I attempt to align and compare the various papers in this Discussion Forum and to draw some general conclusions from them. Because the range of papers is so broad, it is not possible to compare them in detail, and so the comparison is made at the meta-level, comparing the nature of the models and techniques proposed, and the results produced, and discussing how these important papers combine to contribute to our understanding of music cognition. In conclusion, I propose a viewpoint based on memory and learning, to which, I claim, all the work ultimately points.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhlbäckS. (2007). Melodic similarity as determinant of melody structure. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
2.
BiedermanI., & VesselE. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American Scientist, 94, 247–53.
3.
BownO. (2006). The extended importance of the social creation of value in evolutionary processes: A proposed model. In Colton, S. & Pease, A. (eds), Proceedings of the ECAI'06 Workshop on Computational Creativity. URL: www.doc.gold.ac.uk/map01ob/bown_ijcai06.pdf
4.
BownO., & WigginsG. A. (2005). Modelling musical behaviour in a cultural-evolutionary system. In Gervàs, P., Veale, T., & Pease, A. (eds), Proceedings of the IJCAI'05 Workshop on Computational Creativity. URL: www.doc.gold.ac.uk/mas02gw/papers/BownWiggins05.pdf
5.
BregmanA. S. (1990). Auditory Scene Analysis.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
ChanT.-S. T., & WigginsG. (2005). A computational memetics approach to music information and aesthetic fitness. In Colton, S., Gervás, P., & Veale, T. (eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity. URL: www.doc.gold.ac.uk/mas02gw/papers/ChanWiggins05.pdf
7.
ChanT.-S. T., & WigginsG. (2006). More evidence for a computational memetics approach to music information and new interpretations of an aesthetic fitness measure. In Colton, S. & Pease, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity. URL: www.doc.gold.ac.uk/mas02gw/papers/ChanWiggins05.pdf.
8.
CliffordR., CrawfordT., IliopoulosC., & MeredithD. (2005). Problems in computational musicology In IliopoulosC., & LecroqT. (eds), String Algorithmics, NATO Science Series. London: KCL Press.
9.
DeliègeI. (2007). Similarity relations in listening to music: How do they come into play?Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
10.
DissanayakeE. (2001). An ethological view of music and its relevance to music therapy. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 10(2), 159–75.
11.
EerolaT., & BregmanM. (2007). Melodic and contextual similarity of folk song phrases. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
12.
EitanZ., & GranotR. (2007). Intensity changes and perceived similarity: Inter-parametric analogies. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
13.
FerrandM. (2005). A new cognitive model of musical melody segmentation (working title). PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
14.
FerrandM., NelsonP., & WigginsG. A. (2002). A probabilistic model for melody segmentation. In Proceedings of ICMAI'02.Springer-Verlag.
15.
JackendoffR. (1987). Consciousness and computational mind.Cambridge, MA: Mit Press.
16.
LartillotO., & ToiviainenP. (2007). Motivic matching strategies for automated pattern extraction. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
17.
LemströmK., & PienimäkiA. (2007). Approaches for content-based retrieval of symbolically encoded polyphonic music. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
18.
LerdahlF., & JackendoffR., (1983). A generative theory of tonal music.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
19.
LottoB. R., & PurvesD. (2002). The empirical basis of color perception. Consciousness and Cognition, 11, 609–29.
20.
MeredithD., LemströmK., & WigginsG. (2002). Algorithms for discovering repeated patterns in multidimensional representations of polyphonic music. Journal of New Music Research, 31 (4), 321–45.
21.
MongeauM., & SankoffD. (1990). Comparison of musical sequences. Computers and the Humanities, 24, 161–75.
22.
MüllensiefenD., & FrielerK. (2007). Modelling experts’ notions of melodic similarity. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
23.
PearceM., & WigginsG. A. (2006a). Expectancy in melody: The influence of context and learning. Music Perception, 25 (5), 377–406.
24.
PearceM., & WigginsG. A. (2006b). The information dynamics of melodic boundary detection. In BaroniM., AddessiA. R., CaterinaR., & CostaM. (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition. CD-ROM, University of Bologna, Italy.
25.
PearceM. T. (2005). The construction and evaluation of statistical models of melodic structure in music perception and composition. PhD thesis, Department of Computing, City University, London, UK.
26.
PeretzI. (1989). Clustering in music: An appraisal of task factors. International Journal of Psychology, 24 (2), 157–78.
27.
PinkerS. (1994). The language instinct.New York: William Morrow & Co.
28.
Plato (1997). The Republic [Original 385BC, translated by J. L. Davies & D. J. Vaughan]. Ware, Hertfordshire, UK: Wordsworth Editions Ltd.
29.
PlotkinH. (1998). Evolution in mind.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
PonsfordD., WigginsG. A., & MellishC. S. (1999). Statistical learning of harmonic movement. Journal of New Music Research, 28 (2), 150–77.
31.
SaffranJ. R., JohnsonE. K., AslinR. N., & NewportE. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by hman infants and adults. Cognition, 70, 27–52.
32.
SchaffrathH. (1992). The ESAC databases and MAPPET software. Computing and Musicology, 8, 66.
33.
SchenkerH. (1925). Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, Volume I.Munich: Drei Maksen Verlag.
34.
SchenkerH. (1926). Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, Volume IIMunich: Drei Maksen Verlag.
35.
SchenkerH. (1930). Das Meisterwerk in der Musik, Volume IIIMunich: Drei Maksen Verlag.
36.
Selfridge-FieldE. (2007). Social dimensions of melodic identity, cognition, and association. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
37.
ShannonC. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423, 623-56.
38.
SmaillA., WigginsG. A., & HarrisM. (1993). Hierarchical music representation for analysis and composition. Computers and the Humanities, 27, 7–17. Also from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 511.
39.
SolæR. V., FerrerR., MontoyaJ. M., & ValverdeS. (2002). Selection, tinkering and emergence in complex networks. Complexity, 8, 20–33.
40.
TanN., AielloR., & BeverT. G. (1981). Harmonic structure as a determinant of melodic organization. Memory and Cognition, 9 (5), 533–9.
41.
TrevarthenC. (1999). Musicality and the intrinsic motive pulse: Evidence from human psychobiology and infant communication. Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue 1999-2000, 155–215.
42.
TuringA. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2 (42), 230–65.
43.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–52.
44.
TypkeR., WieringF., & VeltkampR. C. (2007). Transportation distances and human perception of melodic similarity. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
45.
WidmerG. (2006). Special issue on music and machine learning. Journal of Machine Learning, (In press).
46.
WigginsG. A. (1998). Music, syntax, and the meaning of “meaning”. In Proceedings of the First Symposium on Music and Computers, Corfu, Greece.
47.
WigginsG. A. (2007). Computer-representation of music in the research environment. In CrawfordT. T., & GibsonL. (eds), AHRC ICT Network Music Expert Seminar.Oxford: Ashworth.
48.
WigginsG. A., MirandaE., SmaillA., & HarrisM. (1993). A framework for the evaluation of music representation systems. Computer Music Journal, 17 (3), 31–42. Machine Tongues series, number XVII; Also from Edinburgh as DAI Research Paper No. 658.
49.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 9, 1–27.
50.
ZivN., & EitanZ. (2007). Themes as prototypes: Similarity judgments and categorization tasks in musical contexts. Musicæ Scientiæ, Discussion Forum 4a.
