[Smt-talk] Classical Form and Recursion
Dmitri Tymoczko
dmitri at Princeton.EDU
Thu Apr 9 06:22:01 PDT 2009
Fred wrote:
> Dmitri writes:
>
>> For me, the single biggest issue with TPS is that it seems to
>> operate with the assumption of complete perceptual accuracy.
>> Tension values (etc.) are calculated on the basis of complex
>> relations found in scores -- suggesting that the unconscious mind
>> is accurately perceiving 100% of the (relevant) musical
>> information aurally. (It has to have this information in order to
>> calculate in the way the book describes.) As someone with a fair
>> amount of experience with introductory music students, I find this
>> implausible. We lose an awful lot of information when listening
>> to music. It can be genuinely hard, for introductory students, to
>> tell whether they're hearing a V chord. (To say nothing about
>> returning to the tonic key at the end of a long piece.) This is
>> an area, I think, where the model of linguistics has not had a
>> salutary influence -- the assumption of perceptual accuracy is
>> much more plausible in language than in music.
>> So, as I see it, it's really an open question how much of the TPS
>> formalism would survive a more realistic appraisal of the
>> perceiver's limitations. Maybe this issue of inaccuracy isn't
>> such a big deal; maybe it is. We simply don't know right now.
>
> This issue concerns the competence/performance distinction in
> linguistics and, more generally, the status of scientific models.
> The world is messy. To make progress in understanding it, one must
> break the object of study into manageable parts and adopt
> idealizations that simplify it. Physicists say they build models.
> That is my attitude, and I think that most music theorists share it
> implicitly. One can't study the loss of information because of
> wandering attention while listening to music unless one has already
> developed a theory about what that information is and the
> principles by which the information is received.
I was wondering whether you'd say that! My own view is that the
uncritical exporting of the performance/competence distinction from
linguistics to music is highly problematic -- in fact, I'd say it's
the very root of our disagreement. My view is that in the linguistic
case, most people approach idealized "competence" at least for
relatively uncomplicated sentences. The idealization, in other
words, is small.
In TPS, I think the idealizations involved are very large -- actual
listeners are not close to having the abilities attributed to them by
TPS, for instance because they can't hear the return to the tonic
after about a minute and a half. (Among many other issues: they also
can't reliably hear the V chord.) Furthermore, and more
interestingly, the very definition of "competence" involves delicate
aesthetic questions that do not arise in the linguistic case. Is the
listener "competent" who loves Beethoven but does poorly on ear
training exams? What about the one who hates music but passes every
test? Does the ideal listener have perfect pitch? Etc.
The interesting observation here is that semantics (non-obviously)
helps to underwrite the definition of "linguistic competence";
operationally, our only access to syntactic competence runs through
semantics. Absent semantics, the notion of "competence" becomes thorny.
In fact, I've been giving a talk entitled "Why linguistics is a bad
model for music theory" in which the basic points I make are:
1. The problem of information loss in music perception is large, and
should not be idealized away.
2. The notion of a "performance/competence distinction" in music
theory is highly problematic, and should not be assumed automatically.
3. Without semantics, it's very hard to set a non-controversial
lower threshold on "competence."
Even if we disagree about these issues, it's good to know that we
seem to agree about what the issues actually are.
> The study of musical tension is attractive partly because
> intuitions about it are so spontaneous. The average listener cannot
> name a V or a I chord but nevertheless responds to a progression in
> terms of degrees of tension. Put another way, a chord has a
> particular location in tonal space; the listener has implicit
> knowledge of the space and feels motion and force as patterns of
> tension.
I think there's more of a difficulty here than you do. Consider:
1. TPS assumes that listeners can reliably tell whether something is
a V or I chord, because this information is an input to its various
algorithms.
2. We all agree that ordinary listeners cannot reliably name whether
something is a V or I chord.
Now there's a friction between #1 and #2, one that the TPS-defender
has to explain away. You don't make this vanish by changing the
topic to "tension" -- at least, not if the tension-calculation
requires knowledge of whether something is a I or a V. (In other
words, talking about tension hides, but does not resolve, the
contradiction.) As far as I can see, your only option is to say that
the difficulties labeling I and V are entirely the result of trying
to retrieve the relevant information from the unconscious -- it's
there, but we don't realize it. Thus, on your view, when we learn to
apply Roman numerals, we're not learning to perceive more accurately
-- instead, we're learning to *label* perceptions that we already
have. (The is reminiscent of Meno's Socrates.)
I, for one, do not find this to be compelling -- it seems more likely
that when we learn Roman numerals, we're learning to perceive more
accurately. But this then weakens my credence in those parts of TPS
which depend on your implicit-knowledge hypothesis. And this, in
turn, makes me want to hold TPS as a whole to a higher standard of
empirical vindication (see below).
All of this is methodologically mundane: if you give me a theory
whose assumptions seem plausible, I'll be more favorably disposed to
empirical evidence supporting that theory. If you give me a theory
whose assumptions seem implausible, I'll require a higher burden of
proof. This is not abstract philosophy-mongering; it's meat-and-
potatoes science.
> Again, to make progress one must idealize and break apart the
> phenomena. In the project with Krumhansl, we equalized speed,
> loudness, and timbre, and we neutralized rhythm as best we could,
> given the current lack a theory of rhythmic tension. For the most
> part, then, we were able to present the subjects with materials
> that isolated tonal tension from other kinds of tension. As for
> comparisons, only a philosopher would demand that a proposed model
> succeed better than all other hypothetical models. Scientific
> inquiry doesn't work that way. One makes a theory to explain and
> predict the phenomena in question. If there are alternative
> theories, one tries to find out which one works better. In the case
> of musical tension, an alternative theory does not yet exist, so
> how is one to compare?
Again, very fascinating issues. But I don't agree with your claim
that "only a philosopher" would ask whether there could be
alternatives to a given theory. I think this is the question every
scientist always has to ask when considering whether to accept any
theory.
Accepting a scientific theory is a matter of balancing the accuracy
of its predictions against our judgments about the plausibility of
its assumptions. When Einstein predicted gravitational redshift, or
Julian Schwinger calculated the anomalous magnetic moment of the
electron (with an agreement of about 6 decimal places), this was very
convincing. The quantitative agreement with the experiments was
extraordinarily precise, and it was very difficult to come up with
alternatives, and the assumptions seemed to make sense. So the
theories were accepted pretty quickly.
On the other hand, the theory of continental drift took a long time
to be accepted. Mere data about the agreement of the continents'
shapes was not compelling; it took a very large amount of evidence,
and a very long time, for geologists to come around. Someone who
claimed, in 1912, to have "proven" the theory of continental drift,
would have been exaggerating. It would not be enough to say --
"look, science doesn't progress by asking whether there could be
alternate theories ... I've explained why Africa seems to fit into
South America, and nobody else has, and that shows I'm right!" (In
other words, "only a philosopher would care about alternatives to
continental drift ...")
For that matter, the theory of Ptolemeic theory of epicycles fit the
data pretty well; in fact it was better than the initial heliocentric
theory with circular orbits. Here a good match to the data existed
despite the fact that the theory was fundamentally wrong.
I think TPS is closer to the case of continental drift than to the
Einstein/Schwinger case. Given that one can legitimately question
its assumptions, given that some of them are clearly false (such as
the assumption that listeners can perceive long-term tonal closure),
it's going to take a lot of data to convince us that the book is
fundamentally right. That doesn't mean it's wrong ... and it's not
necessarily a criticism of the book, since after all Wegener was
eventually vindicated with regard to continental drift ... but it
does mean you've got your work cut out for you. One paper might not
have much of an effect.
Let me say that I think all of these questions are very, very deep,
and very interesting I've been struggling with them for years -- as
you know, since I periodically pester you with private emails about
the subject. I don't think they can be answered by with general
claims like "well, science always involves idealizations" or "well,
only a philosopher would care whether there could be alternate
explanations" -- we really have to get into the details. And though
I have my opinions, I acknowledge that I could well be wrong -- I
don't by any means think any of these questions are conclusively
settled. I'd love to see more thinking and discussion about all of
this -- in Spectrum, at SMT, on this list, or whatever. The topic of
recursive musical perception touches on so many subjects -- not just
TPS, but Schenkerianism, and the relation between music and language.
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
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list