Auditory Streaming Complexity and Renaissance Mass Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How did Renaissance listeners experience the polyphonic mass ordinary cycle in the soundscape of the church? We hypothesize that the textural differences in complexity between mass movements allowed listeners to track the progress of the service, regardless of intelligibility of the text or sophisticated musical knowledge. Building on the principles of auditory scene analysis, this article introduces the Auditory Streaming Complexity Estimate, a measure to evaluate the blending or separation of each part in polyphony, resulting in a moment-by-moment tally of how many independent streams or sound objects might be heard. When applied to symbolic scores for a corpus of 216 polyphonic mass ordinary cycles composed between c. 1450 and 1600, we show that the Streaming Complexity Estimate captures information distinct from the number of parts in the score or the distribution of voices active through the piece. While composers did not all follow the same relative complexity strategy for mass ordinary movements, there is a robust hierarchy emergent from the corpus as a whole: a shallow V shape with the Credo as the least complex and the Agnus Dei as the most. The streaming complexity of masses also significantly increased over the years represented in this corpus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".