444 lines
24 KiB
TeX
444 lines
24 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[titlepage]{scrartcl}
|
|
\usepackage{enumitem}
|
|
\usepackage[british]{babel}
|
|
\usepackage[style=apa, backend=biber]{biblatex}
|
|
\DeclareLanguageMapping{british}{british-apa}
|
|
\usepackage{url}
|
|
\usepackage{float}
|
|
\restylefloat{table}
|
|
\usepackage{perpage}
|
|
\MakePerPage{footnote}
|
|
\usepackage{abstract}
|
|
\usepackage{graphicx}
|
|
% Create hyperlinks in bibliography
|
|
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
|
\usepackage{amsmath}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
|
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
|
\usepackage{blindtext}
|
|
\setkomafont{disposition}{\normalfont\bfseries}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{pdfpages}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\graphicspath{
|
|
{./resources/},
|
|
}
|
|
\addbibresource{~/PerryPerrySource/LaTeX/RMTP_Bibliography.bib}
|
|
|
|
\newsavebox{\abstractbox}
|
|
\renewenvironment{abstract}
|
|
{\begin{lrbox}{0}\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
|
|
\begin{center}\normalfont\sectfont\abstractname\end{center}\quotation}
|
|
{\endquotation\end{minipage}\end{lrbox}%
|
|
\global\setbox\abstractbox=\box0 }
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{ifthen}
|
|
|
|
\newcommand*{\appendixmore}{%
|
|
\renewcommand*{\othersectionlevelsformat}[1]{%
|
|
\ifthenelse{\equal{##1}{section}}{\appendixname~}{}%
|
|
\csname the##1\endcsname\autodot\enskip}
|
|
\renewcommand*{\sectionmarkformat}{%
|
|
\appendixname~\thesection\autodot\enskip}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
\usepackage{etoolbox}
|
|
\makeatletter
|
|
\expandafter\patchcmd\csname\string\maketitle\endcsname
|
|
{\vskip\z@\@plus3fill}
|
|
{\vskip\z@\@plus2fill\box\abstractbox\vskip\z@\@plus1fill}
|
|
{}{}
|
|
\makeatother
|
|
|
|
\DeclareCiteCommand{\citeyearpar}
|
|
{}
|
|
{\mkbibparens{\bibhyperref{\printdate}}}
|
|
{\multicitedelim}
|
|
{}
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
\title{Researching Music, Technology and Performance\\Summative Assignment 3\\Research Report}
|
|
\subtitle{\LARGE{Is the Acceptability of Artificial Music Processing Dependent on Genre?}}
|
|
\author{Sam Perry\\U1265119}
|
|
\date{}
|
|
|
|
\begin{abstract}
|
|
This report presents research into the effects of artificial electronic
|
|
processing on musical quality. Examining data collected through the use
|
|
of a survey, comparisons are made to observe any links between the
|
|
increased use of artificial processing and public opinion on musical
|
|
quality. Results presented indicate a possible link between these
|
|
factors and suggestions are made as to possible reasons for these
|
|
results. Limitations of the research are also acknowledged with
|
|
suggestions for possible alterations and improvements to be considered
|
|
in any further research.
|
|
\end{abstract}
|
|
|
|
\maketitle
|
|
|
|
\section{Background}
|
|
Since the introduction of sound recording, audio technicians have sought
|
|
ways to produce the highest quality musical recordings possible. More
|
|
recently, technology has been used creatively for the improvement and
|
|
alteration of recordings.~\parencite[p.80, 258-263]{millard2005aor} A
|
|
plethora of tools and techniques have been developed with the aim of
|
|
improving the quality of audio; Tools such as auto-tuners, compressors,
|
|
equalisers and artificial reverbs have been created to alter the input
|
|
sound in an infinite number of ways. Although this may seem like an
|
|
obvious improvement in the production of music, it raises questions as to
|
|
the quality and musicianship of the composers and performers. Where once an
|
|
out of tune melody was unfixable, methods are now available for the
|
|
specific purpose of hiding these imperfections. Room acoustics can now be
|
|
transformed, drum rhythms tightened and dynamics altered to improve almost
|
|
any aspect of the original recording. This potentially allows for greater
|
|
degrees of of error from the original musician, allowing a technician to
|
|
compensate.~\parencite{bbc2014crm}\\
|
|
These techniques are used to varying degrees in different styles of music
|
|
and are not purely used as a means for musical correction. Many musical
|
|
genres use technology in varying aspects of their realisation. The
|
|
invention of instruments such as the synthesizer has lead to a variety of
|
|
electronic based musical genres and has greatly influenced modern popular
|
|
music. Where a traditional classical music recording may utilise modern
|
|
production techniques to produce the most accurate representation of the
|
|
original performance, a electronic dance music recording may synthesise a
|
|
significant amount of sound purely through electronic means.\\
|
|
Does this artificial synthesis and enhancement of sound detract from
|
|
the listener's perception of the musicianship? This will be analysed to
|
|
give an outline as to the possible relationships between these factors
|
|
across a wide variety of musical genres.
|
|
|
|
\section{Literature Review}\label{LR}
|
|
Review of the literature related to this project reveals extensive research
|
|
into subject areas closely related to this project. Research into musical
|
|
preference has been conducted in a number of instances and demonstrates
|
|
that there are a large number of social and psychoacoustic aspects that
|
|
influence musical preference. There is a significant amount of
|
|
information regarding musical talent and what defines high quality music.
|
|
The final aspect that relates closely to this research is that of sound
|
|
quality, which has been researched at length in order to determine not only
|
|
the best ways of recording sound, but highly technical methods for the
|
|
analysis and categorisations of sounds based on human
|
|
perception~\parencite{hal}.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Musical Preference Research}
|
|
There are a number of resources available that attempt to analyse some of
|
|
the physiological effects of music. Research such as that carried out by
|
|
Ladinig and Schellenberg attempts to analyse participant emotional
|
|
reactions to different types of music, measuring for emotional reactions
|
|
such as perceived intensity, happiness, and sadness~\parencite{lum}. This
|
|
research suggests that character traits such as extroversion and
|
|
agreeableness influence a persons preference on music. This is one of many
|
|
studies that focus on these types of
|
|
influence~\parencite{kessler2004semmp,eamim}
|
|
Another key influence is that of social norms and society. Much research
|
|
has also been undertaken in recognising relationships between styles of
|
|
music and social phenomena. This can be found in Popular Music and
|
|
Society~\parencite{longhurst2007pmas} that provides a substantial insight
|
|
into the effects of society on music and vice-versa. Issues such as
|
|
technology, sexuality and ethnicity all effect perception.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Musical Talent Research}
|
|
An equally broad range of literature can be found regarding opinions on what
|
|
makes a high quality composition or performance. Literature on musical
|
|
talent outlines perceptions of what is regarded as high quality music and
|
|
what is seen to be favourable traits in terms of composition and
|
|
performance. This is predominantly focused on the development of musical
|
|
talent in children, however the concepts apply to the research described in
|
|
this report.~\parencite{spark, hoffman2015blessed, kingsbury2001mtp}
|
|
|
|
\section{Project Aims}
|
|
Despite the wide range of information available on related areas outlined
|
|
in section~\ref{LR}, there is little in the area of the effects of
|
|
electronics specifically on musical preference. The research presented in
|
|
this report aims to provide a basis for addressing this apparent lack of
|
|
information.
|
|
|
|
This project aims to gather quantifiable data regarding the effects of
|
|
artificial electronic processing on musical preference. Through the
|
|
combined use of questionnaires, the amalgamation of information gathered
|
|
from previous research and analysis of collected data, it is hoped that
|
|
this report will provide an indication as to whether artificial music
|
|
processing has any effect on opinions across a variety of popular music
|
|
genres.
|
|
|
|
\section{Methodology}
|
|
Research will be carried out through the use of a questionnaire to gather
|
|
opinions on artificial processing in relation to a wide range of genres.
|
|
A questionnaire has been created to collect quantitative data from anonymous
|
|
participants. This data will then be analysed to reveal any correlations
|
|
between views on musical quality and perceptions of artificial processing.
|
|
These results will then be compared to previous research presented in
|
|
section~\ref{LR} to give an overall understanding of the impact of
|
|
artificial processing.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Procedure}
|
|
The majority of original research has been carried out through the design and
|
|
collection of data from a questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed for
|
|
the quantitative analysis of anonymous opinions on the perceived
|
|
artificialness and musical quality of a range of musical samples.
|
|
Comparison of results with previous research is presented and
|
|
observations are made on possible reasons for results.
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Questionnaire Design}
|
|
The questionnaire was designed with two main sections. The first gave an
|
|
indication of the participant's musical knowledge and preference, the second
|
|
collected the main data based on the participant's use of a likeart scales
|
|
to rate aspects of the excepts.\\
|
|
It was expected that a number of factors would influence a participant's
|
|
rating of both musical talent and synthetic characteristics. The most
|
|
prominent factor was thought to be the participant's background in terms of
|
|
music and music technology training. A participant with an in depth
|
|
understanding of composition and performance would most likely have a
|
|
heightened sensitivity to the musical aspects of the examples that an
|
|
untrained participant may not pick up on. To account for this, participants
|
|
were simply asked to state if they have any musical/music technological
|
|
training. This could then be taken into account in the analysis of results.
|
|
Another factor that would most likely affect a participants decision was
|
|
their preference with regards to musical style. As stated in
|
|
section~\ref{LR}, many factors influence a person's musical preference in
|
|
terms of genre, and so accounting for bias towards certain musical styles
|
|
was required in an attempt to create more a more objective analysis.\\
|
|
|
|
To begin selection of suitable material for the questionnaire, 5 genres were selected:
|
|
\begin{itemize}
|
|
\item Classical
|
|
\item Rock
|
|
\item Electronic
|
|
\item Indie
|
|
\item Pop
|
|
\end{itemize}
|
|
A selection of 40 thirty second audio samples were then used for ratings,
|
|
sourced from a wide variety of artists across these 5 genres.
|
|
Participants were asked to rate these samples for their musical
|
|
accomplishment, artificialness and how much they liked the audio clip.
|
|
Musicality and artificialness would give a clear and simple representation
|
|
of the value placed for these parameters, which could then be compared on a
|
|
genre by genre basis to determine any outstanding patterns. The musical
|
|
preference parameter was added due to the wide variety of factors that
|
|
affect musical preference. It was thought that people may value the
|
|
musicality of pieces in genres they like more highly than genres they
|
|
dislike. The results of these hypothesis are determined in section~\ref{analysis}\\
|
|
|
|
A section for participant comments was created at the bottom of the test to
|
|
allow participants to share thoughts on the survey. This would allow
|
|
participants to provide further insights that might provide information that
|
|
would not have otherwise been considered.
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Results}
|
|
Results were predominantly quantitative, and so did not require the same
|
|
degree of subjective analysis that would have been the case with
|
|
qualitative results. A total of 20 participants took the survey, resulting
|
|
in a dataset containing 800 data points across the range of genres. This
|
|
provided enough data for a reasonable analysis of comparable opinions
|
|
across the range of participants. The amount of data collected may not be
|
|
sufficient for conclusive evidence as to the effects of electronic
|
|
processing on opinions of musicality, however it should provide an
|
|
indication as to possible correlations between the two factors.
|
|
There are also a number of factors, beyond control in the context of this
|
|
research, that will have affected the results.\\
|
|
|
|
The varying levels of musical training across participants has most likely
|
|
had a significant effect on results. It was expected that participant's
|
|
opinions on the synthetic nature of pieces would be affected by this
|
|
factor. Students that had studied music technology would most likely have a
|
|
more objective opinion on the artificial qualities of examples and would be
|
|
able to pick out features that would not be possible without significant
|
|
training in this area. This has coloured ratings of artificialness and
|
|
should be taken into account when review results.\\
|
|
|
|
Another key factor is the participant's subjective definitions of musical
|
|
quality and accomplishment. This factor was made clear by the comments of
|
|
a participant who regarded the lyrical content of the examples to be the
|
|
determining factor. This contrasted the composition arrangement
|
|
characteristics that were the primary focus of many musically trained
|
|
participants.\\
|
|
|
|
A factor made clear by participant comments was the limitations of
|
|
the genres provided. Although every effort was made to provide a wide
|
|
variety of genres, the plethora of musical genres that exist made it
|
|
impossible to include examples for every one. Genres such as rap were not
|
|
represented in this survey for example. This genre in particular, may have
|
|
provided interesting results from the participant who valued lyrical
|
|
content. A wide enough variety is thought to have been chosen that results
|
|
will still give a reasonable insight, however this may be considered in any
|
|
potential further research.
|
|
|
|
\section{Analysis}\label{analysis}
|
|
Having collected a significant quantity of both quantitative and
|
|
qualitative data from the survey, interpretation of results could then be
|
|
made to determine possible correlations between parameters. Initially it
|
|
was thought that by comparing participant's rating for musical quality with
|
|
ratings for artificialness, a relationship between these two factors may
|
|
exist that suggests an increase in synthetic perception may relate to a
|
|
decrease in musical quality perception. To analyse this, points were
|
|
plotted to a scatter graph and the correlation between the two variables
|
|
was calculated. This was initially created for all data points across all
|
|
genres. The results can be seen in figure~\ref{agmvs}.
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: all genres of music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{all_genres_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\label{agmvs}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
The same analysis was then performed on a genre by genre basis. This was to
|
|
gain a more detailed understanding of the relationship across each genre.
|
|
It was expected that the relationship would vary as some genres are
|
|
typically more closely associated with electronic processing than other.
|
|
For example, musical quality would not be negatively affected by a use of
|
|
electronic processing in the electronic genre as electronic processing is
|
|
inherent to the production of that style of music. However, a stronger
|
|
relationship would be expected in classical examples as traditionally,
|
|
classical pieces make little to no use of electronic equipment. This
|
|
hypothesis appears to hold a degree of truth, as a negative correlation can
|
|
be found between musical quality and artificialness as shown in
|
|
figure~\ref{cmvs}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: classical music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{classical_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\label{cmvs}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
The opposite is true of the electronic genre, where a minor positive
|
|
relationship is observed as illustrated in figure~\ref{emvs}.
|
|
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: electronic music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{electronic_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\label{emvs}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
|
|
When comparing variable in this manner, the coefficient of determination
|
|
has been used to measure the confidence of the correlation. This value is
|
|
low across all analyses and suggests a weak correlation, however this is
|
|
expected due to the large number of other variables and the subjective
|
|
nature of the test that affects results. However it can be observed that
|
|
there is a much higher $R^2$ value for classical, which could be attributed
|
|
to the natural nature of classical music.
|
|
Graphs for all genres can be found in Appendix B.\\
|
|
|
|
Further analyses were created, regarding the relationship between the
|
|
participant's preference in terms of genre and their perception of musical
|
|
quality. It was thought that participants (particularly those that had not
|
|
had significant musical training) would most likely link musical
|
|
accomplishment with their musical preference and thus rate examples more
|
|
highly if they were in their preferred genre, regardless of quality. By
|
|
analysing the frequency of high ratings in preferred genres, an indication
|
|
of the level of bias towards favoured genres was estimated. Results of this
|
|
analysis show that for genres such as Classical, participants who favoured
|
|
that genre rated examples highly. This is not true of all genres as a
|
|
more even distribution of ratings is observed in the electronic genre.
|
|
Another key factor is the actually quality of examples. If all samples were
|
|
perceived to be of high quality by all participants then a similar problem
|
|
would be shown. Overall this analysis was not nearly as accurate or useful
|
|
as the initial analysis, however it does show that there are many elements
|
|
to be considered with this type of research and the simplicity of this
|
|
approach could be improved through further consideration of the elements.
|
|
Graphs of these results can be found in Appendix B.
|
|
|
|
\section{Further Improvements and Considerations for Future Research}
|
|
This research takes a relatively simplistic approach to a significantly
|
|
broad area of research. There are many factors that have not been accounted
|
|
for that have significant impact on the outcome. On reflection, the
|
|
following improvements may allow for more robust analysis and more
|
|
convincing results than those presented in this report:
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Increasing the number of possible values for rating}\mbox{}\\
|
|
A number of comments were made, suggesting that the survey could be
|
|
increasing the range of the scale used for ratings. Participants felt that
|
|
five possible choices was not sufficient for accurately rating all forty
|
|
samples. Having an increased number of points would allow for more fine
|
|
grained choice for each of the parameters and would also offer smaller
|
|
distinctions between ratings in the analysis stage.
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{A wider variety of genres/varying quality of examples}\mbox{}\\
|
|
Effort was made to design a questionnaire that would portray a wide variety
|
|
of examples in order to gain insight into perceptions of electronic
|
|
processing on many genres. However, it was necessary to limit the number of
|
|
genres in order to gain a detailed analysis of each genre included in the
|
|
survey. This resulted in many types of music being disregarded. An increase
|
|
in the types of music would have potentially produced a clearer overall
|
|
picture of perceptions.\\
|
|
The quality of the examples was also an issue as in some genres, as a lack
|
|
of significantly processed examples resulted in consistently low artificial
|
|
rating. This provided little data for comparison and thus reduced the
|
|
quality of analyses created.
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{Familiarity of examples}\mbox{}\\
|
|
It was noted that some participants rated samples based on their knowledge of
|
|
the entire song, rather than just the excerpt, due to prior knowledge of
|
|
that particular recording. This may have affected outcomes and could be
|
|
addressed through the use of corpus databases designed for music research,
|
|
rather than popular music that may have been experienced before.
|
|
|
|
\section{Conclusion}
|
|
Overall, this research has provided a rudimentary overview of the effects
|
|
of electronic processing on the perceptions of musical quality. In
|
|
addition, it has suggested that opinions on the use of artificial
|
|
processing do vary based on the style of music in question. The significant
|
|
number of limitations due to the nature of undergraduate research prevent
|
|
any conclusive findings. However, this could potentially form the basis for
|
|
more in depth exploration of the effects of electronic processing on music,
|
|
particularly as this appears to be an under-explored area.
|
|
This research provides preliminary evidence to suggest that artificial
|
|
processing does have some form of impact on the acceptability of music and
|
|
suggests that this does vary to a degree based on the style of music.
|
|
|
|
\printbibliography
|
|
|
|
\appendix
|
|
\gdef\thesection{\centerline{Appendix \Alph{section}}}
|
|
\section{}
|
|
The following pages show the final questionnaire used for collection of results.
|
|
\includepdf[pages=-]{../questionnaire/questionnaire.pdf}
|
|
|
|
\section{}\label{ap2}
|
|
The following graphs plot the results from the questionnaire analysis. The
|
|
solid red line indicates the line of best fit. The dotted red lines
|
|
indicate error boundaries.
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: all genres of music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{all_genres_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: rock music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{rock_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: classical music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{classical_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: pop music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{pop_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: electronic music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{electronic_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and artificialness: indie music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{indie_music_v_synth}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and musical preference: classical music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{classical_quality_v_preference}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and musical preference: electronic music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{electronic_quality_vs_preference}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and musical preference: indie music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{indie_quality_v_preference}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and musical preference: pop music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{pop_quality_v_preference}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\begin{figure}[H]
|
|
\caption{Comparison of musical quality and musical preference: rock music}
|
|
\makebox[\textwidth]{\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{rock_quality_v_preference}}
|
|
\end{figure}
|
|
\end{document}
|