Musical tension overview

Milne, A. J. (2013). A computational model of the cognition of tonality

1. Some definitions:

a. Tonality communicates emotions based on musical expectancy.

b. A musical response could be: imaginative, tense (triggered by
expectancy), predictive, reactive or appraised.
c. We expect X to follow Y because we have heard that chord or
progression many times (familiarity)
d. Affinity: a perceptual/cognitive attribute that quantifies the degree of
pleasure (horizontal phenomenon)
e. Expectation tensors: indicate the expected number of tones, ordered
pairs of tones that will be perceived as having any given pitch, dyad
of pitches, etcetera.

2. Goal of the thesis project: identify and model the innate processes by which
feelings of tension, resolution, stability and forth are induced by successions
of pitches and chords, irrespective of theris harmonic consonance.

3. Most consonant chords:

a. have the greatest affinity
b. are the most stable ones (tonic-like)

4. Study of bottom-up (audio properties) psychoacoustics and affinity models.

5. Affinity between two tones or chords is due to the similarity of their spectral
virtual pitches.

6. Expectations tensors are a new family of representation of pitches. They

model the uncertainty of pitches perception.

7. Spectral pitch similarity is an effective model of affinity (that is to say, there is

a psychoacoustic component to listeners perception where different pitches fit
together).

8. Pitch class similarity has been used to predict which triads are likely to
function as tonics and which pitches are likely to function as tense tones. AND
THE MODEL CONCUR WITH MUSIC THEORY!

1
 Models of the Probe Tone Data

a. Krumhansl and Kessler probe tone data (1982) are ratings of how well a
set of twelve chromatic tones fit into a specific tonal context.

i. Each element and its twelve probes were listened to four times by each
participant.
ii. Statistical correlation was then applied and the ratings were averaged
iii. The results show high correlation.
iv. The elements and probes were Shepard tones (partials separated just
by octaves).
v. Only ten musically trained participants were involved.

b. tonal hierarchy (fit profiles): learned templates that assign degrees of

perceived fit to pitch classes in a specific tonal context (e.g. major or major
key).

c. Milnes questions over tonality:

i. Primary major scale: diatonic. Primary minor scale: harmonic (isnt it

because of the leading tone?).
ii. Why are certain root progressions favoured over others?
iii. Why does the leading tone of the major scale lose much of its activity
when it is the fifth of the mediant (iii) chord? (isnt it because it shares
two notes with the tonic (i) chord?).

d. Krumhansl 90b: corpus prevalence model.

i. Hypothesis: data are correlated with the distribution of scale degrees in

existing music.
ii. top-down model (just based on learning).

2
 iii. It is plausible that there are innate perceptual/cognitive principles that
help in making actual fit profiles.

e. Lerdahl 88: pitch space model.

i. It is based on a Basic Pitch Space model for tonal distances, divided

into five levels: (1) tonic, (2) tonic and fifth, (3) major tonic triad, (4)
diatonic major scale, and, (5) chromatic scale.
ii. The correlation is just studied in the major contexts probe tone data.
iii. The first three levels are bottom/up explained.

f. Butler 89: aggregate context pitch multiplicity model.

i. Short-term memory based model.

ii. Conceived as bottom-up model, but considered as top-bottom by
Milne.
iii. The probe tone ratings are modelled just by the number of times their
pitches occur in each contexts elements.
iv. currently heard pitches that are also salient in short-term memory are
perceived to fit better than pitches that are not also salient in short/term
memory (...) we are comfortable with repetition .
v. Butlers model is the same as Krumhansls prevalence model: the
difference being that Krumhansl statistically analyses a corpus, while
Butler statistically analyses a set of common cadences .

g. Parncutt 89: aggregated context pitch class salience model.

i. Butlers model adapted in two ways:

1. he used a different number of chord functions (e.g. three Vs and
six Is).
2. he also included the chord pitch class or chroma (notes names).
ii. So that, the salience of any given pitch class is calculated from a
combination of the weights of harmonics and subharmonics with
corresponding pitch classes.
iii. The model gives one of the best fits to the data.
iv. It cannot really be interpreted as a model of short-term memory.
v. The model has limited explanation, giving no clue about why those
chords are predominant.

h. Leman 00: short-term memory model.

i. Short/term memory model.

3
 ii. Input signals created from a model of the auditory system (40
bandpass filters, half/wave rectifications, autocorrelations(
iii. Autocorrelations detects frequencies that are subharmonics of the input
frequencies.
iv. The global image, which are the signals stored in a short-term memory
decaying model, is correlated with a local imaged of each of the twelve
probe tones. This values are then averaged over the four major and
minor context elements.
v. The model gives one of the worst results.

i. Krumhansl 90a: consonance model.

i. Bottom/up model with poorly predictions.

ii. The model hypothesizes that the probe tone fits are due to the
consonance of the corresponding pitch class and the tonic pitch class
(I). The explanation is then based on innate perceptual processes.
iii. So that, the model predicts identically for the major and minor contexts.
iv. harmonic consonance/dissonance does not play a direct role in the
experimental stimuli.

j. Smith 97: cumulative consonance model.

i. The model takes a tonic pitch and finds a second pitch with the
greatest consonance. To these two pitches, a third pitch is found that
makes the most consonant three/tone chord. And so forth, until all
twelve pitch classes are utilized.
ii. Consonance is calculated as Hurons aggregate dyadic consonance
(the sum of the consonances of all interval classes in the chord).
iii. When each pitch class is assigned a value according to its ranking,
they provide a predictively effective model of their respective major and
minor probe tone ratings.
iv. The model has a predictive power, but, there is no direct relationship
between the harmonic consonance (models variables) and melodic fit
(what the experiment measures).

k. Parncutt 88/11 and 94: virtual pitch class models.

i. The model uses the concept tonic as a triad, instead of tonic as a

pitch class (e.g. the tonic of key C major is not the pitch class C, but
the triad Cmaj).
ii. So that, the context-setting elements can be represented by the tonic
triad.

4
 iii. The probe tone ratings are modelled from the weights of the virtual
pitches that are internally generated in response to the notated pitches
in the tonic triad context.
iv. Virtual pitches are typically modelled to occur at subharmonic below
the notated pitch (f, f/2, f/3, , f/N).
v. the pitch of each subharmonic is modelled according to the pitch class
it is closest to.
vi. For a given notate pitch, its virtual pitch classes are weighted as:
1. virtual pitch of the the notated pitch class itself: 10
2. virtual pitch class seven semitones below (perfect 5th): 5
3. virtual pitch class four semitones below (minor 3rd): 3
4. virtual pitch class ten semitones below (minor 7th): 2
5. virtual pitch class two semitones below (major 2nd): 1

vii. Those weights are proportional to the values achieved by taking a

subharmonic series with amplitudes of i 0.55 , where i is the number of
subharmonic (typical loudness spectrum for the harmonics of a musical
instrument), and summing the amplitudes of all subharmonics with the
same pitch class.
viii. The bottom-up explanation can be generalized, so that, when listening
to a piece of music, we mentally test the virtual pitch class commonality
of a variety of potential tonic pitches or tonic triads to the elements held
in short-term memory. The best-fitting pitch functions as the local
melodic tonic, the best-fitting triad functions as the local tonic triad.

l. Milne 12: spectral pitch class similarity models.

i. Spectral pitch class similarity is used instead of virtual pitch class.

ii. The model focusses on pitch classes rather than pitches because it just
looks for perceived distances of pitch classes.
iii. The model is parametrized by a roll-off () based on the relative
importance of higher partials, as well as a pitch difference limen of ()
cents that models the inaccuracy of pitch perception.
iv. The models are based on tonic triads pitches:
1. Model a: all the pitches get the same weights, which are the
saliences of the partials of each pitch class (determined by ).
2. Model b: the tonic triads roots have unity weights, while the rest
of the pitch classes have a weight of , between 0 and 1.
3. Model c: major mode is the same to model b, but, minor mode,
gives the roots and the tonics third a unity weighting, and to
the remaining pitch classes.

5
 v. The models are predictively effective.
vi. The explanation behind the model lies on psychoacoustic principles.
vii. However, the experiments stimuli were all OCTS and the models
HCTS. There are four possible explanations that can bridge the gap
between those differences:
1. nonlinearities in the auditory system may add harmonics to the
OCTS.
2. the fits made by the listeners were based on contaminated
representations of the tonic triad long-term representations of
HCTS with the same pitch.
3. listeners may have recalled the levels of fit of equivalently sized
HCT intervals.
4. listeners judgements of the fit of the probe and the tonic context
are due to musical predominance.

6
 Milne, A. J., Sethares, W. A., Laney, R., & Sharp, D. B. (2010). Metrics for pitch
collections.

Expectation arrays model the uncertainties of pitch perception by smearing each

pitch over a range of possible values, and the width of the smearing can be derived
directly from experimentally determined frequency differences limes.

A main application has to do with Tonal Affinity. Modeling according to spectral

distances between a specific chord reference suggest that the obtained metrics may
provide effective model for the feelings of expectation and resolution by successions
of chords in tonal-harmonic music.

Cmajor triad example

7
 ISSUES

Are there any musical descriptors, apart from Spectral Pitch Class, that could
be used for modelling the chords?

Would be possible to predict a chord fitting parameter according to bottom-up

analysis?

The fitting models are based on how a chord/tone fits in a pre-established

tonal context, but, reaching a certain chord in a harmonic sequences could be
done through many different ways. How different are the fitting results of
those many possibilities? (That is to say: are the fitting models absolutes?)

Is not-fitting the same as (or proportional to) musical tension?

How is modulation conceived from the point of view of the fitting models?