Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SYNCOPATION
483
=== =
ˇ “( ˇ “ ˇ “(
in 44 and as ˇ “ ˇ “ ˇ “ in 24. The next sections detail three
484 Proceedings of the 16th ISMIR Conference, Málaga, Spain, October 26-30, 2015
= =
music. Through this model, it shows the increase of synco-
pation use together with its most important rhythmical pat- variants of the 121 pattern: untied, tied and augmented.
terns over time. Third, a tactus finding algorithm is intro- Examples of these three types of syncopation in 24 can also
duced that is capable of correctly identifying the number of be found in Figure 1.
beats in a bar of a ragtime piece. These three contributions Untied syncopation. In untied syncopation, a pattern
are pivotal in understanding the characteristic features of starts on a strong metrical position and does not pass over
ragtime music.
˘“ ˘“
ˇ“ ˇ“ ˇ“ ˇ“
3.1 Onset Extraction
0
Characteristic of ragtime music is a ragged or syncopated 0 -1
ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “(
melody over a stable accompaniment that reinforces the 0 -2 -1 -2
meter. The importance of first separating a piece into its
individual rhythmic layers for syncopation measurements
ˇ “( ˇ “( ˇ “(
0 -3 -2 -3 -1 -3 -2 -3
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
was shown in [13]. Therefore, to be able to analyse synco- I, I, O, I, O, O, O, O
pation of the melody of a rag, we split it from its accom- 4
4
...
paniment. The accompaniment is used in a tactus finding
step (detailed in Section 3.2), and the melody is used in a U1 U2
pattern finding step (section 3.3).
The melody and accompaniment are split using the sky- T1 T2
algorithm, in which syncopation is defined to occur when T parts of syncopated bars. First, results of finding the
a note occurs on a weaker position than its succeeding rest most frequent patterns in the entire RAG - C are presented
(or tied note). This was also shown empirically by Fitch et (Section 4.1). Then, the RAG - C is split into rags from
al. [4], who showed that the recall of a rhythm decreased the ragtime era (before 1920) and the modern era (after
with higher LHL syncopation. 1920) to find which patterns are characteristic for these
The LHL model computes syncopation using a tree of eras. These results are presented in Section 4.2. In the next
0.15
Figure 2). With this quantitative measurement of pattern
per bar
[10101010]
[10001000]
[10100010]
[00001000]
[00101010]
[00101000]
[10001010]
[00000000]
[10000000]
[10100000]
ing how often each one appears in one of the U and T parts, 0.30
0.25
normalized over the total number of bars. Calculating the
0.20
frequency of all pattern results in distributions of patterns
0.15
in U and T bar parts. 0.10
0.05
4. RESULTS 0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Longuet-Higgins and Lee syncopation value
This section describes statistics of syncopation and the re-
sults of finding the most frequently used patterns in U and Figure 4: Percentage of bars with LHL>0 in ragtime era (dark)
and modern era (light). Values > 7 are too small to be visible.
Proceedings of the 16th ISMIR Conference, Málaga, Spain, October 26-30, 2015 487
Average frequency
average LHL syncopation of a ragtime era bar with LHL>0 0.20
per bar
is x̄ = 1.9, and x̄ = 2.4 in the modern era. In a Wilcoxon 0.15
test for the null hypothesis that two related paired samples 0.10
[10001000]
[00001000]
[10101010]
[10100010]
[00101010]
[10001010]
[00101000]
[10000000]
[00000000]
[10100000]
[10101010]
[10100010]
[00101010]
[00101000]
[10001000]
[00001000]
[10001010]
[00000000]
[00100010]
[10100000]
syncopated. Also taking into account the non-syncopated
bars shows a significant difference, with x̄ = 0.83 (ragtime
era) and x̄ = 1.26 (modern era), again with p ⌧ 0.001. Ragtime era U Modern era U
Figure 4 shows distibution of LHL syncopation found in
Figure 5: The 10 most frequent U patterns found in bars with
syncopated bars from these two eras. The figure shows that LHL > 0 in ragtime and modern era. 121 pattern is visualized
bars with LHL=1 are more common in the ragtime era, and darker.
LHL =2 is almost equally common in the ragtime era as in 0.25
Average frequency
the modern era. Nevertheless, it also shows that bars with 0.20
LHL >3 are more characteristic for bars from the modern
per bar
0.15
era. Bars with LHL>5 occur twice as often in the modern 0.10
era compared to the ragtime era. 0.05
Syncopation per rag. To find the distribution and de- 0.00
gree of syncopated bars of complete rags in the RAG - C, we
[10001000]
[10100010]
[10000000]
[10001010]
[10101010]
[10100000]
[00101000]
[00001000]
[10101000]
[00100000]
[10100010]
[10101010]
[10001010]
[10001000]
[00100010]
[10000000]
[10100000]
[00100000]
[00101010]
[00101000]
computed statistics on rags. The average syncopation per
=
=
inside one of the U parts, resulting in a bar of ˇ “ ˇ “ > <.
rag for the whole RAG - C is x̄ = 0.95, = 0.6. An LHL
value of 1 roughly corresponds with a single syncopation Ragtime era T Modern era T
Figure 6: The 10 most frequent T patterns found in bars with
LHL > 0 in ragtime and modern era. 121 pattern is visualized
For the ragtime era, the average syncopation per rag is
darker.
x̄ = 0.85, = 0.52. For the modern era this is x̄ = 1.28,
= 0.74. Therefore, in the modern era, syncopation more 0.12
Average frequency
0.06
eras, we find that the number of syncopated bars per rag 0.04
is around 50%, which means that not the number of syn- 0.02
copated bars increases, but the use of syncopation inside 0.00
Ragtime Modern Ragtime Modern
bars does. We found that the difference in syncopation be- U T
tween ragtime and modern era to be highly significant with
Figure 7: Frequency of augmented pattern in U (left) and T
=
=
p ⌧ 0.001. When only taking into account the syncopated