Djerdingen on Fonte

8/3/2019 Djerdingen on Fonte

1/13

Psychomusicology, 10, 127-139 1991 PsychomusicologyDEFINING A PROTOTYPICAL UTTERANCERobert O. GjerdingenState University of New York at Stony Brook

The difficulties in adequately defining a prototypical music utterance are oftenunderestimated. A comparison with the problem of defining a prototypical begin-ning sentence for a small set of fairy tales shows how a prototypical utterence isreducible neither to a single defining essense nor to a simple list of traits or fea-tures. Most likely to be overlooked are the great number of spatio-temporal corre-lations that accompany the more overt features of words or, for music, tones. Twoprevious studies of music phrase prototypes wereflaweddue to inadequate controlof such correlative features. Effects of serial position in the presentation of exem-plars further complicate the study of music prototypes. Two historical case stud-ies demonstrate that, in spite of subjects having quite different initial music expe-riences, there can be a convergence upon the same prototype when very largenumbers of similar exemplars are heard. The phrase prototypes abstracted fromactual music, however, may be too complex for succinct verbal description. Forsuch cases, neural-network models suggest new modes of definition.

Music scholars bandy about words like "typical," "characteristic," or "standard"with the open confidence of em bezzlers w ho, knowing that they alone keep theboo ks, cannot imagine being called to account. Take for exam ple the followingstatements from a widely-read general history of m usic:

Typical illustrations of Haydn's late Classical chromaticism may be heard inthe Andante of Symphony No. 104.... The sonata in Eb (Op. 7), published in 1797,is especially characteristic of Beethoven in the theme of the Largo.... [The] exter-nal form [of Schubert's piano sonatas] never departs from the standard Classicalpatterns (Grout, 1973, pp. 490,519,561).The academic tone of these statements may give the impression that objec-tively defined prototypes provide solid anchors for these allusions to "standardpatterns." In truth, this is not the case . The ability to specify those precisecorrelations of harmonies, inflected tones, rhythms, me lodic m otives, and con-trapuntal lines that constitute the most typical instances of "Haydn's late Clas-sical chrom aticism" remains beyond the reach of mu sic theorists. And mu sichistorians would be hard pressed to list the specific criteria that distinguish aprototypical theme "characteristic of Beethoven" from one characteristic of

Cherubini (one of Bee thoven 's important contem poraries).Examined close ly, the musicological usage of words like " typical," "char-acteristic," and "standard" reveals a hesitancy to vo ice the underlying and seeminglymore subjective notion "reminds me of." Saying that a sonata "is especia llycharacteristic o f Beethov en" sounds more scien tific, m ore learned than sayingit "really reminds me of Beetho ven ." Yet w hereas the former phrase is at besta vague reference to other equally hazy generalizations, the latter phrase mayGjerdingen 127


2/13

well be solidly groun ded in a m usico logist 's life-long expe rience with classicalm usic. Parad oxically, psychologists interested in studying the com plex spatio-temp oral patterns of mu sic sometimes overlook the rich notion of "sounds lik e"in favor of the sim ple lists of traits that mus icolog ists pa ss off as the definientiaof mu sic prototypes. The sam e textbook definition of a phrase type, a me lodicstyle, or a music form that a musicologist readily interprets as merely a tokenfor that deeper un derstanding gained only after years of careful listening maybe easily misread by the psychologist as aji actual specification of a complexm usic utterance. W hat functions as the culturally determ ined, historical arti-fact of a mu sicologieal m ode of discourse can too easily be taken as a naturaldistillation of music pe rception.To illustrate the me thodological pro blem s in defining a prototypical utter-ance, I provide the following set of first sentences from ten common folktales(Grimm & Grimm , 1812/1984).

Once Upon a Time...Vor einem groBen Walde lebte ein Holzhacker mit seiner Frau; der hatte nur eineinziges Kind, das war ein Madchen von drei Jahren. [Just outside a great forestthere lived a woodcutter with his wife; he had but an only child, a little girl of three(Tale No. 3).]Vor einem groBen Walde wohnte ein armer Holzhacker mit seiner Frau and seinenzwei Kindern; das Bubchen hieB Hansel and das Madchen Gretel. [Just outside agreat forest there dwelled a poor woodcutter with his wife and two children; thelittle boy was called Hansel and the little girl Gretel (Tale No. 15).]Dar W56r maal eens en Fischer un syne Fru, de waanden tosamen in'n PiBputt,dicht an der See, un de Fischer gung alle Dage hen un angeld: un he angeld unangeld. [Once upon a time there was a fisherman and his wife who lived togetherin a chamber pot by the sea, and every day the fisherman went and fished: and hefished and he fished (Tale No. 19).]Es war einmal ein Muller, der war arm, aber er hatte eine schone Tochter. [Onceupon a time there was a miller who was poor, but he had a beautiful daughter (TaleNo. 5.5).]Es war ein armer Mann unci eine arme Frau, die hatten nichts als eine kleine Hutteand nghrten sich vom Fischfang, und es ging bei ihnen von Hand zuMund. [Thereonce was a poor man and a poor woman who had nothing but a little cottage and fedthemselves by catching fish, and they were living hand-to-mouth (Tale No. 85).]Es war einmal ein armer Holzhacker, der arbeitete vom Morgen bis in die spateNacht [Once upon a time there was a poor woodcutter who worked from morningtill lajte at night (Tale No. 99).]Es saB einmal ein Mann mit seiner Frau vor der Haustur, und sie hatten ein gebratenHuhn vor sich stehen and wollten das zusammen verzehren. [Once upon a timethere sat a man with his wife in front of their house, and they had before them aroast chicken upon which they both wished to feast (Tale No. 145).]Es war einmal ein Mann und eine Frau, die hatten nur ein einziges Kind und lebtenin einem abseits gelegenen tale ganz allein. [Once upon a time there was a man anda wife who had but an only child, and they lived all alone in an out-of-the-wayvalley (Tale No. 166).]Ein armer Holzhauer lebte mit seiner Frau und drei Tochtern in einer kleinen Huttean-dem Rande eines einsamen Waldes. [A poor woodcutter lived with his wife and

128 Psychomusicology Fall 1991


3/13

three daughters in a little cottage at the edge of a lonely forest (Tale No. 169).]Es war einmal ein Einsiedler, der lebte in einem Walde an dem FuBe eines Bergesund brachte seine Zeit in Gebet und guten W erken zu, und jeden Abend trug ernoch zur Ehre Gottes ein paar Eimer Wasser den Berg hinauf. [Once upon a timethere was a hermit who lived in a forest at the foot of a mountain and spent his timein prayer and in doing good works, and each evening, for the glory of God, hewould carry two buckets of water up the mountain (Tale N o. 206).]Is there a proto typical utteran ce underlying all these sentences? The an-swe r depen ds very mu ch on how one evaluates similarity. The opening s ofTales No. 3 and 15, for exam ple, are similar in diction but dissim ilar in na rra-tive (No . 15 introduces a male child, H ansel). The openings of Tales No. 15 and169, by contrast, are similar in narrative but dissimilar in diction . Sim ilarmotifs are shared by Tales N o. 19 and 85 (fishing), Tales N o. 3 and 166 (an onlychild ), and Tales No. 15 , 55 , 85 , 99 , 169 , and 206 (poverty). And all these tales,when read by a loving pare nt to a wide-eyed child, share a special perform ancepractice of careful, emph atic diction. Indeed , as docu men ted by the history offolktale research (Darn ton, 1984; Thompson, 1946), the same repertory of utterenceswill support m any different approaches to defining similarity. Traditional folktalecollectors, for exam ple, focused on a protagonistwoodcutter, fisherman, miller,hermitand defined a prototype through this central agent: a w ood cutter'stale, a fishe rm an's tale, and so on. The tale of Jack and the Beanstalk is thu s

know n as a "Jack" tale. But what of Tales N o. 145 and 166? A "man and wife"tale does not define a proto type recognized by folktale colle ctors. N inetee nth-century researchers surmounted this obstacle by defining more abstract proto-types (Fromm , 195 1; Bettelheim ,1976). They distinguished quest tales fromjo ke tales , tales of the supernatural from tales of cunn ing. And certain tw enti-eth-century researchers have extended nineteenth-century trends in the newdirectio ns of psyc hoan alysis or political critique. A continen tal literary theo -rist, for instance, might define the prototype of the above sentences as thefigurative expression of an urban petty bourgeoisie's fascination with amarginalizedrural poor. The humble woodcutter (fisherman, miller, hermit) does, after all,live "just outside " ("by the se a," "hand to mouth ," "all alone," "out of the w ay,""at the edg e," "at the foot of the mo unta in").These approaches, however interesting they may be, all suffer from thedefect of attempting to reduce complex phenomena to single essences. Theopening sentence of Tale No. 3 is neither essentially about woodcutters norfundam entally ab out the marg inalized rural poo r. The sentence introdu ces awo odc utter, to be sure. But it goes on to place that wo odcu tter in a relationsh ipwith his wife, to place the two of them in a parental relationship with theirthree-year-old daug hter, to color that parental relationship w ith the phrase "onlychi ld," and to place the wh ole family unit in a setting near a large forest. Sucha tabulation of relationships and constituent motifs plays a large role in thetaxonomic approach of the early twentieth-century Finnish school of folktalestudy (Aarne & Thompso n, 1961). Their mamm oth com pilations of tale proto-types''tale typ es," in their terminologyare based on analyses of constituentmotifs and shared com plexs of mo tifs. For them , a Cind erella tale type isGjerdingen 129


4/13

defined not as any story about a charm aid, or any story about stepm othe rs, orany story about sibling rivalry, but as a specific list of narrative episodes eachwith a list of constituent motifs"tale type 510B."A tale type is in many r espec ts analogo us to a story schem a as defined in thepsychological literature (Mandler, 1984). Both assume different levels ofanalysissubord inate narrative episod es each with its own su bordinate motifsand botheschew the single defining essence in favor of com plexes of defining features,often h ierarchically nested. Yet neither is the last wo rd in defining-'a prototypi-cal uttera nce. As past gene rations of philosop hers (Kant, 1952; Wittgenstein,1953) and the present generation of cogn itive psychologists (Rosch & Mervis ,1975) have been at pains to point out, a complex mental category, whetherterme d a tale type, schem a, or what have you, is som ething more than a fixedhierarchy of defining features. Take, for exam ple, the case ofthe three w oodcutter'stales (No s. 3 , 1 5 , and 169 ). A ll three omit an opening "O nce upon a tim e." Isthe consistent omission of this stock opening p hrase thus an integral part of a"wo odcu tter" schema or tale type? If this is true, then kno wle dge of a b roadercategory, that of fairy tales in general, affects the definition of this particularutteran ce. The point may seem trivial, but it does have significant ramifica-t ions. First, it suggests that the exemp lars of a prototy pe may no t contain all thefeatures that define the pro totyp e. Second, it dem onstrates that a prototyp emay h ave defining features that are not overt, in the sense of articu lated wo rdsor phrases. Third, it indicates that defining features rhay specify a temporallocation or other relational attributes. And fourth, it leads to the conc lusionthat the very notion of levels is an oversim plification. In particu lar, "O nceupon a tim e" is both subo rdinate and supe rordinate to the sentence in whic h itmay appear.

Prototypical Muisic PhrasesA s one defines a prototyp ical utteranc e ever more carefully, mo re richly^mo re as a uniqu e network of relationships &nd less as a gene ric tree structure ofneatly nested nod es, the evolving definition beco mes less and less ame nab le toverbal description . A succinct verbal definition can in fact signal the possibil-ity that complex relation ships and contextual factors are being ove rlook ed.One case in point is W elke r's (1982) study of melodic prototyp es. Follow -ing the model of Franks and Bransford (1971) for investigating visual proto-types, W elker subjected var ious one- or twO-measure sections of four-m easuremelodic phrase prototypes to simple transformations so as to vary the exem-plars presented to subjects. The approac h, which implies that the prototy pe canbe succinctly defined as a simple tree structure of unitized mea sures eac h w ithits subord inate ton es, is prob lematical On two coun ts. The first, like the prob -lem of the missing "O nce upon a tim e" in the w ood cutte r's tale, is the slightingof larger contextual factors. If the prototy pe melody sounds like real music ,that is, if it evoke s music mem ories, initiates learned e xpe ctation s, and is per-ceived as a meaningful utteran ce, then arbitrary alterations to that melod y willlikely produc e music that is not merely different but actually sound s "w ro ng ."Just as replacing "w ood cutter" or "fisherman" with "investment ba nke r" pro-130 Psychomusicology Fall 1991


5/13

duces something that cannot be a tale told by the brothers Grimm, randomlyinverting a measure or changing its note values can produce nonmusic ratherthan music slightly varied. The aesthetic results of the manipulations werebizarre enough to cause Welker (1982) to comment, "It is possible that theprototypes...had a greater degree of m usical integrity...than the other melodicpatterns" (p. 44 5).

The second pitfall is a slighting of relational features. Take, for example, athree-note melody C D E. By analogy with visual patterns of dots, one mightadopt the position that a listing of the three notes adequately defines the threeimportant features of this melody and that randomly changing the third tonefrom E to C would result in a mere 17% variation in the pitch of one feature.No thing could be further from the truth. The new m elody , C D C , would havea different contour, a different highest tone, a different relationship betweenthe second and third tones, a different relationship between the first and thirdtones, a sense of return as opposed to a sense of progression, a new melodicdirection, a different set of likely continuations, a broader set of keys intowh ich the melody could fit, and a different set of associations with other knownmelodies.Another problematical case appears in Rosner and Meyer's (1982) impor-tant study of tw o music phrase prototypes. The first, the "changing-tone arche-type," is difficult to define without music notation or some other graphic aidbecause it entails two corresponding coordinations of bass movement, melody,harmony, rhythm, and metrical position. The second, the "gap-fill archetype,"has a succinct verbal definition: a me lodic leap establishes a registral gap thatis subsequently filled in, often by scalar motion. Subjects, how ever, found thechanging-tone archetype far easier to abstract and recognize. In one experi-ment it appears they went so far as to categorize exemplars of the two arche-types as "changing-tone" and "not changing-tone" rather than as "changing-tone" and "gap-fill." The verbally co nc ise, "essentialist" definition of the gap -fill archetype proved a poorer indicator of subjects' perceptions than the ver-bally intractable, "relationally rich" definition of the changing-tone archetype.

In the above repertory of folktale fragments, the early placement of twosuccessive references to woodcutters makes "woodcutter" a more salient fea-ture than it would have been had two "fisherman" sentences begun the list.These comm on effects of serial position and redundancy further complicate thestudy of music prototypes by suggesting that if no two people have had thesame time course of music experiences, then no two peo ple w ill have abtractedthe same set of music prototypes. To counter this bleak prospect of solipsisticindividuality one can appeal to the general concept of convergence. That is,w ill not the prototypes that listeners abstract eventually converge in the direc-tion of increasing similarity as the number of related exemplars experienced bythe subjects becom es large? W ill not the initial diversity o f abstracted proto-typesan accident of differing early exemplars-be eventually overcome bythe weight of numbers?The time required to play a subject even a handful of music excerpts m ili-tates against experiments invo lving the thousands upon thousands of examplars

Gjerdingen 131


6/13

needed for the thorough study of prototype converge nce. One can, how ever,point to intriguing anecdotal evidence of such convergence. For instance, Gjerdingen(1988 ) carried out a large historical survey in search of exemplars of a comm oneighteenth-century m usic phrase prototype . M ost scholars had assumed thatthe phrase type in question was ubiquitous ov er a broad range of music history.This assum ption , how ever, was predicated on an "esse ntialist" definition ofthis phrase as a simple harmonic pattern (I -V , V-I). Because Gjerdingen de-fined the prototype instead as a complex correlation of melodic, contrapuntal,harm onic, and m etrical features, the set of ph rases me eting that definition show edgreat historic al specificity. In particular, the collected exam plars app roxim atea norm al population distribution that peak ed sharply in the early 1 77 0's. Theexemplars from near the population peak converged on what to a surprising

min mmr\i\

r\ nrt

mr\ftMyj rj

?P m2Figure 1. Mozart, Symphony i n GMaj o r , HI , mm. 12-16, KV 110(1771) [trans-posed to F major for com parison with subseque nt music examples]. The letters mand M mark the two halves of the phrase.

degre e was the very description of a subtype of the changing-tone archetypeformulated by Meyer over two centuries later (M eyer, 1980 ). M eyer had origi-nally abstracted his prototy pe intuitively from a lifetime of mu sic exp erience scentered on a somew hat later and more comp lex repertory of music. Yet be-cause thousan ds of pieces formed the repertory for both M eyer and his eigh-teenth-century music forebears, there was near convergence on a common p ro-totype.

A similar case of convergence on a shared prototype involved another typeof com mo n eighteenth-century music phrase . W hile searching through thou-sands of eighteenth-century co mpo sitions for exemplars of the changing-noteproto type, I repeatedly came across other music phrases that "reminded m e o feach oth er. I began to record in my notes the appe aranc es of what I variouslycalled the "vi-V ," "i i-I ," or "one-step-do wn " pattern, an example of which isshown in F igure 1. My "on e-step-dow n" mnem onic referred to the fact that themu sic in the first two measu res following th e repeat sign (beginning at m in thefigure) reoccurs one step lower in the second two m easures (beginning at ).W hile still engaged in this work I chanced up on a reference to the writings of anow obscure eigtheenth-century m usician nam ed Joseph Riepel (1755). Riepel,as it turns out, had himself abstracted the same prototype and had given it an132 Psychomusicology Fall 1991


7/13

m nifeN^g HimmFigure 2. Thefonte (see text) as presented in Riepel (175 5). The lettersm and nare added to mark the two halves o f the phrase.analogous mnemonic. He called it a "fonte" implying a pattern that goes "downa we ll" or "down to the source," and he also specified its location as imm edi-ately following a repeat sign.In his writings, Riepel does not define afonte prototype. Instead he merelyillustrates it with a model examplethe melody shown in Figure 2. Riepelneeded to print only the melody because, for his intended eighteenth-centuryreader, the cue validity of the melody was sufficient to instantiate the sche-matic default values of the other features (bass, harmony, inner-voice m otion,etc.). He could take it for granted that those interested enough in music to read

m

^

m9 9 m

n

^12 ' *

m 9 m i?mm t

Figure 3. Mozart, Minuet in F Major, mm . 8-16, KV 2 (1762) [transposed to Cmajor for comparison].

his book would have already abstracted this prototype from their own musicexperiences. Evidence supporting this premise comes from the early works ofMozart, w ho w as born the year after Riepel's book appeared. Mozart grew uplistening to a repertory of music similar to that from which Riepel had ab-stracted the fonte prototype, and Mozart appears to have made a similar ab-

Gjerdingen / 133


8/13

mmfT)

^UJ

n~im50i rnrn^^

UL; JS-^ r54

Figure 4. Mozart, Symphony in Bb Major, HI,mm. 50-58, KV 22 (1765) [transposedto C major for comparison].

Figure 5. Mozart, Symphony in D Major, IE , mm. 8 -12, KV 48 (1768) [trans-posed to C major for comparison].

straction at a very early age. By h is sixth birthday he had already used afontein a small minuet, as shown in Figure 3.? And as Figure 4 and Figure 5 demonstrate, he continued to produce phrasesmodeled on thefonte prototype throughout his m usic adolescence.How should one define the fonte prototype? Like the set of sentencespresented earlier, a set of similar music phrases can be defined in several w ays.For an eighteenth-century theorist like Jean-Phillipe Rameau (1722), someone

134 Psychomusicology Fall 1991


9/13

Figure 6. Haydn, Symphony in Bb Major, mm. 50-58, KV 22 (1765) [transposedto C major for comparison].

if , 1l Jm PJ

58n

4 t *

'> f r r r r rH#m, jflkf0

> 1 % m* -? 'MJ

F/gwre 7. Mozart, Symphony in F Major, I, mm. 54-67, KV 112 (1771).Gjerdingen 135


10/13

steeped in the figured-bass tradition of improvised keyb oard acco m panim ents,the underlying pattern would have been described as essentially harmonicjust a circle of fifths played out by the roo ts of the four chords. The bass line ina fonte from Ha ydn's London Symphony (Figure 6), for exam ple, mo ves dow na fifth, u p a fourth, an d down a fifth as it pre sen ts wha t Rameau called the bassefondamentale. For a late nineteenth-/early twentieth-century analyst like He inrichSch enke r (1935 ), who interpreted music from the abstract perspective of long-range harmony and voice leading, a fonte would have been viewed as essen-tially jus t a digress ion, a perturbation in, or "prolo ng atio n" of, a larger tonalregion. A huge fonte written by the fifteen-year-old M ozart (Figure 7) mightthus be understoo d as an interpolation of material between the C major c hord atmeasure 54, with its bass C3 and soprano C 6, and the very similar chord inmeasure 67.

The fonte prototype is, of course, all of the above and m ore. That is, it isdefined by a me lody, by a bass progression, and by tonal trajectory. Yet equallysignificant are the correlations between these and other features. No te, forinstance, that RiepeFs me lodic exem plar divides into two halve s, each of whichbeg ins with an upward leap followed by a stepw ise descent-a small exa mp leof M ey er's gap-fill archetype. This is the defining melodic shape of the fonteand corre lates with m elodic movem ents to and from specific scale degree s. Forexa m ple, the first phrase half mo ves from scale degrees 4 , 5 , or 6 in the loca l d-minor context down to scale degree 1, and then fie second phrase half repeatsthat sam e sequen ce of scale degrees a step lowe r in the new C-major conte xt.This pairin g of the minor and m ajor m odes is itself one of the central features ofthe fonte, correlating in turn not only with the structure of the encompassingdiatonic major key but also with a host of more general eighteenth-centurycultural ideals of balanced gestures, phrases, forms, and designs.Th e relational features of affective c ontrast, metrical pattern, chord al-sca -lar corr elatio ns, me lodic shape , voice leading, and general contou r all contrib-ute to defining the fonte prototype, as does its typical location immediatelyfollowing the repeat sign. Yet not every feature w ill be present in every exem -plar, no r is every feature equally importan t. The fonte shown previously inFigure 4, for examp le, lacks a preceeding repeat sign becau se that m ovem entdoes not repeat its first section (though the conclusion of a formal unit is sig-naled by the preceding rest) . Thefonte shown ea rlier in Figure 6, by con trast, isnow here near a repeat sign or a major point of closu re. App arently the formallocation of thefonte was not as important as its melodic and harm onic features.Figure 8, for example, shows a thirty-two-year-old Mozart writing a lovelyfonte to be placed justprior to the entrance of an important new them e. And theeccentric fonte in B ee tho ve n's late Piano Sona ta, Op . 109 (Figure 9) , remark-able for its sudden change to a slow tempo in an otherwise fast movement,occu rs very near the beg inning of its m ovem ent. Thu s formal location , espe -cially in a late eighteenth- or early nineteenth-century repertory, has a widerrange of variation and a lower index of criticality than does basic harmonicprog ression or m elodic design . At the sam e time , in spite of its variab ility, thedefault location of the fonte has never been com pletely displace d. Even toda y,

136 Psycho musicology Fall 1991


11/13

W^n

4 I>106 W m

IMIi i^

Figure 5. Mozart, Symphony in Eb Major, I, mm. 106-9, KV 543 (1788) [trans-posed to F major for comparison].cresc.

Figure 9. Beethoven, Sonata in E M ajor, Op. 109,1, mm. 9-11,(1820) [transposedto F major for comparison].

*i J>J7J mm *= 9nJ^J J | j73 j ^ j 7 ^ ' ^ J

f J J J,j Jil W J l ^Figure 10. Kahn, D., Greene, M., Lenard, M., Toy Parade (theme from Leave Itto Beaver), Marlen Music Co., ASCAP, copyright 1956, renewed 1984, usedby permission.Gjerdingen 137


12/13

when many people encounter Xhtfonte primarily through the theme music forLeave It to Beaver (Figure 10), it remains comfortably positioned immediatelyafter a repeat sign .Th e fact that RiepeY sfonte of the 1750's ma ps quite easily onto m usic from

apopulartelevisionprogramofthelate 1950's shows both the long-term stabil-ity of specific corre lations of music features and the ability of succ eed ing gen-eration s of m usician s and listeners to con verge on a prototype abstracted froma large repertory of class ical composi t ions . VasXfonte prototype is neither asingle esse nce no r a sim ple list of features. Ra ther, it is a network of relation -ships that is itself em bedd ed w ithin larger networks tif m usic and cultura l pat-terns.Ar e we left then with definitions too comp lex to talk abou t? A definitionwhose multiple features might specify varying degrees of criticality, varying

indices of typicality, cov arianc es with other defining features, and doz ens up ondozens of diverse spatio-temporal interrelationships scarcely resembles thedefinitions given in music textbooks or dictionaries. Ttie resemblance is in-stead to the kind of distributed d efinitions implicit in neu ral-netw ork m od els.The ca se for using such mode ls in the field of music percep tion has been arguedby Bharucha (1987). And Gjerdingen (1990; in press) has show n that the sell-organized abstraction of complex prototypes of the kind that form constituentsof music phrases is possible given exposure to spatio-temporal patterns of m u-sic featu res. W hile few such studies ca n claim fidelity to hum an neu rop hys iol-ogy, they can, at the very least, foster a reconceptuaiization of how patternsmight better be defined. Som eday, perhap s, we can once againcasually refer toa "typical Mozartean ph ras e" and actually be able to define what that m ean s.ReferencesAarne, A., & Thompson, S. (1961). The types of the folktale. (2nd rev. ed .). Helsinki:Academia Scienfiarum Fennica.Bettelheirft, B. (1976). The uses ofenchantment: The meaning and importance of fairytales. New York: Knopf.

Bharucha, J.J. (1987). Music cognition and perceptual facilitation: A connectionistframework. Music Perception, 5,1 -30.Darton, Robert. (1984). The great cat massacre and other episodes infrench culturalhistory. New Y ork: Basic B ooks.Franks, J.J., & Bransford, J.D. (1971). Abstraction of visual patterns. Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology, 90>,65-74.Fromm, E. (1951). The forgotten language: An introduction to the understanding ofdreams. New York: Rinehart.Gjerdingen, R..O. (1988). A classic turn of phrase: Music and the psychology ofcon-vention. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Gjerdingen, R.O. (1990). Categorization of musical patterns by self-organizing neuronlikenetworks. Music Perception, 8,329-370.Gjerdingen, R.O. (in press). Learning syntactically significant temporal patterns ofchords: A masking field embedded in an ART 3 architecture. Neural Networks.Grimm, J., & Grimm, W. (1984). Kinder- undHausmarchen. Frankfurt: Insel Verlag.(Original work published in 1812).Grout, D.J. (1973). A history of western music, (rev. ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.Kant, I. (1952). The critique of pure reason. (J.M.D. Meiklejohn, Trans.) C hicago:Encyclopedia Britanica.138 Psychom usicology Fall 1991


13/13

Mandler,J.M. (1984 ). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale,NJ: L awrence Erlbaum A ssociate s.M ey er ,L .B.( 19 80 ). Exploiting limits: C reation, archetypes, and style change. Daedalus,109,177-205.Rameau, J-P.(1722). Traite de Vharmonie reduite a sesprincipes naturels. Paris.Riepel ,J. (1755). Grundregeln zur tonordnung insgemein. Frankfurt.Ro sch, E. ,& M erv is,C.B . (197 5). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal struc-ture of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7,573-605.Rosner, B.S., & Meyer, L.B. (1982). M elodic processes and the perception of m usic. InD . Deutsch (Ed.), The Psycholoy of Music (pp. 317 -341 ), New York: AcademicPress.Schenker, H. (1935 ). Neue musikalische theorien und phantasien, Band III: DerfreieSatz. Vienna: Universal.Thom pson, S. (1946). The folktale. New York: Dryden Press.W elker, R. (19 82). A bstraction of themes from m elodic variations. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Hum an Perception and Performance, #,435-447.W ittgenstein, L. (1953 ). Philosophical investigations. G.E.M. Anscombe and RushRhes, ed s. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Author No tesThe author may be contacted at the follo wi ng address: Robert 0 . Gjerdingen,Department of Music, S U N Y , Stony Brook, New York 11794 -5474 .

Djerdingen on Fonte

Documents

Transcript of Djerdingen on Fonte