cs.SDFeb 20, 2026
SaveMethods for Pitch Analysis in Contemporary Popular Music: Multiphonic Tones Across Genres
Organizations: Sony Computer Science Laboratories, 6 rue Amyot, 75005 Paris, France · Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University, Rendsburggade 14, 9000 Aalborg, Denmark · Neodrome Entertainment, 5 rue Vernet, 75008 Paris, France · Independent performing musician, Senjak, Belgrade, Serbia ·
Abstract
This study argues that electronic tones routinely used in contemporary popular music - including 808-style bass and power chords - are structurally and perceptually equivalent to multiphonics in contemporary classical music. Using listening tests (n=10) and signal analysis, we show that both types of tones elicit multiple, listener-dependent pitch percepts arising from similar spectral and temporal features. These findings suggest that pitch ambiguity is not confined to experimental classical contexts but is also a feature of mainstream music production.
Figures & tables
| Sample | Section | Production | Source | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| method | of perceived | |||
| pitches | ||||
| Cello F2 tone | 4 | Acoustic | This study | 1.64 |
| Cello natural harmonic | 5.1 | Acoustic | This study | 1.66 |
| Horn multiphonic | 5.2 | Acoustic | Weber ( 2012 ) | 1.86 |
| Oboe multiphonic | 6.3 | Acoustic | Holliger ( 1971 ) | 1.95 |
Table 1: Samples used in the study.
Figure 1: Cello tone, F2 on the C string, weighted audio. Power spectrum. The dot’s size reflects the energy. The x-axis shows multiples of the .
Figure 2: Cello tone, F2 on the C string, listening test results. In white, pitches for which ; in green, ; in orange, ; in red, no association with the signal. The same protocol will be used in the subsequent figures. The bar graph to the left of the pitch-tracker results compiles the perceived pitches together with their associations. The label “h5-2”, for example, indicates an association with harmonic 5, two octaves below. Here, C5 is not associated with harm. 6 but is described as one octave below C6 (harm. 12), as the C6 partial is salient in Fig. 1 .
Figure 3: Cello recordings, weighted audio. Power spectrum peaks corresponding to F2 (fundamental), F2+C4 (multiphonic), and C4 (harmonic 3). The dots highlight the partials corresponding to C4. The x-axis shows multiples of the F2 .
Figure 4: (a) F2+C4 and (b) C4 tones from Fig. 3 , listening test results. In (b), “h27”, the 27 th harmonic of F2, is the 9 th harmonic of C4.
Figure 5: Fallowfield’s “AudioEx11 III 3–5–8–13 EK” sample ( Fallowfield, 2019 ) , weighted audio. Power spectrum. Harmonic tones with fundamentals corresponding to partials 1, 3, 5, 8, and 13 are shown in blue, yellow, red, green, and white, respectively.
Figure 6: Fallowfield’s tone from Fig. 5 , listening test results.
Figure 7: Weber, Concertino in E, bar 172 multiphonic, weighted audio. Power spectrum. The vertical line shows the predicted pitch value according to temporal modeling (B1).
Figure 8: Weber, Concertino , tone from Fig. 7 , listening test results. The association between D#1 and harmonic 5 is doubtful.
Figure 9: Metallica, … And Justice for All , 1’07–1’14, extracted guitar track (one power chord), weighted audio. Power spectrum. The vertical line shows the predicted pitch value according to temporal modeling (E1). The x-axis shows multiples of the .
Figure 10: Metallica, … And Justice for All , tone from Fig. 9 , listening test results.
Figure 11: Vitalic, See the Sea (red) , 0’50–0’52, extracted bass track, weighted audio. Power spectrum. The x-axis shows multiples of the .
Figure 12: Vitalic, See the Sea (red) , tone from Fig. 11 , listening test results.
Figure 13: Heinz Holliger, Studie über Mehrklänge für Oboe Solo , first “note”, weighted audio. Black, power spectrum. Yellow, power spectrum, smoothed. Blue box, predicted pitch value according to temporal modeling, of which the x-axis ticks are multiples. White box, same value but for the smoothed spectrum.
Figure 14: Holliger, Studie über Mehrklänge , tone from Fig. 13 , listening test results. The harmonics correspond to the of the carrier (smoothed power spectrum). The pitches in black correspond to individual partials that are close to, but distinct from, the .
Figure 15: Primaal, ¡Fire! , bass, weighted audio, one frame. Black, power spectrum. Yellow, power spectrum, smoothed. Blue box, pitch value predicted from temporal modeling.
Figure 16: Primaal, ¡Fire! , tone from Fig. 15 , listening test results. The association between D6 and harm. 37 (D7) stems from the high energy of this partial. Low-register pitches around C/C#/D are merged in the bar graph.
Figure 17: Primaal, Silver , bass, resynthesized bass frame, weighted audio. (a) Power spectrum. The x-axis ticks are multiples of the first peak’s frequency (in blue). (b) Frequency differences between consecutive partials. The blue line denotes twice the frequency of the first peak.
Figure 18: Primaal, Silver , bass, tone from Fig. 17 , listening test results. Pitches around F# are merged in the bar graph. D2 is expressed as “ +1” as the tone features only odd harmonics.
Figure 19: Walter, multiphonic from Versunkene Form , weighted audio. (a) Power spectrum. White box, predicted pitch value according to temporal modeling. (b) Frequency differences between consecutive partials.
Figure 20: Walter, Versunkene Form , tone from Fig. 19 , listening test results.
Figure 21: Vitalic, No Fun , main synthesizer part, last “note” of the main pattern, resynthesized sample, weighted audio. Power spectrum. White box, the predicted pitch value according to temporal modeling, of which the x-axis ticks are multiples. The partials underlined in pink form a quasi-harmonic tone.
Figure 22: Vitalic, No Fun , tone from Fig. 21 , listening test results. The approximate pitch corresponding to each partial’s frequency is indicated in place of the harmonic number.