Assignment due Tuesday, September 30

Here’s the plan for Tuesday:

1. Finish up our methods tutorial, starting with a debriefing of Group Task #3 (Generating Theories) and moving on to hypotheses operationalization.

2. Brief introduction to microtiming and its relationship to categorical perception.

3. Student summaries of required readings, i.e., Repp (1999) & Ashley (2002); the details for the last assignment are reproduced below. You will be given about 5-7 minutes to plan the summary presentation, each of which should be about 5-7 minutes, followed by a short discussion. Use the Notes on Critical Reading (especially the third group of bullet points) to guide your review of your article. Also, a good strategy for a summary presentation is to pick a figure or example to look at closely after the basic points have been established.

NOTE: The Forum posting assignment based on the group of articles pertaining to the “swing” ratio that has been postponed to Thursday, October 2. On Thursday, we will devote most of the class time to a research workshop with Rémi Castonguay, Public Services Project Librarian, and might re-visit the question of the swing ratio “live” if we have time left.

GROUP 1: Required readings (due 9/30)

To start, a methodological summary of the topical area:

Camp, Kilchenmann, Volken, & Senn (2011), “On measuring and interpreting microtiming”

Focus on the concepts introduced; the experiment is also interesting and bears on the more “musical” research on microtiming, but it is also more technical, and I would rather you spent more time with the following two studies. You should take the time to browse through both articles and read the abstracts, but I have assigned specific students to each article for focused reading (and preparatory listening):

Repp (1999): Ryan & Angie

Ashley (2002): Jordan, Genevieve, & Kyle

Make sure you can give a brief summary of the study you focused on.

Repp (1999), “Individual differences in the expressive shaping of a musical phrase. (I.) The opening of Chopin’s Etude in E major”

This is one of many articles published by Repp following his painstaking analysis of 115 expert performances of this famous Etude by Chopin. Before reading the article, make sure to listen to at least 2 or 3 performances of the work. In your reading, focus on the materials that pertain to timing patterns rather than dynamic patterns. After reading the article, visit the following website, where you will find materials created for a follow-up study that will illustrate aurally some of the findings described in the article:

http://www.haskins.yale.edu/misc/REPP/AP.html

Ashley (2002), “Do[n’t] change a hair for me: The art of jazz rubato”

Focus your reading on the summary of previous research provided by Ashley and on his findings related to “My Funny Valentine”. Again, first listen to the recordings used as materials for this study; they are by Chet Baker (1954), the Miles Davis Quartet (1956), and Art Farmer and the Gerry Mulligan Quartet (1958). Then, read the relevant sections. (You may also browse quickly through the other sections of the article.)

GROUP 2: Reference materials – read abstracts only (due 9/30)

An early study on microtiming in pianists’ performance of Satie’s Gnossienne No. 5:

Clarke (1985), Some aspects of rhythm and expression in performances of Erik Satie’s ‘Gnossienne No.5′”

A series of experiments on listeners’ ability to perceive timing variations:

Clarke (1989), “Perception of expressive timing”

Assignment due Thursday, September 25

On Thursday, 9/25, we devote the first half of the class meeting to the methods tutorial. The next segment will focus on a discussion/review of the readings on this week’s topic: “Categorical perception & microtiming.” Again, there are two groups of readings, and only the first group is due on Thursday:

GROUP 1: Required readings (due 9/25)

To start, a methodological summary of the topical area:

Camp, Kilchenmann, Volken, & Senn (2011), “On measuring and interpreting microtiming”

Focus on the concepts introduced; the experiment is also interesting and bears on the more “musical” research on microtiming, but it is also more technical, and I would rather you spent more time with the following two studies. You should take the time to browse through both articles and read the abstracts, but I have assigned specific students to each article for focused reading (and preparatory listening):

Repp (1999): Ryan & Angie

Ashley (2002): Jordan, Genevieve, & Kyle

Make sure you can give a brief summary of the study you focused on.

Repp (1999), “Individual differences in the expressive shaping of a musical phrase. (I.) The opening of Chopin’s Etude in E major”

This is one of many articles published by Repp following his painstaking analysis of 115 expert performances of this famous Etude by Chopin. Before reading the article, make sure to listen to at least 2 or 3 performances of the work. After reading the article, visit the following website, where you will find materials created for a follow-up study that will illustrate aurally some of the findings described in the article:

http://www.haskins.yale.edu/misc/REPP/AP.html

Ashley (2002), “Do[n’t] change a hair for me: The art of jazz rubato”

Focus your reading on the summary of previous research provided by Ashley and on his findings related to “My Funny Valentine”. Again, first listen to the recordings used as materials for this study; they are by Chet Baker (1954), the Miles Davis Quartet (1956), and Art Farmer and the Gerry Mulligan Quartet (1958). Then, read the relevant sections. (You may also browse quickly through the other sections of the article.)

 

GROUP 2: Reference materials – read abstracts only (Forum response due 9/30)

An early study on microtiming in pianists’ performance of Satie’s Gnossienne No. 5:

Clarke (1985), Some aspects of rhythm and expression in performances of Erik Satie’s ‘Gnossienne No.5′”

A series of experiments on listeners’ ability to perceive timing variations:

Clarke (1989), “Perception of expressive timing”

One fairly active area of research on microtiming has been focused on the phenomenon of the jazz “swing”. Here is a small collection of articles on this topic. What are the main research questions tackled by these studies? What are some of the common findings? Are there conflicting experimental results? What might explain these differences? You will need to write a response to these prompts on the Forum page by Tuesday, September 30, 9:00 AM.

Collier & Collier (2002), “A study of timing in two Louis Armstrong solos”

Friberg & Sundstrom (2002), “Swing ratios and ensemble timing in jazz performance: Evidence for a common rhythmic pattern”

Benadon (2006), “Slicing the beat: Jazz eighth-notes as expressive microrhythm”

Honing & de Haas (2008), “Swing once more: Relating timing and tempo in expert jazz drumming”

Butterfield (2011), “Why do jazz musicians swing their eighth notes”

NOTE: As I did over the weekend, I will continue conducting individual project business over email, until you are ready to post a draft of your research statement (i.e., proposal) on your individual page on the Virtual Lab.

My Individual Research Question

Joint action theory is a widely-accepted social psychology theory which attempts to explain how individuals can coordinate their behavior to to complete tasks in tandem.  One fairly robust piece of evidence that supports the ideas put forth in joint action theory is interpersonal entrainment; that is, people are repeatedly shown to have a natural proclivity to fall into synchrony with one another, in everything from walking speeds to speech patterns.  On an cognitive and emotional level, this interpersonal entrainment manifests itself as, among other things, empathy and our ability to interpret facial expressions as emotive.

Similarly, as we’ve explored in class, researchers in the field of music cognition are working on models of musical entrainment, whereby the human body and mind adapt their rhythmic patterns to match those in a piece of music.  This leads to the phenomena of expectation theory (by which we are able to detect and predict rhythms in music) and emotional embodiment (by which rhythmic meters produce physiological responses that are correlated with human emotions).

My question is, then, if a steady rhythm can produce a similar physiological response across individuals, can that rhythm affect those individuals’ interpretation of emotions expressed by other people?  Specifically, if participants were shown images of faces coded as various emotions as they were played pieces of likewise-coded music, would they be able to more accurately (and reliably) interpret the expressions depicted in the faces?  Conversely, would their ability to do so be negatively impacted if they were played a piece of music that did not align affectively with the facial expression shown?  Put simply, how do varying tempos in musical rhythms affect individuals’ interpretations of others emotions?

Assignment due Tuesday, September 23

As discussed in class today, you should be working on selecting a research question (or set of questions) for your individual project. For detailed instructions, go to the “Individual Projects” tab in the “Projects” page on this site. You should email me potential topic ideas as soon as possible; ideally, topics should be approved by the end of next week at the latest.

On Tuesday, 9/23, we will dive into the Carter case study right where we left off today. The second part of the class will be devoted to a methods tutorials. In preparation for the tutorial, please do the following:

1. If you have not read the two handouts The Experimental Study and Reading Empirical Research, please take the time to do so, and pay special attention to technical terms (e.g., independent vs. dependent variables) and to the section on assessing tests of hypotheses.

2. Read Types of Empirical Studies. What are the essential differences between these different types of studies? There will be a short quiz on this material, so make sure to read it carefully!

STEP 1: RESEARCH QUESTION (Must be Approved by September 26)

Goal: Submit a potential question (or set of questions) on which you plan to carry-out research.

Process:

1. Identify a topical area of interest to your work as a musician, music theorist, or cognitive scientist.

2. Brainstorm: What are the big questions pertaining to this topic? What are some of the concepts and tools that have been used to explore those questions? What are the findings so far? Why should we care, i.e., what are the implications for your field of study and for the larger community? What are some issues and what is your position on these issues?

3. Identify a small set of more specific questions that you imagine you could reasonably engage within the confines of this course. You may find it helpful to also specify the methods you plan to use to explore the question.

4. Submit the question (or set of questions) by posting it in your personalized tab/category. You may also make an appointment with me for additional feedback.

About Individual Projects

The individual project will be your opportunity to engage a topic of special interest to you. Here is the preliminary list of deadlines for this project:

Friday, September 26: Questions must be approved (text posting)

Tuesday, October 7: Preliminary annotated bibliography due (text posting)

Monday, October 27 – NEW DEADLINE!: Literature reviews must be submitted (emailed PDF & text posting)

Thursday, November 20: Progress reports & in-class discussion (roundtable)

Friday, November 21: Drafts must be submitted by email (annotated PowerPoint)

Monday to Thursday, December 8-11: Individual meetings (advising)

Wednesday, December 17, 9:00 AM: Final presentations (mini-conference)

NOTE: These are the latest dates by which each task must be completed; students are encouraged to send their materials earlier, including as drafts to be reviewed. I welcome all email queries about this project and am happy to schedule individual meetings as needed at every step!

Assignment Due Tuesday & Thursday, September 16 & 18

Remember that you have a task due on Monday, September 15, 9:00 AM (research questions posting on Forum); review the details on the previous assignment posting.

1. Discussion preparation: For Tuesday, review Margulis (2012) using the “Notes on Critical Reading” document as guide. Then, listen to Rameau’s “Le tambourin (distributed in class) and review Margulis’s discussion of the specific findings in this piece closely (pp. 382-383). What aspect of the construction is Margulis interested in here? What are some of the limitations in the experimental design that might bear on interpreting the results?

1. Listening & score study: Listen to Elliott Carter’s 90+ for Piano (1994), as performed by Pierre-Laurent Aimard:

90+ for Piano

Listen to the piece again, this time tapping along with the “underlying pulse” (or beat).

Is the piece unified by a single beat or does it have several different beats? Are there sections where there is no beat at all? Locate these beats (one or two is enough for this exercise) in the recordings with the chronometric time and use the online metronome to identify its speed (in beats per minute or bpm). What is the interonset interval (IOI) corresponding to each of your perceived beats (in milliseconds or ms)?

You may listen to the piece again, this time with the score (but not before you have completed the above task!). Can you follow along? What are some of the musical parameters that might have contributed to your hearing of these beats?

Post a short response (1-2 paragraphs) to these questions on the Forum by Thursday, September 18, 9:00 AM (these instructions are reproduced on the Forum page).

2. Readings: This week’s readings are divided into two groups. The first group are required readings; read the abstract first and then move fairly quickly through the materials, keeping in mind the guiding questions from the “Notes on critical reading” document (see above). The second group are reference materials; you are expected to read only the abstracts, although you might need to refer to these materials later in the course of designing your group experiment or doing background research for your individual project. We will discuss the assigned readings on Thursday, but you should try to get a head start on these as soon as possible.

GROUP 1: Required (read in the order listed); you’ll note that there is a fair amount of repetition in these three short articles. Focus on how the three accounts differ from one another in terms of aims, contextualization, and/or methods. The repetition is a “boon” for easier assimilation of this important theory (quiz alert!).

– Large (1994), “Models of metrical structure in music

NOTE: If the math in this article is beyond your experience (most of it is beyond mine), don’t despair. It is not essential to understanding the main ideas in this article.

– Jones, Moynihan, MacKenzie, & Puente (2002), “Temporal aspects of stimulus-driven attending in dynamic arrays

– Jones (2008), “Musical time

GROUP 2: Reference (read abstract)

– Large & Jones (1999), “The dynamics of attending: How people track time-varying events” (experimental report)

– Penel & Bigand (2000), “Tapping in time with mechanically and expressively performed music” (experimental report)

– Snyder & Krumhansl (2001), “Tapping to Ragtime: Cues to Pulse Finding” (experimental report)

– Toiviainen & Snyder (2003), “Tapping to Bach: Resonance-based modeling of pulse” (experimental report)

– Repp (2005), “Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of the tapping literature

– Repp & Su (2013), “Sensorimotor synchronization: A review of recent research (2006-2012)

Tapping to Carter

Listen to Elliott Carter’s 90+ for Piano (1994), as performed by Pierre-Laurent Aimard:

90+ for Piano

Listen to the piece again, this time tapping along with the “underlying pulse” (or beat).

Is the piece unified by a single beat or does it have several different beats? Are there sections where there is no beat at all? Locate these beats (one or two is enough for this exercise) in the recordings with the chronometric time and use the online metronome to identify its speed (in beats per minute or bpm). What is the interonset interval (IOI) corresponding to each of your perceived beats (in milliseconds or ms)?

You may listen to the piece again, this time with the score (but not before you have completed the above task!). Can you follow along? What are some of the musical parameters that might have contributed to your hearing of these beats?

Post a short response (1-2 paragraphs) to these questions here by Thursday, September 18, 9:00 AM.

International Conference on the Multimodal Experience of Music

Call for papers: International Conference on the Multimodal Experience of Music
ICMEM, 23-25 March 2015
In live and virtual situations, music listening and performing are multimodal experiences: Sounds may be experienced tactically, music evokes visual images or is accompanied by visual presentations, and both generate vivid cross-modal associations in terms of force, size, physical location, fluency and regularity, among others.
ICMEM aims to bring together researchers from various disciplines who investigate the multimodality of musical experiences from different perspectives. Disciplines may include among others audiology, cognition, computer science, ethnomusicology, music performance and theory, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology.
Proposals are invited for papers, symposia, demonstrations and posters.
Investigations may include but are not necessarily confined to the following areas
* Multimodal experiences of music in everyday life
* Cross-modal correspondences with musical parameters
* Influences of visual context on music perception
* Emotion and cross-modality
* Tactile, visual, and kinesthetic feedback in music performance
* Multi-modal interaction in multimedia, including film and games
* Uses of cross-modality in hearing or visual impaired music listeners
* Strong and weak synaesthesia
* Motion and movement perception in music
* Relations between motion and emotion in music listening
* Brain-structures related to cross-modal associations with sounds
* Technological and commercial applications of cross-modal associations
* Creative and pedagogical uses of cross-modality in music
Invited speakers: Profs. Amir Amedi, Eric Clarke, Nicholas Cook, Charles Spence, and Peter Walker
Dates: 23-25 March 2015
Location: Humanities Research Institute, University of Sheffield, UK
Host: Music, Mind, Machine in Sheffield, Department of Music, University of Sheffield, UK
Submission deadline: 6 October 2014 by e-mail to ICMEM@sheffield.ac.uk
This conference is supported by ESCOM and SEMPRE, who offer bursaries to student attendees, and by the British Academy.