[Smt-talk] Classical Form and Recursion
Panayotis Mavromatis
pm68 at nyu.edu
Sun Apr 5 10:16:42 PDT 2009
Hi Dmitri,
On Apr 5, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Dmitri Tymoczko wrote:
>
> I think we might disagree about how important the subtleties are,
> or about the level of detail required.
First of all, it will be fair to say that I recognize a lot of common
methodological ground between you and me. Therefore, I offer my
comments in the spirit of clarification, not radical disagreement.
However, as they say, the devil is in the details, on which I will
gently but firmly insist.
> Typical spoken English contains syntactic units that are about 13
> words long, as compared to written English, in which the syntactic
> units are 22 words long. This contrasts with the length of
> classical movements, which can be 20 minutes long, and can contain
> hundreds of measures and tens of thousands of notes. Furthermore,
> the accuracy of linguistic perception is significantly higher than
> that of musical perception -- any way you slice it, there is an
> enormous amount of information loss in musical perception, whereas
> linguistic perception is remarkably accurate. The differences here
> are dramatic and not at all subtle -- we're talking orders of
> magnitude, rather than factors of 2.
To your above estimates, I respond by simply quoting my earlier
comment: "It is generally agreed that this capacity depends on the
specific type of mental coding involved, and cannot be simply defined
in terms of the symbolic content of the stimulus at the surface
level." In other words, it may not be good enough to simply count
measures and notes. And the way we count could affect the answer
even by an order of magnitude. Memory is a reconstructive process,
in which a chunk that has been learned schematically, and counts as
one unit in terms of information processing load, can be unpacked to
represent a large number of surface events, such as notes. The
question is: What are the chunks that are involved in music
processing specifically?
Also, accuracy is not a direct measure of processing capacity, since
the former also involves the strength of the relevant long-term
memory structures evoked in parsing the stimulus. It is indeed
likely that we have better and quicker access to structures that
enable us to parse a sentence than we do for those structures that
help us parse musical structure. So accuracy does not simply boil
down to how big a hierarchical tree we can fit in working memory in
each case.
> All I'm trying to say is: if we really believe we have good
> evidence for such an important claim -- that recursive perception
> in music far outstrips that in language -- then we let's get
> serious and try to prove it conclusively, and communicate it to the
> wider scientific world.
Absolutely. I am with you!
Panos
>
> DT
>
> Dmitri Tymoczko
> Associate Professor of Music
> 310 Woolworth Center
> Princeton, NJ 08544-1007
> (609) 258-4255 (ph), (609) 258-6793 (fax)
> http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-
> societymusictheory.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20090405/873a03ed/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list