The Cantometrics Coding Manual by Alan Lomax and Victor Grauer Originally published in 1976. Updated in 2006. For personal use only. Distribution or sale of this document is strictly prohibited. Copyright Association for Cultural Equity 2019 Preface Jelly Roll Morton used to say, “It doesn’t matter so much about the type of melody you use. It’s what you do with it that makes the difference. Now in my style of playing sometimes I would pick up some tune out of some low dive along the river where you had to be careful about the guys actually putting a louse on you if you was to go in there — sometimes I would take a strain from some big opera like Rigoletto or Pagliacci — but when I applied my method to it, it all came out sounding like jazz. “ Cantometrics takes a similar point of view. It omits both particular melodic flows and rhythmic details from its analysis, so as to take an overview across the board of how the tunes and the rhythms are performed. It is an intentionally coarse sieve of classifiers designed to pick out and compare only the most common features of performances, features that identify a performance by its culture within the first few seconds. The very onset of a song must establish it as familiar to and suitable within a cultural setting. In order to create a joint experience the performers and the listeners must have agreed in advance on a set of conventions they will hold to. Each of these conventions limits at least one level of the act of singing. The whole set of conventions of a style provides the framework within which any piece of music can be developed in that style. The intent of the coding system was to pick out a sufficiently large number of these qualifiers of the sung performance so that any possible recorded song could be described in the same terms. By locating the position that each style of performance seemed to have on all of these ranges, a rough but reliable comparability of the framework of each performance was obtained. Since coders seemed to agree pretty well on where the same performance fell on this grid of characterizations, it was then possible to compare one song to another on many levels and in terms summarizing the general descriptive framework of the performance. From the beginning of the project, many characterizations were tried out and many discarded. The end of the first year of work saw a first draft of a coding handbook that included both concepts derived from linguistics and paralinguistics and many everyday musical concepts. Most musical definitions are useful guides to performers and composers in the Western idioms; basically they define how one must behave in order to produce a composition or performance within the limits of good taste within those idioms. Cantometric definitions, because they were designed to help listeners orient themselves to any recorded performance they might encounter anywhere, had to be at once more rigorous and more general than anything we could find in musical dictionaries. ~Alan Lomax, New York City, 1977 Line 1. The social organization of the vocal group. The ratings on this line refer to the social organization of the singing group. They are arranged so that the degree of integration among the members of the group increases, roughly, as one proceeds from left to right along the line. In coding for a dominant leading voice, listen for one or more of these cues; (a) often a leader's voice may be heard at the outset of a song and at the beginnings of sections; (b) the leader may sing more loudly, more frequently, or more rhythmically; (c) the leader may employ other mannerisms which set his voice apart; (d) finally, the leader may be heard to urge on the other performers in various ways. The coding points follow: No singers​. One solo singer,​ whether accompanied by instruments or not. One solo singer after another. Two or more singers alternate in singing a melody or split the melody between them in some way. Only one singer is heard at a time. If any two singers' parts overlap consistently, code overlap as well. If two or more singers alternate in leading a chorus, alternation and the appropriate choral situation (see below). If two singers both alternate and sing together, code alternation and leader plus group or group overlapped by leader (see below). Social unison ​is a simply organized group performance in which all participants sing the same rhythm and the same text all the way through the performance. Everyone sings at the same time. There is no alternation of parts. Although there may be some melodic and rhythmic deviations, the general effect is one of coordinated unity. Social unison with a dominant leader​. Code here if a single dominant voice, a leader, stands out above the general effect of social unison. This dominant leader's voice is usually louder and more forceful than the others. Sometimes he imitates phrases or other parts of the melody. Sometimes he seems to spur the group on. In general, a “dominant” part is one that is either louder, more elaborate, more active, or longer than the others. Social Unison with the group dominant​. Code here if no dominant lead voice is steadily heard over the social unison. Sometimes a leader can be heard briefly above the group at beginnings of sections, but as soon as the group joins in, his voice is submerged. Heterogeneous group​. A variegated group performance, rhythmically diffuse, such that in extreme cases, the singers do not seem to be aware of each other. Two types of casually coordinated performances are coded here. In the first, the impression is of a group of individuals singing totally different things at the same time. In the second, all singers may follow the broad outlines of the melody or rhythm, but diverge radically on most details. Sometimes the effect may be intentional; it may, in fact, be cultivated, the result of meticulous rehearsal and conscious control. The general impression however, is one of discoordination. In some cases one voice may stand out among the rest as a leader, but this will not affect the rating unless there is a clear antiphonal relationship involved (see below). If antiphony is combined with this kind of heterogeneous group activity, code for that, as well as for either leader plus group or leader with overlapping group, or group with overlapping leader. Sometimes the total effect is so complex that it is difficult or impossible to judge coordination. Certain kinds of performances produce a diffuse effect but show evidence, in detail, of close coordination. In any case, where the coder cannot make up his mind as to whether the performance is uncoordinated or highly coordinated, he should code both L//N and W (see below). Simple Alternation: leader-group​. Code here all situations in which there is alternation between a solo voice and a chorus with a perceptible, if sometimes very slight, pause between the two parts. The group may repeat the leader's part or respond with new material. The leader may join the chorus, or, indeed, may form the chorus by singing with one other person. In some cases there may be regular alternation; in other cases the leader may sing only once, with the chorus singing for the remainder of the piece. In any case, the leader must sing at least one complete phrase or sub phrase alone. If, however, the leader begins and the other singers drift in on the same phrase, L/N or N/L, rather than L + N should be coded. If there is occasional overlapping or if one part enters right on top of the “cutoff” of the other part, both L + N and L(N or N(L should be coded. Simple alternation; group-group (N + N). Two groups of two or more singers interact as described above. The same rules for double-coding apply. Overlapping alternation: leader-group (L(N), a more integrated alternation of leader and chorus. The leader and chorus parts overlap so that one begins before the other ends. In extreme cases the chorus may also be heard backing the leader during his part. However, the leader is dominant; his part is longer than that of the group and often more elaborate. The group's activity supports and contrasts with the leader's part. Overlapping alternation: group-leader (N(L ), the same case as L(N, except that the group dominates rather than the leader. Although it may sometimes support the leader, its part is very active. The group sings more than half of the time. Overlapping alternation; group-group ​(N(N ). Two or more groups overlap as above. In those rare cases where the groups are radically different in size (e.g. two singers versus twenty), N(N is still coded despite the fact that the smaller group may give the impression of leading the larger. Interlock (W), a group in which several voices overlap in a rhythmically coordinated relationship. Often there is no clear leading part; all seem about equally important. Although some singers may be duplicating another part at the octave or in unison, the general impression is one of a group of individuals, each with his own part, interacting in such a way as to create a homogeneous texture. In doubtful cases, double code // + W. If an individual voice can be heard in alternation with the rest of the group code both W and L + N, L(N, or N(L, whichever is most appropriate.