From: cbarber@bbn.com (Chris Barber)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Sightreading and Computers
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:02:27 GMT
Organization: BBN Systems and Technology, Inc.

In article <1992Aug9.074644.11767@news.cs.brandeis.edu> 
jacob@max.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>I'd like to point out that the technical impossibility of implementing
>such a program as suggested by Chris Barber was a bit overstated.

>In article <4180@papaya.bbn.com> cbarber@bbn.com (Chris Barber) writes: 
>>Nice idea. However, teaching sight-reading through computer is at least a
>>factor of magnitude more difficult than teaching typing and I am unaware of
>>any software that teaches sight reading beyond a very rudimentary level.  In
>>typing, all the computer needs to do is to make sure that you hit the right
>>keys in the right order. In a sight-reading task, the computer will need to
>>make sure that you hit the right combination of multiple keys within the
>>correct time duration. Even if someone was able to produce a program which
>>could monitor your execution of a piece of music in real time, how would it
>>deal with things like tempo changes, expression breaks, rubato, etc?

>Computer programs could deal with tempo changes, whether intentional or
>unintentional simply by utilizing what's called in the world of MIDI
>sequencers _quantization_. Thus they would compare to the "score" (that
>they'd have stored) not the actual performance, but a quantized version
>of it.

>In that respect a program could be as permissive or as restrictive as
>one wished; simply choose various degrees of "granularity".

I never said that the task was technically impossible, just very difficult.  I
still believe this task is a factor of magnitude more difficult than teaching
touch typing. I don't think that anyone would question that it is at least a
factor of magnitude more difficult to learn if not teach. I am not fully
conversant in MIDI, so it is difficult to respond confidently to your claim as
to what quantization would let you do.  What you would need to do would be to
recognize in real time that the student was changing tempo and be able to
recognize what the tempo was. Merely changing granularity will not do the
trick because then any changes in tempo would create a situation where the
granularity would be way to large in the fast sections in order to accomadate
the slower sections.  I think it would take a consideral level of
sophistication to be able to deal with changes in tempo in a *musical*
fashion.

Of course I haven't given the feasibility of the task a complete analysis, but
my reaction is not only based on my experience with how much work I had to put
into my own sight-reading acquisition but also on my experience as an
engineer.  I have generally found that most programming tasks are far more
difficult than what they appear when a complete analysis is yet to be made.
I know that there are many unadressed issues lurking here and assume that
these will translate to additional hurdles to be negotiated in designing and
implementing such a program. I'm sure that MIDI would be a valuable and
necessary tool, but I would not assume that it would solve all our problems as
easily as you seem to think.

>>And what should it do when you make a mistake? Stop? I think this would be
>>too frustrating.

>It could stop or it could beep or it could slow down the metronome so as
>to keep the mistake rate constant (always giving you something to catch up
>with, which is better than sightreading w/o anything whatsoever to keep
>your pace but w/o being too frustrating, like a metronome would be) or it
>could function as simple bookkeeping of how many mistakes you've made at
>the end of the performace (allowing you to measure your progress) and of
>course if could give you a choice.

I like the last option the best. IMHO, such a program should stay out of your
way as much as possible. I like the idea of having the program monitor your
progress and be able to go back after the fact and show you where you went
wrong. This might also remove many of the real-time processing constraints
which would otherwise be placed on such a task.

>All of this of course has nothing to do with how things ought to be. One is
>also free to be of the opinion that a computer should not be used for
>sightreading training out of philosophical or metaphysical or psychological
>or whatever motives, but that has nothing to do with the feasibility
>of such a program.

Actually, I have quite a pragmatic philosphy: if it works, use it.  If someone
does produce a computerized sight-reading tutor that works, I have no problem
with using it.  I don't even believe that such a program would be impossible
to produce, but I do believe that it would be extremely difficult. I think
that there is enough interest in writing this kind of software that it would
have been done already if it were easy. 

But I also believe that we don't ourselves know enough about how music 'works'
psychologically to be able to put everything into a sight-reading tutor that
should really be there. Even if you could bestow the tutor with detailed
musical stylistic knowledge, is it fair to try to impose any style of playing
on the program?  I believe that very few human teachers have a very good idea
of how to teach musicality, and even then usually cannot teach without
reference to their personal style. One reason, I do not study with a piano
teacher is that I have a very good idea of how I want to play (even when I
don't have the necessary level of ability) and don't want my views drowned in
teacher's personal musical style.  Because of this, I think that even a
sophisticated sight-reading tutor will not be able to effectively teach beyond
an intermediate level. Nevertheless, such a program would still be quite
useful it would get a student to a high enough level to be able to progress on
her own.  If anyone is tempted to write this program, I am all for it, but be
forewarned - it will take an enormous amount of work.




-- 
Christopher Barber
(cbarber@bbn.com)