Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Framing Visual Musicology through Methodology Transfer

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper frames Visual Musicology as an interdisciplinary field and claims that a systematic Methodology Transfer Model lets mature visualization methods from text, geo, time, and high-dimensional analytics be adapted to solve current…

desk verdict A genuinely useful framing paper that names a field and proposes a transfer methodology, but the central transferability claim is a program, not a demonstrated result. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10411 v1 pith:LCX7LREL submitted 2019-08-21 cs.HC

Matthias Miller , Hanna Schäfer , Matthias Kraus , Marc Leman , Daniel Keim , Mennatallah El-Assady This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords Visualmusicologymethodologytransfervisualizationmusicanalysisdesignspaceanalyticsresearchopportunities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This position paper argues that musicology does not have to wait for bespoke visualization tools: many of its open problems can be tackled by transferring mature visualization methods from text, geospatial, time-series, and high-dimensional analytics. To make that transfer systematic, the paper defines Visual Musicology as an interdisciplinary field, characterizes its problem space and design space, and introduces the Methodology Transfer Model (MTM). The model treats every domain as a problem space and a design space joined by a solution space of existing problem-design mappings; transfer means finding a musicological problem that is structurally similar to a solved problem in another domain and adapting the successful design to music data. Three worked examples show the intended payoff: a genome-style circular layout reveals chord harmony, video-based movement analysis used in sports is pointed at performers' gestures, and a close-reading interface for poetry is reimagined for harmonic structure. If the analogies hold, musicologists gain an immediate toolbox and visualization researchers gain a rich, under-served application domain.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Methodology Transfer Model (MTM): a representation of a domain by its problem space and design space, joined by a solution space of established problem-design mappings. Transfer works in four steps: choose a musicological application domain, analyze its input data, detect a suitable visualization from another field, and adapt the design to domain constraints before evaluating the fit. The model is inspired by an existing expert-collaboration approach [54] and borrows its visualization-task vocabulary from text-visualization taxonomies [3, 25]. The other load-bearing machinery is the set of analogies that makes transfer concrete: pitch as letters, chords as words, timbre as writing style, genre change as geographic and epochal movement, and performance gesture as athletic movement, because these structural parallels decide whether a transferred visualization still answers the musicological question.

What would settle it

Take one of the paper's transferred designs, such as a poetry close-reading view of harmonic progressions, and run a task-based study in which trained musicologists locate modulations and structural boundaries in scores with and without the tool. If the transferred visualization does not improve speed or accuracy relative to the musicologists' usual methods, or if its groupings are judged musically misleading, the claim that established methods can be exploited for current musicological problems fails for that mapping; repeated failures across the text, geo, time, and high-dimensional examples would undermine the MTM as a general strategy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that methodology transfer can be exploited to solve current musicological problems, and it proposes a concrete model for doing so. The Methodology Transfer Model (MTM) says each domain has a problem space (data, users, tasks) and a design space (analytic and visualization techniques), with the mapping between them being the solution space. A solution from a mature domain can be moved to musicology by identifying a musicological problem whose structure resembles the source problem, then adapting the visualization to music-specific constraints such as notation, timbre, time, and embodied performance. The paper substantiates the claim by mapping notes to letters, chords to words, timbre to writing style, and by sketching geo-spatial, time-oriented, and high-dimensional transfers for historical, performance, and physiological or psychological musicology. It also coins Visual Musicology to name the intersection of musicology and visual analytics and lays out seven claims intended to motivate collaboration.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the analogies between musicology and the source domains being structurally faithful, so that pitch really stands in for letters, chords for words, timbre for writing style, and performance gestures for tennis movement, and a visualization that works on the source data still works after the mapping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Musicologists in theory and analysis, history, performance, and therapy can draw on existing text, geo, time, and high-dimensional visualizations instead of commissioning tools from scratch.
  • A shared definition of Visual Musicology gives the work a common vocabulary and makes musicology a recognized application domain for visualization research.
  • The MTM makes research-gap identification systematic: a musicological problem with no mapped design is a concrete candidate for new visualization research.
  • The three use cases predict specific successes: circular layouts expose dominant harmonic relationships, skeleton-based video analysis can reveal recurring performer gestures, and close-reading interfaces can display harmonic progressions in a score.
  • If the transfer model holds, the collaboration is mutual: musicology's complex, multimodal data becomes a testing ground that pushes visualization methodology forward.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct extension the paper leaves implicit is that the MTM is a transfer-learning argument for visualization design; it implies the fastest progress will come in musicological subdomains with the closest structural analogs, while embodied and interactive domains will require genuinely new encodings rather than transplanted ones.
  • The same procedure could be applied to neighboring humanities fields that share structured, time-varying, or geographic data, such as dance notation, oral history, or performance video, where mature source-domain design spaces already exist.
  • A testable extension would be to turn the paper's landscape into a public catalog of problem-design mappings, one entry per subdomain, data type, and visualization task triple, and validate each transferred mapping with task-based studies against domain experts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This position paper proposes the term "Visual Musicology" to denote research at the intersection of musicology and information visualization, and introduces a Methodology Transfer Model (MTM) for reusing visualization techniques from other domains. The paper characterizes the problem and design spaces of visual musicology, gives examples of transfers from text, geo-spatial, time, and high-dimensional visualization domains, and presents three use cases: a Circos-based harmony visualization, a body-movement analysis inspired by tennis, and a Poemage-inspired visualization of musical features. The stated central claim is that established methods can be exploited to solve current musicological problems through methodology transfer. The paper explicitly frames itself as a position paper and does not present formal evaluations of the proposed transfers.

Significance. If accepted as a research agenda, the paper makes a valuable contribution by systematically mapping musicological problem spaces to visualization design spaces, and by proposing a concrete transfer model. The strengths include the transparency about the paper's status, the explicit statement that a transfer process should conclude with an evaluation (Section 4.3), the use of a real implemented example (Circos for harmony, Section 5a), and the grounding of the domain taxonomy in existing musicology literature (JIMS). The paper is a timely call for interdisciplinary collaboration and provides a structured vocabulary for discussing such transfers, which is useful for both visualization and musicology researchers. Its claims are appropriately hedged as programmatic rather than demonstrated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.3 and Section 5] The central argument of the paper rests on the viability of the analogical mappings, such as pitch-to-letters, chords-to-words, and timbre-to-writing-style, and the three use cases. None of these is evaluated against musicologically relevant criteria, and use case (b) is explicitly not applied yet. For a position paper, this is acceptable if the paper clearly marks these as hypotheses to be tested; however, the current text in Section 4.3 states that the transfer process 'should conclude with an evaluation' without giving any concrete validation strategy for the examples. I recommend adding a short paragraph that explicitly classifies the mappings and use cases as open hypotheses and outlines what kind of evidence would be needed to confirm or refute them. This would make the load-bearing premise explicit and would help readers judge the plausibility of the approach.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3] The analogical mappings are introduced very abruptly; for a reader unfamiliar with the analogy between music and text, a brief justification (e.g., prior work on music as language) would help. The sentence 'Timbre describes the sound or “color” of an instrument the influences the conceived sound' also contains a typo ('the influences' should be 'that influences').
  2. [Section 5(a)] The claim that this is a 'successful mapping' is supported only by the observation of a few example pieces. Since the original Circos application is from bioinformatics, it would strengthen the paper to cite Schroer's analysis or to describe the criteria for success more precisely, so that the reader can independently assess the claimed success.
  3. [Section 5(b)] The embodied music interaction use case is labeled a 'use case' but is described as not yet applied. I suggest renaming it a 'prospective use case' or clearly categorizing the three examples into implemented, proposed, and speculative, to set reader expectations appropriately.
  4. [Figure 1] The Visual Musicology graph in Figure 1 is central to the problem and design space definitions, but the text provides only a high-level description. Adding a short table in the appendix or a more detailed caption that enumerates the shown domains, data types, and task categories would improve readability and reproducibility.
  5. [Section 2] The claim that a search for music/sound/audio/harmony in the SoS Literature Browser 'yields no results' is a strong statement; since the SoS browser is a living resource, it would be safer to phrase this as 'yielded no results at the time of writing' (the reference list does give an access date, but the main text could be clearer).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a position paper proposing a methodology-transfer framework, and none of its claims reduces by construction to its own inputs or to load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

This is a position paper that frames a research field and proposes a methodology-transfer model (MTM); it does not derive quantitative predictions, fit parameters, or claim to validate the model through its own construction. The central claim, that established visualization methods can be exploited for musicological problems, is presented as a proposal supported by exemplary mappings from text, geo, time, and high-dimensional visualization domains. These mappings are explicitly analogical: pitch-to-letters, chords-to-words, timbre-to-writing-style, and so on. They are not derived by the paper from any input quantity, and no quantity is fitted or renamed as a prediction. The paper even states that the transfer process 'should conclude with an evaluation of how well the solution deduced from the methodology transfer fits the initial problem' (Section 4.3), and admits that one use case 'has not been applied yet' (Section 5). Those admissions weaken the evidential base of the proposal, but they are concerns about validation, not circularity. The authors cite their own prior work (e.g., El-Assady et al. [15], Miller et al. [39], Wrisley et al. [66]) and an earlier Liaison model [54] by co-authors, but these citations serve as inspiration or illustrative examples rather than as the proof of the central claim. The MTM is presented as a framework, not as a theorem whose validity depends on the cited prior work. No step in the argument is equivalent to its own inputs by definition, and no fitted quantity is later called a prediction. Under the stated rubric, a position paper with this structure and no derivation chain has no circularity. The correct score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

This paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters. Its claims rest on conceptual assumptions: that musicology is under-researched in visualization, that problem and design spaces can be transferred across domains, and that specific text/music, geo/music, time/music, and HD/music analogies preserve task structure. The only invented entities are the field label 'Visual Musicology' and the Methodology Transfer Model, both conceptual with no independent evidence.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Musicology is an under-researched field in visualization, inferred from a null keyword search in the SoS Literature Browser.
    Section 1 uses this to motivate the paper; the SoS browser indexes surveys, not all visualization papers, so the inference is stronger than the evidence.
  • domain assumption Domain problem and design spaces can be abstracted and mapped between domains, so a solution from one domain can be adapted to another.
    Section 3 defines the Methodology Transfer Model and leans on Simon et al.'s Liaison model; transferability is assumed rather than proven.
  • domain assumption The analogies between music and text, geo, time, and high-dimensional data preserve task structure.
    Section 4.3 maps pitch to letters, chords to words, timbre to writing style, and assumes geo and time transfers retain meaning; these are asserted analogies with no empirical validation.
invented entities (2)
  • Visual Musicology (field framing)
    purpose: A named interdisciplinary field at the intersection of musicology and information visualization, intended to encapsulate visualization research addressing musicological problems.
    Introduced in Section 4 as a definition and framing; it is a conceptual label with no external validation.
  • Methodology Transfer Model (MTM)
    purpose: A conceptual model that connects problem spaces and design spaces across domains to identify transferable solutions, inspired by Simon et al.'s Liaison model.
    Introduced in Section 3; the model is a heuristic framework and is not validated against outcomes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Framing Visual Musicology through Methodology Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCX7LREL

@misc{pith2026190810411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Framing Visual Musicology through Methodology Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCX7LREL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10411}
}
read the original abstract

In this position paper, we frame the field of Visual Musicology by providing an overview of well-established musicological sub-domains and their corresponding analytic and visualization tasks. To foster collaborative, interdisciplinary research, we discuss relevant data and domain characteristics. We give a description of the problem space, as well as the design space of musicology and discuss how existing problem-design mappings or solutions from other fields can be transferred to musicology. We argue that, through methodology transfer, established methods can be exploited to solve current musicological problems and show exemplary mappings from analytics fields related to text, geospatial, time-series, and other high-dimensional data to musicology. Finally, we point out open challenges, discuss research gaps, and highlight future research opportunities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10411 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual Musicology encompasses different data types and various domains covering psychological, physical, physiologi￾cal, and societal aspects. Visualization tasks can support musicologists in answering domain problems, which can be described by computational tasks. Strengthening cross-disciplinary and domain-driven research has the potential for original and synergistic research, paving the way for novel research co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Methodology Transfer Model (MTM) maps problems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Exemplary use cases for Methodology Transfer from different domains into Visual Musicology: (a) Exploiting the Circos visualization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. Agawu. Analyzing Music under the New Musicological Regime. The Journal of Musicology, 15(3):297–307, July 1997. doi: 10.2307/ 763911

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Aigner, S

    W. Aigner, S. Miksch, H. Schumann, and C. Tominski.Visualization of Time-Oriented Data. Springer, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-0-85729-079-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-85729-079-3 2011

  3. [3]

    Alharbi and R

    M. Alharbi and R. S. Laramee. SoS TextVis: An Extended Survey of Surveys on Text Visualization. Computers, 8(1):17, 2019. doi: 10. 3390/computers8010017

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Antoniadis and F

    P. Antoniadis and F. Bevilacqua. Processing of Symbolic Music Nota- tion via Multimodal Performance Data: Brian Ferneyhough’s Lemma- Icon-Epigram for Solo Piano, Phase 1. In Proc. of TENOR, pp. 127– 136, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Aucouturier and F

    J.-J. Aucouturier and F. Pachet. Representing Musical Genre: A State of the Art. Journal of New Music Research (JNMR), 32(1):83–93, Mar

    work page

  6. [6]

    Beard and K

    D. Beard and K. Gloag. Musicology: The Key Concepts. Routledge, May 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Benetos, S

    E. Benetos, S. Dixon, D. Giannoulis, H. Kirchhoff, and A. Klapuri. Au- tomatic music transcription: challenges and future directions. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 41(3):407–434, Dec. 2013. doi: 10. 1007/s10844-013-0258-3

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Bertin-Mahieux, D

    T. Bertin-Mahieux, D. P. W. Ellis, B. Whitman, and P. Lamere. The Million Song Dataset. In Proc. of the Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval Conf., pp. 591–596, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Bradley, M. El-Assady, K. Coles, E. Alexander, M. Chen, C. Collins, S. J¨anicke, and D. J. Wrisley. Visualization and the Digital Humanities: Moving Toward Stronger Collaborations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 38(6):26–38, 2018. doi: 10.1109/MCG. 2018.2878900

    2018

  2. [10]

    R. A. Burkhard. Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization. In Int. Conf. on Information Visualisation, pp. 519–524, 2004. doi: 10.1109/IV. 2004.1320194

    2004 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Caruso, E

    G. Caruso, E. Coorevits, L. Nijs, and M. Leman. Gestures in Con- temporary Music Performance: A Method to Assist the Performer’s Artistic Process. Contemporary Music Review, 35(4-5):402–422, Sept

  4. [12]

    M. L. Chanda and D. J. Levitin. The neurochemistry of music. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(4):179–193, Apr. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.tics. 2013.02.007

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    K. Cook. Musical Style and Genre: History and Modernity. Routledge, Oct. 2013. doi: 10.4324/9780203059722

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Desmet, L

    F. Desmet, L. Nijs, M. Demey, M. Lesaffre, J.-P. Martens, and M. Le- man. Assessing a Clarinet Player’s Performer Gestures in Relation to Locally Intended Musical Targets. Journal of New Music Research, 41(1):31–48, Mar. 2012. doi: 10.1080/09298215.2011.649769

    2012

  7. [15]

    El-Assady, A

    M. El-Assady, A. Hautli-Janisz, V . Gold, M. Butt, K. Holzinger, and D. A. Keim. Interactive Visual Analysis of Transcribed Multi-Party Discourse. In Proc. of the Association for Computational Linguistics, System Demonstrations, pp. 49–54, 2017. doi: 10.18653/v1/P17-4009

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    M. Good. MusicXML: An Internet-Friendly Format for Sheet Music. In XML Conf. and Expo, pp. 03–04, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    M. Goto, K. Yoshii, H. Fujihara, M. Mauch, and T. Nakano. Songle: A Web Service for Active Music Listening Improved by User Contri- butions. In Proc. of the Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval Conf., ISMIR, pp. 311–316, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    Herndon and N

    M. Herndon and N. McLeod. Music as culture. Norwood Editions, Norwood, Pa, 1981

    1981

  11. [19]

    J¨anicke, J

    S. J¨anicke, J. Focht, and G. Scheuermann. Interactive Visual Profiling of Musicians. IEEE Trans. on Vis. and Comp. Graph., 22(1):200–209,

  12. [20]

    J ¨anicke, G

    S. J ¨anicke, G. Franzini, M. F. Cheema, and G. Scheuermann. On Close and Distant Reading in Digital Humanities: A Survey and Future Challenges. In Eurographics Conf. on Visualization, pp. 83–103, 2015. doi: 10.2312/eurovisstar.20151113

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Kaminskas and F

    M. Kaminskas and F. Ricci. Contextual music information retrieval and recommendation: State of the art and challenges. Computer Science Review, 6(2):89–119, 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2012.04.002

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467620

    2015

  15. [23]

    J. Kerman. Contemplating Music: Challenges to Musicology. Harvard University Press, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    M.-J. Kraak. Cartography: Visualization of Spatial Data. Routledge, Nov. 2013. doi: 10.4324/9781315847184

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    D. A. Keim, G. L. Andrienko, J. Fekete, C. G¨org, J. Kohlhammer, and G. Melanc ¸on. Visual Analytics: Definition, Process, and Challenges. In Information Visualization - Human-Centered Issues and Perspectives, pp. 154–175. Springer, 2008. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-70956-5 7

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    M. Leman. Embodied Music Cognition and Mediation Technology . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008

    2008

  19. [27]

    M. Leman. The Expressive Moment: How Interaction (with Music) Shapes Human Empowerment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kucher and A

    K. Kucher and A. Kerren. Text Visualization Techniques: Taxonomy, Visual Survey, and Community Insights. In IEEE Pacific Visualization Symp., pp. 117–121, 2015. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2015.7156366

    2015

  21. [29]

    Lesaffre, P.-J

    M. Lesaffre, P.-J. Maes, and M. Leman, eds.The Routledge Companion to Embodied Music Interaction. Taylor & Francis Group, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    S. Liu, D. Maljovec, B. Wang, P.-T. Bremer, and V . Pascucci. Visu- alizing High-Dimensional Data: Advances in the Past Decade. IEEE Trans. on Vis. and Comp. Graph., 23(3):1249–1268, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Lerdahl and R

    F. Lerdahl and R. Jackendoff. An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1(2):229– 252, Dec. 1983. doi: 10.2307/40285257

    1983 doi

  24. [32]

    SoundBikes

    P.-J. Maes, V . Lorenzoni, B. Moens, J. Six, F. Bressan, I. Schepers, and M. Leman. Embodied, Participatory Sense-Making in Digitally- Augmented Music Practices: Theoretical Principles and the Artistic Case “SoundBikes”. Critical Arts, 32(3):77–94, May 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Malandrino, D

    D. Malandrino, D. Pirozzi, G. Zaccagnino, and R. Zaccagnino. A Color- Based Visualization Approach to Understand Harmonic Structures of Musical Compositions. In Int. Conf. on Information Visualisation, pp. 56–61, 2015. doi: 10.1109/iV.2015.21

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Lorenzoni, P

    V . Lorenzoni, P. Van den Berghe, P.-J. Maes, T. De Bie, D. De Clercq, and M. Leman. Design and validation of an auditory biofeedback system for modification of running parameters. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, Nov. 2018. doi: 10.1007/s12193-018-0283-1

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    McCurdy, J

    N. McCurdy, J. Lein, K. Coles, and M. D. Meyer. Poemage: Visual- izing the sonic topology of a poem. IEEE Trans. on Vis. and Comp. Graph., 22(1):439–448, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467811

    2016

  28. [36]

    L. McNabb. SoS Literature Browser.http://sos.swansea.ac.uk/,

  29. [37]

    McAndrew and M

    S. McAndrew and M. Everett. Music as Collective Invention: A Social Network Analysis of Composers. Cultural Sociology, 9(1):56–80, Mar

  30. [38]

    Miksch and W

    S. Miksch and W. Aigner. A matter of time: Applying a data-users- tasks design triangle to visual analytics of time-oriented data. Comput- ers & Graphics, 38:286–290, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.cag.2013.11.002

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Miller, J

    M. Miller, J. H¨außler, M. Kraus, D. A. Keim, and M. El-Assady. Ana- lyzing Visual Mappings of Traditional and Alternative Music Notation. IEEE VIS Workshop on Visualization for the Digital Humanities, 2018

    2018

  32. [40]

    Moumdjian, J

    L. Moumdjian, J. Buhmann, I. Willems, P. Feys, and M. Leman. En- trainment and Synchronization to Auditory Stimuli During Walking in Healthy and Neurological Populations: A Methodological Systematic Review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12:263, June 2018. doi: 10 .3389/fnhu...

    2018

  33. [41]

    M ¨uller, M

    M. M ¨uller, M. Goto, and S. Dixon. Multimodal Music Processing (Dagstuhl Seminar 11041). Dagstuhl Reports, 1(1):68–101, 2011. doi: 10.4230/DagRep.1.1.68

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    McNabb and R

    L. McNabb and R. S. Laramee. Survey of Surveys (SoS) - Mapping The Landscape of Survey Papers in Information Visualization. Computer Graphics Forum, 36(3):589–617, 2017. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13212

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Naquin, Y

    D. Naquin, Y . d’Aubenton Carafa, C. Thermes, and M. Silvain. CIR- CUS: a package for Circos display of structural genome variations from paired-end and mate-pair sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics, 15(1):198, June 2014. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-198

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Over and T

    B. Over and T. Roeder. MUSICI and MusMig. In B. Over and G. zur Nieden, eds., Musicians’ Mobilities and Music Migrations in Early Modern Europe, Biographical Patterns and Cultural Exchanges, pp. 185–204. Transcript Verlag, 2016

    2016

  37. [45]

    Editorial Board - Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies

    R. Parncutt, A. Bayley, and A. C. Gedik. “Editorial Board - Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies”. https://musicstudies.org/ editorial-board/, 2019. Accessed: 2019-06-28

    2019

  38. [46]

    Pichl, E

    M. Pichl, E. Zangerle, and G. Specht. Combining Spotify and Twitter Data for Generating a Recent and Public Dataset for Music Recom- mendation. In Proc. of the 26th GI-Workshop Grundlagen von Daten- banken, pp. 35–40, 2014

    2014

  39. [47]

    M¨uller, E

    M. M¨uller, E. Chew, and J. P. Bello. Computational Music Structure Analysis (Dagstuhl Seminar 16092). Dagstuhl Reports, 6(2):147–190,

  40. [48]

    doi: 10.4230/DagRep.6.2.147

    doi

  41. [49]

    C. S. Sapp. Harmonic Visualizations of Tonal Music. In Proc. of the Int. Computer Music Conf., vol. 1, pp. 423–430, 2001

    2001

  42. [50]

    C. S. Sapp. Visual Hierarchical Key Analysis. Computers in Entertain- ment, 3(4):1–19, 2005. doi: 10.1145/1095534.1095544

    2005

  43. [51]

    Visualizing Harmony

    K. Schroer. “Visualizing Harmony”. http://kellyschroer.com/ harmony.html, 2019. Accessed: 2019-07-02

    2019

  44. [52]

    Shiffman, A

    S. Shiffman, A. A. Stone, and M. R. Hufford. Ecological Momentary Assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4:1–32, 2008. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415

    2008

  45. [53]

    P. J. Polack, S. Chen, M. Kahng, K. de Barbaro, R. C. Basole, M. Sharmin, and D. H. Chau. Chronodes: Interactive Multifocus Ex- ploration of Event Sequences. ACM Trans. on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 8(1):2:1–2:21, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3152888

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Rebelo, I

    A. Rebelo, I. Fujinaga, F. Paszkiewicz, A. R. S. Mar c ¸al, C. Guedes, and J. S. Cardoso. Optical music recognition: state-of-the-art and open issues. Int. Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval, 1(3):173–190, Oct. 2012. doi: 10.1007/s13735-012-0004-6

    2012 doi

  47. [55]

    S. M. Smith and G. N. Williams. A visualization of music. In IEEE Visualization ’97, pp. 499–506, 1997. doi: 10.1109/VISUAL.1997. 663931

    1997 doi

  48. [56]

    TimeViz Browser

    C. Tominski and W. Aigner. “TimeViz Browser”. https://vcg. informatik.uni-rostock.de/˜ct/timeviz/timeviz.html,

  49. [57]

    Tymoczko

    D. Tymoczko. The Geometry of Musical Chords. Science, 313(5783):72–74, July 2006. doi: 10.1126/science.1126287

    2006 doi

  50. [58]

    Tzanetakis, A

    G. Tzanetakis, A. Kapur, W. A. Schloss, and M. Wright. Computational Ethnomusicology. Journal of Interdisciplinary Music Studies, 1:1–24, Jan. 2007

    2007

  51. [59]

    Shneiderman

    B. Shneiderman. The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. In Proc. 1996 IEEE Symp. on Visual Languages, pp. 336–343. IEEE Computer Society Press, Boulder, CO, USA, 1996. doi: 10.1109/VL.1996.545307

    1996

  52. [60]

    Simon, S

    S. Simon, S. Mittelst ¨adt, D. A. Keim, and M. Sedlmair. Bridging the Gap of Domain and Visualization Experts with a Liaison. In Eurographics Conf. on Visualization, pp. 127–131, 2015. doi: 10.2312/ eurovisshort.20151137

    2015

  53. [61]

    Wattenberg

    M. Wattenberg. Arc Diagrams: Visualizing Structure in Strings. In 2002 IEEE Symp. on Information Visualization, pp. 110–116. IEEE Computer Society, 2002. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.2002.1173155

    2002 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Weihs, D

    C. Weihs, D. Jannach, I. Vatolkin, and G. Rudolph, eds. Music Data Analysis: Foundations and Applications. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Fl London New York, NY , 2017

    2017

  55. [63]

    Accessed: 2019-06-17

    2019

  56. [64]

    Whiteley, A

    S. Whiteley, A. Bennett, and S. Hawkins, eds. Music, Space and Place: Popular Music and Cultural Identity. Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series. Ashgate, 2005

    2005

  57. [65]

    Widmer and W

    G. Widmer and W. Goebl. Computational Models of Expressive Music Performance: The State of the Art. Journal of New Music Research, 33(3):203–216, Sept. 2004. doi: 10.1080/0929821042000317804

    2004 doi

  58. [66]

    T. Vets, L. Nijs, M. Lesaffre, B. Moens, F. Bressan, P. Colpaert, P. Lam- bert, R. Van de Walle, and M. Leman. Gamified music improvisation with BilliArT: a multimodal installation with balls. Journal on Multi- modal User Interfaces, 11(1):25–38, Mar. 2017. doi: 10.1007/s12193 ...

    2017 doi

  59. [67]

    M. Watson. MuseScore. Journal of the Musical Arts in Africa, 15(1- 2):143–147, July 2018. doi: 10.2989/18121004.2018.1534342

    2018 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Weiß and M

    C. Weiß and M. M¨uller. Quantifying and Visualizing Tonal Complexity. In Proc. of the Conf. on Interdisciplinary Musicology (CIM), pp. 184– 187, 2014

    2014

  61. [73]

    Wrisley, M

    D. Wrisley, M. El-Assady, A. J. Bradley, S. J ¨anicke, E. Alexander, C. Collins, K. Coles, and M. Chen. Visualization in the Digital Hu- manities: Moving Toward Stronger Collaborations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 38(6):26–38, 2018

    2018

  62. [74]

    J. Zhao, F. Chevalier, E. Pietriga, and R. Balakrishnan. Exploratory Analysis of Time-Series with ChronoLenses. IEEE Trans. on Vis. and Comp. Graph., 17(12):2422–2431, 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2011. 195

    2011 doi

  63. [2003]

    doi: 10.1076/jnmr.32.1.83.16801

    doi

  64. [2015]

    doi: 10.1177/1749975514542486

    doi

  65. [2016]

    doi: 10.1080/07494467.2016.1257292

    2016

  66. [2017]

    Accessed: 2019-07-04

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.