Melodic similarity among folk songs: An annotation study on similarity-based categorization in music

Musicae Scientiae

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 317-339

  Volk, Anja ^a   van Kranenburg, Peter ^b  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b KNAW   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

categorization; melodic similarity; musical features; tune families

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867943820     PISSN: 10298649     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1029864912448329     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Bayard S.Prolegomena to a study of the principal melodic families of British-American folk song.Journal of American Folklore. 1950;63 (247): 1-44.
2. Bronson B. H.Some observations about melodic variation in British-American folk tunes.Journal of the American Musicological Society. 1950;3:120-134.
3. Cambouropoulos E.Melodic cue abstraction, similarity, and category formation: A formal model.Music Perception. 2001;18 (3): 347-370.
4. Cambouropoulos E.How similar is similar?.Musicae Scientiae. 2009;:7-24.
5. Cambouropoulos E.The musical surface: Challenging basic assumptions.Musicae Scientiae. 2010;:131-147.
6. Cowdery J. R.A fresh look at the concept of tune family.Ethnomusicology. 1984;28 (3): 495-504.
7. Dalla Bella S.,Peretz I.Differentiation of classical music requires little learning but rhythm.Cognition. 2005;96:B65-B78.
8. Deliège I.Cue abstraction as a component of categorisation processes in music listening.Psychology of Music. 1996;24:131-156.
9. Deliège I.Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Similarity and Categorisation. University of Edinburgh; 1997:59-65.
10. Deliège I.Prototype effects in music listening: An empirical approach to the notion of imprint.Music Perception. 2001;18 (3): 371-407.
11. Deliège I.Similarity relations in listening to music: How do they come into play?.Musicae Scientiae. 2007;:9-37.
12. Downie J.,Byrd D.,Crawford T.Ten years of ISMIR: Reflections on challenges and opportunities. Proceedings of the 10th International Society on Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR); 2009Kobe; 2009. 13.
13. Eerola T.,Järvinen T.,Louhivuori J.,Toiviainen P.Statistical features and perceived similarity of folk melodies.Music Perception. 2001;18 (3): 275-296.
14. Eitan Z.,Granot R.Primary versus secondary musical parameters and the classification of melodica motives.Musicae Scientiae. 2009;:139-179.
15. Fleiss J.,Cohen J.The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1973;33:613-619.
16. Goldstone R. L.,Son J.The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Holyoak K.Morrison R. G., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005:13-36.
17. Grijp L. P.Under the green linden - 163 Dutch ballads from the oral tradition. Grijp L. P.van Beersum I., ed. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute + Music & Words; 2008:18-27.
18. Hahn U.,Ramscar R.Simillarity and categorization. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001:.
19. Kassler M.Toward musical information retrieval.Perspectives of New Music. 1966;4 (6): 59-76.
20. Klusen E.,Moog H.,Piel W.Experimente zur mündlichen Tradition von Melodien.Jahrbuch für Volksliedforschung. 1978;2:11-32.
21. Koller O.Die beste Methode, um Volks-und volksmäßige Lieder nach ihrer melodischen (nicht textlichen) Beschaffenheit lexikalisch zu ordnen.Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft. 1902;4 (1): 1-15.
22. Koniari D.,Predazzer S.,Melen M.Categorization and schematization processes used in music perception by 10- to 11- year old children.Music Perception. 2001;18 (3): 297-324.
23. Krohn I.Welche ist die beste Methode, um Volks-und volksmäßige Lieder nach ihrer melodischen (nicht textlichen) Beschaffenheit lexikalisch zu ordnen?.Sammelbände der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft. 1903;4 (4): 643-660.
24. Lamont A.,Dibben N.Motivic structure and the perception of similarity.Music Perception. 2001;18 (3): 245-274.
25. Lerdahl F.,Jackendoff R.A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1983:.
26. Love B. C.Similarity and categorization: A review.AI Magazine. 2002;18 (3): 103-105.
27. McAdams S.,Matzkin D.Similarity, invariance, and musical variation.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2001;930:62-67.
28. McAdams S.,Vieillard S.,Houix O.,Reynolds R.Perception of musical similarity among contemporary thematic materials in two instrumentations.Music Perception. 2004;22 (2): 207-237.
29. Medin D.,Ortony A.Similarity and analogical reasoning. Vosniadou S.Ortony A., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989:179-195.
30. Melen M.,Wachsmann J.Categorization of musical motifs in infancy.Music Perception. 2001;18 (3): 325-346.
31. Meyer L.Explaining music: Essays and exploration. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1973:.
32. Müllensiefen D.,Frieler K.Modelling experts' notions of melodic similarity.Musicae Scientiae. 2007;:183-210.
33. Murphy G. L.,Medin D.The role of theories in conceptual coherence.Psychological Review. 1985;92:289-316.
34. Navon D.Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception.Cognitive Psychology. 1977;9:353-383.
35. Novello A.,McKinney M.,Kohlrausch A.Perceptual evaluation of intersong similarity in Western popular music.Journal of New Music Research. 2011;40:1-26.
36. Réti R.The thematic process in music. New York: Macmillan; 1951:.
37. Rips L.Similarity and analogical reasoning. Vosniadou S.Ortony A., ed. 1989:21-59.
38. Rosch E.Natural categories.Cognitive Psychology. 1973;4:328-350.
39. Rosch E.,Mervis C.,Gray W.,Johnson D.,Boyes-Braem P.Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology. 1976;8:328-493.
40. Rosch E.,Mervis C. B.Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology. 1975;7:573-605.
41. Sagrillo D.Melodiegestalten im luxemburgischen Volkslied: Zur Anwendung computergestützter Verfahren bei der Klassifikation von Volksliedabschnitten. Bonn: Holos-Verlag; 1999:.
42. Schoenberg A.Models for beginners in composition. New York: Schirmer; 1942:.
43. Schoenberg A.Fundamentals of musical composition. London: Faber & Faber; 1967:.
44. Selfridge-Field E.Social dimensions of melodic identity, cognition, and association.Musicae Scientiae. 2007;:77-97.
45. Smith E. E.,Sloman S.Similarity-versus rule-based categorization.Memory and Cognition. 1994;22:377-386.
46. Stief W.Neue Ordnung im Melodienkatalog des Deutschen Volksliedarchivs. Braun H., ed. Bern; 1990:324-329.
47. Suchoff B.The Hungarian Folksong. Albany: State University of New York Press; 1981:.
48. Sutcliffe J. P.Categories and Concepts. van Mechelen I.Hampton J.Michalski R. S.Theuns P., ed. London: Academic Press; 1993:33-65.
49. Toiviainen P.Editorial.Musicae Scientiae. 2007;:3-6.
50. Typke R.,de Hoed M.,de Nooijer J.,Wiering F.,Veltkamp R. C.A ground truth for half a million musical incipits.Journal of Digital Information Managment. 2005;3 (1): 34-39.
51. Van KranenburgP. (2010). A computational approach to content-based retrieval of folk song melodies (doctoral dissertation). Utrecht University.
52. Vosniadou S.,Ortony A.Similarity and analogical reasoning. Vosniadou S.Ortony A., ed. London: Cambridge University Press; 1989:1-17.
53. Webern A.The path to the new music. London: Theodor Presser; 1963:.
54. Wiora W.Systematik der musikalischen Erscheinungen des Umsingens.Jahrbuch für Volksliedforschung. 1941;7:128-195.
55. Wittgenstein L.Philosopical investigations. London:; 1953:.
56. Zbikowski L.Conceptualizing music. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002:.
57. Ziv N.,Eitan Z.Themes as prototypes: Similarity judgments and categorization tasks in musical contexts.Musicae Scientiae. 2007;:99-133.