1977
DOI: 10.1080/09298217708570231
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A program for key determination

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0
1

Year Published

1995
1995
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
15
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For the nonmodulating sequence, the revised model does not appear to produce better performance than what would be produced by the original key-finding algorithm, 7 and for the modulating sequence the performance of the keyfinding algorithm is not even compared with Huron andParncutt's (1993) revised version. Temperley (1999) provides a detailed comparison of his modified algorithm with other models of key-finding (e.g., Holtzman, 1977;Longuet-Higgins & Steedman, 1971;Vos & Van Geenan, 1996) and demonstrates that this version of the algorithm performs favorably relative to these other models. Again, though, this comparison did not include the original Krumhansl-Schmuckler algorithm and was done with reference to the author's (admittedly expert) musical intuitions of tonality and not on the basis of listeners' percepts of tonality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the nonmodulating sequence, the revised model does not appear to produce better performance than what would be produced by the original key-finding algorithm, 7 and for the modulating sequence the performance of the keyfinding algorithm is not even compared with Huron andParncutt's (1993) revised version. Temperley (1999) provides a detailed comparison of his modified algorithm with other models of key-finding (e.g., Holtzman, 1977;Longuet-Higgins & Steedman, 1971;Vos & Van Geenan, 1996) and demonstrates that this version of the algorithm performs favorably relative to these other models. Again, though, this comparison did not include the original Krumhansl-Schmuckler algorithm and was done with reference to the author's (admittedly expert) musical intuitions of tonality and not on the basis of listeners' percepts of tonality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the importance of tonality, it is not surprising that modeling the process of musical key-finding has, over the years, played a prominent role in music-theoretic and psychological research, resulting in models of key determination from artificial intelligence (e.g., Holtzman, 1977;Meehan, 1980;Smoliar, 1980;Winograd, 1968), neural network (Leman, 1995a(Leman, , 1995bShmulevich & Yli-Harja, 2000;Vos & Van Geenan, 1996), musicological (Brown, 1988;Brown & Butler, 1981;Brown, Butler, & Jones, Figure 1. tonal hierarchies: C major and minor (top) and C and F# major (bottom).…”
Section: Models Of Musical Key-findingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The problem is not our brand; it is their buying habits. 52 In getting Arab-Muslims to buy our brand, the war of ideas is one in which the U.S.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Score-based methods start from symbolic representations, while in audio-based methods the conversion to symbolic representations is a main task. Score-based methods have been founded on rule-based approaches [17,5,28] and template correlation or distances [10,22,24,23]. On the other hand, audio-based methods have been based on solely template-related distance approaches [11,12].…”
Section: Extraction Of Musical Keys From Audiomentioning
confidence: 99%