Quantitative Analysis of Phrasing Strategies in Expressive Performance: Authors: Eric Cheng and Elaine Chew Year: 2008 Presentation by: Elvira Burdiel Galende ELEM021, Queen Mary University 19 March 2012 Computational Methods and Analysis of Performances of Unaccompanied Bach for Solo Violin

Introduction 1/2  Goal – Quantitative analysis of phrasing strategies of expressive performance in violin. Andante movement from Bach’s Sonata No.2 in A minor BWV 1003 for solo violin  Regular pulse  Unambiguous phrase structure 11 recorded performances + average Unlimited musician freedom on expressive performance?

Introduction 2/2  Look for indicator of phrasing strategy: Tempo extraction Loudness/dynamics extraction  Analysis of phrasing strategies via LMPD method Phrase strength - clarity Phrase volatility – variability of strength Phrase typicality – uniqueness of strategy

Tempo extraction  Violin: soft indetermined onsets No reliable and accurate automatic beat tracking tool  Manual onset detection using a digital waveform editor. Tempo = inverse of inter-onset interval Rectangular smoothing window

Dynamics extraction  Use two existing models: 1- Single-band Leq (RLB) model 2- Multiband PEAQ loudness model Sample loudness at onsets Smooth by Gaussian window  Test models with manual annotation Correlation higher on 2 -> method chosen

Extracted data  Global means and ranges  Section means and ranges 4 sections: A A’ B B’  Phrase means and ranges

Extracted data - global

Extract data – Section means

Extract data – Section ranges

Extract data – Phrase means

Extract data – Phrase

Data extraction - Phrasing  Loudness -> more consistent

LMPD Method  Local maximum on loudness per phrase Phrase strength (clarity)  Difference between max and adjacent mins Phrase volatility  Standard deviation of strength over performance Phrase typicality (uniqueness)  Popularity of location of max

LMPD results 1/2

LMPD results 2/2

LMPD Conclusions  Finite number of local maxima counts  Phrase strength and volatility relates to listening perception  Typicality (uniqueness) vs greatness of performance

General conclusions  Significant differences between tempo and dynamics consistency with phrasing strategy  Different constraints of tempo and dynamics, different perceptions  Dynamics more consistent in this analysis, opposite on other studies  Cultural constructs