-
7/24/2019 BBP 2007
1/4
HOW COMPUTER MUSIC MODELING AND RETRIEVAL
INTERFACE WITH MUSIC-AND-MEANING STUDIES:
OVERVIEW OF PANELISTS SUGGESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION TOPICSCynthia
M. Grund
University of Southern Denmark at Odense
Institute of Philosophy, Education and the Study of
Religions
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Inspired by the interest generated as the result of a panel
discussion dealing with cross-disciplinarity and
computer music modeling and retrieval (CMMR) at
CMMR 2005 Play! in Pisa, a panel discussion on
current issues of a cross-disciplinary character has been
organized for ICMC07/CMMR 2007. Eight panelists
will be dealing with the two questions: a) What arecurrent
issues within music-and-meaning studies, the
examination of which mandates development of new
techniques within computer music modeling and
retrieval? and b) Do current techniques within computer
music modeling and retrieval give rise to new questions
within music-and-meaning studies?
1. INTRODUCTION
Researchers within computer music modeling and
retrieval (CMMR) are accustomed to receiving requests
from industry with regard to technology needed in order
to facilitate product development. The worth of the
CMMR community in relation to the recording industryis
indisputable, and CMMR laboratories are of course
interested in developing products which will make
money. As a representative of the impoverished
humanities community, my somewhat terse observation
is, that whereas humanists usually are aware of their
own intellectual value while being hopelessly inept at
evaluating their own potential economic value, CMMR
researchers are keenly aware of their own economic
value, but more often than not quite nave as to how the
breathtaking work which is being done within this field
can be contextualized within the humanistic tradition.
For several years now, I have been a CMMR
enthusiast of sorts, attending conferences and gettingthis
message out in various fora; see, for example, [3],
[4], [5], [6] and [7], where [7] especially is useful as an
orientation with respect to music-and-meaning studies.
It is thus an honor and a great pleasure to have been
asked to organize and chair a panel at ICMC07/CMMR
2007 whose task is precisely that of dealing with these
issues.
I have chosen to organize this panel discussion
around the following two questions:
a) What are current issues within music-and-meaning
studies, the examination of which mandates
development of new techniques within computer music
modeling and retrieval?
b) Do current techniques within computer music
modeling and retrieval give rise to new questions within
music-and-meaning studies?
Music-and-meaning studies have been chosen as the
privileged area of concentration within the humanities in
order to give the discussion better focus, while at the
same time providing touch points with many of the
general concerns that are relevant on the side of the
humanities.
2. THE PANEL
Our panel is composed as follows: Barry Eaglestone
(Sheffield University, UK), Cynthia M. Grund
(University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark),
Ole Khl (Aalborg University at Esbjerg, Denmark),
Nicola Orio (University of Padua, Italy), Tommaso
Perego (Conservatorio Giuseppe Verdi, Milan, Italy),
Victor Pushkar (Taras Shevchenko National University
of Kyiv, Ukraine), Jeffrey Trevio (Center for Research
in Computing and the Arts, University of California at
San Diego, USA) and Slvi Ystad (Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique - Laboratoire de Mcanique et
dAcoustique, France).
The topics that will be examined during the course ofthe panel
discussion are the result of submissions made
directly to me by panel members, or interest in these
topics has been indicated by panel members to the
ICMC07/CMMR 2007 organizing committee. An
expanded version of this introductory paper is planned,
one which reflects (and reflects upon) the contents of
the discussion itself. In it there will be far more
references to published material of relevance to the
topic, many more than are included here, where citations
have been kept to a minimum due to limitations of
space.
3.
PROPOSED DISCUSSION
3.1.What are current issues within music-and
meaning studies, the examination of which mandates
development of new techniques within computer
music modeling and retrieval?
3.1.1.
Content
Jeffrey Trevio points out that: The study of music
and meaning applies semiotics and linguistics to music
with frequent recourse to the term content [9] and
asks
What do you think about experimental artistic
practices that claim not to have any content, i.e. the
non-expressive works of John Cage or Morton
Feldman, in which the composers let the sounds be
just sounds? Do these alternative traditions
133
-
7/24/2019 BBP 2007
2/4
complicate, confirm, or suggest revision to the
foundations or applications of our current MIR
technologies? And the theoretical analogue: What of
Susan Sontag's assertion that the art of the 20th
century demands an erotics, not a hermeneutics,
of art [9]?
Trevio is not alone with regard to concerns regarding
content. Nicola Orio remarks that we need to be more
aware of the matter of relevance to an information need
as opposed to the matter of relevance to a query:
Talking about relevance, which is usually relevance
to a query rather than to an information need, one
thing that is needed is one step beyond the query-by-
humming or query-by-examples paradigms. More
related to my personal research is the role of "music
lexical units" as content-descriptors of music
documents. It is somehow amazing that almost
everybody agrees on the presence of boundaries in
the music flow, yet almost nobody including
automatic systems agrees on where the boundaries
actually are (apart from very simple cases).Highlighting the
role of these units can help
improving weighting schemes aimed at more
effective retrieval, and understanding how musical
meaning is structured.
The improving effectiveness of retrieval methods
that use very coarse models and (almost) raw data,
poses interesting questions on the redundancy of the
musical language and on the correlation of different
dimensions, which could be answered by applying
methods from information theory to music (which is
somehow in contrast with the ambiguous role of
information in music) [9].
3.1.2.
Gesture and movement
Ole Khls answer to our first question is unequivocal:
The obvious answer from my point of view is gesture
modeling. Some work has been done here already . .
., but as far as I can see, theories on human cognition
prompt us to go further . . . especially with the idea of
gesture as a complete, self-consistent unit, a gestalt
[9].
As part of her response to our first question, Slvi Ystad
reports that she is doing research on perception of
movement in sounds, but in contexts in which sounds
are regarded without having been contextualized into a
musical context. She explains that this is work. . . concerning
movements and how to identify the
parameters that are responsible for the impression of
movement that a sound can give you. Several types
of perceived movements have been identified
(approach, pass, fall, rise), and we would again like
to identify the signal parameters responsible for the
sensation of these movements. This is important, for
instance, when we want simulate sounds for virtual
reality purposes where a sound should fit a visual
scene, or for composers who would like to make
sounds that evoke particular sensations [9].
Another research field in which Slvi works is the
investigation of the interpretation and the importance of
timbre.
3.1.3. Recognition and response
In addition to matters of movement, Slvi Ystads
research on sound and analysis of signals seeks to
. . . identify the parts of the signals that areresponsible for
the meaning we extract when we
listen to a sound. For instance, when someone is
knocking on a wooden object, we recognize the
sound of wood without watching the object and
independently of its shape. What we try to do is to
identify the parameters that are responsible for the
recognition of the material [9].
Issues of response and recognition, although on a level
in which sound is clearly contextualized as music, are
also of paramount importance to Ole Khl, who
remarks:
As far as I can see, information retrieval
techniques may also be developed in the context of arevival of
Meyer's theory of emotional response to
music. According to this theory, human feeling can
be described as linked to a homeostatic state of the
body, and emotion arises in response to changes in
such a homeostatic state in an emotion loop, which
feeds back into the original motivational state. The
homeostatic state consists of a number of
physiological parameters that have specific values at
specific times, and therefore they can be quantified
and expressed mathematically. Changes in the
parameters of the musical auditory stream will
prompt corresponding changes in the homeostatic
state, so we have a system with two related sets ofvariables
[9].
3.1.4. Time, experience and ecology
Jeffrey Trevio, who regards musical experience as
being best conceived as part of a creative ecology,
observes:
In terms of the ontologically relevant time horizon of
listened musical experience, is it realistic or useful to
consider a model of musical experience that is locally
relational consists of mental models that feed
forward and back with environmental stimuli and
take note of changes within a certain time horizon
but not broadly analytical ( i.e., aware of "structure,"out of
time)? How would such a model alter MIR
technologies and their applications [9]?
Trevio also feels that
Composers who harness MIR [need] to start
discussing the details of how contemporary music is
experienced. The institutional coincidences of
composition's place in the academy already afflict its
study with a predilection for arcane patterns of
numbers, deracinated from perceived experience;
MIR can help composition pedagogy in a text-
oriented academic environment, because it has the
potential to discuss experiences via detailed,
quantitative data sets [9].
134
-
7/24/2019 BBP 2007
3/4
3.1.5. Cognitive styles and cognitive typologies
Barry Eaglestone points out that one of the key
dimensions of cognitive style identified in the
psychological literature is that which is defined in terms
of the global/analytic distinction. Eaglestone has done
research which suggests that cognitive-style traits
among electroacoustic composers map well onto this
axis. He theorizes that this suggests that there
existcharacteristic cognitive styles within the community of
electroacoustic composers and that these cognitive
styles correlate with particular approaches to
composition and also to levels of satisfaction with
composition software. [9]
Victor Pushkar regards cognitive styles and more
generally cognitive typologies as important
ingredients in an answer to our first question. Pushkar
calls for the application of psychological typology
. . . to man-machine interaction within the process
of music composition and performance. By
psychological typology we mean
Jungian psychological type concept and relatedpractical
techniques;
representative systems:
cognitive styles.
The research would lead us to
creating computer emulated intuition (large and
distant target),
creating systems individual user optimized for
individual users (small and practical target) [9].
3.2.Do current techniques within computer
modeling and retrieval give rise to new questions
within music-and-meaning studies?
3.2.1. The meaning of information
Nicola Orios answer to our second question:
Maybe the most important aspect is how the central
concept of "information need" (introduced in textual
information retrieval) can be translated into the music
domain. The term "information" itself does not seem
suitable for the music domain, and should be refined
(or re-defined) by studies on music and meaning. I'm
not a fan of the phrase "music information retrieval,"
. . . I prefer the simpler "music retrieval".
A formal definition of what the "music
(information) needs" are would help also in
rethinking the concept of "relevance" of music
documents, which needs to be addressed from
different angles: from the information retrieval point
of view, because it plays a main role in any kind of
evaluation, and from the musicological point of view
as well [9].
3.2.2. Ecology once more
Ole Khl reponds to the second question by telling
about his work with a model for ecological perception
where the subject feeds back to the auditory stream,
reacting to it and changing it at the same time. This
stream can be shared by several subjects/computers,
and may lead to a more basic communication model
based on sharing than the traditional, linguistic one
with a sender and a receiver. The question of
ecological perception is not new to the discussion of
music and meaning, but CMMIR [computer
modeling and music information retrieval, CMG]
seems to provide ways of developing this issue,
bringing it higher on the agenda.
Both of these issues, the gesture and the emotion
loop, are discussed at length in my book Musical
Semantics[8], [9].
3.2.3. The role of psychological knowledge within
cross-disciplinary research on music and music-related
technologies
With respect to our second question, Victor Pushkar is
one again of the opinion that current techniques within
computer modeling and retrieval would benefit from
more attention to psychological typology:
Computer science is too serious matter to leave it
only to programmers. If we want true
interdisciplinary research on computer music, weshould employ
the widest range of human science,
including philosophy, psychology, anthropology,
sociology and art criticism.
If we desire practical results, is the comparative
research of human and artificial intelligence
practical enough? Computer-based systems attempt
to emulate intuition for some operations, but those
attempts still yield far from satisfactory results.
Modeling human intuitionusing artificial logic might
possibly lead us to an in principle new concept of
artificial intelligence.
The practical experiments and applications should
fit into some strategy. Besides explaining whatwe doit is useful
to understand whywe do it [9].
3.2.4. Intentionality, culture, society and memory
In a vein which provides a bridge between our two
questions, I (Cynthia M. Grund) feel that issues raised
by the outsourcing of tasks to machine listening that
traditionally have been carried out by human listening
continue to require examination, and I keep an eye on
the ways in which MIR continues to develop a huge
repertoire of tools for crunching through vast amounts
of acoustic data. This is as thought provoking, as it is
impressive, however, if we begin to think about the
consequences:Does the ability to access music information in
this
fashion somehow impoverish the quality of our
connections with music and the connections music
facilitates between an individual and her fellow
human beings by additionally eroding our
abilities to concentrate, get information from our
environment into our memories and contextualize it,
so we can remember it [4]?
More generally, I continue to be intrigued by issues
regarding the interrelations between CMMR, music,
language and memory on individual as well as cultural
levels and look forward to hearing how the panel will
address these.
135
-
7/24/2019 BBP 2007
4/4
It turns out that not unrelated topics are also of
interest to Tommaso Perego, as his musical studies have
brought him to research what the relation between
human will and culture in order to create, interpret and
receive music looks like [9]. Perego would like to
discuss results from brain research as they relate to
communication and expression, and plans also to bring
his experience as a composer to the table [9].
Jeffrey Trevio offers the following thought-
provoking observation about the relevance in an MIR-
context of the individual-social distinction to the
sound-music distinction:
MIR technologies [are] increasingly allied with fMRI
and other time-dependent methods that reveal hidden
details of an individual's listening experience. If
music is truly defined by its social aspect, we must
stop retrieving information from sound and start
retrieving information from music, a human's
interaction with sound [9].
3.2.5. Meaning and ethics
Closely related to the concerns expressed in 3.2.1 are
others voiced by Jeffrey Trevio:
What are our responses to what Nicholas Cook
(director, Royal Hollaway Center for the History and
Analysis of Recorded Music) calls, "the Luddite
Objection"[2]: that MIR only shows you something
that you already know, because you experience it, or
that it shows you something that isn't experienced, so
it doesn't matter? How does inquiry into Music and
Meaning help us understand this objection [9]?
On at related note, Trevio remarks:
Nick Collins published a scathing rant in Array, the
Journal of the International Computer MusicAssociation . . .
entitled, "Composing to Subvert
Content Retrieval Engines" [1]. Given the current
state of MIR technologies and applications, why
might composers specifically view music information
retrieval technologies as hostile to their practice? Are
the goals of MIR detrimental to human creativity [9]?
Trevio calls for
humanist MIR researchers who can argue
persuasively about how we might create situations in
which MIR can potentially foster and inform
creativity, instead of harming it, as is frequently
assumed of MIR technologies by both scholars and
the public. We have an ethical obligation to locatemorality in
the person using the technology, not in
the technology itself [9].
4. PRELIMINARY PAUSE; ITS TOO EARLY
FOR CONCLUSIONS
It is exciting to see the extent to which the CMMR
community is now beginning to reflect over what I,
coming from philosophy, have considered to be issues
of philosophical relevance within the context of
CMMR; see, once again, [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. Lets
hope that our panel discussion at ICMC07/CMMR 2007
will give rise to a provocative, lively and ongoing
debate concerning these matters.
5. REFERENCES
[1]
Collins, Nick. Composing to Subvert Content
Retrieval Engines,Array, winter 2006, pp. 37-
41. http://icma.hku.nl/arrayW06.pdf ( Nick
Collins, Barcelona, 31 May 2005.)
[2]
Cook, Nicholas. Remarks during the
presentation "The Mazurkas Project: Creating a
Toolkit for Performance Analysis" at thesymposium Reactions to
the Record:
Perspectives on Historic Performance; Stanford
University, April 19 - 21, 2007. Transcribed by
Jeffrey Trevio.
[3] Grund, Cynthia M. A Philosophical Wish List
for Research in Music Information Retrieval.
(Poster) ISMIR 2006: Proceedings of the
Seventh International Conference on Music
Information Retrieval. Roger Dannenberg, Kjell
Lemstrm and Adam Tindale, eds. Victoria:
University of Victoria, 2006, pp. 383-384.
[4] Grund, Cynthia M. (2006) (version which was
expanded upon after panel discussion)Interdisciplinarity and
Computer Music
Modeling and Information Retrieval: When
Will the Humanities Get into the Act.
Computer Music Modeling and Retrieval, LNCS
3902. Richard Kronland-Martinet, Thierry
Voinier and Slvi Ystad, eds. Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York: Springer Verlag, pp.
265-273
[5] Grund, Cynthia M. (2005) Music Information
Retrieval, Memory and Culture: Some
Philosophical Remarks. Proceedings of the
Sixth International Conference on Music
Information Retrieval. Joshua D. Reiss andGeraint A. Wiggins,
eds. London: Queen Mary,
University of London, pp. 8-12.)
[6] Grund, Cynthia M. (2005) Double Jeopardy:
The Interdisciplinary Study of Music and
Meaning: Viewpoint in Danish Yearbook of
Musicology, Vol. 32, 2004 pp. 9-14.
[7] JMM: The Journal of Music and
Meaning,www.musicandmeaning.net
[8]
Khl, Ole. Musical Semantics. Peter Lang:
Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main,
New York, Oxford, Wien, 2007.
[9] Remark which has been submitted directly to
me in correspondence, or which has appearedin remarks addressed
by the panelist to the
ICMC07/CMMR 2007 organizing committee.
My thanks to everyone on the panel for
providing input to this overview.
136
