Modeling the Evolution of Harmony in Popular Music from Different Cultural Contexts Fabian C. Moss1,∗ , Eita Nakamura2 1 Institut für Musikforschung, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany 2 Graduate School of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Japan Abstract Popular music often features a high amount of stable harmonic patterns, which facilitates the establish- ment of stylistic idioms and recognizability, and the changing frequencies of such patterns are closely linked to style and genre: new patterns arise while others die out. Here, we employ a content-based transmission model from cultural evolution research and compare three 20th-century popular music genres from different geographical and cultural contexts. Prior work on the evolution of harmony often only considers a small vocabulary of chords with a binary distance metric (same or different). Here, we introduce music-theoretically sensible notions of harmonic distance between chords, that allows us to arrive at more fine-grained results regarding relative influences of different kinds of harmonic relations on diachronic changes. Inferring the substitution probabilities for different chord classes, our results indicate an increasing usage of chord categories, whereas chord extensions remain relatively stable. Our study provides a principled methodology for cross-cultural research on the evolution of harmony. Keywords Popular music, harmony, chord substitution, style, cultural evolution 1. Introduction A good deal of the ‘catchiness’ of popular music can be attributed to the frequent recurrence of patterns or schemas in multiple musical domains like form, rhythm, melody, and harmony [40, 22]. Despite the simplicity of the term as used in academic, educational, and commercial con- texts, ‘popular music’ covers a vast and diverse range of mostly 20th-century musical styles and genres that share some but by far not all patterns and schemas [2]. Understanding pat- terns in popular music and how they change over time is thus crucial for understanding the music itself. The repetitive harmonic structure of popular music in particular is thought to ease information compression and thus to facilitate both retention and recall, for which there is also some empirical support [24, 39]. A particularly telling example of harmonic patterns in popular music are so-called ‘four-chord songs’ that consist—entirely or in large parts—of a single repeated sequence of four harmonic units [30].1 CHR 2024: Computational Humanities Research Conference, December 4–6, 2024, Aarhus, Denmark ∗ Corresponding author. £ fabian.moss@uni-wuerzburg.de (F. C. Moss); nakamura@inf.kyushu-u.ac.jp (E. Nakamura) ç https://www.fabian-moss.de/ (F. C. Moss); https://eita-nakamura.github.io/ (E. Nakamura) ȉ 0000-0001-9377-2066 (F. C. Moss); 0000-0001-7116-9338 (E. Nakamura) © 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). 1 An artistic illustration of this phenomenon is provided by the Australian comedy group Axis of Awesome in 2009 with more than 85 million views on YouTube, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I. 137 CEUR ceur-ws.org Workshop ISSN 1613-0073 Proceedings Empirical research on patterns in popular music research can draw on a number of data sources for analysis. Some genres have produced songbooks that contain essential melodic and harmonic information to be used in performance. Commonly, these songbooks contain melodies annotated with chord symbols that experts have transcribed from recordings of the original pieces of music, for which authoritative versions usually do not exist: popular music is recorded rather than written down. However, the annotated chords in songbooks have some- times gained a status of authority, the most famous example probably being the volumes of the Real Book for the case of jazz [7]. Another source for harmonic analysis of popular music are methods from music information retrieval (MIR) applied to audio recordings of music, either through manual transcription or algorithmic inference [37, 23, 26, 60, 35]. The harmonic information thus obtained can then fur- ther serve as a basis for corpus studies that aim at understanding characteristics of a particular musical style, or to trace historical developments throughout the lifetime of a genre [51]. With the rise of corpus studies in musicology in the last decades, harmonic analysis in pop- ular music has become a frequent use case. Examples include the study of chord idioms in the Beatles and Real Book jazz standards [32, 55, 56, 27], or US-pop charts [6, 54]. Apart from the stylometry of particular genres or music groups, researchers have also widely engaged in genre classification [46, 34, 17], and addressed the question of historical changes in popular music idioms [33, 18, 52, 43]. More recently, researchers have turned to more methodological meta-questions and addressed concerns regarding biases and issues of representation in the se- lection of corpora [31, 57], and have pointed out that content descriptors as well as the reliance on curated chart lists are insufÏcient to fully characterize the complexities of popular music genres [8]. While the aforementioned studies have laid the ground for large-scale stylistic analysis of several styles in popular music, they remain largely descriptive. There are still relatively few studies on popular music dealing explicitly with models of diachronic information transmis- sion. The growing field of cultural evolution [50, 65] provides a promising methodological framework to extend the existing studies on the cultural evolution of music [62, 63, 64, 44, 52, 45, 25, 19] in the domain of popular music. In the present study, we explicitly address the research question of how harmonic patterns in popular music change over time, and how their diachronic transmission can be modeled formally. We build on a recent model for selection and mutation probabilities in Japanese pop music [44] and apply it to different popular musical styles with a more fine-grained measure of harmonic similarity. 2. Data To study the fluctuating transmission probabilities of harmonies in different popular music genres, we assemble several datasets by drawing on existing scholarship in music corpus stud- ies. Specifically, we analyze datasets of chord symbols from three different cultural contexts: Japanese Pop songs, US-Pop songs, and Brazilian Choro pieces. Summary statistics are shown in Table 1, and Figure 1 displays the absolute numbers of pieces per year for the three corpora. 138 Table 1 Overview of the datasets used. The column ‘Tokens’ contains the absolute number of chords symbols in a dataset, and the column ‘Types’ counts those that are unique. Ref. Genre Dataset Songs Tokens Types 4-grams [5, 4] US-Pop McGill Billboard Corpus (v2.0) 890 120,102 951 39,543 [44] J-Pop J-Pop dataset 2,419 187,985 232 70,262 [41, 43] Choro Choro Songbook Corpus (v1.3.1) 289 43,178 649 19,392 Sum 3,598 351,265 1,880 129,117 40 No. of songs 30 US-Pop 20 J-Pop 10 Choro 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year Figure 1: Overview of the data spanning a historical range from 1877–2019. Japanese pop songs This dataset was collected by the author of [44] and is comprised of Japanese popular songs composed in years from 1927 to 2019. In this period, the musical style changed drastically under a strong influence from Western popular culture. The songs were taken from the top ranked songs in the yearly charts in Japan and also from a collection of songbooks published in Japan. The chord progressions were extracted from published scores. US-Pop songs We analyze US popular music by drawing on the Billboard Hot 100 charts between 1958 and 1991 [5, 4] that are frequently employed in music information retrieval (MIR) research. The dataset is taken to be representative of the most popular songs. Brazilian Choro This mostly instrumental music genre emerged in Rio de Janeiro in the late-19th century. While the genre has had an immense influence on the development of other Brazilian genres like Samba, there are only a few data-driven approaches to analyze its style to date [43, 53]. The data is taken from the Choro Songbook Corpus [41]. 139 3. Methods 3.1. Modeling chords Assembling data from different sources usually means that they do not adhere to the same encoding standards, a big challenge in many comparative studies [16]. In our case, we were confronted with various encodings for harmony, each of which containing different selections of harmonic features. Another issue is that the labels were generated in very different processes with diverging–sometimes genre-dependent–conventions that may or may not be explicitly stated. For instance, a G:13 chord in jazz is usually assumed to be a short-hand notation for G:(7,9,11,13), that is, all thirds below the stacking implied. These labels can be found in lead sheets that are used in jazz performance. On the other hand, labels in the pop corpora are analytical in the sense that someone (a person or a machine) listened to the songs and estimated the best-fitting chord symbol for a given segment of music. Moreover, the labels in the corpora used are analytical (describing what was played in a certain recording), but those are not fixed as some genres involve improvisation and performance variation. Another difÏculty relates to the functional interpretation. In pop music, sometimes it is not clear what the global or local key is,2 hence chords can not be interpreted in function to the tonic, rendering the harmony ambiguous [48, 12]. This can, of course, be an intentional artistic device. For these reasons, finding an appropriate data representation for chords is challenging. In music information retrieval (MIR) research, one of the most commonly used standards for chords is the syntax proposed by Christopher Harte [21, 20]. In this notational scheme, chords are encoded as interval structures above a given root in the form :. For exam- ple, C:maj represents a C-major chord and Ab:sus4(7,9) represents a dominant-seventh chord on the root A♭ with a suspended fourth. Note that this syntax represents chords in an absolute manner that does not assign any func- tional roles to the harmonies, which avoids the problem of functional ambiguity. While we do not assume functional roles in encoding the chords, using a common syntax ensures that chord sequences are comparable. We follow the common practice to transpose all pieces in a corpus to the same key (C major) in order to ensure that relative chord distances are comparable, while still maintaining a functionless interpretation. Naturally, the keys of popular music pieces can be as ambiguous as are the functional roles of chords, but these ambiguities often concern the primacy of mediants, e.g. whether a piece is in C major or A minor. 3.2. Modeling chord distances As we have seen, musical chords are complex objects that do not imply a canonical distance measure. In fact, music theorists have proposed a variety of different distance metrics between harmonies, each of which emphasizes a particular aspect of chords. Among the proposed met- rics, one can distinguish between theoretical or mathematical [13, 15, 59, 14, 9, 61, 36] and perceptual [29, 58, 49] notions of harmonic distance, as well as their mutual relation [28, 38]. 2 For a discussion of a well-known example, see Adam Neely, “What key is Sweet Home Alabama in” (https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=DVPq_-oJV5U). 140 The simplest distance metric is to assess whether two chords are identical or different (bi- nary). This, however, obfuscates more subtle differences, e.g. the fact that, in tonal harmony, one would generally consider a G chord to be more similar to a G7 or a C chord than to a E♭ chord. For chord parsing we use The Harte Library,3 a convenient framework to work with chord labels in Harte notation [11] that builds upon the music21 [10] data structure for chords. The en- coding of chords 𝑐 with the Harte syntax easily translates to the representation as root-interval pairs 𝑐 = (𝑟, 𝑒), because short-hand codes such as maj or min can be expressed as sets of inter- vals above the root 𝑒 = (3, 5) or 𝑒 = (3, ♭5), respectively.We use three types of distances suitable for chords in a symbolic representation. For chords 𝑐1 = (𝑟1 , 𝑒1 ) and 𝑐2 = (𝑟2 , 𝑒2 ): Chord-type distance The coarsest distance compares whether two chords 𝑐1 and 𝑐2 are of the same type, i.e. whether they share all features except their roots. 0 if 𝑒1 = 𝑒2 𝑑type (𝑐1 , 𝑐2 ) = { (1) 1 if 𝑒1 ≠ 𝑒2 Line-of-fifths distance Focusing on chord roots, we measure their distance as the difference of their positions on the line of fifths (LoF) [42], 𝑑LoF (𝑐1 , 𝑐2 ) = |𝑙(𝑟2 ) − 𝑙(𝑟1 )|, (2) where the positions of chord roots on the line of fifths are given by 𝑙 ∶ {… , B♭, F, C, G, D, …} ↦ {… , −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, …} ≡ ℤ. (3) Pitch-class set distance To measure the distance between two chords represented as pitch- class sets, we employ the Jaccard distance [47] |𝑐 ∩ 𝑐 | 𝑑Jaccard (𝑐1 , 𝑐2 ) = 1 2 . (4) |𝑐1 ∪ 𝑐2 | 3.3. Modeling chord substitutions We denote the (infinite) vocabulary of chord symbols in Harte syntax with Ω. For each piece in each of the corpora, we extract 𝐿-grams (chord sequences of length 𝐿), were repetitions are retained. Many chordal patterns correlate with the formal structure of songs that frequently consists of multiples of four bars. Thus, we only examine chord sequences of length 𝐿 = 4, and denote the collection of 4-grams of all pieces released in year 𝑡 by 𝑆𝑡 = {w(𝑖) | 𝑡𝑖 = 𝑡}, (5) where chord 4-grams are given by (𝑖) (𝑖) (𝑖) (𝑖) (𝑖) w(𝑖) = (𝑤1 , 𝑤2 , 𝑤3 , 𝑤4 ) , 𝑤𝑙 ∈ Ω, (6) 3 https://github.com/andreamust/harte-library 141 for some year-specific index 𝑖 of distinct 4-grams. The set of 4-grams in earlier years is defined 𝑡−1 as 𝑆<𝑡 = ⋃𝑗=1 𝑆𝑗 . We assume that 4-grams w ∈ 𝑆𝑡 are generated randomly by mutating an existing reference chord sequence from a past song, w′ ∈ 𝑆<𝑡 . First, a reference chord sequence w′ is sampled from 𝑆<𝑡 according to its selection probability, 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑙 (w′ | 𝑆<𝑡 ). The actual chord sequence w is then generated by a pure replication or by replacing one or several elements of w according to the substitution probabilities 𝐿 𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑏 (w | w′ ) = ∏ 𝜋𝑠𝑢𝑏 (𝑤𝑙 | 𝑤𝑙′ ). (7) 𝑙=1 Note that, here, substitution probabilities for chords within one 4-gram are considered inde- pendent. While it is possible to employ more elaborate probabilistic music sequence models, these would introduce further parameters and would thus necessitate a larger amount of data for reliable inference. The substitution probabilities between all chords in a corpus can be ex- pressed as a 𝑁 × 𝑁 transition matrix, where 𝑁 is the number of chord types in the corpus, that is not necessarily symmetric because, in general, 𝜋𝑠𝑢𝑏 (𝑤𝑙 | 𝑤𝑙′ ) ≠ 𝜋𝑠𝑢𝑏 (𝑤𝑙′ | 𝑤𝑙 ). In the selection process, we suppose that a reference 4-gram is selected by first randomly choosing a past song and then choosing a 4-gram in that song. Since the selection probability of a 4-gram is then proportional to its frequency in the past data, 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑙 (w; 𝑆<𝑡 ) is proportional to the relative frequency #w𝑗 of a chord 4-gram w in year 𝑗. In order to make the selection process more realistic, we introduce a bias that affects the selection probabilities. Specifically, we assume that more recent songs exert a stronger influence on present songs than songs further in the past, corresponding to a recency bias, which we model by a weighting factor 𝑒 −𝛽(𝑡−𝑗) for a 4-gram observed in year 𝑗, where 𝛽 is the parameter controlling the strength of the recency bias. The selection probability is thus given by 𝑡−1 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑙 (w; 𝑆<𝑡 ) ∝ ∑ 𝑒 −𝛽(𝑡−𝑗) ⋅ #w𝑗 . (8) 𝑗=1 Finally, the full specification of our generative model is given by the following equation: 𝑃(w; 𝑆𝑡 ) = ∑ 𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑏 (w | w′ ) ⋅ 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑙 (w′ ; 𝑆<𝑡 ). (9) w′ ∈𝑆<𝑡 3.4. Inference The model parameters 𝛽 and 𝜋𝑠𝑢𝑏 (w | w′ ) are inferred using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm [3] with grid search and likelihood optimization, where the reference chord 4-grams w′ are considered to be latent variables for each observed chord 4-grams w in the datasets used. After estimating the mutation probabilities, we analyze the temporal evolution of substitution probabilities from the posterior probabilities of the referential 4-grams for each year. For some years, there are only a small number of songs, or even no songs, in our datasets, and we apply additional smoothing techniques to reliably estimate the substitution probabilities for each year. Specifically, we use the Kalman smoothing method [1] in which we assume that the temporal continuity of each substitution probability can be modeled by a Gaussian Markov process. 142 4. Results and discussion We analyze the three corpora under three perspectives: (1) evolution of the chord vocabu- lary, (2) historical changes in the substitution probabilities, and (3) relations with the chord distances defined above. As the chord vocabularies have different encodings and sizes, it is difÏcult to compare them directly in a quantitative manner. For this reason, we focus on the 25 most frequent chords or substitutions, analyze each corpus separately, and interpret the results qualitatively against the background of music theory. 4.1. Evolution of chord-symbol frequencies We first analyze the changing frequencies of occurrence of chords symbols. For J-Pop (Figure 2(a)), one can observe a trend towards a more uniform distribution of harmonies used. Whereas a few chords dominate the earlier phases (notably diatonic triads and applied dominants), chord frequency entropy increases rendering the harmonic vocabulary in use more diverse. The strongest changes occur roughly between the 1970’s and the mid-90’s. It is difÏcult to assert whether this trend is due to a change in the harmonic language or due to changes in data, as this phase lies between the two peaks visible in Figure 1. However, after this phase, the entropy of the chord vocabulary is distinctively higher than in the earlier years. In US-Pop (Figure 3(a)), the chord vocabulary remains relatively stable throughout, although here, too, one can observe a slight increase in entropy towards the end of the timeline (chord frequencies become even more uniform). Choro (Figure 4(a)), in contrast, shows a more mixed behavior, with some local fluctuation (as opposed to US-Pop), but no clear trend (as opposed to J-Pop). 1.0 FM9 1.0 G -> Gsus4 Gsus4 CM7 Am7 -> FM7 Bm7(b5) Dm7 -> FM7 FM7 -> Dm7 0.8 Bb Fm 0.8 G -> Em7 A FM7 -> F D F -> FM7 Em7 Em -> Em7 FM7 Em7 -> C 0.6 C7 0.6 G -> Dm7 Probability G -> E Probability B7 Am7 -> Am Am7 Dm7 -> F D7 Dm7 -> Dm A7 0.4 Dm7 0.4 Em -> G F -> Dm7 E G -> G7 Em E7 -> Em G E7 -> E F C -> Am 0.2 Dm 0.2 C -> Em G7 F -> Dm E7 Am -> F C Dm -> F Am G7 -> G 0.0 0.0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Year (a) Chord frequencies. (b) Substitution probabilities. Figure 2: The evolution of chord frequencies (a) and substitution probabilities (b) in J-Pop. 4.2. Evolution of substitution probabilities The evolution of substitution probabilities is shown in Figures 2(b), 3(b), and 4(b), respectively. The changes observed in the relative frequencies of harmonies also affects their substitutions, 143 1.0 Gb:maj E:7 1.0 A:maj -> F#:min G:min C:7 G:min -> Bb:maj Bb:maj -> G:min 0.8 A:min7 E:min7 Ab:maj -> Db:maj D:7 0.8 G:maj -> A:min G:maj -> E:min D:min7 E:maj -> B:maj G:7 F:maj -> G:maj B:min 0.6 D:min E:maj -> D:maj Probability E:min -> G:maj A:min 0.6 D:min -> C:maj Probability Ab:maj A:min -> C:maj E:min D:maj -> B:min Db:maj B:maj -> A:maj 0.4 B:maj C:maj -> G:maj Eb:maj 0.4 C:maj -> F:maj Bb:maj F:maj -> C:maj N D:maj -> A:maj F:maj G:maj -> D:maj 0.2 E:maj 0.2 Bb:maj -> F:maj G:maj -> C:maj D:maj A:maj -> D:maj G:maj B:maj -> E:maj A:maj D:maj -> G:maj C:maj E:maj -> A:maj 0.0 0.0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Year Year (a) Chord frequencies. (b) Substitution probabilities. Figure 3: The evolution of chord frequencies (a) and substitution probabilities (b) in US-Pop. 1.0 C:min D:min7 1.0 G:maj -> G:maj6 G:min7 A:maj C:maj -> C:min A:min -> A:maj 0.8 A:min7 Bb:7 A:min -> A:min7 B:min 0.8 F:maj -> F:maj/3 Bb:maj -> Bb:7 D:min/b3 G:min -> G:min7 F#:7 A:min/b3 -> A:min F:7 0.6 Bb:maj C:maj -> C:maj/3 Probability G:maj/3 -> D:7 B:7 0.6 D:7 -> D:7/3 Probability E:min C:maj -> C:maj/5 D:maj G:maj/3 -> G:maj G:min A:7/5 -> A:7 0.4 G:maj E:7 -> E:7/3 C:7 0.4 D:min -> D:min/b3 C:maj D:maj -> G:maj F:maj D:maj/3 -> D:maj A:min E:7/3 -> E:7 0.2 G:7 0.2 E:7/5 -> E:7 D:min7 -> D:min E:7 A:7/3 -> A:7 D:7 D:min/b3 -> D:min D:min D:min -> D:7 A:7 A:min -> A:7 0.0 0.0 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Year Year (a) Chord frequencies. (b) Substitution probabilities. Figure 4: The evolution of chord frequencies (a) and substitution probabilities (b) in Brazilian Choro. as the left and right plots in Figures Figures 2–4 are clearly correlated and one can see a rela- tively high entropy of chord substitution probabilities towards the ends of the respective time- lines. This is particularly strong in the case of J-Pop and, to some extend, also in Choro. 4.3. Chord-symbol distances Finally, we relate the substitution probabilities to the three chord distances defined above. For each of the three corpora, we correlate the mutation probability curves, and qualitatively inter- pret the resulting hierarchical clustering. The results are clearest for the case of J-Pop (Figure 5). Here, two distinct clusters emerge, revealing two types of chord mutation dynamics. Their meaning, however, is less clear, as the clusters do directly correspond toUS-Pop again maintains a relatively stable scenario. one of the three chord distances introduced above. For US-Pop (Figure 6), the clustering is less pronounced, although here, too, two clusters 144 appear. In contrast to J-Pop, their meaning is better interpretable: the smaller cluster con- tains mostly (but not exclusively) mutations between chords that are relative to one another (e.g., G:min and Bb:maj), (applied) dominants being replaced by their tonics (e.g. A:maj and D:maj), or, interestingly, stepwise downward mutations (e.g., D:min and C:maj). The second cluster contains more subdominant-to-tonic patterns than the fist (e.g., G:maj and D:maj), but also a number of mutations between relative chords. Moreover, a number of stepwise upward replacements can be found (e.g., G:maj and A:min). In the case of Choro (Figure 7), there are three large clusters, and the picture is more mixed. The first cluster in the upper left constists of chord inversions (e.g., D:min/b3 and D:min). In the second (middle) cluster, we see chord inversions as well, but also dominant replacements and chromatic alterations (D:min and D:7), while the third cluster in the bottom right exclu- sively contains chord mutations that maintain the same root (leading to a minimal line-of-fifths distance). 5. Summary and conclusion In this study, we have employed a statistical evolutionary model to understand stylistic changes in chord usage in popular music from different cultural contexts. Utilizing a common rep- resentation for harmonic units in all corpora, we have observed historical changes in chord frequencies as well as the evolution of substitution probabilities in chord 4-grams. Our results indicate stylistic differences in how patterns change over time, but their relation to chord distances is less pronounced than anticipated. Further research needs to investigate to what extend this needs to be attributed to the different data sources, and to what extend these are musical factors. Moreover, future work needs to expand in several directions, specifically testing whether our findings can be replicated in different repertoires, and looking into how cross-cultural influences can be incorporated in the analyses. Acknowledgments This research was partially funded by the Junior Professorship for Digital Music Philology and Music Theory at Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Germany. References [1] S. T. Barratt and S. P. Boyd. “Fitting a Kalman Smoother to Data”. In: 2020 American Control Conference (ACC). 2020, pp. 1526–1531. doi: 10.23919/acc45564.2020.9147485. [2] N. Biamonte. “Triadic Modal and Pentatonic Patterns in Rock Music”. In: Rock Music (2018). doi: 10.4324/9781315088631-12. [3] C. M. Bishop. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer, 2006. [4] J. A. Burgoyne. “Stochastic Processes & Database-Driven Musicology”. PhD thesis. McGill University, 2011. 145 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 A:7/3 A:7 D:min/b3 D:min A:7/5 A:7 E:7/5 E:7 D:min D:min/b3 E:7 E:7/3 C:maj C:maj/5 C:maj C:maj/3 G:maj/3 D:7 D:maj G:maj E:7/3 E:7 G:maj/3 G:maj D:min7 D:min D:min D:7 D:maj/3 D:maj A:min/b3 A:min F:maj F:maj/3 A:min A:maj A:min A:min7 C:maj C:min G:min G:min7 A:min A:7 G:maj G:maj6 D:7 D:7/3 Bb:maj Bb:7 G:min G:min7 G:maj/3 G:maj F:maj F:maj/3 D:min7 D:min A:min/b3 A:min C:maj C:min D:maj/3 D:maj A:min A:7 D:min/b3 D:min D:min D:min/b3 A:min A:maj A:7/3 A:7 A:7/5 A:7 G:maj G:maj6 D:min D:7 E:7/5 E:7 E:7 E:7/3 E:7/3 E:7 C:maj C:maj/5 C:maj C:maj/3 Bb:maj Bb:7 D:7 D:7/3 D:maj G:maj A:min A:min7 G:maj/3 D:7 Figure 5: J-Pop. [5] J. A. Burgoyne, J. Wild, and I. Fujinaga. “An Expert Ground-Truth Set for Audio Chord Recognition and Music Analysis”. In: 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference Ismir (2011), pp. 633–638. [6] J. A. Burgoyne, J. Wild, and I. Fujinaga. “Compositional Data Analysis of Harmonic Struc- tures in Popular Music”. In: Mathematics and Computation in Music. Ed. by J. Yust, J. Wild, and J. A. Burgoyne. Vol. 7937. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 52–63. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39357-0\_4. 146 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 G7 G C Am Dm F Am F F Dm E7 E E7 Em C Em F Dm7 Em G Em Em7 Dm7 Dm Dm7 F G Gsus4 F FM7 FM7 Dm7 G Em7 Dm7 FM7 G Dm7 Em7 C Am7 Am G G7 FM7 F G E Am7 FM7 Am F Dm F F Dm Am7 FM7 C Em F Dm7 Dm7 F G E FM7 Dm7 Dm7 FM7 G Dm7 Am7 Am E7 E Em Em7 Em7 C G7 G G G7 Em G E7 Em Dm7 Dm G Em7 G Gsus4 C Am F FM7 FM7 F Figure 6: US-Pop. [7] H. L. P. Corporation. The Real Book. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Publishing Corporation, 2004. [8] J. Covach. “Corpus Formation in Popular Music Scholarship: History, Style, Form, and Data”. In: The Oxford Handbook of Music and Corpus Studies. Ed. by D. Shanahan, J. A. Burgoyne, and I. Quinn. Oxford University Press, 2023, C29s1–c29n17. doi: 10.1093/oxf ordhb/9780190945442.013.29. [9] R. Cubarsi. “Harmonic Distance in Intervals and Chords”. In: Journal of Mathematics and Music 13.1 (2019), pp. 85–106. doi: 10.1080/17459737.2019.1608600. 147 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 G:min Bb:maj E:maj B:maj G:maj C:maj A:maj D:maj D:maj G:maj Ab:maj Db:maj C:maj G:maj C:maj F:maj D:min C:maj B:maj A:maj E:maj A:maj F:maj G:maj Bb:maj G:min E:maj D:maj G:maj D:maj D:maj A:maj F:maj C:maj G:maj E:min D:maj B:min A:maj F#:min A:min C:maj Bb:maj F:maj E:min G:maj G:maj A:min B:maj E:maj G:maj E:min E:min G:maj Ab:maj Db:maj G:min Bb:maj E:maj B:maj E:maj A:maj Bb:maj G:min A:maj F#:min B:maj E:maj E:maj D:maj A:min C:maj Bb:maj F:maj D:min C:maj G:maj A:min D:maj B:min G:maj C:maj C:maj G:maj C:maj F:maj F:maj C:maj B:maj A:maj A:maj D:maj D:maj A:maj F:maj G:maj D:maj G:maj G:maj D:maj Figure 7: Choro. [10] M. S. Cuthbert and C. Ariza. “Music21: A Toolkit for Computer-Aided Musicology and Symbolic Music Data”. In: 11th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Con- ference (ISMIR 2010)2. Ed. by J. S. Downie and R. C. Veltkamp. Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2010, pp. 637–642. [11] J. de Berardinis, A. Meroño-Peñuela, A. Poltronieri, and V. Presutti. “ChoCo: A Chord Corpus and a Data Transformation Workflow for Musical Harmony Knowledge Graphs”. In: Scientific Data 10.1 (2023), p. 641. doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02410-w. 148 [12] T. de Clercq. “How Should Corpus Studies of Harmony in Popular Music Handle the Mi- nor Tonic?” In: Future Directions of Music Cognition. The Ohio State University Libraries, 2021. doi: 10.18061/fdmc.2021.0006. [13] W. B. De Haas, M. Rohrmeier, and F. Wiering. “Modeling Harmonic Similarity Using a Generative Grammar of Tonal Harmony”. In: International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. Kobe, Japan, 2009, pp. 549–554. [14] W. B. de Haas, F. Wiering, and R. C. Veltkamp. “A Geometrical Distance Measure for Determining the Similarity of Musical Harmony”. In: International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 2.3 (2013), pp. 189–202. doi: 10.1007/s13735-013-0036-6. [15] E. D. Demaine, F. Gomez-Martin, H. Meijer, D. Rappaport, P. Taslakian, G. T. Toussaint, T. Winograd, and D. R. Wood. “The Distance Geometry of Music”. In: Computational Geometry 42.5 (2009), pp. 429–454. doi: 10.1016/j.comgeo.2008.04.005. [16] J. Devaney. “Beyond Chord Vocabularies: Exploiting Pitch-Relationships in a Chord Es- timation Metric”. In: arXiv:2201.05244 [cs, eess] (2022). arXiv: 2201.05244 [cs, eess]. [17] A. Ferraro and K. Lemström. “On Large-Scale Genre Classification in Symbolically En- coded Music by Automatic Identification of Repeating Patterns”. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Digital Libraries for Musicology - DLfM ’18. Paris, France: ACM Press, 2018, pp. 34–37. doi: 10.1145/3273024.3273035. [18] H. L. Gauvin. “”The Times They Were A-Changin’”: A Database-Driven Approach to the Evolution of Musical Syntax in Popular Music from the 1960s”. In: Empirical Musicology Review 10.3 (2015), pp. 215–238. doi: 10.18061/emr.v10i3.4467. [19] M. Hamilton and M. Pearce. “Trajectories and Revolutions in Popular Melody Based on U.S. Charts from 1950 to 2023”. In: Scientific Reports 14.1 (2024), p. 14749. doi: 10.1038/s 41598-024-64571-x. [20] C. Harte. “Towards Automatic Extraction of Harmony Information from Music Signals”. PhD thesis. Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary, University of London, 2010. url: http://hg.soundsoftware.ac.uk/attachments/download/330/chris%5C%5Fhart e%5C%5Fphd%5C%5Fthesis.pdf. [21] C. A. Harte, M. Sandler, S. Abdallah, and E. Gómez. “Symbolic Representation of Musical Chords: A Proposed Syntax for Text Annotations”. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR). Vol. 56. London, 2005, pp. 66–71. [22] B. Hughes and M. Lavengood. “Introduction to Harmonic Schemas in Pop Music”. In: Open Music Theory. Ed. by E. K. Maher. Viva Pressbooks, 2021. url: https://viva.pressbo oks.pub/openmusictheory/chapter/intro-to-pop-schemas/. [23] E. J. Humphrey and J. P. Bello. “Rethinking Automatic Chord Recognition with Convo- lutional Neural Networks”. In: 11th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012, pp. 357–362. doi: 10.1109/icmla.2012.220. [24] I. Jimenez, T. Kuusi, and C. Doll. “Common Chord Progressions and Feelings of Remem- bering”. In: Music & Science 3 (2020), p. 2059204320916849. doi: 10.1177/2059204320916 849. 149 [25] B. Koch, D. Silvestro, and J. G. Foster. The Evolutionary Dynamics of Cultural Change (As Told Through the Birth and Brutal, Blackened Death of Metal Music). 2020. doi: 10.31235 /osf.io/659bt. [26] F. Korzeniowski and G. Widmer. “Improved Chord Recognition by Combining Duration and Harmonic Language Models”. In: Proceedings of the 19th ISMIR Conference. Paris, France, 2018, pp. 10–17. [27] K. Kroetch. “Lennon vs. McCartney: Analysis of Chord Progressions in the Music of The Beatles”. In: MacEwan University Student eJournal 4.1 (2020). doi: 10.31542/muse.v4i1.1 956. [28] C. L. Krumhansl. Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. [29] C. L. Krumhansl, J. J. Bharucha, and M. A. Castellano. “Key Distance Effects on Perceived Harmonic Structure in Music”. In: Perception & Psychophysics 32.2 (1982), pp. 96–108. doi: 10.3758/bf03204269. [30] M. Lavengood and B. Hughes. “Four-Chord Schemas”. In: Open Music Theory. Ed. by E. K. Maher. Viva Pressbooks, 2021. url: https://viva.pressbooks.pub/openmusictheory/chap ter/4-chord-schemas/. [31] J. London. “Building a Representative Corpus of Classical Music”. In: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 31.1 (2013), pp. 68–90. doi: 10.1525/mp.2013.31.1.68. [32] M. Mauch, S. Dixon, C. A. Harte, M. Casey, and B. Fields. “Discovering Chord Idioms through Beatles and Real Book Songs”. In: ISMIR 2007, Proceedings of the 8th Interna- tional Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Vienna, Austria, September 23-27 (2007), pp. 255–258. doi: 10.1.1.125.6638. [33] M. Mauch, R. M. MacCallum, M. Levy, and A. M. Leroi. “The Evolution of Popular Music: USA 1960–2010”. In: Royal Society Open Science 2.5 (2015), p. 150081. doi: 10.1098/rsos.1 50081. [34] C. McKay and I. Fujinaga. “Musical Genre Classification: Is It Worth Pursuing and How Can It Be Improved?” In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR). Victoria, Canada, 2006, pp. 101–106. [35] A. McLeod and M. Rohrmeier. “A Modular System for the Harmonic Analysis of Musical Scores Using a Large Vocabulary”. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ISMIR Conference. Online, 2021-11-07/2021-11-12, pp. 435–442. [36] A. Mcleod, X. Suermondt, Y. Rammos, S. Herff, and M. A. Rohrmeier. “Three Metrics for Musical Chord Label Evaluation”. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation. Kolkata, India, 2022, pp. 47–53. doi: 10.1145/35743 18.3574335. [37] M. McVicar, Y. Ni, R. Santos-Rodriguez, and T. De Bie. “Using Online Chord Databases to Enhance Chord Recognition”. In: Journal of New Music Research 40.2 (2011), pp. 139–152. doi: 10.1080/09298215.2011.573564. 150 [38] A. J. Milne and S. Holland. “Empirically Testing Tonnetz , Voice-Leading, and Spectral Models of Perceived Triadic Distance”. In: Journal of Mathematics and Music 10.1 (2016), pp. 59–85. doi: 10.1080/17459737.2016.1152517. [39] T. Mondol and D. G. Brown. “Grammar-Based Compression and Its Use in Symbolic Music Analysis”. In: Journal of Mathematics and Music 17.1 (2021), pp. 133–150. doi: 10 .1080/17459737.2021.2002956. [40] A. Moore. “Patterns of Harmony”. In: Popular Music 11.1 (1992), pp. 73–106. doi: 10.101 7/s0261143000004852. [41] F. C. Moss, W. Fernandes de Souza, and M. Rohrmeier. Choro Songbook Corpus. Dataset [Version v1.3.2]. 2020. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1442764. [42] F. C. Moss, M. Neuwirth, and M. Rohrmeier. “The Line of Fifths and the Co-Evolution of Tonal Pitch-Classes”. In: Journal of Mathematics and Music 17.2 (2022), pp. 173–197. doi: 10.1080/17459737.2022.2044927. [43] F. C. Moss, W. F. Souza, and M. Rohrmeier. “Harmony and Form in Brazilian Choro: A Corpus-Driven Approach to Musical Style Analysis”. In: Journal of New Music Research 49.5 (2020), pp. 416–437. doi: 10.1080/09298215.2020.1797109. [44] E. Nakamura. “Computational Analysis of Selection and Mutation Probabilities in the Evolution of Chord Progressions”. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Computer Music Multidisciplinary Research. Tokyo, Japan, 2023, pp. 462–473. doi: 10.528 1/zenodo.10113462. [45] K. O’Toole and E.-Á. Horvát. “Novelty and Cultural Evolution in Modern Popular Music”. In: EPJ Data Science 12.1 (2023), pp. 1–25. doi: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00377-7. [46] C. Pérez-Sancho, D. Rizo, and J. M. Iñesta. “Genre Classification Using Chords and Stochastic Language Models”. In: Connection Science 21.2-3 (2009), pp. 145–159. doi: 1 0.1080/09540090902733780. [47] J. Podani. “The Wonder of the Jaccard CoefÏcient: From Alpine Floras to Bipartite Net- works”. In: Flora Mediterranea 31 (2021), pp. 105–123. doi: 10.7320/FlMedit31SI.105. [48] M. Richards. “Tonal Ambiguity in Popular Music’s Axis Progressions”. In: Music Theory Online 23.3 (2017). url: https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.17.23.3/mto.17.23.3.richards.html. [49] Rogers, Nancy and Callender, Clifton. “Judgments of Distance between Trichords”. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition. Ed. by M. Baroni. Bologna, Italy: Society for Music Perception & Cognition : European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music, 2006-08-22/2006-08-26, pp. 1686–1691. [50] P. E. Savage. “Cultural Evolution of Music”. In: Palgrave Communications 5.1 (2019), p. 16. doi: 10.1057/s41599-019-0221-1. [51] D. R. W. Sears and D. Forrest. “Triadic Patterns across Classical and Popular Music Cor- pora: Stylistic Conventions, or Characteristic Idioms?” In: Journal of Mathematics and Music 15.2 (2021), pp. 140–153. doi: 10.1080/17459737.2021.1925762. 151 [52] J. Serrà, Á. Corral, M. Boguñá, M. Haro, and J. L. Arcos. “Measuring the Evolution of Contemporary Western Popular Music”. In: Scientific Reports 2.1 (2012), p. 521. doi: 10.1 038/srep00521. [53] M. Sève. “O Choro No Estilo Sambado : Padrões Rítmicos e Fraseado Musical”. In: DE- BATES - Cadernos Do Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Música 17 (2016), pp. 219–249. [54] K. Shaffer, E. Vasiete, B. Jacquez, A. Davis, D. Escalante, C. Hicks, J. McCann, C. Noufi, and P. Salminen. “A Cluster Analysis of Harmony in the McGill Billboard Dataset”. In: Empirical Musicology Review 14.3–4 (2020), pp. 146–162. doi: 10.18061/emr.v14i3-4.5576. [55] D. Shanahan and Y. Broze. “A Diachronic Analysis of Harmonic Schemata in Jazz”. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition and the 8th Triennial Conference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music. Thessaloniki, Greece, 2012, pp. 909–917. [56] D. Shanahan and Y. Broze. iRealPro Corpus of Jazz Standards. 2019. doi: 10.5281/zenodo .3546040. [57] N. Shea, L. Reymore, C. W. White, L. VanHandel, B. Duinker, M. Zeller, and N. Biamonte. “Diversity in Music Corpus Studies”. In: Music Theory Online 30.1 (2024). url: https://m tosmt.org/issues/mto.24.30.1/mto.24.30.1.shea%5C%5Fet%5C%5Fal.html. [58] B. Tillmann, J. J. Bharucha, and E. Bigand. “Implicit Learning of Tonality: A Self- Organizing Approach.” In: Psychological Review 107.4 (2000), pp. 885–913. [59] D. Tymoczko. “Three Conceptions of Musical Distance”. In: Proceedings of Bridges 2009: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture. Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2009, pp. 29–38. [60] Y. Uehara and S. Tojo. “Chord Function Recognition as Latent State Transition”. In: SN Computer Science 3.6 (2022), p. 508. doi: 10.1007/s42979-022-01395-4. [61] Y. Yamamoto and T. Mizutani. “Computational Analysis of Jazz Music: Estimating Tonal- ity through Chord Progression Distances”. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Confer- ence on Computer Science and Application Engineering. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1145/3627915.3629600. [62] M. Youngblood. “Conformity Bias in the Cultural Transmission of Music Sampling Tra- ditions”. In: Royal Society Open Science 6.9 (2019), p. 191149. doi: 10.1098/rsos.191149. [63] M. Youngblood. “Cultural Transmission Modes of Music Sampling Traditions Remain Stable despite Delocalization in the Digital Age”. In: Plos One 14.2 (2019), e0211860. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211860. [64] M. Youngblood, K. Baraghith, and P. E. Savage. “Phylogenetic Reconstruction of the Cul- tural Evolution of Electronic Music via Dynamic Community Detection (1975–1999)”. In: Evolution and Human Behavior 42.6 (2021), pp. 573–582. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2 021.06.002. [65] M. Youngblood, Y. Ozaki, and P. E. Savage. Cultural Evolution and Music. 2021. doi: 10.3 1234/osf.io/xsb7v. 152