WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.956 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:01.956 --> 00:00:04.401 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:04.401 --> 00:00:10.280 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:10.280 --> 00:00:12.590 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Let's get started. 00:00:12.590 --> 00:00:15.050 align:middle line:84% So we're going to number the classes 00:00:15.050 --> 00:00:17.630 align:middle line:84% as if when you have a substantial thing 00:00:17.630 --> 00:00:20.810 align:middle line:84% to do over the weekend, as you did this time, that that counts 00:00:20.810 --> 00:00:23.790 align:middle line:84% as a class when you watch me talk on a screen. 00:00:23.790 --> 00:00:26.720 align:middle line:84% So we'll call this class IV, even though this is 00:00:26.720 --> 00:00:28.370 align:middle line:90% the third time we get together. 00:00:28.370 --> 00:00:31.260 align:middle line:84% And last time we were together, I 00:00:31.260 --> 00:00:33.260 align:middle line:84% suppose this should be penultimate class, if I'm 00:00:33.260 --> 00:00:35.480 align:middle line:84% numbering the other one, we talked quite a bit 00:00:35.480 --> 00:00:37.560 align:middle line:90% about what is a note. 00:00:37.560 --> 00:00:39.447 align:middle line:84% And let's just take a second to review 00:00:39.447 --> 00:00:41.030 align:middle line:84% because there were a couple people who 00:00:41.030 --> 00:00:43.180 align:middle line:90% weren't here on Friday. 00:00:43.180 --> 00:00:45.680 align:middle line:84% What are some of the things that are complicated when you're 00:00:45.680 --> 00:00:47.020 align:middle line:90% talking about what is a note? 00:00:47.020 --> 00:00:49.790 align:middle line:90% 00:00:49.790 --> 00:00:54.808 align:middle line:84% Quick hand and shout when it's quiet or just-- 00:00:54.808 --> 00:00:56.100 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Does it need a pitch? 00:00:56.100 --> 00:00:57.420 align:middle line:90% Does it need a duration? 00:00:57.420 --> 00:00:58.230 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Does it need a pitch? 00:00:58.230 --> 00:00:59.280 align:middle line:90% Does it need a duration? 00:00:59.280 --> 00:01:00.300 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:01:00.300 --> 00:01:02.776 align:middle line:84% What was the problem when we went [VOCALIZING]. 00:01:02.776 --> 00:01:04.887 align:middle line:90% 00:01:04.887 --> 00:01:06.970 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You couldn't tell if notes were slurred. 00:01:06.970 --> 00:01:08.400 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: You couldn't tell if notes-- 00:01:08.400 --> 00:01:09.490 align:middle line:90% not so much slurred. 00:01:09.490 --> 00:01:11.140 align:middle line:84% You can tell-- what's the other word he's looking for? 00:01:11.140 --> 00:01:11.750 align:middle line:90% Tied? 00:01:11.750 --> 00:01:12.250 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:01:12.250 --> 00:01:13.420 align:middle line:90% Because [VOCALIZING]. 00:01:13.420 --> 00:01:17.460 align:middle line:84% That could be for tied notes, depending 00:01:17.460 --> 00:01:21.615 align:middle line:84% on if we think of the notation as one domain-- 00:01:21.615 --> 00:01:23.490 align:middle line:84% as our definition of the note, or if we think 00:01:23.490 --> 00:01:25.670 align:middle line:90% of what we hear as a domain. 00:01:25.670 --> 00:01:26.170 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:01:26.170 --> 00:01:30.330 align:middle line:84% Anything else that's screwed up our easy conception 00:01:30.330 --> 00:01:31.385 align:middle line:90% of what a note is? 00:01:31.385 --> 00:01:33.900 align:middle line:90% 00:01:33.900 --> 00:01:36.870 align:middle line:90% Remember or make up your own. 00:01:36.870 --> 00:01:39.010 align:middle line:90% We had 14 notes in a glissando. 00:01:39.010 --> 00:01:53.747 align:middle line:90% We had-- yeah, go ahead. 00:01:53.747 --> 00:01:55.330 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I forget what it was called, 00:01:55.330 --> 00:01:58.975 align:middle line:90% but the term were you like-- 00:01:58.975 --> 00:02:00.600 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Well, sing it for us. 00:02:00.600 --> 00:02:02.350 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You have two notes, and then you 00:02:02.350 --> 00:02:04.820 align:middle line:84% have to oscillate between the two. 00:02:04.820 --> 00:02:07.070 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Well, what was that called? 00:02:07.070 --> 00:02:08.330 align:middle line:90% Somebody else? 00:02:08.330 --> 00:02:09.410 align:middle line:90% Yeah, John. 00:02:09.410 --> 00:02:10.250 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Trill. 00:02:10.250 --> 00:02:11.039 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: A trill. 00:02:11.039 --> 00:02:12.178 align:middle line:90% Yep, trill is one of them. 00:02:12.178 --> 00:02:13.970 align:middle line:84% And the other one that we talked about was? 00:02:13.970 --> 00:02:14.360 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:02:14.360 --> 00:02:14.850 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Tremolo. 00:02:14.850 --> 00:02:15.933 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Tremolo. 00:02:15.933 --> 00:02:17.780 align:middle line:84% How many notes does it take to write 00:02:17.780 --> 00:02:21.997 align:middle line:90% a trill on a standard score? 00:02:21.997 --> 00:02:22.580 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: One. 00:02:22.580 --> 00:02:23.280 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: One. 00:02:23.280 --> 00:02:25.410 align:middle line:84% How many notes does it take to write a tremolo? 00:02:25.410 --> 00:02:25.790 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Two. 00:02:25.790 --> 00:02:26.707 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Two. 00:02:26.707 --> 00:02:30.020 align:middle line:84% How many notes are there in a trill? 00:02:30.020 --> 00:02:34.400 align:middle line:84% Whole gob, a lot them, as many as you can put in. 00:02:34.400 --> 00:02:37.820 align:middle line:84% So these kinds of different representations we did a lot on. 00:02:37.820 --> 00:02:40.310 align:middle line:84% Today we're going to be talking more about not just what 00:02:40.310 --> 00:02:42.860 align:middle line:84% is a note, but how can we represent a note or how can 00:02:42.860 --> 00:02:46.520 align:middle line:84% we represent something else for a computer. 00:02:46.520 --> 00:02:48.680 align:middle line:90% You know what? 00:02:48.680 --> 00:02:52.973 align:middle line:84% I made really nice handouts that I put online and forgot 00:02:52.973 --> 00:02:53.640 align:middle line:90% to put them out. 00:02:53.640 --> 00:02:55.140 align:middle line:84% So I'm going to keep one for myself, 00:02:55.140 --> 00:02:59.130 align:middle line:84% and we'll try to do a group here going this way, a group 00:02:59.130 --> 00:03:03.270 align:middle line:84% here going this way, and in the back, 00:03:03.270 --> 00:03:07.420 align:middle line:84% where I see people the least, I see the fewest name tags. 00:03:07.420 --> 00:03:09.540 align:middle line:84% So if you don't mind, I'd really like 00:03:09.540 --> 00:03:12.690 align:middle line:84% to get to know everybody by name. 00:03:12.690 --> 00:03:17.160 align:middle line:84% There's some discussion of various configuration problems 00:03:17.160 --> 00:03:20.040 align:middle line:84% and a few solutions and a few things still 00:03:20.040 --> 00:03:23.590 align:middle line:90% left unsolved on Canvas. 00:03:23.590 --> 00:03:27.000 align:middle line:84% If you'd like, stick around after class, 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:29.200 align:middle line:84% and we'll talk through some of those things. 00:03:29.200 --> 00:03:32.850 align:middle line:90% And there was another question-- 00:03:32.850 --> 00:03:33.490 align:middle line:90% who raised it? 00:03:33.490 --> 00:03:35.280 align:middle line:90% Hannah? 00:03:35.280 --> 00:03:36.030 align:middle line:90% No. 00:03:36.030 --> 00:03:39.430 align:middle line:84% About whether or not the standard library is OK. 00:03:39.430 --> 00:03:40.860 align:middle line:84% So the standard library-- and that 00:03:40.860 --> 00:03:44.670 align:middle line:84% includes things like math and regex and things in Python 00:03:44.670 --> 00:03:47.290 align:middle line:84% that some classes don't let you import. 00:03:47.290 --> 00:03:50.500 align:middle line:84% Yes, if it comes with Python, when you download it, 00:03:50.500 --> 00:03:52.300 align:middle line:90% you may use it on anything. 00:03:52.300 --> 00:03:54.980 align:middle line:84% So I'll unlock the entire standard library. 00:03:54.980 --> 00:03:58.580 align:middle line:84% So go ahead and import math within the math library. 00:03:58.580 --> 00:04:01.180 align:middle line:84% Some people saw that there's a particularly useful function 00:04:01.180 --> 00:04:02.120 align:middle line:90% in the math library. 00:04:02.120 --> 00:04:04.197 align:middle line:90% What's that? 00:04:04.197 --> 00:04:04.780 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Log. 00:04:04.780 --> 00:04:06.150 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Log. 00:04:06.150 --> 00:04:08.150 align:middle line:84% When you're dealing with frequencies and things, 00:04:08.150 --> 00:04:10.390 align:middle line:84% you'll see the logarithm function. 00:04:10.390 --> 00:04:17.769 align:middle line:84% So if anybody reimplemented the entire logarithm function, 00:04:17.769 --> 00:04:21.190 align:middle line:84% we can talk about getting a life-- no, no, no, you 00:04:21.190 --> 00:04:21.980 align:middle line:90% did great. 00:04:21.980 --> 00:04:22.480 align:middle line:90% Super. 00:04:22.480 --> 00:04:24.980 align:middle line:84% We can give extra points on that. 00:04:24.980 --> 00:04:30.100 align:middle line:84% But if it's something that you have to download via pip, 00:04:30.100 --> 00:04:33.080 align:middle line:90% then always ask beforehand. 00:04:33.080 --> 00:04:35.410 align:middle line:84% But I do want to say, at the end of the semester 00:04:35.410 --> 00:04:37.610 align:middle line:84% when you have final projects, it's anything goes. 00:04:37.610 --> 00:04:40.940 align:middle line:84% So if you can find it on the internet or you can build it. 00:04:40.940 --> 00:04:43.220 align:middle line:90% You can use it. 00:04:43.220 --> 00:04:44.330 align:middle line:90% We're going to start-- 00:04:44.330 --> 00:04:46.538 align:middle line:84% we're not as talkative as we were on Friday. 00:04:46.538 --> 00:04:48.080 align:middle line:84% Friday, we were very, very energetic. 00:04:48.080 --> 00:04:52.610 align:middle line:84% So maybe we'll start with talking amongst ourselves. 00:04:52.610 --> 00:04:54.210 align:middle line:90% I want you to-- 00:04:54.210 --> 00:04:55.350 align:middle line:90% you have one byte. 00:04:55.350 --> 00:04:56.623 align:middle line:90% How many bits are in a byte? 00:04:56.623 --> 00:04:57.290 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Eight. 00:04:57.290 --> 00:04:57.890 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Eight. 00:04:57.890 --> 00:04:58.390 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:04:58.390 --> 00:05:00.590 align:middle line:84% So you have eight positions where 00:05:00.590 --> 00:05:02.033 align:middle line:90% you can have ones or zeros. 00:05:02.033 --> 00:05:05.360 align:middle line:90% 00:05:05.360 --> 00:05:11.600 align:middle line:84% And I want you to try to encode pitch and duration. 00:05:11.600 --> 00:05:14.640 align:middle line:84% So the two things that in one representation, 00:05:14.640 --> 00:05:16.498 align:middle line:84% one definition of a note, are two 00:05:16.498 --> 00:05:17.790 align:middle line:90% of the fundamental parts of it. 00:05:17.790 --> 00:05:22.730 align:middle line:84% I want you to try to encode a note in one byte 00:05:22.730 --> 00:05:25.220 align:middle line:84% and then talk about what kinds of things 00:05:25.220 --> 00:05:28.430 align:middle line:84% you've had to decide you're not going to represent in order 00:05:28.430 --> 00:05:29.460 align:middle line:90% to make that possible. 00:05:29.460 --> 00:05:32.190 align:middle line:84% I'd like you to do this in groups of two. 00:05:32.190 --> 00:05:35.300 align:middle line:84% So it's very-- yeah, everybody is 00:05:35.300 --> 00:05:36.860 align:middle line:84% either at a desk with somebody else 00:05:36.860 --> 00:05:38.880 align:middle line:84% or not at a desk with somebody else. 00:05:38.880 --> 00:05:40.820 align:middle line:84% So if you could just make that the group, 00:05:40.820 --> 00:05:45.860 align:middle line:84% and we'll give it about three minutes. 00:05:45.860 --> 00:05:49.600 align:middle line:84% Let's come together and let's see. 00:05:49.600 --> 00:05:52.100 align:middle line:84% We started middle of the alphabet last time. 00:05:52.100 --> 00:05:55.840 align:middle line:84% Let's choose a group involving somebody 00:05:55.840 --> 00:05:58.040 align:middle line:84% with a name toward the end of the alphabet. 00:05:58.040 --> 00:06:01.780 align:middle line:84% I don't think we have any Zs, Xs, Ys. 00:06:01.780 --> 00:06:03.380 align:middle line:90% Vanessa and Adam. 00:06:03.380 --> 00:06:05.030 align:middle line:90% Either way, I had started this. 00:06:05.030 --> 00:06:08.290 align:middle line:90% You guys would be going first. 00:06:08.290 --> 00:06:11.360 align:middle line:84% What's something that you decided to encode 00:06:11.360 --> 00:06:13.990 align:middle line:84% and what's something you decided to compromise on? 00:06:13.990 --> 00:06:15.490 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think we decided that it 00:06:15.490 --> 00:06:18.520 align:middle line:84% was more important to preserve information about pitch 00:06:18.520 --> 00:06:22.091 align:middle line:84% than it was to preserve information of duration. 00:06:22.091 --> 00:06:28.010 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: S that's always a choice that-- 00:06:28.010 --> 00:06:31.330 align:middle line:84% so we're going to have a lot more information or all 00:06:31.330 --> 00:06:34.850 align:middle line:84% the information on pitch rather than on duration. 00:06:34.850 --> 00:06:35.350 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:06:35.350 --> 00:06:37.990 align:middle line:84% So we have to make a compromise that, even though I 00:06:37.990 --> 00:06:39.730 align:middle line:84% said these two things, maybe one of them 00:06:39.730 --> 00:06:41.150 align:middle line:90% is more important than another. 00:06:41.150 --> 00:06:42.070 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:06:42.070 --> 00:06:44.710 align:middle line:90% Going alphabetically backwards. 00:06:44.710 --> 00:06:47.090 align:middle line:84% Oh, we should have started with Vincent and Jake. 00:06:47.090 --> 00:06:48.505 align:middle line:90% Sorry. 00:06:48.505 --> 00:06:49.880 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I think what we decided 00:06:49.880 --> 00:06:52.680 align:middle line:84% first was that, like Vanessa's group, pitch is most important, 00:06:52.680 --> 00:06:57.140 align:middle line:84% and so we decided to prioritize encoding the 12 00:06:57.140 --> 00:06:58.903 align:middle line:84% discrete chromatic Western pitches. 00:06:58.903 --> 00:07:00.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So we've decided 00:07:00.320 --> 00:07:06.530 align:middle line:84% to limit to Western pitches, which is already a compromise, 00:07:06.530 --> 00:07:08.700 align:middle line:84% losing all those great microtones. 00:07:08.700 --> 00:07:11.190 align:middle line:90% And we said we want 12 of them. 00:07:11.190 --> 00:07:11.840 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:07:11.840 --> 00:07:13.670 align:middle line:84% How many bits is it going to take 00:07:13.670 --> 00:07:18.050 align:middle line:90% to encode 12 distinct things? 00:07:18.050 --> 00:07:21.630 align:middle line:90% Let's do fingers. 00:07:21.630 --> 00:07:22.130 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:07:22.130 --> 00:07:25.040 align:middle line:90% I see a lot of fours because-- 00:07:25.040 --> 00:07:26.385 align:middle line:90% why is it four? 00:07:26.385 --> 00:07:27.093 align:middle line:90% Somebody explain. 00:07:27.093 --> 00:07:29.660 align:middle line:90% 00:07:29.660 --> 00:07:33.740 align:middle line:90% Anyone want to-- yeah, Jordan. 00:07:33.740 --> 00:07:35.040 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Two to the 4 is 16? 00:07:35.040 --> 00:07:39.120 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So 2 to the 4 is 16. 00:07:39.120 --> 00:07:40.910 align:middle line:90% And what's I have to do with 12? 00:07:40.910 --> 00:07:43.038 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You can have any combinations, I guess, 00:07:43.038 --> 00:07:43.580 align:middle line:90% permutations. 00:07:43.580 --> 00:07:45.788 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: You can have that many permutations 00:07:45.788 --> 00:07:46.430 align:middle line:90% into there. 00:07:46.430 --> 00:07:49.180 align:middle line:90% What's 2 to the third? 00:07:49.180 --> 00:07:49.755 align:middle line:90% Everybody. 00:07:49.755 --> 00:07:50.255 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 8. 00:07:50.255 --> 00:07:51.088 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 8. 00:07:51.088 --> 00:07:54.730 align:middle line:90% So it's that 8 is less than or-- 00:07:54.730 --> 00:07:59.050 align:middle line:84% well, no is, less than 12, was less than or equal to 16. 00:07:59.050 --> 00:08:02.170 align:middle line:84% Therefore, we need 2 to the fourth. 00:08:02.170 --> 00:08:03.880 align:middle line:90% So we need four bits for that. 00:08:03.880 --> 00:08:09.430 align:middle line:84% So we have four bits in one thing for pitch class. 00:08:09.430 --> 00:08:10.930 align:middle line:84% Is that a term that everybody knows? 00:08:10.930 --> 00:08:18.025 align:middle line:84% It's not a term taught in all of 301 first semester theory. 00:08:18.025 --> 00:08:24.980 align:middle line:84% Well' I'll just say encoding C as 0, C sharp or D flat as 1, 00:08:24.980 --> 00:08:30.570 align:middle line:84% D as 2, or also I suppose C double sharp or E double flat. 00:08:30.570 --> 00:08:31.450 align:middle line:90% We don't really care. 00:08:31.450 --> 00:08:35.789 align:middle line:84% So we're going to use four things for pitch 00:08:35.789 --> 00:08:38.470 align:middle line:90% class, something like that. 00:08:38.470 --> 00:08:39.630 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:08:39.630 --> 00:08:44.410 align:middle line:84% And anybody else do something like this? 00:08:44.410 --> 00:08:45.850 align:middle line:90% Any other groups? 00:08:45.850 --> 00:08:50.050 align:middle line:84% Jason and-- OK, so quite a number of groups. 00:08:50.050 --> 00:08:51.730 align:middle line:90% Let's see. 00:08:51.730 --> 00:08:53.720 align:middle line:84% We'll go with Phil and Angelica's group. 00:08:53.720 --> 00:08:57.880 align:middle line:84% What did you do with your other part? 00:08:57.880 --> 00:09:00.710 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Oh, we try to split it up with duration. 00:09:00.710 --> 00:09:04.960 align:middle line:84% So it's twice the octave pitches, 00:09:04.960 --> 00:09:06.920 align:middle line:84% just take over the duration of the rest of it. 00:09:06.920 --> 00:09:08.545 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So how many durations 00:09:08.545 --> 00:09:10.220 align:middle line:84% can you encode with what's remaining? 00:09:10.220 --> 00:09:14.378 align:middle line:90% 00:09:14.378 --> 00:09:14.920 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 16? 00:09:14.920 --> 00:09:15.800 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 16. 00:09:15.800 --> 00:09:18.680 align:middle line:84% What is some durations that you might have chosen to encode? 00:09:18.680 --> 00:09:26.110 align:middle line:84% Or we'll move on to a Lilla, Lila and John. 00:09:26.110 --> 00:09:28.490 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: We could do whole notes, half notes, 00:09:28.490 --> 00:09:30.610 align:middle line:90% dotted quarter notes, et cetera. 00:09:30.610 --> 00:09:32.710 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Whole notes, half notes, dotted, 00:09:32.710 --> 00:09:33.820 align:middle line:90% quarter notes. 00:09:33.820 --> 00:09:35.948 align:middle line:84% Explain a little bit more of your et cetera. 00:09:35.948 --> 00:09:36.740 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Oh, yeah. 00:09:36.740 --> 00:09:42.100 align:middle line:84% So you could have your best whole, half, quarter then 00:09:42.100 --> 00:09:45.510 align:middle line:84% either dotted because we have 16 bits to work with. 00:09:45.510 --> 00:09:46.470 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: OK. 00:09:46.470 --> 00:09:48.652 align:middle line:90% Whole, half, quarter, and-- 00:09:48.652 --> 00:09:49.360 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Eighth. 00:09:49.360 --> 00:09:50.520 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Eighth. 00:09:50.520 --> 00:09:55.068 align:middle line:84% And so how many bits is it going to take if we just stop there? 00:09:55.068 --> 00:09:55.860 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Only two. 00:09:55.860 --> 00:09:57.330 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Only two because we have 2 to the-- 00:09:57.330 --> 00:09:58.330 align:middle line:90% 2 squared is 4. 00:09:58.330 --> 00:10:00.670 align:middle line:90% So we can put that into there. 00:10:00.670 --> 00:10:04.260 align:middle line:84% And then if we want to encode if it has a dot or note, 00:10:04.260 --> 00:10:06.570 align:middle line:90% is that another bit? 00:10:06.570 --> 00:10:08.260 align:middle line:90% So then we have dot or not. 00:10:08.260 --> 00:10:12.870 align:middle line:84% What happens if we say, huh, we just put one more thing 00:10:12.870 --> 00:10:14.730 align:middle line:90% in, we'll put in 16th? 00:10:14.730 --> 00:10:18.390 align:middle line:90% What do we get as a problem? 00:10:18.390 --> 00:10:21.280 align:middle line:84% Can we squeeze that into two bits? 00:10:21.280 --> 00:10:21.780 align:middle line:90% No. 00:10:21.780 --> 00:10:25.240 align:middle line:84% So once you decide that you're going to be able to encode 16th, 00:10:25.240 --> 00:10:30.180 align:middle line:84% you might as well go and do your 32nd, 64th. 00:10:30.180 --> 00:10:33.300 align:middle line:84% Do we want to do 1/28 or breve, double whole note? 00:10:33.300 --> 00:10:34.980 align:middle line:90% They're both pretty uncommon. 00:10:34.980 --> 00:10:38.250 align:middle line:84% So we're slightly wasting some space on some pretty uncommon 00:10:38.250 --> 00:10:41.280 align:middle line:90% things, but we get the dot. 00:10:41.280 --> 00:10:43.065 align:middle line:90% So that's three-- oh, yeah? 00:10:43.065 --> 00:10:45.310 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I was thinking about doing just 16th notes 00:10:45.310 --> 00:10:48.340 align:middle line:84% as your base, and then you can have all multiples of 16. 00:10:48.340 --> 00:10:49.215 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: OK. 00:10:49.215 --> 00:10:51.650 align:middle line:90% You can have multiples of 16th. 00:10:51.650 --> 00:10:54.550 align:middle line:84% So you have 16th as a base and then-- 00:10:54.550 --> 00:10:58.060 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: If you had the number two or one, I guess, you'd get-- 00:10:58.060 --> 00:11:01.220 align:middle line:84% like 0 would be 1/16 note-- or I guess-- or maybe not. 00:11:01.220 --> 00:11:02.530 align:middle line:90% Maybe you'd want like-- 00:11:02.530 --> 00:11:04.460 align:middle line:84% maybe you'd want to be able to have zero time, 00:11:04.460 --> 00:11:07.178 align:middle line:84% but if you had 0 as 1/16 note, then 1 would be-- 00:11:07.178 --> 00:11:08.720 align:middle line:84% 2/16th notes would be an eighth note. 00:11:08.720 --> 00:11:10.370 align:middle line:84% And then you could do like a dots and stuff, 00:11:10.370 --> 00:11:11.510 align:middle line:84% and you can do all of that stuff. 00:11:11.510 --> 00:11:14.052 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: And you can encode up to something that has 00:11:14.052 --> 00:11:16.097 align:middle line:90% 16/16th notes, with that way. 00:11:16.097 --> 00:11:17.680 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Yeah, would be a whole note. 00:11:17.680 --> 00:11:19.597 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Which would be a whole note. 00:11:19.597 --> 00:11:20.890 align:middle line:90% So that's pretty great way. 00:11:20.890 --> 00:11:23.410 align:middle line:84% It does mean we are spending quite 00:11:23.410 --> 00:11:27.790 align:middle line:84% a bit of energy dealing with things 00:11:27.790 --> 00:11:33.850 align:middle line:84% that are a little bit unusual, but yeah-- 00:11:33.850 --> 00:11:36.580 align:middle line:84% anybody have any ways that we didn't 00:11:36.580 --> 00:11:39.650 align:middle line:90% talk about very much in this-- 00:11:39.650 --> 00:11:40.630 align:middle line:90% yeah. 00:11:40.630 --> 00:11:43.430 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: We thought that it was important to encode 00:11:43.430 --> 00:11:45.980 align:middle line:90% octave information too. 00:11:45.980 --> 00:11:50.500 align:middle line:84% So we spent six bits encoding the 64-- 00:11:50.500 --> 00:11:55.740 align:middle line:84% or 64 of the MIDI note numbers and then two bits on duration. 00:11:55.740 --> 00:11:57.600 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 64 MIDI notes. 00:11:57.600 --> 00:12:01.910 align:middle line:84% So now we have octave with 64 out of the 88 keys 00:12:01.910 --> 00:12:02.940 align:middle line:90% in the keyboard. 00:12:02.940 --> 00:12:05.088 align:middle line:84% You decided to do just the outside ones 00:12:05.088 --> 00:12:06.630 align:middle line:84% and leave out the ones in the middle. 00:12:06.630 --> 00:12:08.510 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:12:08.510 --> 00:12:11.070 align:middle line:90% And then two bits for duration. 00:12:11.070 --> 00:12:14.720 align:middle line:84% So we get maybe whole half, quarter eighth, 00:12:14.720 --> 00:12:16.100 align:middle line:90% not too much more. 00:12:16.100 --> 00:12:18.890 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:12:18.890 --> 00:12:19.670 align:middle line:90% Super. 00:12:19.670 --> 00:12:22.130 align:middle line:90% This is great thinking exercise. 00:12:22.130 --> 00:12:23.610 align:middle line:90% Why you want to do that? 00:12:23.610 --> 00:12:25.400 align:middle line:84% Well, there are some people who use-- 00:12:25.400 --> 00:12:30.530 align:middle line:84% oops, that's the most confusing slide in a while. 00:12:30.530 --> 00:12:34.190 align:middle line:84% There are quite a number of people who are very interested 00:12:34.190 --> 00:12:39.990 align:middle line:84% in not even one byte but 6-bit encodings. 00:12:39.990 --> 00:12:47.280 align:middle line:84% And for instance, in the Braille music code, 00:12:47.280 --> 00:12:49.470 align:middle line:84% one of the important things is being 00:12:49.470 --> 00:12:55.600 align:middle line:84% able to encode the seven diatonic notes 00:12:55.600 --> 00:12:58.200 align:middle line:84% because the diatonic notes tend to be used much more 00:12:58.200 --> 00:12:59.960 align:middle line:84% often-- and maybe somewhere else, 00:12:59.960 --> 00:13:02.460 align:middle line:84% you have a sign that tells you the key signature-- the seven 00:13:02.460 --> 00:13:09.570 align:middle line:84% diatonic notes and eight durations in six bits. 00:13:09.570 --> 00:13:11.320 align:middle line:90% How do they do that? 00:13:11.320 --> 00:13:13.300 align:middle line:90% How do they get eight durations? 00:13:13.300 --> 00:13:18.640 align:middle line:84% They've doubled up and said, look, if you're on 128th note, 00:13:18.640 --> 00:13:21.990 align:middle line:84% you're really unlikely to move to a whole note. 00:13:21.990 --> 00:13:25.980 align:middle line:84% So that contextually, you take advantage of the fact that 00:13:25.980 --> 00:13:29.810 align:middle line:84% it's very rare to have a whole note and then a 64th note. 00:13:29.810 --> 00:13:32.700 align:middle line:90% 00:13:32.700 --> 00:13:36.400 align:middle line:84% And if it's really, really, really unclear, 00:13:36.400 --> 00:13:39.140 align:middle line:84% fortunately, they put in a space, the Braille music code, 00:13:39.140 --> 00:13:42.510 align:middle line:84% puts in a space where there's an end of a measure. 00:13:42.510 --> 00:13:43.940 align:middle line:84% So if you're really unclear, like, 00:13:43.940 --> 00:13:48.022 align:middle line:84% I wonder if these are all 128th, no, no, no, the measure ended. 00:13:48.022 --> 00:13:49.980 align:middle line:90% They're probably the long notes. 00:13:49.980 --> 00:13:54.920 align:middle line:84% So that's one reason why you might be thinking 00:13:54.920 --> 00:13:58.670 align:middle line:90% of very efficient encoding. 00:13:58.670 --> 00:14:01.520 align:middle line:90% Many things are lost there. 00:14:01.520 --> 00:14:03.270 align:middle line:84% I don't want to spend as much time on this 00:14:03.270 --> 00:14:06.920 align:middle line:84% but get back in your same group and talk about what you could 00:14:06.920 --> 00:14:13.920 align:middle line:84% do if now you had three bytes on average to encode your notes. 00:14:13.920 --> 00:14:16.190 align:middle line:84% So that if we have a typical score-- 00:14:16.190 --> 00:14:19.700 align:middle line:84% and I'll leave you to think what a typical score looks like-- 00:14:19.700 --> 00:14:22.140 align:middle line:90% that you could be doing-- 00:14:22.140 --> 00:14:23.790 align:middle line:84% sometimes you take a little bit more, 00:14:23.790 --> 00:14:25.290 align:middle line:90% sometimes a little bit less. 00:14:25.290 --> 00:14:26.670 align:middle line:90% So just talk through. 00:14:26.670 --> 00:14:30.413 align:middle line:84% You don't need to come up with a full representation like this 00:14:30.413 --> 00:14:32.330 align:middle line:84% for it, but just-- what are some of the things 00:14:32.330 --> 00:14:35.870 align:middle line:90% that you might add? 00:14:35.870 --> 00:14:37.210 align:middle line:90% OK, let's come back together. 00:14:37.210 --> 00:14:41.100 align:middle line:84% What are some things we use this enormous bounty of space 00:14:41.100 --> 00:14:45.660 align:middle line:84% of three bytes to do that you didn't do before? 00:14:45.660 --> 00:14:48.130 align:middle line:84% Let's just go around, and you can say pass, 00:14:48.130 --> 00:14:51.520 align:middle line:84% but we'll start over here in second row and go, I guess, 00:14:51.520 --> 00:14:53.940 align:middle line:90% left to right. 00:14:53.940 --> 00:14:56.280 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I would say [INAUDIBLE] for the [INAUDIBLE] 00:14:56.280 --> 00:14:57.911 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: OK, great. 00:14:57.911 --> 00:15:02.395 align:middle line:84% We've stopped leaving out octave for everybody. 00:15:02.395 --> 00:15:04.920 align:middle line:90% Another group. 00:15:04.920 --> 00:15:05.610 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Dots. 00:15:05.610 --> 00:15:06.568 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Dots. 00:15:06.568 --> 00:15:07.600 align:middle line:90% We have dots in here. 00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:09.390 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:15:09.390 --> 00:15:10.660 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Better articulation. 00:15:10.660 --> 00:15:12.240 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Articulation. 00:15:12.240 --> 00:15:14.460 align:middle line:90% Ooh, yeah. 00:15:14.460 --> 00:15:16.890 align:middle line:84% Does every note need an articulation? 00:15:16.890 --> 00:15:17.490 align:middle line:90% No. 00:15:17.490 --> 00:15:20.650 align:middle line:84% So this is where average might come into play. 00:15:20.650 --> 00:15:23.850 align:middle line:84% You might have something-- some sort of a flag 00:15:23.850 --> 00:15:28.320 align:middle line:84% somewhere, some condition that says, more information to come, 00:15:28.320 --> 00:15:30.070 align:middle line:84% and then you can use the additional space. 00:15:30.070 --> 00:15:30.570 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:15:30.570 --> 00:15:31.330 align:middle line:90% Articulations. 00:15:31.330 --> 00:15:33.030 align:middle line:90% Other things? 00:15:33.030 --> 00:15:35.950 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: We said maybe dynamics or volume. 00:15:35.950 --> 00:15:38.890 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Dynamics or volume-- 00:15:38.890 --> 00:15:39.890 align:middle line:90% --mics/volume. 00:15:39.890 --> 00:15:42.640 align:middle line:90% 00:15:42.640 --> 00:15:46.070 align:middle line:84% Just in case I forget to mention it at some point, 00:15:46.070 --> 00:15:48.220 align:middle line:84% a lot of people in the computer music world 00:15:48.220 --> 00:15:56.830 align:middle line:84% call the dynamics of volume the velocity, which really tells you 00:15:56.830 --> 00:15:59.050 align:middle line:84% that the piano was the first instrument 00:15:59.050 --> 00:16:00.883 align:middle line:84% they were thinking of encoding, because it's 00:16:00.883 --> 00:16:03.070 align:middle line:90% how fast you hit the note-- 00:16:03.070 --> 00:16:04.990 align:middle line:84% how fast you hit the key on the clarinet 00:16:04.990 --> 00:16:07.660 align:middle line:84% doesn't really make it any louder. 00:16:07.660 --> 00:16:10.510 align:middle line:84% But velocity-- dynamics, volume, velocity. 00:16:10.510 --> 00:16:11.350 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:16:11.350 --> 00:16:12.162 align:middle line:90% Continuing on. 00:16:12.162 --> 00:16:14.620 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: I guess you could do something like what you just 00:16:14.620 --> 00:16:19.030 align:middle line:84% said for the flag, where if it's an extreme range of a note 00:16:19.030 --> 00:16:21.520 align:middle line:84% or extreme duration, then you say, 00:16:21.520 --> 00:16:24.100 align:middle line:84% oh, this is an unusually long note. 00:16:24.100 --> 00:16:28.570 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Extreme cases to follow 00:16:28.570 --> 00:16:32.990 align:middle line:84% or something like that, to follow and-- 00:16:32.990 --> 00:16:34.430 align:middle line:90% so that could be-- 00:16:34.430 --> 00:16:38.960 align:middle line:84% these could be little flags, suppose. 00:16:38.960 --> 00:16:40.320 align:middle line:90% Do people think flags look-- 00:16:40.320 --> 00:16:42.720 align:middle line:84% flags look better going left, don't they? 00:16:42.720 --> 00:16:44.810 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:16:44.810 --> 00:16:48.440 align:middle line:84% Other-- continuing around, other things 00:16:48.440 --> 00:16:50.190 align:middle line:90% chose that aren't on here? 00:16:50.190 --> 00:16:54.290 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So I think one thing was, I guess, 00:16:54.290 --> 00:16:58.190 align:middle line:84% time signature and stuff because it encoded 00:16:58.190 --> 00:17:01.520 align:middle line:84% with just the reference of musical half tone and quarter 00:17:01.520 --> 00:17:03.140 align:middle line:90% notes. 00:17:03.140 --> 00:17:07.010 align:middle line:84% Information isn't necessarily stored within the-- 00:17:07.010 --> 00:17:09.500 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: I actually made-- 00:17:09.500 --> 00:17:12.260 align:middle line:84% I put it in, and anything else on this slide. 00:17:12.260 --> 00:17:13.760 align:middle line:84% No, I didn't put it on the other one 00:17:13.760 --> 00:17:17.569 align:middle line:84% because I thought maybe time signature could go in, 00:17:17.569 --> 00:17:19.160 align:middle line:90% key signature. 00:17:19.160 --> 00:17:20.730 align:middle line:84% Other things to go at the beginning. 00:17:20.730 --> 00:17:22.465 align:middle line:84% What else comes at the beginning piece? 00:17:22.465 --> 00:17:27.230 align:middle line:90% 00:17:27.230 --> 00:17:28.250 align:middle line:90% Just shout out. 00:17:28.250 --> 00:17:29.250 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Key signature. 00:17:29.250 --> 00:17:30.150 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Key signature. 00:17:30.150 --> 00:17:30.705 align:middle line:90% Time signature. 00:17:30.705 --> 00:17:31.372 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Tempo. 00:17:31.372 --> 00:17:32.963 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Tempo. 00:17:32.963 --> 00:17:34.130 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Name of the piece. 00:17:34.130 --> 00:17:35.630 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Name of the piece. 00:17:35.630 --> 00:17:36.130 align:middle line:90% Metadata. 00:17:36.130 --> 00:17:37.100 align:middle line:90% Name of the piece. 00:17:37.100 --> 00:17:37.720 align:middle line:90% Metadata. 00:17:37.720 --> 00:17:40.120 align:middle line:90% Very important. 00:17:40.120 --> 00:17:42.670 align:middle line:90% Who wrote it? 00:17:42.670 --> 00:17:43.370 align:middle line:90% Metadate. 00:17:43.370 --> 00:17:46.340 align:middle line:84% Sorry that was yesterday's, metadate. 00:17:46.340 --> 00:17:48.790 align:middle line:90% Now metadata. 00:17:48.790 --> 00:17:51.460 align:middle line:90% Clef. 00:17:51.460 --> 00:17:52.810 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:17:52.810 --> 00:17:54.200 align:middle line:84% Quickly, go through the front row 00:17:54.200 --> 00:17:57.290 align:middle line:84% if you have something that you'd like to throw onto this. 00:17:57.290 --> 00:17:57.915 align:middle line:90% We'll continue. 00:17:57.915 --> 00:18:00.790 align:middle line:90% 00:18:00.790 --> 00:18:02.810 align:middle line:84% Adam, you guys just spoke, right? 00:18:02.810 --> 00:18:03.405 align:middle line:90% No. 00:18:03.405 --> 00:18:04.030 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: What? 00:18:04.030 --> 00:18:04.990 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: No. 00:18:04.990 --> 00:18:07.570 align:middle line:84% Because you shouted out when I said, anything else 00:18:07.570 --> 00:18:08.840 align:middle line:90% you put in your encoding? 00:18:08.840 --> 00:18:09.490 align:middle line:90% Vanessa. 00:18:09.490 --> 00:18:09.760 align:middle line:90% Vanessa. 00:18:09.760 --> 00:18:11.745 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] whether or not [INAUDIBLE]. 00:18:11.745 --> 00:18:12.703 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Ties. 00:18:12.703 --> 00:18:14.020 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:18:14.020 --> 00:18:15.980 align:middle line:84% That lets you build a lot of things. 00:18:15.980 --> 00:18:18.700 align:middle line:90% Jordan, Misha, anything? 00:18:18.700 --> 00:18:20.110 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Triplets. 00:18:20.110 --> 00:18:21.430 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Triplets. 00:18:21.430 --> 00:18:23.620 align:middle line:90% Yep. 00:18:23.620 --> 00:18:25.940 align:middle line:90% Triplets. 00:18:25.940 --> 00:18:32.600 align:middle line:84% I was just-- what's the generalization of triplets 00:18:32.600 --> 00:18:35.870 align:middle line:90% if they're not three? 00:18:35.870 --> 00:18:37.340 align:middle line:90% Anyone know term for-- 00:18:37.340 --> 00:18:38.090 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Tuplets? 00:18:38.090 --> 00:18:39.860 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Tuplets or-- 00:18:39.860 --> 00:18:42.950 align:middle line:84% tuplets or tup-- more often tuplets 00:18:42.950 --> 00:18:44.700 align:middle line:90% in the British pronunciation. 00:18:44.700 --> 00:18:48.620 align:middle line:84% Tuplets more often in the English pronunciation. 00:18:48.620 --> 00:18:49.940 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:18:49.940 --> 00:18:50.935 align:middle line:90% Anything else? 00:18:50.935 --> 00:18:53.870 align:middle line:90% 00:18:53.870 --> 00:18:57.420 align:middle line:84% Why would we want-- and so here are some examples, by the way, 00:18:57.420 --> 00:19:02.990 align:middle line:84% of how the Braille code uses an average of one byte but allows 00:19:02.990 --> 00:19:03.680 align:middle line:90% for-- 00:19:03.680 --> 00:19:08.760 align:middle line:84% or one cell, six bits, but allows for other things. 00:19:08.760 --> 00:19:12.440 align:middle line:84% So if you have accidentals, we can be adding particular marks 00:19:12.440 --> 00:19:15.450 align:middle line:84% to say, hey, there's going to be something else coming next. 00:19:15.450 --> 00:19:18.780 align:middle line:84% Look up what this extended mark is. 00:19:18.780 --> 00:19:23.130 align:middle line:84% Or sometimes, there is a sign that you can use for saying, 00:19:23.130 --> 00:19:26.540 align:middle line:84% hey, I know you think that I'm all in 30 second notes. 00:19:26.540 --> 00:19:28.990 align:middle line:84% I'm probably going to jump to a 16th note, but actually, 00:19:28.990 --> 00:19:33.650 align:middle line:84% I'm going to jump all the way up to a half note or something. 00:19:33.650 --> 00:19:36.370 align:middle line:84% So there are some cautionary signs for that. 00:19:36.370 --> 00:19:41.710 align:middle line:84% And beams and things of that sort can be put in. 00:19:41.710 --> 00:19:42.740 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Adam. 00:19:42.740 --> 00:19:45.230 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Is there a Morse code for music notation? 00:19:45.230 --> 00:19:47.290 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Morse code? 00:19:47.290 --> 00:19:49.160 align:middle line:90% Not that I know of. 00:19:49.160 --> 00:19:49.840 align:middle line:90% Not that I know. 00:19:49.840 --> 00:19:55.730 align:middle line:84% The Braille, by the way, music code predates the Braille text. 00:19:55.730 --> 00:20:00.370 align:middle line:84% Louis Braille invented the music code first and then decided 00:20:00.370 --> 00:20:05.290 align:middle line:84% to do it with text before, in part because text is already 00:20:05.290 --> 00:20:08.270 align:middle line:84% a little bit easier to read with raised impressions, 00:20:08.270 --> 00:20:11.080 align:middle line:84% whereas music was just impossible to read 00:20:11.080 --> 00:20:12.080 align:middle line:90% with raised impressions. 00:20:12.080 --> 00:20:14.770 align:middle line:84% So there was more of a need for reading music 00:20:14.770 --> 00:20:19.450 align:middle line:84% than there was for text at the time. 00:20:19.450 --> 00:20:22.840 align:middle line:84% And just for a second, let's just 00:20:22.840 --> 00:20:27.140 align:middle line:84% think, what could you do that you couldn't do with this if you 00:20:27.140 --> 00:20:31.160 align:middle line:90% had about a megabyte per note? 00:20:31.160 --> 00:20:32.635 align:middle line:90% That's a million bytes. 00:20:32.635 --> 00:20:35.210 align:middle line:90% 00:20:35.210 --> 00:20:37.260 align:middle line:84% People have thought of this all the time, 00:20:37.260 --> 00:20:40.440 align:middle line:84% and you've probably done it, and you're not even thinking of it. 00:20:40.440 --> 00:20:45.830 align:middle line:84% You've probably used a megabyte encoding per note already today. 00:20:45.830 --> 00:20:48.800 align:middle line:90% I know that John has. 00:20:48.800 --> 00:20:50.510 align:middle line:90% Just-- 00:20:50.510 --> 00:20:56.060 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: So I see different features for-- 00:20:56.060 --> 00:20:58.280 align:middle line:84% like the output of the notes or whether it's 00:20:58.280 --> 00:20:59.820 align:middle line:90% like a stereo or mono sound. 00:20:59.820 --> 00:21:01.850 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Stereo or mono sound or-- 00:21:01.850 --> 00:21:03.078 align:middle line:90% you're getting-- yeah. 00:21:03.078 --> 00:21:03.870 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Fidelity. 00:21:03.870 --> 00:21:05.162 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: The fidelity. 00:21:05.162 --> 00:21:08.250 align:middle line:90% Just the audio wave of the note. 00:21:08.250 --> 00:21:10.160 align:middle line:90% You can encode the exact-- 00:21:10.160 --> 00:21:12.205 align:middle line:90% why do you need to encode-- 00:21:12.205 --> 00:21:14.580 align:middle line:84% is this a C sharp or something when you can just hear it? 00:21:14.580 --> 00:21:16.910 align:middle line:84% And you can also be encoding without the fidelity, 00:21:16.910 --> 00:21:18.260 align:middle line:90% the mono thing. 00:21:18.260 --> 00:21:20.810 align:middle line:84% You're encoding the exact instrument, 00:21:20.810 --> 00:21:22.290 align:middle line:90% how it was performed. 00:21:22.290 --> 00:21:24.900 align:middle line:84% You're losing generality because you're 00:21:24.900 --> 00:21:29.880 align:middle line:84% encoding one performance of a particular piece and not 00:21:29.880 --> 00:21:32.010 align:middle line:84% every performance, but maybe you can 00:21:32.010 --> 00:21:35.820 align:middle line:84% do one megabyte plus an average of three bytes 00:21:35.820 --> 00:21:37.900 align:middle line:84% to also store what the note was supposed to be. 00:21:37.900 --> 00:21:40.415 align:middle line:84% So we'll be able to get the best of all worlds. 00:21:40.415 --> 00:21:43.440 align:middle line:90% 00:21:43.440 --> 00:21:45.880 align:middle line:90% Why do I care about efficiency? 00:21:45.880 --> 00:21:50.670 align:middle line:84% It's in part because we're at a point where 00:21:50.670 --> 00:21:54.930 align:middle line:84% we can start storing a lot of information about notes. 00:21:54.930 --> 00:21:58.710 align:middle line:84% Most of us don't bat an eye anymore at the notion that 00:21:58.710 --> 00:22:03.900 align:middle line:84% we're streaming in high def or 4K or whatever and gigabytes 00:22:03.900 --> 00:22:06.050 align:middle line:84% of billions of-- did I say billions before? 00:22:06.050 --> 00:22:07.050 align:middle line:90% I meant millions before. 00:22:07.050 --> 00:22:10.900 align:middle line:84% Billions of bytes in an hour just to watch a movie. 00:22:10.900 --> 00:22:12.930 align:middle line:84% So why do we care about if we can store 00:22:12.930 --> 00:22:15.640 align:middle line:90% one extra thing in the note? 00:22:15.640 --> 00:22:19.540 align:middle line:84% It's because almost entirely based on history, 00:22:19.540 --> 00:22:25.130 align:middle line:84% this is one of the earliest encodings of a musical piece, 00:22:25.130 --> 00:22:27.310 align:middle line:84% the dissertation from 1982, but this is going 00:22:27.310 --> 00:22:29.210 align:middle line:90% in the '60s and things. 00:22:29.210 --> 00:22:32.960 align:middle line:90% And we started with punch cards. 00:22:32.960 --> 00:22:36.200 align:middle line:84% And punching cards takes a long time. 00:22:36.200 --> 00:22:38.650 align:middle line:84% So the more efficient you can get 00:22:38.650 --> 00:22:42.050 align:middle line:84% with your encoding, the fewer cards you're going to need. 00:22:42.050 --> 00:22:46.430 align:middle line:84% And this has left consequences on us for today. 00:22:46.430 --> 00:22:48.780 align:middle line:84% By the way, I always thought that, oh, punch card, 00:22:48.780 --> 00:22:51.750 align:middle line:84% you get 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 00:22:51.750 --> 00:22:53.720 align:middle line:90% You get 10 bits of information. 00:22:53.720 --> 00:22:56.480 align:middle line:84% It turns out you punch too many holes in a punch card, 00:22:56.480 --> 00:22:58.810 align:middle line:84% and you try to put it through the punch card reader, 00:22:58.810 --> 00:22:59.750 align:middle line:90% and it jams. 00:22:59.750 --> 00:23:01.390 align:middle line:84% So you actually have a limited number 00:23:01.390 --> 00:23:08.860 align:middle line:84% of ones you can do per byte or per row in a punch card. 00:23:08.860 --> 00:23:12.610 align:middle line:84% So we're still having to deal with some of the choices that 00:23:12.610 --> 00:23:16.420 align:middle line:84% were made in order-- back when computers might have 00:23:16.420 --> 00:23:20.620 align:middle line:84% 4 kilobytes of memory or 16 kilobytes of memory 00:23:20.620 --> 00:23:21.930 align:middle line:90% for every single thing. 00:23:21.930 --> 00:23:29.270 align:middle line:84% So if you want to store 16 kilobytes or 16,000 bytes, 00:23:29.270 --> 00:23:31.740 align:middle line:84% if you're storing 10 bytes per note, 00:23:31.740 --> 00:23:33.780 align:middle line:90% you only store 1,600 notes. 00:23:33.780 --> 00:23:35.280 align:middle line:84% You can't get through a whole piece. 00:23:35.280 --> 00:23:37.650 align:middle line:84% But if you can get it down to two, matters. 00:23:37.650 --> 00:23:41.330 align:middle line:84% And so we have a lot of ways that 00:23:41.330 --> 00:23:45.470 align:middle line:84% are very compact representations that are still out there 00:23:45.470 --> 00:23:49.460 align:middle line:84% and that we're only over time feeling like, you know, 00:23:49.460 --> 00:23:51.120 align:middle line:90% we can expand a little bit. 00:23:51.120 --> 00:23:54.530 align:middle line:84% This is your first encoding format 00:23:54.530 --> 00:23:56.790 align:middle line:84% that you've seen in this class, I believe, 00:23:56.790 --> 00:24:00.240 align:middle line:84% besides stupid, weird ones I make up on the fly. 00:24:00.240 --> 00:24:02.160 align:middle line:90% This is called MuseData. 00:24:02.160 --> 00:24:08.310 align:middle line:84% This was one of the first major projects 00:24:08.310 --> 00:24:10.610 align:middle line:84% of encoding a lot of music into things 00:24:10.610 --> 00:24:14.310 align:middle line:84% made by Walter Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard fame. 00:24:14.310 --> 00:24:20.500 align:middle line:84% And let's try to guess what some of the things might be in this. 00:24:20.500 --> 00:24:22.370 align:middle line:84% Let's start with something really obvious. 00:24:22.370 --> 00:24:24.730 align:middle line:90% What do you think this means? 00:24:24.730 --> 00:24:25.730 align:middle line:90% Rest. 00:24:25.730 --> 00:24:27.010 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:24:27.010 --> 00:24:28.930 align:middle line:84% We're obviously already in a period 00:24:28.930 --> 00:24:34.030 align:middle line:84% where we can afford 4 bytes to write out rest 00:24:34.030 --> 00:24:36.533 align:middle line:90% rather than putting R in. 00:24:36.533 --> 00:24:38.200 align:middle line:84% This tells you that this is a little bit 00:24:38.200 --> 00:24:41.380 align:middle line:84% later than other things that were happening. 00:24:41.380 --> 00:24:45.970 align:middle line:84% Somebody else take a guess what something else might be. 00:24:45.970 --> 00:24:47.092 align:middle line:90% Yeah, go ahead, Joe. 00:24:47.092 --> 00:24:48.550 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Does q stand for quarter? 00:24:48.550 --> 00:24:50.410 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Q might stand for quarter. 00:24:50.410 --> 00:24:51.540 align:middle line:90% Let's see. 00:24:51.540 --> 00:24:54.550 align:middle line:84% We might find something that will help us with that. 00:24:54.550 --> 00:24:55.670 align:middle line:90% I'll go easy. 00:24:55.670 --> 00:24:59.210 align:middle line:84% Measure stands for measure, and measure stands for measure, 00:24:59.210 --> 00:25:01.365 align:middle line:84% and 1 stands for 1, and 2 stands for 2. 00:25:01.365 --> 00:25:03.220 align:middle line:84% Is there anything that would let you 00:25:03.220 --> 00:25:05.440 align:middle line:84% think that q, q cube in one measure 00:25:05.440 --> 00:25:07.840 align:middle line:90% might be the right thing? 00:25:07.840 --> 00:25:08.530 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:25:08.530 --> 00:25:10.690 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: T, 3 times signature probably? 00:25:10.690 --> 00:25:14.170 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: T time signature 3/4. 00:25:14.170 --> 00:25:15.910 align:middle line:84% Everybody's notation teacher always 00:25:15.910 --> 00:25:18.047 align:middle line:84% told you never put a slash in a time signature 00:25:18.047 --> 00:25:19.380 align:middle line:90% when you're writing on the page. 00:25:19.380 --> 00:25:21.290 align:middle line:84% Well, in computer stuff, we always 00:25:21.290 --> 00:25:23.940 align:middle line:84% do because we have nothing better to separate them. 00:25:23.940 --> 00:25:24.440 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:25:24.440 --> 00:25:25.465 align:middle line:90% Q's that. 00:25:25.465 --> 00:25:28.400 align:middle line:90% 00:25:28.400 --> 00:25:29.540 align:middle line:90% I think these are? 00:25:29.540 --> 00:25:30.320 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Notes. 00:25:30.320 --> 00:25:31.320 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Notes. 00:25:31.320 --> 00:25:33.470 align:middle line:90% Good, good. 00:25:33.470 --> 00:25:35.780 align:middle line:84% Interesting thing is that they end up 00:25:35.780 --> 00:25:40.440 align:middle line:84% encoding the duration twice since this one, 00:25:40.440 --> 00:25:42.087 align:middle line:84% I've tried to do a long time ago. 00:25:42.087 --> 00:25:43.170 align:middle line:90% What do you think that is? 00:25:43.170 --> 00:25:45.090 align:middle line:84% And it's almost impossible to get. 00:25:45.090 --> 00:25:47.480 align:middle line:84% So you have the quarter note, and you also 00:25:47.480 --> 00:25:52.580 align:middle line:84% have something that says a quarter takes 2 something, 00:25:52.580 --> 00:25:53.300 align:middle line:90% takes. 00:25:53.300 --> 00:25:55.350 align:middle line:90% Maybe some-- things like that. 00:25:55.350 --> 00:25:57.470 align:middle line:90% And so you encode it twice. 00:25:57.470 --> 00:26:02.420 align:middle line:84% Once-- what's the difference between these two-- 00:26:02.420 --> 00:26:05.990 align:middle line:84% each quarter is two of something, and that this is a q. 00:26:05.990 --> 00:26:08.750 align:middle line:90% Who needs what for what? 00:26:08.750 --> 00:26:09.320 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:26:09.320 --> 00:26:11.520 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: What's printed on the page versus what's played. 00:26:11.520 --> 00:26:14.145 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: What's printed on the page and what's played. 00:26:14.145 --> 00:26:20.910 align:middle line:84% So that you don't need to convert between visual and time 00:26:20.910 --> 00:26:21.730 align:middle line:90% duration. 00:26:21.730 --> 00:26:27.570 align:middle line:84% And this is a function in almost all modern storage things 00:26:27.570 --> 00:26:28.870 align:middle line:90% still today. 00:26:28.870 --> 00:26:30.930 align:middle line:90% It's also helpful for-- 00:26:30.930 --> 00:26:34.140 align:middle line:84% there are some very weird cases that you'll 00:26:34.140 --> 00:26:36.880 align:middle line:84% run into in one of the readings later, 00:26:36.880 --> 00:26:39.180 align:middle line:84% where composers have used durations 00:26:39.180 --> 00:26:44.010 align:middle line:84% to mean something slightly different from what 00:26:44.010 --> 00:26:45.305 align:middle line:90% they generally are. 00:26:45.305 --> 00:26:48.160 align:middle line:90% 00:26:48.160 --> 00:26:51.340 align:middle line:84% So this is some of the reasons why we went through efficiency. 00:26:51.340 --> 00:26:52.410 align:middle line:90% You're going to be-- 00:26:52.410 --> 00:26:54.570 align:middle line:84% on the second problem set, the one 00:26:54.570 --> 00:26:58.210 align:middle line:84% that you'll get on Friday, which will be done in groups, 00:26:58.210 --> 00:27:01.650 align:middle line:84% you're going to be coming up with your own representation 00:27:01.650 --> 00:27:05.920 align:middle line:84% system for some sort of thing that is music, 00:27:05.920 --> 00:27:09.000 align:middle line:84% except for the thing I'm just about to talk about, 00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:11.820 align:middle line:84% common Western music notation, so something 00:27:11.820 --> 00:27:15.890 align:middle line:84% else besides normal scores that we see all the time. 00:27:15.890 --> 00:27:21.830 align:middle line:84% And you'll need to make the same choices, decisions, mistakes, 00:27:21.830 --> 00:27:28.090 align:middle line:84% maybe that pioneering people did in the '60s and '70s and 00:27:28.090 --> 00:27:32.710 align:middle line:84% hopefully learn something about what trade offs happen along 00:27:32.710 --> 00:27:35.470 align:middle line:90% the way. 00:27:35.470 --> 00:27:39.130 align:middle line:90% So we're going to be talking-- 00:27:39.130 --> 00:27:41.350 align:middle line:84% oops, slides a little bit out of order. 00:27:41.350 --> 00:27:42.500 align:middle line:90% This should be here. 00:27:42.500 --> 00:27:44.140 align:middle line:90% This slide should be-- 00:27:44.140 --> 00:27:46.810 align:middle line:84% about something in the class, which 00:27:46.810 --> 00:27:50.390 align:middle line:84% is called common Western music notation, 00:27:50.390 --> 00:27:55.640 align:middle line:84% often abbreviated to leave out one letter, 00:27:55.640 --> 00:27:59.240 align:middle line:84% either common Western music notation, common music notation, 00:27:59.240 --> 00:28:04.360 align:middle line:84% common Western notation, some things like that. 00:28:04.360 --> 00:28:06.760 align:middle line:84% This is an example of what, I think, 00:28:06.760 --> 00:28:10.880 align:middle line:84% most people would believe is common Western music notation. 00:28:10.880 --> 00:28:16.680 align:middle line:84% It uses notes, staves, clefs, things. 00:28:16.680 --> 00:28:21.180 align:middle line:84% Left to right means earlier to later. 00:28:21.180 --> 00:28:23.187 align:middle line:90% Up to down means 00:28:23.187 --> 00:28:24.270 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Higher to lower. 00:28:24.270 --> 00:28:25.810 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Higher to lower. 00:28:25.810 --> 00:28:28.060 align:middle line:84% So that here's a whole bunch of high notes, 00:28:28.060 --> 00:28:31.470 align:middle line:84% and here's a whole bunch of low notes. 00:28:31.470 --> 00:28:35.640 align:middle line:84% Now, except for that there's certain things that we say only 00:28:35.640 --> 00:28:38.560 align:middle line:84% within this particular staff is higher and lower, 00:28:38.560 --> 00:28:40.440 align:middle line:84% and then we have divisions, and we move 00:28:40.440 --> 00:28:44.590 align:middle line:90% on to other systems and stuff. 00:28:44.590 --> 00:28:50.370 align:middle line:84% So these are things that are standard in common Western music 00:28:50.370 --> 00:28:51.720 align:middle line:90% notation. 00:28:51.720 --> 00:28:55.470 align:middle line:84% That was a piece by Joseph Bologne, the Chevalier 00:28:55.470 --> 00:28:56.440 align:middle line:90% de Saint-Georges. 00:28:56.440 --> 00:29:01.530 align:middle line:84% This is a piece by Clara Schumann, her piano trio, trio 00:29:01.530 --> 00:29:03.160 align:middle line:90% for piano, violin, and cello. 00:29:03.160 --> 00:29:05.790 align:middle line:84% And you see some things that we consider 00:29:05.790 --> 00:29:10.990 align:middle line:84% to be common Western music notation, including slurs, ties, 00:29:10.990 --> 00:29:15.280 align:middle line:84% grace notes, beams, all these types of things. 00:29:15.280 --> 00:29:19.630 align:middle line:84% Common Western music notation can represent a piece of music 00:29:19.630 --> 00:29:21.110 align:middle line:90% in multiple ways. 00:29:21.110 --> 00:29:27.910 align:middle line:84% This is an aria from Wolfgang Mozart's opera Don Giovanni, 00:29:27.910 --> 00:29:32.170 align:middle line:84% an aria of song, in that [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] by Donna 00:29:32.170 --> 00:29:32.900 align:middle line:90% Elvira. 00:29:32.900 --> 00:29:39.280 align:middle line:84% And we have the top of each of these systems, voice part, 00:29:39.280 --> 00:29:46.450 align:middle line:84% Italian, translation to English, to two staves for piano, 00:29:46.450 --> 00:29:51.950 align:middle line:84% and then the exact same music in some way. 00:29:51.950 --> 00:29:53.320 align:middle line:90% Here's her part. 00:29:53.320 --> 00:29:55.400 align:middle line:84% Here, except for the English is gone, 00:29:55.400 --> 00:29:57.470 align:middle line:84% very helpfully replaced with German. 00:29:57.470 --> 00:30:02.680 align:middle line:84% And her nice treble clef was nicely replaced by soprano clef 00:30:02.680 --> 00:30:06.220 align:middle line:84% for ease of reading for all of us because she's a soprano. 00:30:06.220 --> 00:30:09.520 align:middle line:84% And the piano is gone, replaced with-- 00:30:09.520 --> 00:30:11.930 align:middle line:90% take a guess. 00:30:11.930 --> 00:30:13.917 align:middle line:90% What are these parts for? 00:30:13.917 --> 00:30:14.750 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Orchestra. 00:30:14.750 --> 00:30:16.830 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Orchestra. 00:30:16.830 --> 00:30:18.360 align:middle line:90% We have strings. 00:30:18.360 --> 00:30:21.080 align:middle line:90% We have other things going on. 00:30:21.080 --> 00:30:25.730 align:middle line:84% One of the questions would be, when 00:30:25.730 --> 00:30:29.100 align:middle line:84% we have multiple representations of the same piece, 00:30:29.100 --> 00:30:32.130 align:middle line:84% how do we translate from one to another? 00:30:32.130 --> 00:30:35.690 align:middle line:84% Is there a way that we can go from this exact moment 00:30:35.690 --> 00:30:39.470 align:middle line:84% to that exact moment, and what kinds of relationships 00:30:39.470 --> 00:30:42.980 align:middle line:90% would make that possible? 00:30:42.980 --> 00:30:47.240 align:middle line:84% So jumping back to Clara Schumann's piano trio, 00:30:47.240 --> 00:30:51.650 align:middle line:84% there are some things that violate 00:30:51.650 --> 00:30:54.890 align:middle line:84% particular norms of common Western music 00:30:54.890 --> 00:30:57.500 align:middle line:90% notation, such as-- 00:30:57.500 --> 00:30:59.270 align:middle line:84% well, they're part of it, but they violate 00:30:59.270 --> 00:31:00.990 align:middle line:90% the basic, basic principles. 00:31:00.990 --> 00:31:03.013 align:middle line:90% What are these things up here? 00:31:03.013 --> 00:31:03.930 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Grace notes? 00:31:03.930 --> 00:31:04.847 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Grace notes. 00:31:04.847 --> 00:31:06.200 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Grace notes. 00:31:06.200 --> 00:31:12.040 align:middle line:84% Let's say a quarter note takes one tick. 00:31:12.040 --> 00:31:15.390 align:middle line:84% A half note takes two ticks of some sort. 00:31:15.390 --> 00:31:17.680 align:middle line:90% An 8th note takes half a tick. 00:31:17.680 --> 00:31:19.205 align:middle line:90% How much does a grace note take? 00:31:19.205 --> 00:31:23.690 align:middle line:90% 00:31:23.690 --> 00:31:24.190 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:31:24.190 --> 00:31:26.280 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Usually, half the allotted time. 00:31:26.280 --> 00:31:28.363 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Usually, half the allotted time? 00:31:28.363 --> 00:31:30.630 align:middle line:90% So if I put-- 00:31:30.630 --> 00:31:33.580 align:middle line:90% that's very true in one sense. 00:31:33.580 --> 00:31:35.010 align:middle line:90% So correct. 00:31:35.010 --> 00:31:36.190 align:middle line:90% Absolutely correct. 00:31:36.190 --> 00:31:38.200 align:middle line:84% It's also not true in another sense. 00:31:38.200 --> 00:31:46.810 align:middle line:84% So if I have 4/4, and I put in a dotted half note, 00:31:46.810 --> 00:31:51.790 align:middle line:84% and then I put in a grace note, that takes half of that. 00:31:51.790 --> 00:31:52.860 align:middle line:90% So that's 1/4. 00:31:52.860 --> 00:31:58.960 align:middle line:84% So I still have enough room for that amount of space. 00:31:58.960 --> 00:32:02.430 align:middle line:84% Can everyone see from back here that's a dotted half note. 00:32:02.430 --> 00:32:05.970 align:middle line:84% What's wrong with this representation? 00:32:05.970 --> 00:32:06.690 align:middle line:90% Adam. 00:32:06.690 --> 00:32:08.315 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The grace note also eats away 00:32:08.315 --> 00:32:09.663 align:middle line:90% at the actual time for the note. 00:32:09.663 --> 00:32:10.580 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yes. 00:32:10.580 --> 00:32:17.220 align:middle line:84% So the grace note steals time from the note that it's next to, 00:32:17.220 --> 00:32:20.150 align:middle line:84% or it steals it sometimes from the one before. 00:32:20.150 --> 00:32:22.680 align:middle line:90% So in terms of-- 00:32:22.680 --> 00:32:25.610 align:middle line:84% how many grace notes can you-- how many Grace notes 00:32:25.610 --> 00:32:27.233 align:middle line:90% can you put in a 4 4 measure? 00:32:27.233 --> 00:32:28.150 align:middle line:90% Let's put it this way. 00:32:28.150 --> 00:32:31.190 align:middle line:90% 00:32:31.190 --> 00:32:33.830 align:middle line:90% It's a trick question? 00:32:33.830 --> 00:32:34.790 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: 16. 00:32:34.790 --> 00:32:36.480 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: 16, no. 00:32:36.480 --> 00:32:39.230 align:middle line:84% You can put as many in as you want because the grace 00:32:39.230 --> 00:32:40.680 align:middle line:90% notes just steal time. 00:32:40.680 --> 00:32:43.740 align:middle line:84% So for instance, here, we're in 6/8. 00:32:43.740 --> 00:32:48.140 align:middle line:84% So we have two dotted 8th note bits, and we have-- 00:32:48.140 --> 00:32:49.260 align:middle line:90% a dotted quarter note. 00:32:49.260 --> 00:32:51.090 align:middle line:84% So we have a dotted quarter note here 00:32:51.090 --> 00:32:53.220 align:middle line:84% and the equivalent of a dotted quarter note here. 00:32:53.220 --> 00:32:58.910 align:middle line:84% And we can squeeze in five grace notes there, seven, eight. 00:32:58.910 --> 00:32:59.790 align:middle line:90% Doesn't matter. 00:32:59.790 --> 00:33:02.490 align:middle line:84% But where conceptually do you play that? 00:33:02.490 --> 00:33:07.780 align:middle line:84% And if we have this notion, that in common Western music, 00:33:07.780 --> 00:33:10.230 align:middle line:84% everything that happens at the same time 00:33:10.230 --> 00:33:11.680 align:middle line:90% is vertically aligned-- 00:33:11.680 --> 00:33:14.320 align:middle line:84% I hope your theory teachers taught you that. 00:33:14.320 --> 00:33:18.360 align:middle line:84% That's the most important rule in general-- 00:33:18.360 --> 00:33:23.090 align:middle line:84% how do we know where to align these notes with the grace 00:33:23.090 --> 00:33:23.590 align:middle line:90% notes? 00:33:23.590 --> 00:33:27.360 align:middle line:90% So that's one violation thing. 00:33:27.360 --> 00:33:30.480 align:middle line:84% The limits of common Western music notation 00:33:30.480 --> 00:33:33.160 align:middle line:90% are not strictly defined. 00:33:33.160 --> 00:33:41.160 align:middle line:84% This is a very common genre of music from around 1700, 1687. 00:33:41.160 --> 00:33:45.300 align:middle line:84% Élisabeth-Claude Jacquet De La Guerre, Jacquet De La Guerre. 00:33:45.300 --> 00:33:46.990 align:middle line:90% Very interesting piece. 00:33:46.990 --> 00:33:50.520 align:middle line:84% A lot of things that look like common music notation 00:33:50.520 --> 00:33:53.370 align:middle line:90% until you start getting-- 00:33:53.370 --> 00:33:55.290 align:middle line:90% what is this? 00:33:55.290 --> 00:33:57.240 align:middle line:90% What are these? 00:33:57.240 --> 00:34:01.033 align:middle line:84% All the symbols of common Western music notation 00:34:01.033 --> 00:34:02.200 align:middle line:90% but used in a different way. 00:34:02.200 --> 00:34:05.290 align:middle line:84% These are unmeasured preludes, so certain places 00:34:05.290 --> 00:34:08.230 align:middle line:84% that should be played in time and certain other things 00:34:08.230 --> 00:34:12.280 align:middle line:84% that most people believe these tell 00:34:12.280 --> 00:34:15.440 align:middle line:84% you play these notes for exactly how long you want. 00:34:15.440 --> 00:34:17.260 align:middle line:84% I kind of figured some other people 00:34:17.260 --> 00:34:20.764 align:middle line:84% think maybe improvise something on those notes, but-- 00:34:20.764 --> 00:34:25.210 align:middle line:90% 00:34:25.210 --> 00:34:27.050 align:middle line:84% It's common Western music notation, 00:34:27.050 --> 00:34:30.010 align:middle line:84% but it becomes a problem for the computer. 00:34:30.010 --> 00:34:31.510 align:middle line:84% What's the problem for the computer? 00:34:31.510 --> 00:34:33.170 align:middle line:90% When it's all handwritten. 00:34:33.170 --> 00:34:36.783 align:middle line:84% And so there's all kinds of ambiguity. 00:34:36.783 --> 00:34:40.250 align:middle line:84% You can tell that, OK, this is going, going. 00:34:40.250 --> 00:34:43.210 align:middle line:84% and that's an A and that's-- that's an and that's an E 00:34:43.210 --> 00:34:44.380 align:middle line:90% and that's a C and-- 00:34:44.380 --> 00:34:48.460 align:middle line:84% oh, that's either a D or an E. We can conceive 00:34:48.460 --> 00:34:51.040 align:middle line:90% of a note that is hard to read. 00:34:51.040 --> 00:34:56.770 align:middle line:84% Does your representation have a way of notating that? 00:34:56.770 --> 00:35:06.320 align:middle line:84% So handwritten scores also tend to contain lots of things that 00:35:06.320 --> 00:35:08.580 align:middle line:90% violate common music notation. 00:35:08.580 --> 00:35:11.270 align:middle line:84% I saw a Beethoven manuscript once 00:35:11.270 --> 00:35:14.000 align:middle line:84% where he was just going along, going along on two staves, then 00:35:14.000 --> 00:35:17.060 align:middle line:84% it became obvious that the top part was just going to repeat-- 00:35:17.060 --> 00:35:18.140 align:middle line:84% sorry-- the bottom part was just going 00:35:18.140 --> 00:35:19.307 align:middle line:90% to repeat what he was doing. 00:35:19.307 --> 00:35:21.600 align:middle line:84% So it goes along and just uses the top one. 00:35:21.600 --> 00:35:23.720 align:middle line:84% Next time, he's drawing the next system, 00:35:23.720 --> 00:35:25.170 align:middle line:90% and he needs another staff. 00:35:25.170 --> 00:35:26.910 align:middle line:84% Oh, and there's this empty staff above. 00:35:26.910 --> 00:35:28.850 align:middle line:84% So he goes ahead and uses it, so you 00:35:28.850 --> 00:35:30.980 align:middle line:84% can be jumping forward and backwards 00:35:30.980 --> 00:35:33.080 align:middle line:90% in time in the same thing. 00:35:33.080 --> 00:35:39.620 align:middle line:84% There are small-- almost every composer of significance 00:35:39.620 --> 00:35:45.000 align:middle line:84% has made their own tweaks to common music notation. 00:35:45.000 --> 00:35:48.540 align:middle line:84% This is by the 20th century composer Igor Stravinsky. 00:35:48.540 --> 00:35:52.040 align:middle line:84% Later in his life, he started to ask, why do we-- 00:35:52.040 --> 00:35:54.750 align:middle line:84% when you have instruments that don't play very much, 00:35:54.750 --> 00:35:58.320 align:middle line:84% why do we waste all the staff putting them out? 00:35:58.320 --> 00:36:00.590 align:middle line:84% So it's really easy to see what's resting 00:36:00.590 --> 00:36:05.020 align:middle line:84% if you just start the staff where they come in and end it 00:36:05.020 --> 00:36:06.880 align:middle line:90% when they end. 00:36:06.880 --> 00:36:09.340 align:middle line:90% So a little bit there. 00:36:09.340 --> 00:36:12.250 align:middle line:84% Limits of common Western music notation 00:36:12.250 --> 00:36:14.270 align:middle line:90% come out in certain pieces. 00:36:14.270 --> 00:36:18.070 align:middle line:84% This was, I think, my freshman composition assignment 00:36:18.070 --> 00:36:21.340 align:middle line:84% when I was trying to be a composer, where I've 00:36:21.340 --> 00:36:24.590 align:middle line:84% used some things that look like normal notes, 00:36:24.590 --> 00:36:26.890 align:middle line:84% but then at this point, I didn't want 00:36:26.890 --> 00:36:28.287 align:middle line:90% to calculate what the tempo was. 00:36:28.287 --> 00:36:29.870 align:middle line:84% So just hold it for about two seconds, 00:36:29.870 --> 00:36:32.690 align:middle line:84% hold this for about two seconds, and then get to this point. 00:36:32.690 --> 00:36:34.940 align:middle line:84% And this part should accelerando, 00:36:34.940 --> 00:36:39.950 align:middle line:84% so we'll just show about how end like a 64th note. 00:36:39.950 --> 00:36:43.010 align:middle line:84% Is that part of common Western music notation? 00:36:43.010 --> 00:36:46.540 align:middle line:84% It wasn't 50 years ago, but there's quite a number 00:36:46.540 --> 00:36:49.360 align:middle line:90% of scores that do it now. 00:36:49.360 --> 00:36:53.290 align:middle line:84% A lot of the music being written today 00:36:53.290 --> 00:36:56.667 align:middle line:84% are stretching common Western music notation 00:36:56.667 --> 00:36:57.500 align:middle line:90% quite to the limits. 00:36:57.500 --> 00:37:01.160 align:middle line:84% This is Kate Soper, who was a Pulitzer Prize 00:37:01.160 --> 00:37:04.410 align:middle line:84% finalist a few years back, teaches at Smith College. 00:37:04.410 --> 00:37:08.970 align:middle line:84% One of her pieces from part of Ipsa Dixit, her opera. 00:37:08.970 --> 00:37:13.460 align:middle line:84% She herself set it, where moves back and forth 00:37:13.460 --> 00:37:17.370 align:middle line:84% in the voice between sung and spoken 00:37:17.370 --> 00:37:19.820 align:middle line:84% and uses these other symbols to tell you 00:37:19.820 --> 00:37:22.950 align:middle line:84% how much to open and close the mouth. 00:37:22.950 --> 00:37:26.893 align:middle line:84% And something a little bit odd about the violin. 00:37:26.893 --> 00:37:30.200 align:middle line:90% 00:37:30.200 --> 00:37:31.710 align:middle line:90% Lots of things odd. 00:37:31.710 --> 00:37:33.980 align:middle line:84% I'm thinking about the staff itself. 00:37:33.980 --> 00:37:36.620 align:middle line:84% It's not a usual clef for the violin. 00:37:36.620 --> 00:37:40.860 align:middle line:84% No, violin in percussion clef with four lines. 00:37:40.860 --> 00:37:42.780 align:middle line:84% What do you think those four lines represent? 00:37:42.780 --> 00:37:44.210 align:middle line:84% What does the violin have four of? 00:37:44.210 --> 00:37:44.960 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Strings. 00:37:44.960 --> 00:37:46.043 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Strings. 00:37:46.043 --> 00:37:47.653 align:middle line:90% So just what string to play on. 00:37:47.653 --> 00:37:48.820 align:middle line:90% You'll figure out the notes. 00:37:48.820 --> 00:37:52.190 align:middle line:90% 00:37:52.190 --> 00:37:55.220 align:middle line:84% This is a piece by Brian Ferneyhough, part 00:37:55.220 --> 00:37:59.340 align:middle line:84% of a compositional group called New Complexity, which, 00:37:59.340 --> 00:38:01.420 align:middle line:84% if we look just at the first measure, 00:38:01.420 --> 00:38:04.650 align:middle line:84% there's almost nothing that violates common Western music 00:38:04.650 --> 00:38:07.780 align:middle line:84% notation principles that we learn in our theory classes, 00:38:07.780 --> 00:38:09.610 align:middle line:84% but they tend to take it to the extreme. 00:38:09.610 --> 00:38:12.400 align:middle line:84% So for instance, the first measure is 2/8, 00:38:12.400 --> 00:38:16.390 align:middle line:84% where we're going to put in place of four-- 00:38:16.390 --> 00:38:16.890 align:middle line:90% what? 00:38:16.890 --> 00:38:20.520 align:middle line:84% The 4/16th notes of 2/8, we'll put 7/16th notes in. 00:38:20.520 --> 00:38:22.980 align:middle line:84% Within that, for most of these, we're 00:38:22.980 --> 00:38:26.670 align:middle line:84% going to put 21 30 second notes in the place of the first 20 00:38:26.670 --> 00:38:27.510 align:middle line:90% of them, or 24. 00:38:27.510 --> 00:38:29.580 align:middle line:84% And then within that, we can have triplets 00:38:29.580 --> 00:38:33.580 align:middle line:84% so that tuplets can be nested almost indefinitely. 00:38:33.580 --> 00:38:36.030 align:middle line:84% And there's no reason why our time signatures 00:38:36.030 --> 00:38:38.100 align:middle line:90% have to be powers of 2. 00:38:38.100 --> 00:38:40.060 align:middle line:84% So people are playing with things a lot. 00:38:40.060 --> 00:38:43.450 align:middle line:84% OK, Professor, stop talking about the weird music. 00:38:43.450 --> 00:38:46.050 align:middle line:90% This is all strange new music. 00:38:46.050 --> 00:38:48.630 align:middle line:84% Nobody in the great past like Mozart 00:38:48.630 --> 00:38:50.770 align:middle line:90% would do things like this. 00:38:50.770 --> 00:38:52.290 align:middle line:90% We go back to Mozart. 00:38:52.290 --> 00:38:55.790 align:middle line:84% This is, again, Don Giovanni, the end of the first act. 00:38:55.790 --> 00:38:57.650 align:middle line:84% Very cool moment if you don't know. 00:38:57.650 --> 00:39:00.950 align:middle line:84% The opera, they go to a very, very rich ball, 00:39:00.950 --> 00:39:04.010 align:middle line:84% and it's kind of like going to a club today 00:39:04.010 --> 00:39:07.820 align:middle line:84% with multiple rooms and multiple people, 00:39:07.820 --> 00:39:09.390 align:middle line:90% DJs, or whatever, doing things. 00:39:09.390 --> 00:39:13.910 align:middle line:84% And so here at this big ball, we're going to have in one room 00:39:13.910 --> 00:39:17.970 align:middle line:84% in 3/4, a stately minuet for the upper classes, 00:39:17.970 --> 00:39:20.100 align:middle line:90% like the 3/4 dances at the time. 00:39:20.100 --> 00:39:23.330 align:middle line:84% And then in another room, we're going to have a dance in 2/4 00:39:23.330 --> 00:39:26.280 align:middle line:84% for the middle class because they like those things. 00:39:26.280 --> 00:39:29.750 align:middle line:84% And then for the farmers and things, we're going to have-- 00:39:29.750 --> 00:39:35.570 align:middle line:84% they like their triple time 3/8, 6/8 dances all together 00:39:35.570 --> 00:39:39.230 align:middle line:90% at the same time, the bar lines. 00:39:39.230 --> 00:39:42.990 align:middle line:84% When you say, well, let's start at measure 22, 00:39:42.990 --> 00:39:46.590 align:middle line:84% you go I'm sorry, my measure 22 or her measure 22? 00:39:46.590 --> 00:39:50.090 align:middle line:84% Because you don't have a concept that measures-- 00:39:50.090 --> 00:39:51.226 align:middle line:90% are universal. 00:39:51.226 --> 00:39:56.310 align:middle line:90% 00:39:56.310 --> 00:40:00.706 align:middle line:84% I think this is-- yeah, this is Ravel or Debussy. 00:40:00.706 --> 00:40:03.690 align:middle line:84% I think it's Debussy, La danse de Puck. 00:40:03.690 --> 00:40:05.440 align:middle line:90% Very, very common. 00:40:05.440 --> 00:40:06.850 align:middle line:90% Everything looks great. 00:40:06.850 --> 00:40:10.770 align:middle line:90% Everything looks great until-- 00:40:10.770 --> 00:40:11.690 align:middle line:90% what does that mean? 00:40:11.690 --> 00:40:14.820 align:middle line:90% 00:40:14.820 --> 00:40:16.990 align:middle line:84% We're in treble clef and treble clef, 00:40:16.990 --> 00:40:21.880 align:middle line:84% but we have a bass clef just for this one note. 00:40:21.880 --> 00:40:22.960 align:middle line:90% Does it also go here? 00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:23.460 align:middle line:90% No. 00:40:23.460 --> 00:40:27.070 align:middle line:84% You can tell what this is, what that means. 00:40:27.070 --> 00:40:30.810 align:middle line:84% Just better not to write a whole other staff just for one 00:40:30.810 --> 00:40:35.010 align:middle line:84% note, but you can have two clefs simultaneously 00:40:35.010 --> 00:40:37.920 align:middle line:90% on the same staff. 00:40:37.920 --> 00:40:40.500 align:middle line:84% There are examples from Bach of two time 00:40:40.500 --> 00:40:42.840 align:middle line:84% signatures in the same staff or changing 00:40:42.840 --> 00:40:44.800 align:middle line:90% time signatures mid measure. 00:40:44.800 --> 00:40:46.150 align:middle line:90% And what does that mean? 00:40:46.150 --> 00:40:49.470 align:middle line:84% So almost every composer has pushed the limits 00:40:49.470 --> 00:40:54.010 align:middle line:84% in some ways of conventional music notation. 00:40:54.010 --> 00:40:56.330 align:middle line:84% Jump back to Clara Schumann one more time. 00:40:56.330 --> 00:40:59.450 align:middle line:84% There are certain things that might be very obvious to us, 00:40:59.450 --> 00:41:03.220 align:middle line:84% but they can be very difficult for encoding in such a way 00:41:03.220 --> 00:41:06.100 align:middle line:84% that it's completely unambiguous for a device 00:41:06.100 --> 00:41:11.500 align:middle line:84% as stupid as a computer, such as, where in the measure 00:41:11.500 --> 00:41:12.555 align:middle line:90% does this begin? 00:41:12.555 --> 00:41:15.640 align:middle line:90% 00:41:15.640 --> 00:41:17.060 align:middle line:90% You all are musicians. 00:41:17.060 --> 00:41:23.750 align:middle line:84% You all know that this line is continuing up to here, 00:41:23.750 --> 00:41:28.300 align:middle line:84% and that's why there's something empty here and empty here. 00:41:28.300 --> 00:41:31.840 align:middle line:84% But how would you teach a computer 00:41:31.840 --> 00:41:35.290 align:middle line:84% to make that kind of abstraction, 00:41:35.290 --> 00:41:38.260 align:middle line:84% that lines can move from staff to staff 00:41:38.260 --> 00:41:43.150 align:middle line:84% and therefore don't need to be filled in? 00:41:43.150 --> 00:41:47.620 align:middle line:84% So any questions on this-- sorry-- on any of these things 00:41:47.620 --> 00:41:48.738 align:middle line:90% or any discussion points. 00:41:48.738 --> 00:41:50.030 align:middle line:90% And Adam, we'll start with you. 00:41:50.030 --> 00:41:51.590 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: What is that rest supposed to mean right there? 00:41:51.590 --> 00:41:53.478 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: What is this rest? 00:41:53.478 --> 00:41:55.520 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Is at the beginning of the [INAUDIBLE]. 00:41:55.520 --> 00:41:57.680 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Oh, this one here. 00:41:57.680 --> 00:42:01.710 align:middle line:84% This is because your professor did not print a PDF 00:42:01.710 --> 00:42:05.970 align:middle line:84% but took a really fast screenshot from finale. 00:42:05.970 --> 00:42:09.920 align:middle line:84% And so it's even a new thing, that-- 00:42:09.920 --> 00:42:11.100 align:middle line:90% our user interface. 00:42:11.100 --> 00:42:13.790 align:middle line:84% So this is the user interface that says, 00:42:13.790 --> 00:42:18.380 align:middle line:84% this is a hidden rest until we get to this note that 00:42:18.380 --> 00:42:20.280 align:middle line:90% has to be added onto here. 00:42:20.280 --> 00:42:21.210 align:middle line:90% Super great. 00:42:21.210 --> 00:42:22.650 align:middle line:90% No one's ever seen that. 00:42:22.650 --> 00:42:24.740 align:middle line:84% But yes, the user interfaces also 00:42:24.740 --> 00:42:29.450 align:middle line:84% end up being part of our conception of notation today. 00:42:29.450 --> 00:42:31.340 align:middle line:90% Good. 00:42:31.340 --> 00:42:33.325 align:middle line:90% Other points or-- 00:42:33.325 --> 00:42:38.180 align:middle line:90% 00:42:38.180 --> 00:42:41.750 align:middle line:84% So where does common Western music notation end 00:42:41.750 --> 00:42:43.230 align:middle line:90% and where does other things go? 00:42:43.230 --> 00:42:49.540 align:middle line:84% And I'm sorry-- and what might we 00:42:49.540 --> 00:42:53.210 align:middle line:84% want to represent that's not common Western music notation? 00:42:53.210 --> 00:42:56.540 align:middle line:84% So this is a type of thing I work on from time to time. 00:42:56.540 --> 00:43:00.370 align:middle line:84% This is church music from, I think, 00:43:00.370 --> 00:43:04.000 align:middle line:90% the early 17th century or late-- 00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:06.940 align:middle line:84% sometime, around late 17th century maybe. 00:43:06.940 --> 00:43:12.700 align:middle line:84% And looks very much like ours, but just the note shapes 00:43:12.700 --> 00:43:14.000 align:middle line:90% are a little bit different. 00:43:14.000 --> 00:43:19.130 align:middle line:84% Common Western music notation, just with a little twist, maybe. 00:43:19.130 --> 00:43:22.960 align:middle line:84% Not sure, but it's not too far off. 00:43:22.960 --> 00:43:26.240 align:middle line:84% All of our notation goes back and back and back in time, 00:43:26.240 --> 00:43:29.180 align:middle line:84% or it has come from things, decisions we made before. 00:43:29.180 --> 00:43:31.850 align:middle line:84% Let's start with-- this is Western music notation. 00:43:31.850 --> 00:43:36.400 align:middle line:84% This is the first music notation of Western Europe 00:43:36.400 --> 00:43:38.710 align:middle line:90% from about the ninth century. 00:43:38.710 --> 00:43:43.930 align:middle line:84% This is the chant for the mass on Christmas Day. 00:43:43.930 --> 00:43:47.240 align:middle line:84% And what these things do is they tell you 00:43:47.240 --> 00:43:52.280 align:middle line:84% how many notes there are and if they go, in this case, 1, 2, 3. 00:43:52.280 --> 00:43:56.388 align:middle line:84% And they go-- start low, go high, come back down, 00:43:56.388 --> 00:43:57.680 align:middle line:90% about the same, about the same. 00:43:57.680 --> 00:43:59.570 align:middle line:90% Higher note, same thing. 00:43:59.570 --> 00:44:01.110 align:middle line:90% We have up, down. 00:44:01.110 --> 00:44:02.580 align:middle line:90% Most of these go up and down. 00:44:02.580 --> 00:44:07.790 align:middle line:84% Here we have 1, 2, 3 notes going down, three notes going down. 00:44:07.790 --> 00:44:11.150 align:middle line:90% The height means nothing. 00:44:11.150 --> 00:44:13.661 align:middle line:90% It is music. 00:44:13.661 --> 00:44:17.600 align:middle line:84% Might we want to represent this and how might we want to? 00:44:17.600 --> 00:44:20.120 align:middle line:84% And some of the things people are always 00:44:20.120 --> 00:44:23.060 align:middle line:84% wondering, we have pages and pages and pages, 00:44:23.060 --> 00:44:26.090 align:middle line:84% thousands of pages of music in this notation. 00:44:26.090 --> 00:44:29.870 align:middle line:84% How was it helpful for somebody to know how many notes to sing 00:44:29.870 --> 00:44:34.564 align:middle line:84% and whether they go up and down but not what notes they are? 00:44:34.564 --> 00:44:38.090 align:middle line:84% So that's something a lot of people got. 00:44:38.090 --> 00:44:40.340 align:middle line:90% Wish we had met yesterday. 00:44:40.340 --> 00:44:42.050 align:middle line:84% Would be a little bit more obvious. 00:44:42.050 --> 00:44:48.165 align:middle line:84% This is a piece from around 1420 about Cordier's piece, 00:44:48.165 --> 00:44:52.080 align:middle line:84% Belle, Bonne, Sage, in the shape of a heart. 00:44:52.080 --> 00:44:56.590 align:middle line:84% There's something about the shape of the piece, 00:44:56.590 --> 00:44:59.190 align:middle line:84% is that something we want to represent when we're 00:44:59.190 --> 00:45:01.350 align:middle line:90% making our representations. 00:45:01.350 --> 00:45:03.750 align:middle line:84% About the same period, it's a piece 00:45:03.750 --> 00:45:06.880 align:middle line:84% in the shape, instead of a heart, in the shape of a harp-- 00:45:06.880 --> 00:45:10.470 align:middle line:84% hard to say-- where it's basically 00:45:10.470 --> 00:45:13.360 align:middle line:84% the music notation of its time, except that it's sideways. 00:45:13.360 --> 00:45:16.690 align:middle line:84% But we're writing it on the strings, 00:45:16.690 --> 00:45:18.593 align:middle line:84% so we need twice as many strings, 00:45:18.593 --> 00:45:20.343 align:middle line:84% and we don't write anything on the spaces. 00:45:20.343 --> 00:45:23.850 align:middle line:90% 00:45:23.850 --> 00:45:27.120 align:middle line:84% Getting back to more modern music, some of the things 00:45:27.120 --> 00:45:31.080 align:middle line:84% that definitely violate almost every principle 00:45:31.080 --> 00:45:33.910 align:middle line:84% of common Western music notation but use some of them. 00:45:33.910 --> 00:45:37.170 align:middle line:84% This is a Cornelius Cardew piece treatise, 00:45:37.170 --> 00:45:39.850 align:middle line:84% which uses a lot of notational symbols, 00:45:39.850 --> 00:45:45.430 align:middle line:84% a lot of things that look like music notation, 00:45:45.430 --> 00:45:47.680 align:middle line:84% but it's up to you to interpret them. 00:45:47.680 --> 00:45:49.400 align:middle line:90% Done differently. 00:45:49.400 --> 00:45:53.500 align:middle line:84% Every group performs this quite differently. 00:45:53.500 --> 00:45:56.350 align:middle line:84% If you're going to have a graphical score where 00:45:56.350 --> 00:45:59.840 align:middle line:84% you use music notation elements but they don't mean anything, 00:45:59.840 --> 00:46:02.440 align:middle line:84% maybe a musical score doesn't necessarily 00:46:02.440 --> 00:46:05.240 align:middle line:84% need to have any elements at all. 00:46:05.240 --> 00:46:08.680 align:middle line:84% Earl Brown's folio from December-- 00:46:08.680 --> 00:46:10.490 align:middle line:90% yeah, December, what is it? 00:46:10.490 --> 00:46:15.970 align:middle line:90% 1962. 00:46:15.970 --> 00:46:21.020 align:middle line:84% That's all things that have come out of the West, Japan, China, 00:46:21.020 --> 00:46:22.360 align:middle line:90% every-- 00:46:22.360 --> 00:46:24.700 align:middle line:84% Many cultures around the world have 00:46:24.700 --> 00:46:29.860 align:middle line:84% developed their own notational systems, 00:46:29.860 --> 00:46:31.960 align:middle line:84% and then there are notational systems 00:46:31.960 --> 00:46:35.620 align:middle line:84% that have been made to try to study 00:46:35.620 --> 00:46:40.060 align:middle line:84% the physicality, in this case, of inuit throat songs of-- 00:46:40.060 --> 00:46:44.640 align:middle line:84% without using anything that might have the cultural baggage 00:46:44.640 --> 00:46:46.090 align:middle line:90% of Western traditions. 00:46:46.090 --> 00:46:53.740 align:middle line:84% So we start notating the spectrograms. 00:46:53.740 --> 00:46:55.990 align:middle line:84% Is that a form of music notation? 00:46:55.990 --> 00:47:04.650 align:middle line:84% And if so, how would we do that, one more of tablature? 00:47:04.650 --> 00:47:07.830 align:middle line:84% Just giving a sense of some of the notations 00:47:07.830 --> 00:47:09.910 align:middle line:84% that might be happening in the world. 00:47:09.910 --> 00:47:16.530 align:middle line:84% In addition to notations that have been sort of created 00:47:16.530 --> 00:47:20.040 align:middle line:84% over time by people, there are invented 00:47:20.040 --> 00:47:21.900 align:middle line:84% notations that tend to-- that have been 00:47:21.900 --> 00:47:24.250 align:middle line:90% found to be very useful times. 00:47:24.250 --> 00:47:27.660 align:middle line:84% This is something called TUBS, if anybody has taken-- the Time 00:47:27.660 --> 00:47:29.110 align:middle line:90% Unit Box System. 00:47:29.110 --> 00:47:31.510 align:middle line:84% I think it was invented around the 1970s. 00:47:31.510 --> 00:47:34.180 align:middle line:84% I'll look up the exact time later, 00:47:34.180 --> 00:47:38.250 align:middle line:84% but the notion is kind of like I did with the bits, things 00:47:38.250 --> 00:47:43.840 align:middle line:84% that you can specify what the smallest tick you want to notate 00:47:43.840 --> 00:47:47.420 align:middle line:84% is and specify when somebody plays. 00:47:47.420 --> 00:47:50.530 align:middle line:84% Or if you need to specify different things they 00:47:50.530 --> 00:47:52.460 align:middle line:84% might play, you can put that in the box. 00:47:52.460 --> 00:47:57.760 align:middle line:84% This has become a very useful and used system, especially 00:47:57.760 --> 00:48:00.885 align:middle line:84% in the notation of West African music. 00:48:00.885 --> 00:48:03.940 align:middle line:90% 00:48:03.940 --> 00:48:06.850 align:middle line:84% Lots of notational system representations 00:48:06.850 --> 00:48:10.850 align:middle line:84% have been created, many of which have not been successful. 00:48:10.850 --> 00:48:13.790 align:middle line:84% This is the turntablist notation system, 00:48:13.790 --> 00:48:17.260 align:middle line:84% because there's nothing that's greater and cooler than spinning 00:48:17.260 --> 00:48:19.760 align:middle line:84% at a bar while reading music notation. 00:48:19.760 --> 00:48:23.500 align:middle line:84% But it is a way of notating what somebody 00:48:23.500 --> 00:48:28.000 align:middle line:90% did for reproduction later. 00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:31.670 align:middle line:84% Let me see if my sound is working before doing this. 00:48:31.670 --> 00:48:32.930 align:middle line:90% I'll be very disappointing. 00:48:32.930 --> 00:48:34.900 align:middle line:84% I should have checked that ahead of time. 00:48:34.900 --> 00:48:35.910 align:middle line:90% Give me one second. 00:48:35.910 --> 00:48:37.901 align:middle line:90% [ROCK MUSIC] Grab it. 00:48:37.901 --> 00:48:39.890 align:middle line:90% Grab it. 00:48:39.890 --> 00:48:44.240 align:middle line:90% Grab it, grab it, grab it. 00:48:44.240 --> 00:48:47.630 align:middle line:90% Grab it, grab, grab it. 00:48:47.630 --> 00:48:48.390 align:middle line:90% What is it? 00:48:48.390 --> 00:49:01.121 align:middle line:90% 00:49:01.121 --> 00:49:04.070 align:middle line:84% But not all notation and representational systems 00:49:04.070 --> 00:49:05.550 align:middle line:90% end up being very successful. 00:49:05.550 --> 00:49:06.720 align:middle line:90% I think this is super cool. 00:49:06.720 --> 00:49:08.640 align:middle line:84% I don't know why I made a joke about it. 00:49:08.640 --> 00:49:11.340 align:middle line:90% I think it's really innovative. 00:49:11.340 --> 00:49:15.570 align:middle line:84% The website has been down for about six years now, 00:49:15.570 --> 00:49:21.080 align:middle line:90% so I assume it did not take off. 00:49:21.080 --> 00:49:26.180 align:middle line:84% One of the earliest mechanical notational representation 00:49:26.180 --> 00:49:28.850 align:middle line:84% systems that's still very influential 00:49:28.850 --> 00:49:31.190 align:middle line:84% is the player piano roll, or we just 00:49:31.190 --> 00:49:33.500 align:middle line:84% call it the piano roll now, where 00:49:33.500 --> 00:49:39.390 align:middle line:84% the actual punching of the notes on the staves 00:49:39.390 --> 00:49:43.320 align:middle line:84% becomes a very important part of how-- 00:49:43.320 --> 00:49:45.610 align:middle line:90% well, it encodes the notes. 00:49:45.610 --> 00:49:48.600 align:middle line:84% So we get, again, the same kinds of notions 00:49:48.600 --> 00:49:52.630 align:middle line:84% of up and down, the side and side, for height, 00:49:52.630 --> 00:49:55.330 align:middle line:90% I guess, height turned sideways. 00:49:55.330 --> 00:49:59.680 align:middle line:84% And as the roll progresses, there's a cursor-- 00:49:59.680 --> 00:50:01.090 align:middle line:90% there's a technical name for it. 00:50:01.090 --> 00:50:02.910 align:middle line:84% I can't remember it in piano rolls-- 00:50:02.910 --> 00:50:08.160 align:middle line:84% that is reading at that moment what should be happening 00:50:08.160 --> 00:50:10.000 align:middle line:84% or what is happening at that moment. 00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:12.810 align:middle line:84% There are other ways of controlling-- usually 00:50:12.810 --> 00:50:15.570 align:middle line:84% on the side what the dynamic of the entire piano 00:50:15.570 --> 00:50:18.870 align:middle line:84% is, but usually not of encoding what 00:50:18.870 --> 00:50:22.060 align:middle line:84% the dynamic of any individual note is. 00:50:22.060 --> 00:50:24.870 align:middle line:84% And quite often, written along the side, 00:50:24.870 --> 00:50:27.730 align:middle line:84% there will be the lyrics of the song written, 00:50:27.730 --> 00:50:29.970 align:middle line:84% kind of like when you're driving and it 00:50:29.970 --> 00:50:36.210 align:middle line:84% says like, slow, pedestrian crossing, read upside down, 00:50:36.210 --> 00:50:37.603 align:middle line:84% so you learn to read it that way. 00:50:37.603 --> 00:50:40.020 align:middle line:84% So that you can sing along with what the piano is playing. 00:50:40.020 --> 00:50:43.010 align:middle line:90% Very cool multimedia. 00:50:43.010 --> 00:50:46.730 align:middle line:84% Questions about things going forward or discussion 00:50:46.730 --> 00:50:48.560 align:middle line:84% or just things that you're thinking about, 00:50:48.560 --> 00:50:50.685 align:middle line:84% because you're going to be thinking about something 00:50:50.685 --> 00:50:55.368 align:middle line:84% to represent that isn't common Western music notation 00:50:55.368 --> 00:50:56.160 align:middle line:90% over the next week. 00:50:56.160 --> 00:50:56.690 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Adam. 00:50:56.690 --> 00:50:59.390 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: The abstract painting that you showed at the notes, 00:50:59.390 --> 00:51:01.432 align:middle line:84% it reminds me a bit of line rider. 00:51:01.432 --> 00:51:02.640 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Line rider. 00:51:02.640 --> 00:51:06.920 align:middle line:84% Oh, yes, the game where you're riding on the-- you 00:51:06.920 --> 00:51:08.630 align:middle line:84% draw all the things and then you get 00:51:08.630 --> 00:51:13.520 align:middle line:84% to see how the motorcycle jumps around, is that one? 00:51:13.520 --> 00:51:16.310 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Some people have done composition in which line 00:51:16.310 --> 00:51:19.350 align:middle line:84% rider motions are synced to a piece of classical music. 00:51:19.350 --> 00:51:21.320 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Very very, very cool. 00:51:21.320 --> 00:51:22.340 align:middle line:90% Nice. 00:51:22.340 --> 00:51:23.315 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:51:23.315 --> 00:51:24.690 align:middle line:84% I want to see that at some point. 00:51:24.690 --> 00:51:25.190 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:51:25.190 --> 00:51:29.060 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Is this just kind of like a big music box? 00:51:29.060 --> 00:51:32.270 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: It is, but often, something 00:51:32.270 --> 00:51:34.830 align:middle line:84% that you could also attach to your home piano 00:51:34.830 --> 00:51:38.730 align:middle line:84% so that you have your home piano early on, and then later, 00:51:38.730 --> 00:51:39.730 align:middle line:90% they become-- 00:51:39.730 --> 00:51:42.100 align:middle line:84% or I might have my chronology reversed, 00:51:42.100 --> 00:51:48.810 align:middle line:84% but then they become things that become standalone objects. 00:51:48.810 --> 00:51:52.170 align:middle line:84% But there were things that allowed people 00:51:52.170 --> 00:51:56.820 align:middle line:84% to feel more like they were playing the piano by having you 00:51:56.820 --> 00:51:59.790 align:middle line:84% pedal it and control the volume so that you could do-- 00:51:59.790 --> 00:52:02.370 align:middle line:84% and control certain levels of softness, kind 00:52:02.370 --> 00:52:05.440 align:middle line:84% of like using a Betty Crocker bake mix to bake your cake. 00:52:05.440 --> 00:52:06.960 align:middle line:84% You get a feeling that you really 00:52:06.960 --> 00:52:12.030 align:middle line:84% did something to make the music but not the really hard parts. 00:52:12.030 --> 00:52:14.230 align:middle line:90% Yeah, cool. 00:52:14.230 --> 00:52:15.370 align:middle line:90% These are interesting. 00:52:15.370 --> 00:52:18.310 align:middle line:84% We have some of these over at the Lewis Music Library, 00:52:18.310 --> 00:52:21.300 align:middle line:84% which I'm going to be talking more about later as we 00:52:21.300 --> 00:52:23.440 align:middle line:90% go into representation things. 00:52:23.440 --> 00:52:26.850 align:middle line:84% But the Lewis Music Library, just over here, 00:52:26.850 --> 00:52:31.350 align:middle line:84% has put as one of its long-term visions 00:52:31.350 --> 00:52:35.650 align:middle line:84% to try to get all of the different technologies that 00:52:35.650 --> 00:52:39.890 align:middle line:84% have been used to encode and playback music over time. 00:52:39.890 --> 00:52:42.400 align:middle line:84% So there's wax cylinders and piano rolls 00:52:42.400 --> 00:52:45.100 align:middle line:84% and stuff and reel to reels and trying 00:52:45.100 --> 00:52:47.950 align:middle line:84% to make it so that there's some that are very valuable 00:52:47.950 --> 00:52:51.410 align:middle line:84% and need to be preserved and some that we can just play with. 00:52:51.410 --> 00:52:54.680 align:middle line:84% And wouldn't want to have a problem, 00:52:54.680 --> 00:52:57.880 align:middle line:84% but if you did end up breaking the real tape, it's OK. 00:52:57.880 --> 00:53:01.120 align:middle line:90% We got more. 00:53:01.120 --> 00:53:04.430 align:middle line:84% So definitely, if you haven't been to Lewis Music Library, 00:53:04.430 --> 00:53:07.240 align:middle line:90% check out what they have there. 00:53:07.240 --> 00:53:09.920 align:middle line:84% They also have a theremin if you want to play with that. 00:53:09.920 --> 00:53:12.670 align:middle line:84% And you might be using them at the end of the semester when 00:53:12.670 --> 00:53:16.240 align:middle line:84% we make some videos because they have a nice podcast video 00:53:16.240 --> 00:53:20.960 align:middle line:84% recording space for editing there. 00:53:20.960 --> 00:53:24.970 align:middle line:84% So we've been thinking a lot about the common Western music 00:53:24.970 --> 00:53:27.530 align:middle line:90% notation in general terms. 00:53:27.530 --> 00:53:30.150 align:middle line:84% Now I want to think about a little bit computer 00:53:30.150 --> 00:53:31.090 align:middle line:90% representations. 00:53:31.090 --> 00:53:34.740 align:middle line:84% I don't why I didn't write the word computer representations. 00:53:34.740 --> 00:53:37.020 align:middle line:84% And again, these are slides that I'm 00:53:37.020 --> 00:53:40.980 align:middle line:84% borrowing from a composition package named Belle, Bonne, 00:53:40.980 --> 00:53:41.500 align:middle line:90% Sage. 00:53:41.500 --> 00:53:44.580 align:middle line:84% Exactly, they're named after that piece in the shape 00:53:44.580 --> 00:53:46.450 align:middle line:90% of the heart things. 00:53:46.450 --> 00:53:50.680 align:middle line:84% So we talked about this extremely fast on day one, 00:53:50.680 --> 00:53:53.730 align:middle line:84% but I want to slow down a little bit more. 00:53:53.730 --> 00:53:58.320 align:middle line:84% The two main ways that people have chosen generally 00:53:58.320 --> 00:54:01.800 align:middle line:84% to encode common Western music notation for the computer 00:54:01.800 --> 00:54:08.500 align:middle line:84% are in terms of the container based thing, the box based. 00:54:08.500 --> 00:54:13.680 align:middle line:84% So you have a big box that might be the whole score, some kind 00:54:13.680 --> 00:54:18.210 align:middle line:84% of a thing, and then you have smaller boxes that 00:54:18.210 --> 00:54:19.410 align:middle line:90% might be parts. 00:54:19.410 --> 00:54:21.700 align:middle line:90% Within those you have measures. 00:54:21.700 --> 00:54:25.980 align:middle line:84% And quite often, voices become things inside that 00:54:25.980 --> 00:54:29.830 align:middle line:84% and then going all the way down to notes. 00:54:29.830 --> 00:54:32.870 align:middle line:90% So this representation. 00:54:32.870 --> 00:54:37.120 align:middle line:84% The other second one that is very common 00:54:37.120 --> 00:54:41.090 align:middle line:84% is the time sliced-based container. 00:54:41.090 --> 00:54:45.520 align:middle line:84% So everything that happens at a certain moment in musical time 00:54:45.520 --> 00:54:47.390 align:middle line:90% is in its own slot. 00:54:47.390 --> 00:54:54.100 align:middle line:84% Some people would not put these in three different slots 00:54:54.100 --> 00:54:55.270 align:middle line:90% because-- 00:54:55.270 --> 00:54:57.370 align:middle line:84% or these four things are in four different slots 00:54:57.370 --> 00:55:02.810 align:middle line:84% because all of these things happen musically at time 0. 00:55:02.810 --> 00:55:09.610 align:middle line:84% The clef-- there is no note or anything that-- 00:55:09.610 --> 00:55:13.180 align:middle line:84% there's no conceptual notion that the clef comes 00:55:13.180 --> 00:55:15.010 align:middle line:84% first and then the time signature-- 00:55:15.010 --> 00:55:17.510 align:middle line:84% then the key signature comes, then the time signature comes, 00:55:17.510 --> 00:55:19.360 align:middle line:84% then the first note, except that we 00:55:19.360 --> 00:55:21.740 align:middle line:84% have to write them in certain order on notation, 00:55:21.740 --> 00:55:27.620 align:middle line:84% but all of them are present at the very beginning of the score. 00:55:27.620 --> 00:55:31.340 align:middle line:84% So I want to start talking about some of the reasons 00:55:31.340 --> 00:55:33.180 align:middle line:84% why you might want to use one of these 00:55:33.180 --> 00:55:35.450 align:middle line:90% and why they're all bad choices. 00:55:35.450 --> 00:55:36.950 align:middle line:84% Every choice you make is going to be 00:55:36.950 --> 00:55:38.870 align:middle line:90% a bad choice at some point. 00:55:38.870 --> 00:55:43.760 align:middle line:84% So thinking about the part-based representation, 00:55:43.760 --> 00:55:46.800 align:middle line:84% you can immediately see certain problems. 00:55:46.800 --> 00:55:51.020 align:middle line:84% Anyone know an ossia staff, what you use that for? 00:55:51.020 --> 00:55:52.340 align:middle line:90% So let me explain that. 00:55:52.340 --> 00:55:54.360 align:middle line:84% So Adam, I think we've been really great, 00:55:54.360 --> 00:55:58.850 align:middle line:84% but I want to hear a few more voices right now. 00:55:58.850 --> 00:56:01.500 align:middle line:84% Anyone ever heard that term, ossia staff? 00:56:01.500 --> 00:56:05.180 align:middle line:90% Let's see, then say, no. 00:56:05.180 --> 00:56:06.223 align:middle line:90% It's a little staff-- 00:56:06.223 --> 00:56:09.390 align:middle line:90% 00:56:09.390 --> 00:56:11.760 align:middle line:84% pianists, violinists see it quite often, 00:56:11.760 --> 00:56:13.470 align:middle line:84% especially when you're starting-- 00:56:13.470 --> 00:56:16.910 align:middle line:84% when you're playing a concerto sometimes in a really hard part. 00:56:16.910 --> 00:56:17.420 align:middle line:90% No. 00:56:17.420 --> 00:56:18.350 align:middle line:90% Yeah, Hannah. 00:56:18.350 --> 00:56:19.820 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: You said something about an alternative way 00:56:19.820 --> 00:56:20.600 align:middle line:90% to play that measure? 00:56:20.600 --> 00:56:22.517 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yes, it's an alternative way 00:56:22.517 --> 00:56:23.840 align:middle line:90% to play that measure. 00:56:23.840 --> 00:56:25.890 align:middle line:84% This is a hypothetical one because I 00:56:25.890 --> 00:56:28.440 align:middle line:84% don't think that that would ever be an alternative way 00:56:28.440 --> 00:56:29.200 align:middle line:90% to play this. 00:56:29.200 --> 00:56:32.643 align:middle line:84% But quite often, if it goes too high for some people, 00:56:32.643 --> 00:56:34.060 align:middle line:84% especially for singers-- actually, 00:56:34.060 --> 00:56:37.740 align:middle line:84% singers see ossias a lot, because if something's not 00:56:37.740 --> 00:56:39.210 align:middle line:84% in your voice range, some things, 00:56:39.210 --> 00:56:41.610 align:middle line:90% they'll write different part. 00:56:41.610 --> 00:56:44.290 align:middle line:84% So you have a staff that just appears for a minute. 00:56:44.290 --> 00:56:48.360 align:middle line:84% We said that our top level thing might be the parts. 00:56:48.360 --> 00:56:50.440 align:middle line:84% Beyond that, sometimes if we're a piano thing, 00:56:50.440 --> 00:56:54.540 align:middle line:84% you might have the part and then staff one and staff two, 00:56:54.540 --> 00:56:57.270 align:middle line:84% but here we have a staff that just comes up. 00:56:57.270 --> 00:57:00.900 align:middle line:84% And if everything is in a box and one of the lowest boxes 00:57:00.900 --> 00:57:05.913 align:middle line:84% is a measure, you have these problems. 00:57:05.913 --> 00:57:08.520 align:middle line:90% 00:57:08.520 --> 00:57:12.340 align:middle line:84% What do you do when you want to say-- if everything's in a box, 00:57:12.340 --> 00:57:15.160 align:middle line:84% that a crescendo goes from the beginning to the next, 00:57:15.160 --> 00:57:18.280 align:middle line:84% how might you solve some of that computationally? 00:57:18.280 --> 00:57:21.510 align:middle line:90% 00:57:21.510 --> 00:57:23.410 align:middle line:84% When everything has to be in a box. 00:57:23.410 --> 00:57:26.280 align:middle line:84% And think of a box as like an array or a tuple. 00:57:26.280 --> 00:57:28.188 align:middle line:90% Yeah, go ahead. 00:57:28.188 --> 00:57:30.480 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Have like, a flag start something in one box, 00:57:30.480 --> 00:57:31.942 align:middle line:84% and then if I close it in another. 00:57:31.942 --> 00:57:32.900 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:57:32.900 --> 00:57:35.420 align:middle line:84% So everything could have a start and an end, 00:57:35.420 --> 00:57:36.510 align:middle line:90% or certain things might. 00:57:36.510 --> 00:57:39.540 align:middle line:84% Maybe a note doesn't need to have a start and end, 00:57:39.540 --> 00:57:43.050 align:middle line:84% but you might have a flag for starts and ends. 00:57:43.050 --> 00:57:45.890 align:middle line:84% So there are some ways around it. 00:57:45.890 --> 00:57:47.930 align:middle line:90% Other possibilities? 00:57:47.930 --> 00:57:49.220 align:middle line:90% Maybe? 00:57:49.220 --> 00:57:50.230 align:middle line:90% Yeah, go ahead. 00:57:50.230 --> 00:57:52.230 align:middle line:84% AUDIENCE: Maybe just put them a higher level up. 00:57:52.230 --> 00:57:54.060 align:middle line:84% Like they don't belong inside measures. 00:57:54.060 --> 00:57:55.352 align:middle line:90% Maybe they belong inside parts. 00:57:55.352 --> 00:57:56.310 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: Yeah. 00:57:56.310 --> 00:57:57.810 align:middle line:90% So you move up one level. 00:57:57.810 --> 00:57:59.360 align:middle line:90% That's great. 00:57:59.360 --> 00:58:03.270 align:middle line:84% When you do that, that works quite often, 00:58:03.270 --> 00:58:06.842 align:middle line:84% but then, you have a second problem that comes up 00:58:06.842 --> 00:58:07.800 align:middle line:90% and that-- don't worry. 00:58:07.800 --> 00:58:10.100 align:middle line:84% This problem was going to come up anyhow, 00:58:10.100 --> 00:58:13.530 align:middle line:84% especially once Mozart brings his three bands to the page. 00:58:13.530 --> 00:58:16.460 align:middle line:84% But you have-- maybe here's your part, 00:58:16.460 --> 00:58:20.430 align:middle line:84% and you have your measures and things, 00:58:20.430 --> 00:58:24.240 align:middle line:84% and now you want to elevate the crescendo that 00:58:24.240 --> 00:58:25.750 align:middle line:90% went across two measures. 00:58:25.750 --> 00:58:29.975 align:middle line:84% You want to elevate it up to the next part, the next thing. 00:58:29.975 --> 00:58:33.660 align:middle line:90% 00:58:33.660 --> 00:58:35.800 align:middle line:84% Let's assume that these are some of arrays, 00:58:35.800 --> 00:58:37.360 align:middle line:90% so we're putting commas then. 00:58:37.360 --> 00:58:39.760 align:middle line:90% Then you might have the problem. 00:58:39.760 --> 00:58:42.760 align:middle line:84% Maybe you put it here, maybe you put it here, 00:58:42.760 --> 00:58:46.770 align:middle line:84% but suddenly, the array is no longer sequential. 00:58:46.770 --> 00:58:49.440 align:middle line:84% In other words, that certain things 00:58:49.440 --> 00:58:53.080 align:middle line:84% can appear at points that are out of line. 00:58:53.080 --> 00:58:56.640 align:middle line:84% And so we [INAUDIBLE] call this the forward backwards cursor. 00:58:56.640 --> 00:59:00.090 align:middle line:84% So that we're at a certain point, but we need to look back 00:59:00.090 --> 00:59:02.100 align:middle line:84% or to look forward in order to see 00:59:02.100 --> 00:59:03.700 align:middle line:90% what's happening at that point. 00:59:03.700 --> 00:59:05.497 align:middle line:84% But it's also a very good solution, 00:59:05.497 --> 00:59:07.330 align:middle line:84% and it's something that happens quite often. 00:59:07.330 --> 00:59:09.550 align:middle line:90% So two great solutions. 00:59:09.550 --> 00:59:13.030 align:middle line:84% Any other-- it doesn't even have to be that great. 00:59:13.030 --> 00:59:15.990 align:middle line:84% Those are the two industry most standard ways 00:59:15.990 --> 00:59:17.260 align:middle line:90% of getting around this. 00:59:17.260 --> 00:59:21.580 align:middle line:90% I couldn't plant a better thing. 00:59:21.580 --> 00:59:23.430 align:middle line:90% OK, good. 00:59:23.430 --> 00:59:24.030 align:middle line:90% That's fine. 00:59:24.030 --> 00:59:26.530 align:middle line:84% I should have said those are two of the three great industry 00:59:26.530 --> 00:59:27.988 align:middle line:84% standard ways, and one of you would 00:59:27.988 --> 00:59:31.400 align:middle line:84% have come up with a third way and invented something new. 00:59:31.400 --> 00:59:35.800 align:middle line:84% Never say that there's no more possibilities to MIT student. 00:59:35.800 --> 00:59:37.870 align:middle line:84% Here is one of the problems that we 00:59:37.870 --> 00:59:41.140 align:middle line:84% were talking about this earlier with a time-based system, 00:59:41.140 --> 00:59:47.890 align:middle line:84% the Grace notes, which take up no number of ticks in the time 00:59:47.890 --> 00:59:51.760 align:middle line:84% signature but of course, take up time to play 00:59:51.760 --> 00:59:54.350 align:middle line:90% and take up space on the page. 00:59:54.350 --> 00:59:55.880 align:middle line:90% How are they engraved? 00:59:55.880 --> 01:00:00.190 align:middle line:84% And they end up being one of the great problems of the time 01:00:00.190 --> 01:00:02.050 align:middle line:90% method. 01:00:02.050 --> 01:00:05.930 align:middle line:84% So you could say, hey, I'm great. 01:00:05.930 --> 01:00:08.200 align:middle line:84% I'm not a bagpiper, so I don't use grace notes. 01:00:08.200 --> 01:00:10.400 align:middle line:84% Bagpipers use grace notes all over the time. 01:00:10.400 --> 01:00:12.170 align:middle line:84% So I can do the time-based system. 01:00:12.170 --> 01:00:14.950 align:middle line:84% Or somebody else can say, look, my piece 01:00:14.950 --> 01:00:16.510 align:middle line:84% is forte from the beginning to end. 01:00:16.510 --> 01:00:18.010 align:middle line:84% I'm never going to have a crescendo. 01:00:18.010 --> 01:00:19.950 align:middle line:90% I don't need to worry about-- 01:00:19.950 --> 01:00:21.565 align:middle line:90% I can use the part system. 01:00:21.565 --> 01:00:24.635 align:middle line:90% 01:00:24.635 --> 01:00:26.960 align:middle line:84% One of the things this class is not just-- 01:00:26.960 --> 01:00:29.160 align:middle line:84% is not computational representation, 01:00:29.160 --> 01:00:31.500 align:middle line:84% but it's computational music theory and analysis. 01:00:31.500 --> 01:00:34.310 align:middle line:84% Eventually, we're going to be diving into our representations 01:00:34.310 --> 01:00:37.314 align:middle line:84% and doing musical analysis on them. 01:00:37.314 --> 01:00:41.900 align:middle line:84% And there's certain things that we often like to do. 01:00:41.900 --> 01:00:45.510 align:middle line:84% We said first class, who has written a parallel fifth? 01:00:45.510 --> 01:00:48.320 align:middle line:90% Almost every hand went up. 01:00:48.320 --> 01:00:49.980 align:middle line:84% That's what we call voice leading, 01:00:49.980 --> 01:00:54.830 align:middle line:84% where we're looking at how certain chords or certain voices 01:00:54.830 --> 01:00:58.050 align:middle line:84% at one moment move to something at another. 01:00:58.050 --> 01:01:03.560 align:middle line:84% Anybody have a professor who frowned on this? 01:01:03.560 --> 01:01:05.990 align:middle line:90% Do you know-- yeah-- 01:01:05.990 --> 01:01:10.370 align:middle line:84% overlap, they sometimes call this, where the bottom note has 01:01:10.370 --> 01:01:15.710 align:middle line:84% jumped above the place where the top note had recently vacated. 01:01:15.710 --> 01:01:20.510 align:middle line:84% In certain styles of music, it's not very idiomatic. 01:01:20.510 --> 01:01:24.820 align:middle line:84% Well, let's analyze, how would we find overlap 01:01:24.820 --> 01:01:26.380 align:middle line:90% in the part based-- 01:01:26.380 --> 01:01:30.603 align:middle line:84% in the box system, in the container system? 01:01:30.603 --> 01:01:32.020 align:middle line:84% Well, we'd probably have-- there's 01:01:32.020 --> 01:01:35.010 align:middle line:84% one container for this part or measure, 01:01:35.010 --> 01:01:36.760 align:middle line:84% and then there's going to be one container 01:01:36.760 --> 01:01:38.750 align:middle line:90% for the up stemmed notes. 01:01:38.750 --> 01:01:39.770 align:middle line:90% That's a voice. 01:01:39.770 --> 01:01:43.210 align:middle line:84% One container for the down stem notes. 01:01:43.210 --> 01:01:49.400 align:middle line:84% We need to know if at this moment, at this moment, 01:01:49.400 --> 01:01:53.350 align:middle line:84% this note has crossed over the previous notes 01:01:53.350 --> 01:01:54.560 align:middle line:90% in the other container. 01:01:54.560 --> 01:01:57.770 align:middle line:84% So we have to be able to jump back and forth among containers. 01:01:57.770 --> 01:02:00.880 align:middle line:84% And that, it's not very good to do. 01:02:00.880 --> 01:02:03.260 align:middle line:90% So the time slice. 01:02:03.260 --> 01:02:06.200 align:middle line:84% We want to look at everything that's happening here 01:02:06.200 --> 01:02:09.610 align:middle line:84% and then everything that's happening here. 01:02:09.610 --> 01:02:12.675 align:middle line:84% And then it becomes a problem of yes, 01:02:12.675 --> 01:02:15.070 align:middle line:84% but how does this note in the first slice 01:02:15.070 --> 01:02:16.130 align:middle line:90% relate to the second? 01:02:16.130 --> 01:02:21.800 align:middle line:84% So for voice-leading problems, jump to the conclusion there, 01:02:21.800 --> 01:02:23.970 align:middle line:90% neither system works well. 01:02:23.970 --> 01:02:25.590 align:middle line:90% They both have problems. 01:02:25.590 --> 01:02:28.760 align:middle line:84% They both have big, conceptual difficulties 01:02:28.760 --> 01:02:32.390 align:middle line:84% that make voice leading one of the hard problems 01:02:32.390 --> 01:02:35.660 align:middle line:84% that always needs to be solved, specifically 01:02:35.660 --> 01:02:39.030 align:middle line:84% for music before any deeper analysis can happen. 01:02:39.030 --> 01:02:41.100 align:middle line:84% And it means that generally speaking, 01:02:41.100 --> 01:02:44.360 align:middle line:84% you're going to be writing a system for moving from one 01:02:44.360 --> 01:02:50.250 align:middle line:84% representation to another, from a time wise to a box wise, 01:02:50.250 --> 01:02:53.030 align:middle line:84% and how to move back and forth and have 01:02:53.030 --> 01:02:55.913 align:middle line:84% your system be able to have multiple representations. 01:02:55.913 --> 01:02:57.205 align:middle line:90% It's one of the major problems. 01:02:57.205 --> 01:03:00.260 align:middle line:90% 01:03:00.260 --> 01:03:04.070 align:middle line:84% Last little topic for today-- and I think we're done with 01:03:04.070 --> 01:03:08.240 align:middle line:90% slides, so I can put this up-- 01:03:08.240 --> 01:03:11.990 align:middle line:84% is just some of the terms that you're going to come up-- 01:03:11.990 --> 01:03:13.430 align:middle line:90% actually, two little things. 01:03:13.430 --> 01:03:17.020 align:middle line:84% I'll always make sure because I don't to keep anybody late, 01:03:17.020 --> 01:03:21.430 align:middle line:84% I want to cover the last item on there. 01:03:21.430 --> 01:03:23.640 align:middle line:84% You will get problem set two on Friday 01:03:23.640 --> 01:03:25.390 align:middle line:84% after you turn in problem set one. 01:03:25.390 --> 01:03:28.230 align:middle line:84% It will also be a one week assignment. 01:03:28.230 --> 01:03:32.200 align:middle line:90% There is one reading to add on. 01:03:32.200 --> 01:03:34.860 align:middle line:84% It's about, I think, 15 pages or so but-- 01:03:34.860 --> 01:03:38.520 align:middle line:84% 20 pages, but most of it's pictures-- 01:03:38.520 --> 01:03:40.240 align:middle line:90% that you'll find on Canvas. 01:03:40.240 --> 01:03:43.620 align:middle line:84% It is an article by Nicholas Cook, who's 01:03:43.620 --> 01:03:47.320 align:middle line:84% one of the main people in this field, called 01:03:47.320 --> 01:03:50.050 align:middle line:84% comparative and computational musicology. 01:03:50.050 --> 01:03:55.330 align:middle line:84% And it's one of the foundational texts in this field. 01:03:55.330 --> 01:03:56.850 align:middle line:90% So I want you to read it. 01:03:56.850 --> 01:04:02.238 align:middle line:84% It's 18, 19 years old now, so it's a little bit out of date. 01:04:02.238 --> 01:04:03.780 align:middle line:84% You'll see some of the encoding, some 01:04:03.780 --> 01:04:08.410 align:middle line:84% of the ways of writing computer code are a little archaic now, 01:04:08.410 --> 01:04:11.190 align:middle line:84% but what it says is still really, really good. 01:04:11.190 --> 01:04:14.080 align:middle line:84% So you'll find that online, and we'll discuss that. 01:04:14.080 --> 01:04:16.700 align:middle line:84% There are certain questions to start thinking about. 01:04:16.700 --> 01:04:18.735 align:middle line:84% You don't need to write out answers to them, 01:04:18.735 --> 01:04:21.970 align:middle line:84% but maybe sketch down an answer to one or two of them 01:04:21.970 --> 01:04:28.420 align:middle line:84% so that you can be quite participatory on Friday. 01:04:28.420 --> 01:04:34.240 align:middle line:84% And if you haven't been reading very many scholarly articles 01:04:34.240 --> 01:04:37.000 align:middle line:84% or this is your first time reading an article written 01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:40.810 align:middle line:84% for academics, I have a little six-minute optional video 01:04:40.810 --> 01:04:42.640 align:middle line:90% on how I read these articles. 01:04:42.640 --> 01:04:46.015 align:middle line:84% That maybe even if you are a master at-- 01:04:46.015 --> 01:04:48.820 align:middle line:84% great at doing this, it might still 01:04:48.820 --> 01:04:52.270 align:middle line:84% be useful to see how a professor doesn't read from the beginning 01:04:52.270 --> 01:04:54.560 align:middle line:90% to the end in one set. 01:04:54.560 --> 01:04:59.830 align:middle line:84% So if you want that, that might be particularly useful. 01:04:59.830 --> 01:05:02.350 align:middle line:84% So we have about four minutes for the last topic, 01:05:02.350 --> 01:05:03.850 align:middle line:84% and it's the one thing that I want-- 01:05:03.850 --> 01:05:06.530 align:middle line:84% that you'll probably want to look at the outline for. 01:05:06.530 --> 01:05:09.170 align:middle line:84% I usually put the outline for you to get later, 01:05:09.170 --> 01:05:15.420 align:middle line:84% but something-- and it's about the different music 01:05:15.420 --> 01:05:17.940 align:middle line:84% representation, some of the different terms 01:05:17.940 --> 01:05:21.840 align:middle line:84% that we're going to be using a lot. 01:05:21.840 --> 01:05:27.810 align:middle line:84% Anybody taking more than one or a couple philosophy classes 01:05:27.810 --> 01:05:30.545 align:middle line:90% and come across this term? 01:05:30.545 --> 01:05:35.070 align:middle line:90% 01:05:35.070 --> 01:05:36.270 align:middle line:90% Anyone? 01:05:36.270 --> 01:05:37.420 align:middle line:90% Philosophy class? 01:05:37.420 --> 01:05:40.420 align:middle line:84% What about in a CS class, computer science? 01:05:40.420 --> 01:05:42.930 align:middle line:84% Anybody ever see-- I'm not going to ask for a definition 01:05:42.930 --> 01:05:44.560 align:middle line:84% right now, unless you want to do it. 01:05:44.560 --> 01:05:46.320 align:middle line:90% Yeah, great. 01:05:46.320 --> 01:05:51.600 align:middle line:90% So ontologies are sort of this-- 01:05:51.600 --> 01:05:54.580 align:middle line:84% ontology is the study, some people say, 01:05:54.580 --> 01:05:59.860 align:middle line:84% of essence, of meaning, of what it means to mean something, 01:05:59.860 --> 01:06:01.200 align:middle line:90% general. 01:06:01.200 --> 01:06:05.520 align:middle line:84% Philosophy and computer science have two slightly different 01:06:05.520 --> 01:06:07.048 align:middle line:90% definitions of ontology. 01:06:07.048 --> 01:06:09.090 align:middle line:84% So you're going to start seeing the word ontology 01:06:09.090 --> 01:06:10.730 align:middle line:90% in a lot of representations. 01:06:10.730 --> 01:06:12.640 align:middle line:84% It has to do with representation. 01:06:12.640 --> 01:06:16.810 align:middle line:90% For philosophy-- and this is-- 01:06:16.810 --> 01:06:18.630 align:middle line:90% I mean, really philosophy. 01:06:18.630 --> 01:06:25.816 align:middle line:90% 01:06:25.816 --> 01:06:30.370 align:middle line:84% You're getting a lot about, what are the limits of something that 01:06:30.370 --> 01:06:32.000 align:middle line:84% makes something no longer something? 01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:37.940 align:middle line:84% So we did a lot of philosophical ontological discussions today 01:06:37.940 --> 01:06:40.032 align:middle line:90% and last class. 01:06:40.032 --> 01:06:43.860 align:middle line:84% What's something that we were trying to find the limits of? 01:06:43.860 --> 01:06:47.320 align:middle line:90% 01:06:47.320 --> 01:06:51.930 align:middle line:84% when something is no longer something. 01:06:51.930 --> 01:06:52.648 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: A note? 01:06:52.648 --> 01:06:53.690 align:middle line:90% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: A note. 01:06:53.690 --> 01:06:55.270 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 01:06:55.270 --> 01:06:58.940 align:middle line:84% Some of the things, when is a note one note? 01:06:58.940 --> 01:07:00.500 align:middle line:90% When is a note two notes? 01:07:00.500 --> 01:07:02.210 align:middle line:90% When is a note six notes? 01:07:02.210 --> 01:07:04.510 align:middle line:90% We went with that. 01:07:04.510 --> 01:07:10.580 align:middle line:84% When is common Western music notation no longer can-- 01:07:10.580 --> 01:07:11.790 align:middle line:90% does that apply? 01:07:11.790 --> 01:07:16.640 align:middle line:84% I kind of did the frog boiling in hot water. 01:07:16.640 --> 01:07:20.240 align:middle line:84% Check slowly, slowly, slowly moving up until finally it's 01:07:20.240 --> 01:07:21.540 align:middle line:90% like, wait a second. 01:07:21.540 --> 01:07:25.250 align:middle line:84% Professor, that's a whole bunch of spots on a page. 01:07:25.250 --> 01:07:27.120 align:middle line:84% But we got there very, very slowly. 01:07:27.120 --> 01:07:29.480 align:middle line:90% How do we put a dividing line? 01:07:29.480 --> 01:07:33.230 align:middle line:84% So there's a philosophical definition. 01:07:33.230 --> 01:07:35.573 align:middle line:84% And we're going to be using that one in this class 01:07:35.573 --> 01:07:37.490 align:middle line:84% because this is also a humanities class, where 01:07:37.490 --> 01:07:39.390 align:middle line:84% we're thinking about those types of things. 01:07:39.390 --> 01:07:40.890 align:middle line:90% What is the limit of something? 01:07:40.890 --> 01:07:43.730 align:middle line:90% What is the note? 01:07:43.730 --> 01:07:49.550 align:middle line:84% If a piece of music is every note and every duration that's 01:07:49.550 --> 01:07:53.090 align:middle line:84% in there, how many notes can you get wrong and still say 01:07:53.090 --> 01:07:59.240 align:middle line:84% that you're playing Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata? 01:07:59.240 --> 01:08:00.740 align:middle line:90% 10%, 5%. 01:08:00.740 --> 01:08:03.710 align:middle line:84% One note wrong, and it is not the piece. 01:08:03.710 --> 01:08:05.450 align:middle line:84% These are some of the things that 01:08:05.450 --> 01:08:06.872 align:middle line:84% the philosophical definition does. 01:08:06.872 --> 01:08:08.830 align:middle line:84% We're not going to get to the second half here, 01:08:08.830 --> 01:08:11.730 align:middle line:84% but-- so just we'll end with the computer science 01:08:11.730 --> 01:08:15.190 align:middle line:84% usage, which is also very, very cool and related. 01:08:15.190 --> 01:08:20.939 align:middle line:84% And that would be, what are all of the objects-- 01:08:20.939 --> 01:08:30.600 align:middle line:84% yeah, objects, names, relationships 01:08:30.600 --> 01:08:32.435 align:middle line:90% used in a representation? 01:08:32.435 --> 01:08:38.520 align:middle line:90% 01:08:38.520 --> 01:08:44.189 align:middle line:84% So ontology of your computer's file system 01:08:44.189 --> 01:08:46.470 align:middle line:84% might say that there are documents, 01:08:46.470 --> 01:08:49.689 align:middle line:90% and there are folders. 01:08:49.689 --> 01:08:51.600 align:middle line:90% Can documents go in folders? 01:08:51.600 --> 01:08:52.319 align:middle line:90% Yes. 01:08:52.319 --> 01:08:54.250 align:middle line:90% Can folders go in documents? 01:08:54.250 --> 01:08:55.229 align:middle line:90% No. 01:08:55.229 --> 01:08:57.250 align:middle line:90% Can documents go in documents? 01:08:57.250 --> 01:08:57.750 align:middle line:90% No. 01:08:57.750 --> 01:08:58.984 align:middle line:90% Can folders go in folders? 01:08:58.984 --> 01:08:59.734 align:middle line:90% AUDIENCE: Yes. 01:08:59.734 --> 01:09:01.192 align:middle line:84% MICHAEL CUTHBERT: So we're starting 01:09:01.192 --> 01:09:03.760 align:middle line:84% to make some kind of representation of something. 01:09:03.760 --> 01:09:08.420 align:middle line:84% Can a document appear twice somewhere in your hard drive? 01:09:08.420 --> 01:09:10.260 align:middle line:90% Different operating systems? 01:09:10.260 --> 01:09:11.310 align:middle line:90% Yes, no. 01:09:11.310 --> 01:09:13.399 align:middle line:90% There are ways of doing it. 01:09:13.399 --> 01:09:15.649 align:middle line:84% So these are all the decisions that 01:09:15.649 --> 01:09:19.170 align:middle line:84% make up the systems and objects and representations in use. 01:09:19.170 --> 01:09:22.910 align:middle line:84% We're going to start up again on Friday by talking about some 01:09:22.910 --> 01:09:25.109 align:middle line:84% of the ontologies that we've already been creating, 01:09:25.109 --> 01:09:28.520 align:middle line:84% some of the relationships, and some of the different ways-- 01:09:28.520 --> 01:09:30.210 align:middle line:84% starting to get back into programming. 01:09:30.210 --> 01:09:33.380 align:middle line:84% We haven't really done that for a little bit in class-- 01:09:33.380 --> 01:09:36.979 align:middle line:84% some of the ways that we might represent the relationships 01:09:36.979 --> 01:09:41.290 align:middle line:84% between notes and pitches and durations and so much else. 01:09:41.290 --> 01:10:04.000 align:middle line:90%