@Article{          temperley1999-whats,
    author       = {Temperley, David},
    year         = {1999},
    title        = {What's Key for Key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler Key-Finding
                   Algorithm Reconsidered},
    abstract     = {This study examines the Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding
                   model, in which the distribution of pitch classes in a
                   piece is compared with an ideal distribution or "key
                   profile" for each key. Several changes are proposed.
                   First, the formula used for the matching process is
                   somewhat simplified. Second, alternative values are
                   proposed for the key profiles themselves. Third, rather
                   than summing the durations of all events of each pitch
                   class, the revised model divides the piece into short
                   segments and labels each pitch class as present or absent
                   in each segment. Fourth, a mechanism for modulation is
                   proposed; a penalty is imposed for changing key from one
                   segment to the next. An implementation of this model was
                   subjected to two tests. First, the model was tested on the
                   fugue subjects from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier; the
                   model's performance on this corpus is compared with the
                   performances of other models. Second, the model was tested
                   on a corpus of excerpts from the Kostka and Payne harmony
                   textbook (as analyzed by Kostka). Several problems with
                   the modified algorithm are discussed, concerning the rate
                   of modulation, the role of harmony in key finding, and the
                   role of pitch "spellings." The model is also compared with
                   Huron and Parncutt's exponential decay model. The tests
                   presented here suggest that the key-profile model, with
                   the modifications proposed, can provide a highly
                   successful approach to key finding.},
    doi          = {10.2307/40285812},
    issn         = {0730-7829},
    journal      = {Music Perception},
    month        = {oct},
    number       = {1},
    pages        = {65--100},
    url          = {https://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article/17/1/65/62051/Whats-Key-for-Key-The-KrumhanslSchmuckler},
    volume       = {17}
}

{"_id":"tEKTrAskTh25Q2yik","bibbaseid":"temperley-whatskeyforkeythekrumhanslschmucklerkeyfindingalgorithmreconsidered-1999","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Temperley, D."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Temperley"],"firstnames":["David"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"1999","title":"What's Key for Key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler Key-Finding Algorithm Reconsidered","abstract":"This study examines the Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding model, in which the distribution of pitch classes in a piece is compared with an ideal distribution or \"key profile\" for each key. Several changes are proposed. First, the formula used for the matching process is somewhat simplified. Second, alternative values are proposed for the key profiles themselves. Third, rather than summing the durations of all events of each pitch class, the revised model divides the piece into short segments and labels each pitch class as present or absent in each segment. Fourth, a mechanism for modulation is proposed; a penalty is imposed for changing key from one segment to the next. An implementation of this model was subjected to two tests. First, the model was tested on the fugue subjects from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier; the model's performance on this corpus is compared with the performances of other models. Second, the model was tested on a corpus of excerpts from the Kostka and Payne harmony textbook (as analyzed by Kostka). Several problems with the modified algorithm are discussed, concerning the rate of modulation, the role of harmony in key finding, and the role of pitch \"spellings.\" The model is also compared with Huron and Parncutt's exponential decay model. The tests presented here suggest that the key-profile model, with the modifications proposed, can provide a highly successful approach to key finding.","doi":"10.2307/40285812","issn":"0730-7829","journal":"Music Perception","month":"oct","number":"1","pages":"65–100","url":"https://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article/17/1/65/62051/Whats-Key-for-Key-The-KrumhanslSchmuckler","volume":"17","bibtex":"@Article{ temperley1999-whats,\n author = {Temperley, David},\n year = {1999},\n title = {What's Key for Key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler Key-Finding\n Algorithm Reconsidered},\n abstract = {This study examines the Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding\n model, in which the distribution of pitch classes in a\n piece is compared with an ideal distribution or \"key\n profile\" for each key. Several changes are proposed.\n First, the formula used for the matching process is\n somewhat simplified. Second, alternative values are\n proposed for the key profiles themselves. Third, rather\n than summing the durations of all events of each pitch\n class, the revised model divides the piece into short\n segments and labels each pitch class as present or absent\n in each segment. Fourth, a mechanism for modulation is\n proposed; a penalty is imposed for changing key from one\n segment to the next. An implementation of this model was\n subjected to two tests. First, the model was tested on the\n fugue subjects from Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier; the\n model's performance on this corpus is compared with the\n performances of other models. Second, the model was tested\n on a corpus of excerpts from the Kostka and Payne harmony\n textbook (as analyzed by Kostka). Several problems with\n the modified algorithm are discussed, concerning the rate\n of modulation, the role of harmony in key finding, and the\n role of pitch \"spellings.\" The model is also compared with\n Huron and Parncutt's exponential decay model. The tests\n presented here suggest that the key-profile model, with\n the modifications proposed, can provide a highly\n successful approach to key finding.},\n doi = {10.2307/40285812},\n issn = {0730-7829},\n journal = {Music Perception},\n month = {oct},\n number = {1},\n pages = {65--100},\n url = {https://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article/17/1/65/62051/Whats-Key-for-Key-The-KrumhanslSchmuckler},\n volume = {17}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Temperley, D."],"key":"temperley1999-whats","id":"temperley1999-whats","bibbaseid":"temperley-whatskeyforkeythekrumhanslschmucklerkeyfindingalgorithmreconsidered-1999","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://online.ucpress.edu/mp/article/17/1/65/62051/Whats-Key-for-Key-The-KrumhanslSchmuckler"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://hmb.sampaio.me/bibliografia.bib.txt","creationDate":"2020-10-12T23:10:31.558Z","downloads":0,"keywords":[],"search_terms":["key","key","krumhansl","schmuckler","key","finding","algorithm","reconsidered","temperley"],"title":"What's Key for Key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler Key-Finding Algorithm Reconsidered","year":1999,"dataSources":["n6MFY2CscQLDpJ7nT","RFLDZw5KyJdadDXDm"]}