 align:middle line:90% they keep rearranging it, right? 00:30:32.780 --> 00:30:35.350 align:middle line:84% They're keeping subclasses and super kingdoms, 00:30:35.350 --> 00:30:36.680 align:middle line:90% and things like that. 00:30:36.680 --> 00:30:40.060 align:middle line:84% But yeah, so we can have a taxonomy that way. 00:30:40.060 --> 00:30:46.120 align:middle line:84% So taxonomy is one that were useful for taxon-- 00:30:46.120 --> 00:30:49.960 align:middle line:90% 00:30:49.960 --> 00:30:51.470 align:middle line:84% when you're too close, it's hard. 00:30:51.470 --> 00:30:51.970 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:30:51.970 --> 00:30:55.730 align:middle line:84% Taxonomy, in this definition in ontology, 00:30:55.730 --> 00:31:02.050 align:middle line:84% it's something is something else. 00:31:02.050 --> 00:31:12.640 align:middle line:84% So give the example here that a minuet is a dance. 00:31:12.640 --> 00:31:17.410 align:middle line:84% For those who know the minuet style in the early 18th century, 00:31:17.410 --> 00:31:20.320 align:middle line:84% the minuet is a triple time dance, 00:31:20.320 --> 00:31:22.770 align:middle line:90% which means it is a dance. 00:31:22.770 --> 00:31:25.948 align:middle line:90% Or it is a-- 00:31:25.948 --> 00:31:26.490 align:middle line:90% I don't know. 00:31:26.490 --> 00:31:30.560 align:middle line:84% What's something else in music that is something else? 00:31:30.560 --> 00:31:41.800 align:middle line:90% 00:31:41.800 --> 00:31:42.300 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:31:42.300 --> 00:31:43.740 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Allegretto is a tempo. 00:31:43.740 --> 00:31:46.020 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Allegretto is a tempo. 00:31:46.020 --> 00:31:46.630 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:31:46.630 --> 00:31:47.950 align:middle line:90% I put up this. 00:31:47.950 --> 00:31:50.508 align:middle line:84% What do you call this one in this context? 00:31:50.508 --> 00:31:51.300 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Staccato. 00:31:51.300 --> 00:31:52.925 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Staccato. 00:31:52.925 --> 00:31:55.920 align:middle line:84% Now you'll understand when you do optical music recognition how 00:31:55.920 --> 00:31:57.280 align:middle line:90% the context is so important. 00:31:57.280 --> 00:31:59.363 align:middle line:84% Otherwise, you would say augmentation dock, right? 00:31:59.363 --> 00:32:01.862 align:middle line:90% So staccato is a-- 00:32:01.862 --> 00:32:02.820 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Articulation. 00:32:02.820 --> 00:32:04.945 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: --articulation, good. 00:32:04.945 --> 00:32:09.035 align:middle line:84% Is there any higher level thing that we might say is? 00:32:09.035 --> 00:32:12.660 align:middle line:90% 00:32:12.660 --> 00:32:13.380 align:middle line:90% Musicians? 00:32:13.380 --> 00:32:14.515 align:middle line:90% Probably not. 00:32:14.515 --> 00:32:16.140 align:middle line:84% But when we're thinking of representing 00:32:16.140 --> 00:32:17.490 align:middle line:90% for computer-- yeah, Sean? 00:32:17.490 --> 00:32:18.923 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: A half note is a note. 00:32:18.923 --> 00:32:21.340 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: A half note is a note, good. 00:32:21.340 --> 00:32:24.570 align:middle line:90% Half note is a note. 00:32:24.570 --> 00:32:25.530 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:32:25.530 --> 00:32:28.750 align:middle line:84% I was just going to go back to the articulations also, 00:32:28.750 --> 00:32:31.380 align:middle line:84% but we'll jump to half note is a note in a second 00:32:31.380 --> 00:32:34.140 align:middle line:84% because that's a pretty fundamental one. 00:32:34.140 --> 00:32:37.890 align:middle line:84% Sometimes with your own representations, 00:32:37.890 --> 00:32:41.970 align:middle line:84% you might think of, for instance, 00:32:41.970 --> 00:32:45.236 align:middle line:90% is trill an articulation? 00:32:45.236 --> 00:32:51.180 align:middle line:90% 00:32:51.180 --> 00:32:52.650 align:middle line:90% Who votes yes? 00:32:52.650 --> 00:32:53.720 align:middle line:90% Who votes no? 00:32:53.720 --> 00:32:56.580 align:middle line:90% 00:32:56.580 --> 00:32:59.028 align:middle line:84% Who votes I have never thought about this, 00:32:59.028 --> 00:33:01.570 align:middle line:84% and I hope I never have to think about this again in my life? 00:33:01.570 --> 00:33:02.300 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:33:02.300 --> 00:33:02.800 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:33:02.800 --> 00:33:08.950 align:middle line:84% A lot of people call a trill an ornament, a tern, an ornament, 00:33:08.950 --> 00:33:10.060 align:middle line:90% something like that. 00:33:10.060 --> 00:33:13.470 align:middle line:84% So you might need what is the class of-- but we know 00:33:13.470 --> 00:33:16.950 align:middle line:84% that a trill is more related to an accent mark 00:33:16.950 --> 00:33:23.800 align:middle line:84% than it is to a half note or to a Giselle. 00:33:23.800 --> 00:33:24.910 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:33:24.910 --> 00:33:30.870 align:middle line:84% So we might think of what's some kind of slightly bigger thing 00:33:30.870 --> 00:33:36.420 align:middle line:84% that holds articulations and ornaments? 00:33:36.420 --> 00:33:37.543 align:middle line:90% What might we call that? 00:33:37.543 --> 00:33:39.460 align:middle line:84% And why don't we come up with a name for that? 00:33:39.460 --> 00:33:40.890 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Jason first then-- 00:33:40.890 --> 00:33:41.250 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Modifier? 00:33:41.250 --> 00:33:42.520 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: A modifier. 00:33:42.520 --> 00:33:43.440 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:33:43.440 --> 00:33:47.070 align:middle line:90% That's what a lot of people-- 00:33:47.070 --> 00:33:51.700 align:middle line:84% believe what it's called in the VexFlow notation software. 00:33:51.700 --> 00:33:52.710 align:middle line:90% So somebody's-- yeah? 00:33:52.710 --> 00:33:54.240 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think maybe you could 00:33:54.240 --> 00:33:56.880 align:middle line:84% throw under envelope if you're thinking about synthesis. 00:33:56.880 --> 00:33:59.748 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Envelope. 00:33:59.748 --> 00:34:03.480 align:middle line:90% Are they envelopes? 00:34:03.480 --> 00:34:09.750 align:middle line:90% They might be envelope changers. 00:34:09.750 --> 00:34:13.252 align:middle line:84% They, in themselves, the staccato doesn't-- 00:34:13.252 --> 00:34:14.710 align:middle line:84% does the staccato have an envelope? 00:34:14.710 --> 00:34:15.489 align:middle line:90% Maybe it does. 00:34:15.489 --> 00:34:17.880 align:middle line:84% I'm not-- I don't work in this as much. 00:34:17.880 --> 00:34:21.360 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: But it's like, it's just like the attack-- 00:34:21.360 --> 00:34:22.650 align:middle line:90% I forget the second thing. 00:34:22.650 --> 00:34:25.480 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Sustained attack? 00:34:25.480 --> 00:34:27.232 align:middle line:90% No, attack d-- 00:34:27.232 --> 00:34:27.899 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Decay. 00:34:27.899 --> 00:34:28.559 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: --decay. 00:34:28.559 --> 00:34:28.920 align:middle line:90% S? 00:34:28.920 --> 00:34:29.340 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Sustain. 00:34:29.340 --> 00:34:29.760 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Sustain. 00:34:29.760 --> 00:34:30.840 align:middle line:90% R? 00:34:30.840 --> 00:34:32.620 align:middle line:90% Resonance or release. 00:34:32.620 --> 00:34:33.210 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:34:33.210 --> 00:34:34.335 align:middle line:90% Not this class. 00:34:34.335 --> 00:34:36.210 align:middle line:84% Not what we're talking about, but some people 00:34:36.210 --> 00:34:38.590 align:middle line:84% have that knowledge from doing electronic music things. 00:34:38.590 --> 00:34:41.429 align:middle line:84% Yeah, so this is something that changes 00:34:41.429 --> 00:34:46.060 align:middle line:84% how we attack, how we decay, how we sustain, how we release. 00:34:46.060 --> 00:34:49.750 align:middle line:84% So yeah, maybe that is a very good term. 00:34:49.750 --> 00:34:52.290 align:middle line:84% We're going to be coming up with a bunch 00:34:52.290 --> 00:34:58.560 align:middle line:84% of these conceptual grouping things because of something 00:34:58.560 --> 00:35:08.764 align:middle line:84% that you can do with things that are in a taxonomic relationship. 00:35:08.764 --> 00:35:11.580 align:middle line:90% 00:35:11.580 --> 00:35:13.230 align:middle line:90% And I'll write that out. 00:35:13.230 --> 00:35:16.860 align:middle line:84% And while y'all think of what might be in those missing 00:35:16.860 --> 00:35:21.490 align:middle line:84% letters, you had a comment on the previous one. 00:35:21.490 --> 00:35:23.580 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I just want to say augmentation. 00:35:23.580 --> 00:35:23.850 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: They 00:35:23.850 --> 00:35:26.310 align:middle line:84% might be an augmentation, or in the case 00:35:26.310 --> 00:35:30.960 align:middle line:84% of a staccato, maybe a negative augmentation or something. 00:35:30.960 --> 00:35:32.565 align:middle line:90% Yeah, a length reducer. 00:35:32.565 --> 00:35:33.065 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:35:33.065 --> 00:35:35.820 align:middle line:90% 00:35:35.820 --> 00:35:39.270 align:middle line:84% What do you think that in computer speak, when 00:35:39.270 --> 00:35:42.160 align:middle line:84% we say that something is something else, 00:35:42.160 --> 00:35:48.120 align:middle line:84% we can represent it with subclass relationships. 00:35:48.120 --> 00:35:51.100 align:middle line:84% Subclasses is something that comes up, 00:35:51.100 --> 00:35:54.430 align:middle line:84% I'm 99% sure, in the prereq for this. 00:35:54.430 --> 00:35:55.050 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:35:55.050 --> 00:35:58.960 align:middle line:84% You guys deal with classes and subclasses and things. 00:35:58.960 --> 00:36:01.830 align:middle line:84% So quite often, there are a bunch of 00:36:01.830 --> 00:36:08.790 align:middle line:84% built in subclasses in Python that you have various-- 00:36:08.790 --> 00:36:11.620 align:middle line:84% a lot of things that we think of, 00:36:11.620 --> 00:36:15.820 align:middle line:84% things are subclasses of number, complex numbers. 00:36:15.820 --> 00:36:16.690 align:middle line:90% Oh, yeah. 00:36:16.690 --> 00:36:21.400 align:middle line:84% We all learned taxonomies in our math classes too, right? 00:36:21.400 --> 00:36:28.900 align:middle line:84% Complex numbers, floats, ints, things like that. 00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:31.772 align:middle line:84% And quite often, for different purposes-- 00:36:31.772 --> 00:36:33.480 align:middle line:84% that's why we thought about stakeholders. 00:36:33.480 --> 00:36:38.640 align:middle line:84% For different purposes, different taxonomies 00:36:38.640 --> 00:36:40.600 align:middle line:90% can be created, right? 00:36:40.600 --> 00:36:43.080 align:middle line:84% I mean, in certain cases, you could think, 00:36:43.080 --> 00:36:46.980 align:middle line:84% well, an integer is a special kind of float 00:36:46.980 --> 00:36:50.610 align:middle line:90% that has nothing past the dot. 00:36:50.610 --> 00:36:53.520 align:middle line:84% And that's a very great mathematical way 00:36:53.520 --> 00:36:55.300 align:middle line:90% of thinking of an integer. 00:36:55.300 --> 00:36:58.980 align:middle line:84% If you try to implement it that way in your computer programs, 00:36:58.980 --> 00:37:01.740 align:middle line:84% you got some slowness going because you 00:37:01.740 --> 00:37:05.200 align:middle line:84% have a whole bunch of added baggage that you wouldn't need. 00:37:05.200 --> 00:37:08.188 align:middle line:84% Or you could think of if you are a-- 00:37:08.188 --> 00:37:08.730 align:middle line:90% I don't know. 00:37:08.730 --> 00:37:10.442 align:middle line:84% When you're in third grade, fourth grade, 00:37:10.442 --> 00:37:12.400 align:middle line:84% when's the first time you learn about decimals? 00:37:12.400 --> 00:37:16.840 align:middle line:84% We don't know the word int, but we know that there are integers. 00:37:16.840 --> 00:37:18.940 align:middle line:84% We know that there's 5 and 7 and things. 00:37:18.940 --> 00:37:24.910 align:middle line:84% And the first time that you see 5.2, you would think, oh, well, 00:37:24.910 --> 00:37:28.410 align:middle line:84% this seems to be a subclass of this 00:37:28.410 --> 00:37:30.730 align:middle line:84% because it's a different kind of number. 00:37:30.730 --> 00:37:33.210 align:middle line:84% So depending on how our ontology, how 00:37:33.210 --> 00:37:36.540 align:middle line:84% we're conceptualizing the world, taxonomies 00:37:36.540 --> 00:37:40.140 align:middle line:84% could run in two different directions. 00:37:40.140 --> 00:37:43.530 align:middle line:90% So we'll get back to this. 00:37:43.530 --> 00:37:45.870 align:middle line:84% I just want to make sure that we can get through this 00:37:45.870 --> 00:37:48.480 align:middle line:90% in a certain amount of time. 00:37:48.480 --> 00:37:51.780 align:middle line:90% Then there's something called-- 00:37:51.780 --> 00:37:52.870 align:middle line:90% where did I write it down? 00:37:52.870 --> 00:37:53.830 align:middle line:90% Did I not write it yet? 00:37:53.830 --> 00:37:54.570 align:middle line:90% No. 00:37:54.570 --> 00:37:56.680 align:middle line:90% Something called a meronomy. 00:37:56.680 --> 00:38:04.170 align:middle line:90% 00:38:04.170 --> 00:38:08.460 align:middle line:84% And a meronomy, something that instead of is, it's 00:38:08.460 --> 00:38:09.973 align:middle line:90% something that something has. 00:38:09.973 --> 00:38:14.850 align:middle line:90% 00:38:14.850 --> 00:38:19.330 align:middle line:84% Michael Cuthbert is a human most of the time, 00:38:19.330 --> 00:38:24.340 align:middle line:84% and therefore, he is an animal because all humans are animals. 00:38:24.340 --> 00:38:26.560 align:middle line:90% Therefore, he is a living thing. 00:38:26.560 --> 00:38:31.200 align:middle line:84% Or that is because we can think of that as a taxonomy. 00:38:31.200 --> 00:38:32.560 align:middle line:90% Michael is an arm. 00:38:32.560 --> 00:38:35.820 align:middle line:84% He's actually two arms, and he's also two legs. 00:38:35.820 --> 00:38:37.660 align:middle line:90% No, that doesn't make sense. 00:38:37.660 --> 00:38:41.440 align:middle line:84% There is a relationship between my arms and my legs and me, 00:38:41.440 --> 00:38:44.280 align:middle line:84% but it's not the is relationship, or at least, 00:38:44.280 --> 00:38:46.180 align:middle line:90% not the way I conceive of it. 00:38:46.180 --> 00:38:49.350 align:middle line:90% But it's something that I have. 00:38:49.350 --> 00:38:51.390 align:middle line:90% So what is something-- 00:38:51.390 --> 00:38:52.120 align:middle line:90% oh, sorry. 00:38:52.120 --> 00:38:56.760 align:middle line:84% I meant to leave up John's great half note is a note thing. 00:38:56.760 --> 00:38:59.980 align:middle line:90% So a half note is a note. 00:38:59.980 --> 00:39:06.540 align:middle line:84% What is something that a half note has that it is not? 00:39:06.540 --> 00:39:07.450 align:middle line:90% Jason first. 00:39:07.450 --> 00:39:08.370 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Almond. 00:39:08.370 --> 00:39:09.912 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Almond. 00:39:09.912 --> 00:39:13.720 align:middle line:84% It has almond, which we used for the type. 00:39:13.720 --> 00:39:14.790 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:39:14.790 --> 00:39:16.120 align:middle line:90% That's the almond. 00:39:16.120 --> 00:39:16.620 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:39:16.620 --> 00:39:19.650 align:middle line:84% I'm going to-- I already have chives as a vocabulary later, 00:39:19.650 --> 00:39:20.590 align:middle line:90% now we have almonds. 00:39:20.590 --> 00:39:23.050 align:middle line:90% So it has a particular type. 00:39:23.050 --> 00:39:23.820 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:39:23.820 --> 00:39:27.883 align:middle line:90% What else does a half note have? 00:39:27.883 --> 00:39:30.640 align:middle line:90% 00:39:30.640 --> 00:39:31.140 align:middle line:90% Adam? 00:39:31.140 --> 00:39:32.190 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Duration. 00:39:32.190 --> 00:39:33.160 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Duration. 00:39:33.160 --> 00:39:33.660 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:39:33.660 --> 00:39:36.930 align:middle line:90% Might have a duration. 00:39:36.930 --> 00:39:41.053 align:middle line:84% What does an eighth note have that a half note lacks? 00:39:41.053 --> 00:39:43.985 align:middle line:90% 00:39:43.985 --> 00:39:44.610 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Flag. 00:39:44.610 --> 00:39:46.068 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Flag. 00:39:46.068 --> 00:39:47.700 align:middle line:90% 00:39:47.700 --> 00:39:50.340 align:middle line:90% Call that a flag. 00:39:50.340 --> 00:39:55.260 align:middle line:84% And what might two eighth notes have that one eighth note 00:39:55.260 --> 00:39:56.020 align:middle line:90% doesn't. 00:39:56.020 --> 00:39:56.520 align:middle line:90% Yeah? 00:39:56.520 --> 00:39:57.300 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: A bar. 00:39:57.300 --> 00:39:58.300 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: A bar, 00:39:58.300 --> 00:39:59.652 align:middle line:90% or what do we call that thing? 00:39:59.652 --> 00:40:00.360 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: A beam. 00:40:00.360 --> 00:40:01.240 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL SCOTT ASATO CUTHBERT: Beam, good. 00:40:01.240 --> 00:40:01.740 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:40:01.740 --> 00:40:04.050 align:middle line:84% I'm going to-- the center of the room has 00:40:04.050 --> 00:40:05.570 align:middle line:90% been really active for a bit. 00:40:05.570 --> 00:40:08.320 align:middle line:84% I'm going to focus over here and over here for a little bit 00:40:08.320 --> 00:40:09.650 align:middle line:90% for the next couple answers. 00:40:09.650 --> 00:40:10.150 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:40:10.150 --> 00:40:11.080 align:middle line:90% So it has a beam. 00:40:11.080 --> 00:40:13.720 align:middle line:90% So we can think of this. 00:40:13.720 --> 00:40:17.440 align:middle line:84% And here's where your conception skill-- 00:40:17.440 --> 00:40:19.990 align:middle line:90% eighth note has a beam. 00:40:19.990 --> 00:40:23.540 align:middle line:84% 16th note have a beam, or 16th notes have a beam? 00:40:23.540 --> 00:40:25.240 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:40:25.240 --> 00:40:30.430 align:middle line:84% Do 16th notes have a beam that has two lines in it, 00:40:30.430 --> 00:40:33.498 align:middle line:90% or do 16th notes have two beams? 00:40:33.498 --> 00:40:35.890 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHING] 00:40:35.890 --> 00:40:38.080 align:middle line:84% You can imagine you're going to encode this 00:40:38.080 --> 00:40:42.910 align:middle line:84% very differently if you encode the number of things. 00:40:42.910 --> 00:40:48.580 align:middle line:84% And some eighth notes don't have beams, they have flags instead. 00:40:48.580 --> 00:40:51.530 align:middle line:84% But they have the potential for gaining a beam, 00:40:51.530 --> 00:40:53.230 align:middle line:90% perhaps, if we think of-- 00:40:53.230 --> 00:40:58.570 align:middle line:84% mommy, I always want to grow up and be a beamed eighth note, not 00:40:58.570 --> 00:40:59.510 align:middle line:90% a flag eighth note. 00:40:59.510 --> 00:41:01.990 align:middle line:84% So you might say, well, we're not 00:41:01.990 --> 00:41:07.050 align:middle line:84% going to have a certain eighth notes that have no-- 00:41:07.050 --> 00:41:09.870 align:middle line:84% now we'll get into computer speak rather than philosophy 00:41:09.870 --> 00:41:12.570 align:middle line:84% speak-- that have no attribute that where 00:41:12.570 --> 00:41:14.830 align:middle line:84% beam could go because that's just silly. 00:41:14.830 --> 00:41:16.830 align:middle line:84% I don't want to have unbeamed eighth notes 00:41:16.830 --> 00:41:17.830 align:middle line:90% and beamed eighth notes. 00:41:17.830 --> 00:41:20.530 align:middle line:84% Maybe that's two different concepts. 00:41:20.530 --> 00:41:22.480 align:middle line:90% That's two different objects. 00:41:22.480 --> 00:41:25.620 align:middle line:84% Maybe you say, well, I'll have one type of eighth note 00:41:25.620 --> 00:41:30.240 align:middle line:84% and it either has or doesn't have beams. 00:41:30.240 --> 00:41:34.890 align:middle line:84% Then in your representation, you might be asking yourself-- oops. 00:41:34.890 --> 00:41:36.930 align:middle line:90% Leave that up. 00:41:36.930 --> 00:41:40.320 align:middle line:84% You might be asking yourself, does it make sense to say that 00:41:40.320 --> 00:41:44.800 align:middle line:84% eighth notes, 16th notes, 32nd notes, 64th notes, whatever-- 00:41:44.800 --> 00:41:48.300 align:middle line:84% go on to the highest power of two you can think of- have 00:41:48.300 --> 00:41:52.710 align:middle line:84% beams, but quarter notes and half notes and whole notes 00:41:52.710 --> 00:41:54.390 align:middle line:90% don't? 00:41:54.390 --> 00:41:59.400 align:middle line:84% Or do we say that whole notes have the potential 00:41:59.400 --> 00:42:04.140 align:middle line:84% to have beams, but you better not put any on? 00:42:04.140 --> 00:42:05.020 align:middle line:90% I don't know. 00:42:05.020 --> 00:42:07.090 align:middle line:84% There isn't a correct answer for that. 00:42:07.090 --> 00:42:10.050 align:middle line:84% And so sometimes, what we conceive of, we-- 00:42:10.050 --> 00:42:14.680 align:middle line:84% I cannot conceive of a whole note with beams. 00:42:14.680 --> 00:42:17.340 align:middle line:84% I can conceive of a half note with beams. 00:42:17.340 --> 00:42:18.790 align:middle line:90% I can think of it. 00:42:18.790 --> 00:42:20.728 align:middle line:90% I don't know what it means. 00:42:20.728 --> 00:42:22.395 align:middle line:84% Actually, it means [INAUDIBLE] tremolos. 00:42:22.395 --> 00:42:25.300 align:middle line:90% Dee dol, dee dol, dee dol. 00:42:25.300 --> 00:42:26.800 align:middle line:90% But that's something else. 00:42:26.800 --> 00:42:29.430 align:middle line:84% Maybe that's something visually that looks just like a beam, 00:42:29.430 --> 00:42:33.120 align:middle line:84% but means something-- or maybe it's not. 00:42:33.120 --> 00:42:37.240 align:middle line:84% So some of the things that come up in musical forms give-- 00:42:37.240 --> 00:42:39.820 align:middle line:84% so a sonata is a type of musical form. 00:42:39.820 --> 00:42:43.050 align:middle line:84% It's used quite often in the 18th and 19th century, 00:42:43.050 --> 00:42:46.330 align:middle line:84% and it's a musical form that has an exposition-- 00:42:46.330 --> 00:42:47.880 align:middle line:84% the thing close to the beginning. 00:42:47.880 --> 00:42:51.930 align:middle line:84% And the exposition has a first theme group and a second theme 00:42:51.930 --> 00:42:52.450 align:middle line:90% group. 00:42:52.450 --> 00:42:56.350 align:middle line:84% And the first theme group has a phrase, 00:42:56.350 --> 00:42:59.250 align:middle line:84% and that phrase has measures, and those 00:42:59.250 --> 00:43:03.370 align:middle line:84% measures have notes, perhaps is one way of conceiving of it. 00:43:03.370 --> 00:43:07.480 align:middle line:84% It would make much less sense to say, well, it has a phrase. 00:43:07.480 --> 00:43:11.880 align:middle line:84% And a phrase is a measure, and a measure is a note. 00:43:11.880 --> 00:43:12.690 align:middle line:90% Right? 00:43:12.690 --> 00:43:19.090 align:middle line:84% So this is going to be the big part of problem set two. 00:43:19.090 --> 00:43:23.680 align:middle line:84% In fact, we're going to skip some other things. 00:43:23.680 --> 00:43:27.210 align:middle line:84% We're just going to do a little bit of the cook discussion. 00:43:27.210 --> 00:43:30.660 align:middle line:84% And then I want to give you time to start 00:43:30.660 --> 00:43:32.470 align:middle line:90% thinking about problem set two. 00:43:32.470 --> 00:43:35.340 align:middle line:84% In problem set two, you're going to think 00:43:35.340 --> 00:43:40.630 align:middle line:84% of a type of music that is not common Western music notation. 00:43:40.630 --> 00:43:44.080 align:middle line:84% It might not even have to be a type of music. 00:43:44.080 --> 00:43:49.240 align:middle line:84% Some people have done things related to music, 00:43:49.240 --> 00:43:53.190 align:middle line:84% such as there was a chess playing music generating system 00:43:53.190 --> 00:43:56.410 align:middle line:84% in the 1960s that somebody decided to work on. 00:43:56.410 --> 00:43:59.850 align:middle line:84% Or it might be the structure of a concert or something 00:43:59.850 --> 00:44:00.460 align:middle line:90% like that. 00:44:00.460 --> 00:44:04.830 align:middle line:84% And I want you to come up with the kinds of what's 00:44:04.830 --> 00:44:09.730 align:middle line:84% the taxonomy in the ontology in the conception of the system? 00:44:09.730 --> 00:44:14.350 align:middle line:84% How does this work, and what are these relationships? 00:44:14.350 --> 00:44:17.970 align:middle line:84% What's the meronomy and the taxonomy there? 00:44:17.970 --> 00:44:20.670 align:middle line:84% Over the weekend, we're going to be 00:44:20.670 --> 00:44:26.700 align:middle line:84% going through some of the past notational formats 00:44:26.700 --> 00:44:31.440 align:middle line:84% for common Western music notation, some 00:44:31.440 --> 00:44:35.370 align:middle line:84% of the representations, the ontologies, the file formats 00:44:35.370 --> 00:44:40.170 align:middle line:90% that have come up over time. 00:44:40.170 --> 00:44:43.650 align:middle line:84% One of the things-- a lot of the pieces, the discussions 00:44:43.650 --> 00:44:46.890 align:middle line:84% that people were talking about have some connection 00:44:46.890 --> 00:44:49.720 align:middle line:84% to common Western music notation, things I was hearing, 00:44:49.720 --> 00:44:52.960 align:middle line:84% but are not themselves common Western music notation. 00:44:52.960 --> 00:44:55.810 align:middle line:90% They might have-- oh, yeah. 00:44:55.810 --> 00:44:59.998 align:middle line:84% Well, the rhythm is the same as common Western music notation, 00:44:59.998 --> 00:45:00.790 align:middle line:90% but something else. 00:45:00.790 --> 00:45:04.800 align:middle line:84% Anything that you think is just part of common Western music 00:45:04.800 --> 00:45:11.310 align:middle line:84% notation, assume that part of the ontology of the file format 00:45:11.310 --> 00:45:12.790 align:middle line:90% has already been solved. 00:45:12.790 --> 00:45:16.290 align:middle line:84% So what I'm saying, if it's like you're doing something with, 00:45:16.290 --> 00:45:18.090 align:middle line:90% oh, this is a dance groove. 00:45:18.090 --> 00:45:19.720 align:middle line:84% And the baseline is stored this way, 00:45:19.720 --> 00:45:21.580 align:middle line:84% and it's represented in this way. 00:45:21.580 --> 00:45:24.060 align:middle line:84% And the notes of the baseline are just 00:45:24.060 --> 00:45:31.320 align:middle line:84% stored in CWMN, or something, or stored somehow-- 00:45:31.320 --> 00:45:33.160 align:middle line:90% stored in MusicXML, something. 00:45:33.160 --> 00:45:36.000 align:middle line:90% You'll get some formats. 00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:39.780 align:middle line:84% The only way that people have gone 00:45:39.780 --> 00:45:44.310 align:middle line:84% really wrong on similar assignments to this in the past 00:45:44.310 --> 00:45:46.530 align:middle line:84% is spending too much time thinking 00:45:46.530 --> 00:45:48.940 align:middle line:84% about the things that have already been solved. 00:45:48.940 --> 00:45:54.520 align:middle line:84% If your format needs to encode in images at certain points, 00:45:54.520 --> 00:45:55.900 align:middle line:90% just say they're JPEGs. 00:45:55.900 --> 00:45:58.330 align:middle line:84% Don't invent your entire new image format. 00:45:58.330 --> 00:46:01.140 align:middle line:84% Don't invent new things that you already 00:46:01.140 --> 00:46:04.350 align:middle line:84% know that have-- spend the time on conceptualizing what 00:46:04.350 --> 00:46:07.170 align:middle line:90% hasn't been conceived before. 00:46:07.170 --> 00:46:11.160 align:middle line:84% I just want to point out a little bit-- oh, sorry. 00:46:11.160 --> 00:46:12.710 align:middle line:90% That is completely illegible. 00:46:12.710 --> 00:46:14.460 align:middle line:84% Always feel free to tell me when something 00:46:14.460 --> 00:46:16.450 align:middle line:90% is completely illegible. 00:46:16.450 --> 00:46:17.620 align:middle line:90% Is that-- there we go. 00:46:17.620 --> 00:46:19.290 align:middle line:90% Now it's not. 00:46:19.290 --> 00:46:22.050 align:middle line:84% We're going to go through this more slowly. 00:46:22.050 --> 00:46:28.020 align:middle line:84% I think I can't remember over the weekend or on Wednesday. 00:46:28.020 --> 00:46:30.310 align:middle line:84% I should have my syllabus in my head, 00:46:30.310 --> 00:46:32.903 align:middle line:84% but I write it down so I don't have to memorize it. 00:46:32.903 --> 00:46:35.070 align:middle line:84% But we're going to be going through something called 00:46:35.070 --> 00:46:38.730 align:middle line:84% the Rosetta Stone of Digital Music Representations 00:46:38.730 --> 00:46:43.260 align:middle line:84% by a really, really smart guy, Craig Sapp, who realized-- 00:46:43.260 --> 00:46:47.020 align:middle line:84% anybody know what the Rosetta Stone is? 00:46:47.020 --> 00:46:53.370 align:middle line:84% It was the same text written in three different languages, 00:46:53.370 --> 00:46:59.190 align:middle line:84% especially in Greek and in ancient hieroglyphics, that 00:46:59.190 --> 00:47:04.450 align:middle line:84% allowed hieroglyphics to finally be decoded. 00:47:04.450 --> 00:47:09.960 align:middle line:84% Craig Sapp's Rosetta Stone takes the exact same little melody. 00:47:09.960 --> 00:47:12.270 align:middle line:90% We can go over-- 00:47:12.270 --> 00:47:13.507 align:middle line:90% what is it? 00:47:13.507 --> 00:47:16.846 align:middle line:90% [PIANO KEYS PLAYING] 00:47:16.846 --> 00:47:21.630 align:middle line:90% 00:47:21.630 --> 00:47:24.240 align:middle line:84% My rhythm was pretty bad on that. 00:47:24.240 --> 00:47:27.270 align:middle line:84% But that exact same melody, and shows 00:47:27.270 --> 00:47:31.120 align:middle line:90% how that melody is encoded in-- 00:47:31.120 --> 00:47:34.360 align:middle line:84% I think he has 32 on his website. 00:47:34.360 --> 00:47:37.200 align:middle line:84% I have edited it down to about eight 00:47:37.200 --> 00:47:40.230 align:middle line:84% so that you can see what different representational 00:47:40.230 --> 00:47:43.800 align:middle line:84% choices people have made, and what kinds of ontologies 00:47:43.800 --> 00:47:45.180 align:middle line:90% they make. 00:47:45.180 --> 00:47:48.490 align:middle line:84% For instance, I remember in this case, 00:47:48.490 --> 00:47:53.140 align:middle line:90% beams are high level things. 00:47:53.140 --> 00:47:55.300 align:middle line:84% They are represented by these braces. 00:47:55.300 --> 00:47:59.470 align:middle line:84% And so therefore, they enclose things. 00:47:59.470 --> 00:48:05.970 align:middle line:84% Beams, in this case, seem to have a meronomy that beams have 00:48:05.970 --> 00:48:09.250 align:middle line:90% notes, not notes have beams. 00:48:09.250 --> 00:48:11.770 align:middle line:84% So we'll try to see some of these things. 00:48:11.770 --> 00:48:14.080 align:middle line:90% So another format called ABC-- 00:48:14.080 --> 00:48:17.700 align:middle line:84% one of the ones still in use, even though quite a bit old 00:48:17.700 --> 00:48:20.260 align:middle line:90% because it's very, very simple. 00:48:20.260 --> 00:48:25.140 align:middle line:84% We'll be looking at these in more detail, various formats 00:48:25.140 --> 00:48:29.290 align:middle line:84% that at some point were very big, but have mostly faded. 00:48:29.290 --> 00:48:31.510 align:middle line:84% This is one that we saw once before, 00:48:31.510 --> 00:48:35.010 align:middle line:84% MuseData, where the Q was quarter 00:48:35.010 --> 00:48:39.280 align:middle line:84% and the eight was a certain number of durations, and F5-- 00:48:39.280 --> 00:48:41.890 align:middle line:84% do you remember that from a class or two ago? 00:48:41.890 --> 00:48:43.080 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:48:43.080 --> 00:48:49.740 align:middle line:84% And we'll see over time, how the formats have gotten to be 00:48:49.740 --> 00:48:53.860 align:middle line:90% a little bit more complex. 00:48:53.860 --> 00:48:56.610 align:middle line:90% Here we go. 00:48:56.610 --> 00:48:59.610 align:middle line:84% This is MusicXML-- which we're going to be talking about quite 00:48:59.610 --> 00:49:01.210 align:middle line:90% a bit over the course-- 00:49:01.210 --> 00:49:07.200 align:middle line:84% invented by an alum of MIT, Michael Good. 00:49:07.200 --> 00:49:11.250 align:middle line:84% And one of the great formats for representing 00:49:11.250 --> 00:49:15.180 align:middle line:84% music notation, the first one with enharmonics 00:49:15.180 --> 00:49:18.850 align:middle line:84% that just was taken and used by almost everybody. 00:49:18.850 --> 00:49:21.910 align:middle line:90% It's about 20, 22 years old. 00:49:21.910 --> 00:49:25.120 align:middle line:84% A lot of us thought, this is the final format. 00:49:25.120 --> 00:49:27.760 align:middle line:84% This is the representation that really, really works. 00:49:27.760 --> 00:49:30.580 align:middle line:84% Even if there's some weird quirks, we use it forever. 00:49:30.580 --> 00:49:34.800 align:middle line:84% And then a terrible thing started happening to music. 00:49:34.800 --> 00:49:36.810 align:middle line:84% A great and terrible thing started 00:49:36.810 --> 00:49:41.100 align:middle line:84% happening to music about 10 years ago, 12-- almost 00:49:41.100 --> 00:49:42.280 align:middle line:90% 15 years ago. 00:49:42.280 --> 00:49:49.950 align:middle line:84% But we started looking at sheet music on various sized screens. 00:49:49.950 --> 00:49:54.480 align:middle line:84% And therefore, where the screen is too small to 00:49:54.480 --> 00:49:56.500 align:middle line:84% look at a whole page at the time. 00:49:56.500 --> 00:50:00.190 align:middle line:84% Or you turn it sideways, and suddenly your page has changed. 00:50:00.190 --> 00:50:04.140 align:middle line:84% So the notion that music cannot just be represented by where it 00:50:04.140 --> 00:50:08.920 align:middle line:84% is on a page, but has to be able to keep continuously reflowing, 00:50:08.920 --> 00:50:13.830 align:middle line:84% has caused a big change to people today trying to come up 00:50:13.830 --> 00:50:18.660 align:middle line:84% with what is the optimal format for representing music whose 00:50:18.660 --> 00:50:21.480 align:middle line:84% presentation might be different for you because you have 00:50:21.480 --> 00:50:23.880 align:middle line:84% an iPad, and it might be different over here because you 00:50:23.880 --> 00:50:27.480 align:middle line:84% have a 15 inch monitor, and it might be different for somebody 00:50:27.480 --> 00:50:30.400 align:middle line:84% else because you've just printed it out in the old fashioned way? 00:50:30.400 --> 00:50:32.860 align:middle line:84% How do we represent music that way? 00:50:32.860 --> 00:50:38.260 align:middle line:84% I wanted to point that out because there was a huge debate. 00:50:38.260 --> 00:50:41.190 align:middle line:84% So there's a big discussion happening right now 00:50:41.190 --> 00:50:46.050 align:middle line:84% on what the music notation next format will be, 00:50:46.050 --> 00:50:48.240 align:middle line:90% and exactly how it will-- 00:50:48.240 --> 00:50:51.960 align:middle line:84% what its ontology and meronomy will be so 00:50:51.960 --> 00:50:57.130 align:middle line:84% that it survives into the next generation of musical scores. 00:50:57.130 --> 00:51:01.050 align:middle line:84% And people, you can see, are still right now-- 00:51:01.050 --> 00:51:02.800 align:middle line:90% some idiots sometimes post. 00:51:02.800 --> 00:51:05.490 align:middle line:90% 00:51:05.490 --> 00:51:10.140 align:middle line:84% And exactly what kind of format, what the advantages 00:51:10.140 --> 00:51:13.200 align:middle line:84% in terms of space, speed, various representations 00:51:13.200 --> 00:51:14.200 align:middle line:90% are going on. 00:51:14.200 --> 00:51:15.880 align:middle line:84% And I haven't checked it this morning, 00:51:15.880 --> 00:51:18.550 align:middle line:84% but it seems to just still be going on. 00:51:18.550 --> 00:51:22.750 align:middle line:84% So this is a continuous topic of discussion. 00:51:22.750 --> 00:51:27.330 align:middle line:84% People are still very interested in what's 00:51:27.330 --> 00:51:30.220 align:middle line:84% happening, what music representations are out there. 00:51:30.220 --> 00:51:35.010 align:middle line:84% And I'm looking forward to five new music representations 00:51:35.010 --> 00:51:37.810 align:middle line:84% existing a week from now that don't today. 00:51:37.810 --> 00:51:40.560 align:middle line:90% Thanks, everybody. 00:51:40.560 --> 00:51:49.000 align:middle line:90%