• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Researchers find classical musical compositions adhere to power law

Analog

Lifer
400px-musical_notes.svg.jpg


(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of researchers, led by Daniel Levitin of McGill University, has found after analyzing over two thousand pieces of classical music that span four hundred years of history, that virtually all of them follow a one-over-f (1/f) power distribution equation. He and his team have published the results of their work in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

One-over-f equations describe the relative frequency of things that happen over time and can be used to describe such naturally occurring events as annual river flooding or the beating of a human heart. They have been used to describe the way pitch is used in music as well, but until now, no one has thought to test the idea that they could be used to describe the rhythm of the music too.
To find out if this is the case, Levitin and his team analyzed (by measuring note length line by line) close to 2000 pieces of classical music from a wide group of noted composers. In so doing, they found that virtually every piece studied conformed to the power law. They also found that by adding another variable to the equation, called a beta, which was used to describe just how predictable a given piece was compared to other pieces, they could solve for beta and find a unique number of for each composer.
After looking at the results as a whole, they found that works written by some classical composers were far more predictable than others, and that certain genres in general were more predictable than others too. Beethoven was the most predictable of the group studied, while Mozart was the least of the bunch. And symphonies are generally far more predictable than Ragtimes with other types falling somewhere in-between. In solving for beta, the team discovered that they had inadvertently developed a means for calculating a composer’s unique individual rhythm signature. In speaking with the university news group at McGill, Levitin said, “this was one of the most unanticipated and exciting findings of our research.”
Another interesting aspect of the research is that because the patterns are based on the power law, the music the team studied shares the same sorts of patterns as fractals, i.e. elements in the rhythm that occur the second most often happen only half as often, the third, just a third as often and so forth. Thus, it’s not difficult to imagine music in a fractal patterns that are unique to individual composers.
 
One-over-f equations describe the relative frequency of things that happen over time and can be used to describe such naturally occurring events as annual river flooding or the beating of a human heart.

Music adheres to a regular frequency, like some kind of crazy "tempo" or "beat"?!?!?!?

images
 
Ummm, I heard that a long time ago.

What is going on in the world? I'm dumb and I seem to know more than most people.
THAT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE!!
 
It's not too hard for a computer to count how many times Beethoven uses the same motive in the first movement of his 5th symphony. And the final tally might make it seem repetetive.

But that's as far as science goes. It can't go one step further.

Thank God not everyone in this world is a scientist.
 
Imagine watching proteins fold or dna being transcripted while listening to music composed primarily with arpeggio. Where each note is coupled to a action. Now Imagine multiple proteins.
A choir of notes it becomes...
 
But that's as far as science goes. It can't go one step further.

for now. music, especially classical music, is a highly mathematical form of art. it's not unthinkable that we can eventually understand its more significant "laws" (such as the one discovered here), and even use them to artificially compose master pieces. it would take the "magic" out of music yeah, but that's what science is all about.
 
Music adheres to a regular frequency, like some kind of crazy "tempo" or "beat"?!?!?!?

images

It's not just that there's a rhythm. It's that there's a specific relationship between the the spectral power (the integrated amplitude) and the rhythmic frequency. Namely:

S=[1/f]^b

Where S is the power, f the rhythm frequency, and b is a fitting parameter. That fitting parameter is what varies between composers, but every piece essentially looks linear (with a lot of noise) in a log-log plot of power vs. rhythm. That's pretty cool, frankly.
 
for now. music, especially classical music, is a highly mathematical form of art. it's not unthinkable that we can eventually understand its more significant "laws" (such as the one discovered here), and even use them to artificially compose master pieces. it would take the "magic" out of music yeah, but that's what science is all about.

Too late.
 
You know one thing that shaped Beethoven into what he was, for better or worse?

He had an alcoholic father who regularly beat the shit out him when he was a kid.

How would you begin to program that sort of emotion into a computer? And then meld it with hundreds of thousands of other influences in such way that it eventually could compose a symphony with a chorale finale dedicated to joy?
 
Back
Top