D-Lib Magazine
January/February 2010
Volume 16, Number 1/2
Table of Contents
e-Science for Musicology Workshop Report
Richard Lewis
Goldsmiths College, University of London
<richard.lewis@gold.ac.uk>
Printer-friendly Version
Abstract
Funded under the AHRC/EPSRC/JISC e-Science in the Arts and Humanities Initiative, the e-Science for Musicology workshop held in Edinburgh in July 2009 brought together expert speakers in using computer technology in music scholarship and musicologist participants with little or no experience in such methods. During the course of the workshop, several techniques for dealing with music in computers were demonstrated and the participants were given the opportunity to comment on those techniques and discuss their wider implications for the discipline.
Introduction
The Purcell Plus project, hosted at Goldsmiths College, University of London, is attempting to establish what an e-Science methodology for musicology may be like. What aspects of e-Science may be applicable to
existing musicological practice? What new kinds of musicological practice may come about as a result of employing e-Science tools and
methods? This investigation clearly requires that we engage practicing musicologists in the results and possibilities of e-Science
techniques. The e-Science for Musicology workshop, therefore, was held
as part of this process of engagement and, for the Purcell Plus project, of assessing the impact of e-Science on musicology. It took
place at the National e-Science Institute in Edinburgh on 1 and 2 July 2009.
Speakers were invited to demonstrate tools and report on results of using data-rich and technology enhanced methods to aid musical
scholarship. Participation was encouraged amongst musicologists of any stage in their career throughout the UK. Our aim was to foster
engagement between musicologists who may have little or no prior experience of using technology in their research and those who are
developing or using technologies for musical scholarship through demonstration and discussion.
e-Science
Richard Lewis (Goldsmiths) opened the workshop with some thoughts on the nature of e-Science and on a scientific (or at least data-rich) approach to musical scholarship. Along with the traditional view of e-Science as distributed computing, distributed datasets, and collaboration over digital networks, he described a conception of e-Science (after Paul Wouters 2006) as three new modes of knowledge creation: computational discovery, comparative research, and digital library browsing.
Of these, digital library browsing is the practice most common in humanities research. Many humanist disciplines are involved with close reading of literature, and the availability of a good proportion of scholarly literature online is allowing scholars to do a lot more work from their desks. For musicologists, this ought to extend to access to musical materials (scores, recordings) in digital libraries. Several of the presentations in the workshop dealt with digital encoding of musical materials, publishing them online, and providing metadata
describing them.
Comparative research involves generating new knowledge by analysing large quantities of data for statistical trends. This fits very well
with scientific practice, but is less obviously applicable to humanistic research. In the case of musicology (and as was demonstrated in Nicolas Gold's presentation), there is scope for being able to analyse performance comparatively through analysis of numerous recordings of the same work.
Computational discovery concedes some of the task of hypothesis formation to the computer, through techniques such as automated
inference of new facts from a knowledge base (a collection of facts and rules). Even in the sciences, this mode of knowledge creation has
seen little application in research contexts. For humanists, though, the idea of computers being responsible for original theorising most
likely seems quite jarring. However, one area of research that takes music as its subject matter does fit into this computational discovery
mode of knowledge creation; computational cognitive modelling of music cognition attempts to form hypotheses about how the brain deals with musical stimuli and was the subject of Geraint Wiggins' talk. Casting the net a little wider, many applications of music information retrieval (MIR) techniques (the subject of both Stephen Downie's and Frans Wiering's talks) are concerned with attempting to assert new facts about collections of musical works by computational analysis.
Publishing Musical Data
One of the most well represented problems at the workshop was that of encoding and making available musical materials in digital form.
Ichiro Fujinaga (McGill) talked about the work going on in his lab, the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology, in developing and improving technologies to aid the digitisation of musical materials and to provide centralised, Web-delivered access to
those materials. His project, Distributed Digital Music Archives and
Libraries (DDMAL), is attempting to develop technologies such as
optical music recognition (OMR), to develop efficient workflows for
digitising analogue recordings, and to specify and promote metadata
standards for music libraries.
David Bretherton (Southampton) reported on the current status of the
musicSpace project, which is applying the Semantic Web (for data
description and sharing) and Web 2.0 (for advanced browser-based
interfaces and user interaction) technologies developed in the mSpace
project to research materials relevant to musicologists, including
recordings from the British Library Sound Archive, articles from the
Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, and music manuscript
bibliographic records and incipits from RISM.
Yves Raimond's (BBC) main argument (after Tim Berners-Lee), in his
talk on using Semantic Web techniques to describe musical knowledge,
was that the Web is more about things than it is about documents. He
described the ideal situation in which the Web is a graph of strongly
interlinked URIs (names for things), and where all of the links bear
relevant and useful semantics. For musical knowledge, he showed how
"things" such as composers, works, and records and the relationships
between them can be described using RDF and semantics based on his
Music Ontology.
Doing Musicology with Data
As well as providing access to musical materials for scholarship, some
presentations dealt with how musicology may be done using such data,
and some of the problems that need to be addressed about doing so.
Daniel Müllensiefen's (Goldsmiths) talk (which was presented by
Richard Lewis) reported some findings from the Modelling Music Memory and the Perception of Melodic Similarity (M4S) project. This work
compared results of psychological tests of what constitutes a
musically salient feature in a melody and computational models of such
features. Some important concepts for doing musicology with computers
were covered in this talk, particularly the idea of treating music as
data and dealing with it syntactically in computers. The talk
explained how this involves extracting features from the musical
signal (in this case the signal was made of of MIDI events, but audio
data is also commonly used) and how appropriate statistical analyses
of these features can be applied to draw conclusions.
Daniel's talk also introduced some notions around the possibilities
and limitations of corpus musicology, and what research questions become
possible given access to a large collection of music and the means to
investigate it as a whole. While some of the questions common in
musicology cannot be answered by corpus analysis (aesthetic
connotations, meaning and interpretation, and cultural and contextual
explanations), other styles of questioning often neglected in
musicology become possible (detecting general mechanisms working
within a corpus, comparisons between corpora, and stylistic patterns
and anomalies).
Frans Wiering (Utrecht) argued that the agenda of the MIR field has so
far been set by the technologists and that its main research questions
are basically technological in nature, covering such topics as
searching for so-called musically similar audio examples from a
database of audio data. His talk called for a re-configuring of this
agenda towards the pursuit of musical meaning; a topic which, he
argued, has become more central in recent musical scholarship. He
described how the subjectivity of musical meaning stands it at a
considerable distance from the syntactical view of music employed in
MIR techniques, but he argued that MIR scholars ought to be considering
how their methods may be applicable to questions of musical meaning
and how findings in the musical meaning programme should influence the
future direction of MIR research.
Modelling Music Cognition
Geraint Wiggins (Goldsmiths) described an application of computers in a
very different branch of musically based scholarship: computational
modelling of music cognition. His primary assumption is that music is
a cognitive phenomenon, which he justified by demonstrating that a
sonic stimulus does not carry any musical information but requires
interpretation by a mind in order to become music. He described how
one approach to study how the mind turns sound into music is to
simulate models of them on computers. In particular, he reported on
some of the results obtained using a model developed by Marcus Pearce
called IDyOM (Information Dynamics of Music), which predicts the
pitches in melodies using an information theoretic model. He went on
to argue that the relationship between these results and musicology is
that, while musicology can tell us what is important about music, such
cognitive research can tell us why music is important.
Digital Editing of Music
Another well represented area of application of computers in music
research is that of producing digital critical editions of musical
works, corpora, manuscripts, or other written materials. This work is
strongly related to that which goes on under the broader label of digital
humanities.
Raffaele Viglianti's (King's College, London) main argument in his
talk on the practice of digital editing of music was that all
editorial practices involve the selection of what he called facts
about the material being edited. In traditional published editions,
this selection process is made by the editor and committed to paper
before being handed on to the performer or scholar. Evidence of the
selection and the possible alternatives selected from are only
available in an appended critical commentary. Viglianti argued that
the digital critical edition is significantly different from the
published edition in that it allows the alternatives to be presented
to the user of the edition orthogonally with each other and therefore
allows the selection process to be deferred to the point of
interpretation by the performer or analyst. This is made possible by
employing a flexible representation method for the musical material
and providing an interface that makes the selection of alternatives
intuitive and easy.
Johannes Kepper (Paderborn) presented recent developments at the
Edirom project. The project is developing software to aid the
production of digital editions of music, including music notation
editing and visualisation of critical comments orthogonally with the
notation. He discussed some problems associated with representing
score-based hierarchies in multiple versions, particularly problems
such as how to resolve the conflict when bars (or measures, which
form an intuitive structural hierarchy) are different in different
sources.
Benjamin Bohl (Paderborn) demonstrated work from his masters thesis on
producing an interactive edition of a treatise on composition by
Francesco Geminiani (16871762) called Guida armonica o dizioniaro armonico. The treatise provided formulae for composition of harmonic
structures by requiring the user to select between permissible
continuations of each harmonic fragment from the catalogue of
available fragments (numbering around 2000). Bohl's system encoded
each of the harmonic fragments and the paths linking them, and
provided an interface which, at each point in the compositional
process, presented all the possible continuations from which the user can
choose. He argued that, as well as being a digital edition of an
interesting eighteenth century piece of work, his Web-delivered
interface to it actually adds to and extends the usefulness of the
information it contains.
Analysing Music with Computers
To complement the discussions of ways of encoding and publishing
musical information, two of the presentations dealt with actually
using digitised musical information for analysis.
Nicolas Gold (King's College, London) presented some results from the
Analysing Motif in Performance project which came out of the Centre for the History
and Analysis of Recorded Music (hosted at Royal Holloway). The project
investigated the possibility of analysing performance through
recordings. Their techniques involved providing visualisations of the
complex data that can be derived from musical recordings, such as
timing and dynamic information. As well as demonstrating an example of
clustering timing data of numerous performances of a mazurka in order
to show the relationships between different performance practices,
Gold also reflected on some of the issues involved with disciplinary
collaborations. He described how it was important to invest time in
training and gaining experience in the discipline with which you are
collaborating. He also described the importance of learning what
he called the "norms and forms" of that discipline; finding out the
kinds of questions that are valid to ask and the ways that results
can be presented.
Philip Wheatland (Melbourne) demonstrated his MelodicMatch software,
which is a tool for performing searches in musical score data. He
showed examples of analyses of parody masses by Gombert in which he
was able to show cadential placement and motivic development, both of
which contribute significantly to the identity of a piece. The
software allows the user to specify searches for melodic, intervalic,
rhythmic, or lyric fragments and numerous other features. It also
provides a visualisation in which matching portions of the music are
highlighted in different colours and different searches can be
displayed together. Wheatland emphasised the fact that the software is
purely syntactical in the tasks it is able to perform and that the
musical analysis must still be performed by the musicologist.
Sound and Visualisation
Richard Polfreman (Southampton) demonstrated his FrameWorks 3D
software, which provides a visualisation tool for composers and sound
designers. The software allows the user to deal with "clips" which can
be fragments of audio, MIDI data, etc. and arrange them on
"tracks". Relations may then be defined between clips and will be
dynamically maintained by the software during subsequent manipulation
of clips, tracks, and other relations. New classes of relations can be
added to the software as plugins; it includes relations such as
reverse by default. The clips, tracks, and relations are presented
in a 3D interface that the user can manipulate with the mouse. As
well as arguing that this interface reduces some of the complexity of
dealing with and arranging ideas for composers, Polfreman also
described its potential application as a music analytic tool by
attempting to re-construct an existing piece of music using it and
learning about the relationships employed by the composer in the
process.
Subdiscipline or Methodology?
J. Stephen Downie (Illinois) described three institutions that
support and promote the work of the music information retrieval field:
the International Society for Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), the
Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange (MIREX), and the
Networked Environment for Music Analysis (NEMA). He argued that, while
these institutions have fostered significant development in
technology and encouraged and supported technologists, they have so
far given little to musicological scholars who may be interested in
using software in their research. As well as expressing the desire
that musicologists should engage with the MIR community, Downie argued
that a common language needs to be fostered between the two groups,
and that a style of questioning and a research programme that engages
both technologists and musicologists needs to be established.
The closing discussion of the workshop continued this theme,
attempting to answer the question of whether e-Science approaches to
dealing with music form a subdiscipline or whether they are just
methods of another discipline (musicology or computer science, for
example). It was generally agreed that, at the moment, such techniques
were not widely applied in musicology and that computational musicology
was still quite a separate discipline from the rest of musicology with
not only its own methods and tools, but also its own research
questions that aren't reflected in the research agenda of the
other main branches of musicology.
However, it was also agreed that promotion of the methods of
computational musicology amongst musical scholars may be a good way to
encourage interest in a research programme that deals with music on
the large scale and moves computational musicology from being a
subdiscipline to being a key skill of all musicologists.
References
Wouters, Paul (2006). "What is the matter with e-Science? thinking aloud about informatisation in knowledge creation". The Pantaneto
Forum 23 (July 2006). http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue23/wouters.htm
About the Author
|
Richard Lewis is a Ph.D student in Computing at Goldsmiths College, University of London, working in the Intelligent Sound and Music Systems research group. His Ph.D forms part of the Purcell Plus project, headed by Tim Crawford, which is attempting to establish what an e-Science methodology for musicology may be like. His thesis will attempt to investigate the implications of computer technology for music scholarship. Previously, Richard completed a BA Music (2004) and MMus in Critical Musicology by research (2008) both at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. He has also worked as research assistant on several projects developing music related databases, including the Sonic Arts Research Archive and a new thematic catalogue of the works of Benjamin Britten.
|
|