[Smt-talk] Classical Form and Recursion
Fred Lerdahl
awl1 at columbia.edu
Tue Apr 21 20:22:29 PDT 2009
Dmitri concludes his last communication with:
> My one regret about ending this discussion here is that I was hoping
> was to get you to explain your particular responses to these kinds of
> issues. I suspect that you have lots to say about these specific
> criticisms -- that you've thought about them carefully, and have more
> to offer than simple generalities about science or cognitive science.
> What I've been trying to do, not totally successfully, is get you to
> share these responses.
The tenor of these exchanges has been general from the start; I thought
that this was expected. But I do not like to disappoint someone of
Dmitri’s intelligence and boldness, so let me leave aside all the other
issues (which I could answer!) and try to address in a little detail
one topic that has been touched upon.
The topic is how the mind/brain registers scales, chord progressions,
and key relationships. Begin with the fact that it is able, as a matter
of course, to sort into coherent auditory objects the spectral smear
that is the auditory input. (This is the subject of Bregman’s
research.) It ought to be astonishing that the brain is able to
construct sensations of pitches and chords when processing a Beethoven
symphony, much less that a given line is played by an oboe and even
that it is a line. The auditory system does this by sorting out subtle
features and patterns in the changing waveform. All of this happens
online, automatically and unconsciously. Signal processing algorithms,
despite much ingenious effort, are still quite poor at pitch extraction
and line identification. In the welter input data, it is difficult to
determine which data points and which patterns really matter.
The perceptual step from auditory signal to pitches and chords is
perhaps more complex than the cognitive step from pitches and chords to
the inference of scales, chord progressions, and key relationships. If
this seems counterintuitive, it is because hearing pitches and chords
is so automatic that it is assumed as given, whereas levels of musical
structure are supposedly learned in music classes. But here again
arises the distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge.
Cognitive scientists are largely concerned with explicating implicit
structures and processes. These structures and processes are as
automatic and unconscious as are the perception of pitches and chords,
although phenomenologically they may not feel so immediate. Even those
music theorists with a tabula rasa bent, however, take scale degrees to
be as "real" as pitches. Gjerdingen (Music in the Galant Style, Oxford,
2007) treats galant schemas not only with reference to pitches but also
to scale degrees. To hear a scale degree is to be aware, however
implicitly, of a scale and a tonic.
Now consider TPS’s basic space. A particular configuration of the basic
space expresses a scale and the relative stability of each scale
degree. The most stable degree is the tonic. A basic-space
configuration also represents any given chord by the relative stability
of its root, fifth, and third. Such a representation is supported at
the psychoacoustic level through a combination of spectral and virtual
pitches (harmonics and subharmonics). In this connection, Parncutt
(Harmony: A Psychoacoustical Approach, Springer, 1989) tried, with
mixed success, to account for harmonic and even key perception directly
from the psychoacoustics, bypassing levels of mental representation
that are normally employed in cognitive science and taken for granted
in most music theories. In comparison, TPS’s basic space can be seen as
a cognitive abstraction built on a psychoacoustic foundation. It is a
schema that makes regular and predictable the variables in
psychoacoustic inputs.
A steady-state auditory signal is often represented with frequency on
the x-axis and amplitude on the y-axis. As the signal changes, the
frequency columns bob up and down in accordance with the energy of the
spectral pitches. Similarly, the heights of the columns of pitch
classes in varying states of the basic space increase or decrease in
response to progressions in a phrase. (For a demo, see Kent Williams’
pedagogical TPS website at http://music.uncg.edu/etps/, password
“torus”; play around with Figure 4.2 [ignoring a few glitches].) Just
as the amplitude of a given frequency in a waveform equals the additive
combination of its spectral components, so the strength (or stability)
of a given pitch class equals the additive combination of the
basic-space levels at which it appears. The abstraction into chord
progressions and key relationships is possible because the basic space
has distinct levels that transform in specific ways; these are aspects
of the schema.
This analogy suggests that configurations of the basic space might be
treated by Fourier analysis. The idea is not to use Fourier analysis to
address tension directly, as Krumhansl attempted a few years ago, but
to focus on transformations of the basic space, which is but one input
to tonal tension. If successful, this approach would help explain how
higher levels of musical structure emerge more or less continuously
from the auditory input. Thus we return to one of the starting points
of these exchanges.
On this admittedly sketchy note, a full cadence--
Fred Lerdahl
Columbia University
awl1 at columbia.edu
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list