This paper addresses problems and misconceptions pertaining to the notion of the musical surface, a notion that is commonly thought to be relatively straight-forward and is often taken as a given in computational and cognitive research. It is suggested that the musical surface is comprised of (complex) musical events perceived as wholes within coherent musical streams - the musical surface is not merely an unstructured sequence of atomic note events, such as score notes or a piano-roll representation. Additionally, it is maintained that the emergence of the musical surface involves rather complex mechanisms that require, not only multi-pitch extraction from the acoustic signal, but, the employment of cognitive processes such as beat-tracking, metre induction, chord identification and stream/voice separation. Such processes do not come into play after the surface has been formed, but are, rather, an integral part of the formation of the musical surface per se.
BurnsE. M. (1999). Intervals, scales and tuning. In DeutschD. (Ed.), Psychology of Music (2nd edition) (pp. 215–264). Academic Press, San Diego.
2.
BregmanA. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organisation of sound.The MIT Press, Cambridge (Ma).
3.
CemgilA. T., KappenH. J., & BarberD. (2006). A generative model for music transcription.IEEE Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 14(2), 679–694
4.
CambouropoulosE. (2008). Voice and stream: Perceptual and computational modeling of voice separation.Music Perception26(1), 75–94.
5.
CambouropoulosE. (2006). Musical parallelism and melodic segmentation: A computational approach.Music Perception23(3), 249–269.
6.
CambouropoulosE. (2000). From MIDI to traditional musical notation. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Music, Austin, Texas.
7.
DeliègeI. (2007). Similarity relations in listening to music: How do they come into play?Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 4A:9–37.
8.
DeliègeI. (2001). Prototype effects in music listening: An empirical approach to the notion of imprint.Music Perception, 18(3), 371–407.
9.
DeliègeI. (1997). Similarity in processes of categorisation: Imprint formation as a prototype effect in music listening. In RamscarM., HahnU., CambouropoulosE., and PainH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Similarity and Categorisation (pp. 59–65). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.
10.
DeliègeI. (1996). Cue abstraction as a component of categorisation processes in music listening.Psychology of Music, 24(2), 131–156.
11.
DeliègeI. (1987). Grouping conditions in listening to music: An approach to Lerdahl and Jackendoff's grouping preference rules.Music Perception, 4, 325–360.
12.
DeutschD. (1999). The processing of pitch combinations. In DeutschD. (Ed.), The Psychology of Music (revised version) (pp. 349–411). Academic Press, San Diego.
13.
DixonS., & CambouropoulosE. (2000). Beat tracking with musical knowledge. In ECAI 2000: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 626–630). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
14.
DowlingW. J., & HarwoodD. L. (1986). Music cognition.Academic Press, New York.
15.
GouyonF., & DixonS. (2005). A review of automatic rhythm description systems.Computer Music Journal, 29(1), 34–54.
HandelS. (1989). Listening. An introduction to the perception of auditory events.The MIT Press, Cambridge (Ma).
18.
HubbardT. L., & DatteriD. L. (2001). Recognizing the component tones of a major chord.American Journal of Psychology, 114(4), 569–589.
19.
JackendoffR. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind.The MIT Press, Cambridge (Ma).
20.
KilianJ., & HoosH. (2002). Voice separation: A local optimisation approach. In Proceedings of ISMIR'02 (pp. 39–46).
21.
KlapuriA. (2004). Signal processing methods for the automatic transcription of music. Ph.D. dissertation, Tampere University of Technology, Finland.
22.
LerdahlF., & JackendoffR. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music.The MIT Press, Cambridge (Ma).
23.
LockeS. & KellarL. (1973). Categorical perception in a non-linguistic mode.Cortex, 9, 355–369.
24.
ParncuttR. (1989). Harmony: A psychoacoustical approach.Springer, Berlin.
25.
ParncuttR. (1994). Template-matching models of musical pitch and rhythm perception.Journal of New Music Research, 23, 145–167.
26.
ParncuttR. (1997). A model of the perceptual root(s) of a chord accounting for voicing and prevailing tonality. In LemanMarc (Ed.) Music, gestalt, and computing: Studies in cognitive and systematic musicology.Springer, Berlin.
27.
PovelD.- J., & JansenE. (2001). Perceptual mechanisms in music processing.Music Perception, 19(2), 169–198
28.
RafailidisD., NanopoulosA., CambouropoulosE., & ManolopoulosY. (2008). Detection of stream segments in symbolic musical data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR08), Philadelfia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
29.
RafailidisD., CambouropoulosE., & ManolopoulosY. (2009). Musical voice integration/segregation: VISA revisited. In Proceedings of the 6th Sound and Music Computing Conference (SMC09), Porto, Portugal.
30.
RyynänenM. P., & KlapuriA. P. (2008). Automatic transcription of melody, bass line, and chords in polyphonic music.Computer Music Journal, 32(3), 72–86
31.
SchenkerH. (1935). Der Freie Satz (translated E. Oster, 1979). Longman, New York.
32.
ScheirerE. D. (2000). Music-listening systems. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June, 2000.
33.
SlobodaJ. A. (1985). The musical mind: The cognitive psychology of music.Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34.
SmithL. B., Kemler NelsonD., GrohskopfL. A., & AppletonT. (1994). What child is this? What interval was that? Familiar tunes and music perception in novice listeners.Cognition, 52, 23–54.
35.
VernonP. E. (1934). Auditory perception. I. The Gestalt approach. II. The evolutionary approach.British Journal of Psychology, 25, 123–139; 265-283.
