[Smt-talk] Classical Form and Recursion
Olli Väisälä
ovaisala at siba.fi
Thu Mar 26 05:58:25 PDT 2009
Dear list,
I would like to make some points that I find crucial for the
discussion about recursion in prolongational (Schenkerian) structures
and about pertinent empirical evidence.
First of all, I do not think this issue can be adequately treated
merely on the basis of symbol sequences, as suggested by Dmitri
Tymoczko's post:
>
> It is typically possible to interpret a sequence of symbols
> recursively. For instance, we could take the sequence
>
> ABABABABAB...
>
> And group it as follows:
>
> (ABA)(BAB)(ABA)(BAB) ...
>
> Then, by asserting that (ABA) "stands for" (or "represents" or
> "prolongs") A, while (BAB) "represents" B, we could come up with a
> "higher level" version of the same pattern
>
> ABABABAB ...
Musical events are not adequately determined in terms of such
sequences, since each occurrence of "A" and "B" may relate
differently with aspects such as meter, design, register, emphasis,
etc. , and these aspects are crucial for both the expression (by the
composer) and perception (by the listener) of prolongational
relationships. Consider a very simple example in 4/4 time:
bar 1: I–V–I–quarter rest
bar 2: V–I–V–quarter rest
bar 3: I–V–I–quarter rest
If this occurs in a composition, we may speak of empirical evidence
for the hypothesis that the recursive interpretation, (IVI)(VIV)(IVI)
= IVI, models a pattern relevant for composition. The model has
considerable explanatory power for the way in which the composer has
related the chords with features such as meter and grouping.
Naturally, meter and grouping in this example also enhance the
probability that the recursive model pertains to the listener's
perception in this example. What I would stress, however, is the way
in which features in the score may testify or fail to testify to the
compositional significance of prolongational models. Therefore, I
would like to comment on Dmitri's following suggestion:
>
> The big complication is that it is possible to perceive
> intrinsically nonrecursive sequences in a recursive fashion. I
> think music theorists could probably stand to pay more attention to
> this possibility. For instance, I think you can make a good case
> that the grammar of elementary tonal harmony is, intrinsically,
> (largely) non-recursive. Theorists such as Schenker, Lerdahl,
> etc., propose that we nevertheless *perceive* music recursively --
> imposing a recursive organization on an intrinsically not-recursive
> structure, roughly as we did with the ABAB sequence above. This is
> potentially true, but it is quite hard to test empirically. I
> think discussions of the issue of recursion could stand to pay more
> attention to the distinction between intrinsic structure and our
> psychological organization of a structure.
>
As my example clarifies in a very simple way, a sequence may be
"intrinsically nonrecursive," but perceiving it recursively may be
supported by features that are intrinsic to the music. Whether the
"recursive potential" of a sequence becomes realized does not depend
only or primarily on the listener's psychology, but on the composer's
acts: on the ways in which he/she supports (or fails to support)
certain elements and relationships through parameters such as meter,
design, register etc. While it may be hard to test empirically
whether people perceive music recursively (and different people have,
of course, different perceptions), it is possible to approach
empirically the question whether composers did (do) so, by assessing
the extent to which recursive (prolongational) models are supported
by such parameters in their music.
Of course, the question is much more complicated in real music than
in the above example, but for those interested I might mention that
that I have attempted to approach this issue in my recent (and
ongoing) work on Bach.
Olli Väisälä
Sibelius Academy
ovaisala at siba.fi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20090326/9c9dc194/attachment-0004.htm>
More information about the Smt-talk
mailing list