I am a student as part of the Web Science DTC, and recently we were given the opportunity (myself a few of my colleagues) to travel to East Asia, first Hong Kong and then on to Taiwan to present our research and discuss collaboration possibilities. I spent a total of 10 days out there. And will post a couple of blog posts now covering my time over there.
Hong Kong: East Asian Research Students Conference at Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK)
The first day at CUHK was based around small group workshops, where we discussed our research and presented it to others interested in the field – I attended the western music theory and analysis group. I found it useful to show how my research relates to other fields and also how this traditional discipline of music theory relates to the developments of the web. The day finished with a keynote presentation by Alexander Rehding from Harvard, whose recent work with Harvard’s Sound Lab explores the interaction of music theory, culture and technology.
Having a fabulous first day in Hong Kong at #EARS@CUHKofficial, including (really useful) music theory seminar day, now time for Alexander Rehding’s keynote and tomorrow student presentations! What a beautiful campus, at 31-degree heat…
Day two was busy; here each student involved gave a lightning presentation on their research, the conference aspect of the work. This gave me a chance to present my work in a different professional environment, and gain feedback and questions. We finished off the evening enjoying some delicious food in a local restaurant.
I am recently back from a trip to Durham for this year’s Society of Music Analysis Graduate Students Conference (TAGS). I enjoyed the trip not only as a delegate but as one of the SMA PGR representative, it was exciting to engage with other PGR’s and learn what their research is about. Our community is so diverse, and the work everyone is doing is exciting and influential. I especially enjoyed presentations on SoundScape and the combination of different music theoretical models it a group model.
I enjoyed my trip to Durham, it was beautiful as a place, along with a really influential and growing music department. There is a strong community feel at the University and therefore it was a pleasure to be a part of that for the weekend.
The walk up to the Music Building
The cathedral, as seen whilst walking past to the music building.
The cathedral again.
To reflect upon the presentation I gave in Durham, I was happy with how I generally presented it. I am beginning to form a presentation style, which still needs development, but I am getting close to this. The nerves are reducing and I am getting into the swing of how to do this ‘academic conference’ lark.
I would say, however, that I felt that I tried to cover too much information and therefore it felt rushed and was not as strong in content as my previous presentations have been. The most useful part of conferences is in the question sessions and with discussing with people after the presentation. I found it useful to discuss features such as ‘rhythm’ that I had not considered, along with discussing aspects of my research. I enjoyed discussing objectivity and subjectivity in music analysis, and my research in particular. I have learnt from this presentation, and how my research will be received by the Music Analysis community.
I aimed for this presentation to learn how the Music Analysis community would interact with my research. This was my first presentation to the community, and I feel my work was generally well received and that the benefits and the application of my work was understood. I am looking forward to presenting again to the community in July, at CityMac which my paper has recently been accepted to.
During the last week I have been in the Netherlands to give two papers, the first at the Netherlands Institute for permanent access to digital research resources (DANS). Here, i had been invited to give a similar to paper as to the one i gave in Shanghai for the Digital Libraries for Musicology workshop. This presentation went very well, and it really gave us a chance to discuss collaboration and how we can work together to further the field of musicology through my proposal of a ‘Big Musicology Project’.
This presentation started important discussions on a possible working group to develop an interdisciplinary network of those interested in the digitisation of musical resources in computer-readable formats. We looked at how the Semantic Web and other prominent technologies can be utilised to further this collaboration.
My second paper was given at Utrecht University, at their Music Similarity Lab. Here, I presented on the work of my PhD to this point. This included discussion on how to quantify music similarity from music theory. This chance to discuss my work at their lab enabled me to find out more about the field of music similarity – from a lab which specialises in it. We talked about how to compare different melodic similarity methods with the ones that i proposed. My Women in Music Information Retrieval mentor, Anja Volk, works at this lab and therefore i also got a chance to start discussions with her on how we can collaborate and how we are going to move forward with this.
Today in the ‘adventures of Anna the PhD researcher’ I am off to @UtrechtUni to their Music Similairty lab. We hope to talk about collaboration possibilities and to find the commonalities between our work. I also have my first @Women_MIR mentor session!
Overall this was another successful PhD trip. I am looking forward to now having a few months to focus on my PhD research and look at my upgrade work. I also hope to start my PhD listening experiment really soon, and then my interviews in the near future.
I have just got back, well a couple of days ago, from my most recent conference the British Forum for Ethnomusicology and the Royal Musical Association postgraduate students conference. This is a lively conference where postgraduate researchers get together to support each other in presenting their research. This conference is a great place to showcase the early stages of your work and get feedback from students and academics within the field, in a friendly and supportive environment.
This was the first paper I have given on my thesis research directly. Here I explored how I am using one method of quantifying musical similairities from a melodic line. I have built upon the work of Hirata and Matsuda, and showed how we can extend their model to discuss other prominent methods of music analysis in this way. I always find the most useful components of any conference paper is the chance to discuss and answer questions on your topic. I was given interesting topics that questioned why I was using traditional music theories, and why I was not interested in the traditional ‘genre’ classification.
For anyone interested the abstract I provided for the conference was as follows:
The release of Napster in 1999 saw exponential growth of online music streaming. This has inspired the development of tools to discover new music, typically as part of applications such as Spotify. Music recommendation often suggests new music to users based on their own and others’ preferences (Herlocker et al., 2004; Celma, 2010) or audio-based methods of “similarity” analysis (Downie, 2008). I propose that score-based musical analysis can provide a more useful similarity comparison than audio analysis.
To date, there has been a lack of success in extracting high-level musical features from audio. In contrast, traditional music analysis methods (e.g. Schenker) enable the evaluation of high-level musical features, including harmony, timbre, and melody. These features could be compared to determine the similarity of two pieces of music. I will discuss how traditional music analysis methods can be utilised to determine musical similarity and propose ways of quantifying similarity to enable computation. Additionally, I will report on the provisional findings of a listener study examining the perceived audibility of theoretical definitions of musical similarity.
This work will enable cross-genre musical recommendation based on the fundamental features of a piece of music. For the consumer this means more relevant and accurate recommendations, and for the emerging artists greater exposure.
The conference was a great opportunity to begin to share my thesis research, and introduce the concepts I am developing to the wider research community. The University of Southampton was strongly represented, and we have a great time – especially enjoying afternoon tea.
My next presentation is on the 23rd January at DANS in the Netherlands.
This blog post, is the start of what will be a series of blog posts discussing the work I present at a variety of conferences and publish in journals over the next few years of my PhD at the University of Southampton.
For my first conference paper, I submitted to the Digital Libraries for Musicology workshop in Shanghai, the event is discussed in this blog post.
This presentation began with a rather, impactful, statement ‘Musicology is in need of a transformation’. The paper continues by proposing that we learn from the work of biology’s human genome project to develop a data-driven approach to musicology, enabling computational analysis at scale – and inevitably new unforeseen research and opportunities.
I stated that this would be possible through a change to the humanities current ethos, and often exhibited reticence to collaborative research. Through collaboration, importantly through a large interdisciplinary team of researchers, the required conditions for a ‘big musicology’ project will be achieved. In keeping with the DLfM workshops topics, I suggested a project focusing on the digitisation of music and it’s primary documents.
I also emphasised the importance of the lone scholar, and not dismissing its importance, as the lone scholar provides a significant enhancement to knowledge. However, through collaboration for example in the digtisation of musical resources, we could aid the lone scholar in their research – giving them access to larger databases of resources.
This presentation concluded in a Panel discussion on the future of musicology, and especially digital libraries, of which myself, Dr. Hongjie Sun, a visitor at the University of Oxford China Centre in 2016 and Professor Weiping Zhao from the Shanghai conservatory of music.
From this presentation I have been invited to give a longer presentation at DANS (Netherlands institute for permanent access to digital research resources), at a colloquium entitled ‘Data-Driven Musicology: Exploring Digital Resources Using Computational Tools and Methods’ on the 23rd January 2018.
We were delighted to have Professor Simon McVeigh, from Goldsmiths, University of London, to join us for our first Hartley Residency of the 2016-17 academic year. On the 15th-16th November Simon shared with us his work on concert life, with specific emphasis on his collaborative project ‘In Concert’. As this was my first Hartley Residency, I was interested to see how this eminent researcher’s work could influence my knowledge and perception of digital archiving, and I especially looked forward to the second day’s round table discussion on ‘Big Data, Small Data and the Challenges for Musicology’.
Tuesday began with a postgraduate seminar, focused around a set of readings on digital archiving and interdisciplinarity – as well as introducing the ideas and concepts which would be prominent in Simon’s keynote. Particular emphasis was placed on Simon’s current project on Edwardian recitals, interrogating what it means for someone to study concert life in the digital age. Discussions in the seminar resonated around Simon’s collaborative project ‘In Concert’. This project aims to develop a set of new standards for curation – through taking a ‘fresh’ approach to building a digital archive. This new approach included discussions of how to document such a large range and quantity of sources, including through crowd funding. We discussed how crowd funding would aid speed of digitisation, but add an element of potential risk of quality and consistency.
For me, the most interesting insights came from the use of digital methods in the ‘In Concert’ programme. Through a bottom-up approach, a richer picture of the diversity of music making across London was created. In Simon’s presentation, we were shown a variety of visualisations to show how the places of concert making in the eighteenth and nineteenth century changed. In our seminar, I highlighted how by making this data digital the project is enabling us to combine data through semantic web methods. This shows how open data could enable us to compare our new knowledge of music making in the eighteenth and nineteenth century to other data such as maps, the population distribution at the time, and economic wealth of individuals across the city.
Simon McVeigh’s keynote, titled ‘Out of the Box into the Fire: Writing about Edwardian Musical Culture from Multiple Perspectives’, took us on a journey from his early collection of concert data, the ‘Calendar of London Concerts’, through to his recent, and on-going project ‘In Concert’. Interestingly, the end of his presentation introduced ideas of using hypertext fiction in the creation of his next book. He discussed the use of datasets behind a ‘book’ that would enable you to travel through the space in a variety of threads – enabling both a breadth of story and individual narratives to be explored in Edwardian musical culture. This part of his talk led to great discussions between the audience and Simon. Popular hypertext fiction concepts such as ‘getting lost in hyperspace’ were debated. However, overall the emphasis was placed on the development and utilisation of the Web in a movement from the scholarly multi-chapter monograph to a ‘reader perspective’ text.
In tradition of the Hartley Residency, the second day starts with a presentation from a researcher in our department. This talk by Thomas Irvine, on ‘Anglo-German musical relations around 1900: After the transnational turn’, started with the question of whether nationalism haunts British music history. Through examining the work of Hubert Parry, Tom discussed how the music we perceive as ‘British’ has large influence from German, other European and oriental musical cultures. He explored how the transnational and global turns in history have cast doubt on the utility of national frameworks in understanding music of the Edwardian period.
To finish off the residency, a stimulating debate was established around Simon’s paper ‘Big Data, Small Data and the Challenges for Musicology’. Here resident lecturers David Bretherton, Richard Polfeman and Mark Everist provided responses to Simon’s paper. The discussion was framed around how we present musicology and how we do musicology. For me, some of the most interesting insights came from these discussions. David Bretherton raised how big data has changed the way we think about sonata theory. His example highlighted how periphery music such as concertos frequently do not adhere to standard ‘sonata theory’ form, and Beethoven – whom most of these theories are based on – was an exception to the rule, not the norm. Richard Polfreman introduced the concept of ‘graveyards of data’ and how we are stuck with a large amount of our data being non-digital. Therefore we should look at making sure our future data is digital,open and useable for everyone – incorporating ideas of the semantic web. He highlighted that we should possibly look at the future first, and then crowd source to digitise our graveyards of data.
The concepts that resonated with me involved ideas of how can we impact the future. We must look at how we do work now, and what we do to make sure our data is reusable – enabling it as open, and in standardised formats. The concept of making sure my dissertation was encoded in TEI, or the music I work with encoded in MEI, any databases I collect being published openly using semantic web standards – these are all ways in which I could create sustainable and re–usable data for future musicologists to utilise and engage with. Academia is moving from the solitary researcher, to the combined community to build and develop the interdisciplinary network of researchers.
For my Masters dissertation (which will be built upon for my thesis) I aim to look at how music recommendation systems can be enhanced by using musical analysis (especially harmonic analysis) of encoded data. Optical Music Recognition (OMR) is one way of providing this encoded data, and thus I began my research with looking at OMR. Here is a summary of some of my research into OMR. And what I have learnt, and built upon from it.
OMR is a process of converting scanned pages of music into an online format, enabling computers to ‘read’ and manipulate printed music. OMR is an extension of Optical Character Recognition (OCR), which looks similarly at converting scanned pages of text into an on-line format. OCR is better established than that of OMR – which is still in development. OCR has enabled textual documents to be searched, as used by Google Books – where you can search for a specific word within a document. OMR therefore could enable Music to become searchable, by creating encoded musical data. Encoded musical data could enable musical analysis to be completed online, using computational programs to compare the harmony, texture and rhythmic components of pieces of music. By enabling this, musical data could be added to the factors of recommendation, instead of purely relying on metadata- the current process. OMR is not the only way of creating this encoded data, the mark-up languages such as the Music Encoding Initiative, is another such way of doing this.
A brief history of OMR research
Early OMR research, looked at creating systems which could recognise Common Music Notation (CMN). Pruslin (1966), Kassler (1972), Prerau (1970, 1971, 1975) all looked at features of CMN such as clefs, time signatures and rests. Prerau built upon the work of Pruslin and Kassler in his later work, and established a system that recognised clefs, rests, certain time signatures and accidentals. A large amount of research has also looked into the music recognition of hand written manuscripts. However OMR is yet to reach the success of OCR through Google Books and HathiTrust. SIMSSA (Single Interface for Music Score Searching and Analysis) is a current project, that aims to develop OMR’s capabilities. The Cantus Ultimus project (part of SIMSSA) is an example of their OMR work in action, using chant manuscripts. This project is one such area of music which OMR will be used on, when successfully developed. The Cantus Ultimus project shows you, how OMR will enable searching and the success that the SIMSSA project is having.
How does this relate to my dissertation?
OMR is one way which individuals can change sheet music into encoded data enabling musical analysis and searchability of music. OMR could enable recommendation systems to further adapt their algorithms to look at the musical data present. OMR is one way of enabling musical comparisons to be created, so that we can use computers to establish how music is similar or different to each other. These similarities and differences could include looking at harmonic progressions, rhythmic patters, and textural aspects.