The Need for Limits in Hierarchical Theories of Music

In recent years, music theorists and cognitive psychologists have agreed that hierarchical organizations are an effective means of describing structural and perceptual aspects of music. This article proposes that any hierarchical theory should be limited because the amount of information humans are able to take in and process is limited, as is well known in the cognitive field. When music is perceived according to Gestalt principles, the limit of organization will be three or four musical events on a level. When music perception is aided by cultural experience, this number of events may be exceeded by grouping the events into processing units called musical constituents. In this way, the hierarchical theory accounts for both the abstract and cultural aspects of musical experience. The notion of structural limits explains why the hierarchical model has been so persuasive and, by the use of three examples, shows how it can be a useful perspective for musical analysis.

[1]  R R Hurtig,et al.  Effects of clausal structure and word frequency in sentence processing , 1981, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[2]  Neal F. Johnson,et al.  The Role of Chunking and Organization in The Process of Recall , 1970 .

[3]  D. Deutsch,et al.  The Internal Representation of Pitch Sequences in Tonal Music , 1981 .

[4]  R. Jackendoff,et al.  A Generative Theory of Tonal Music , 1985 .

[5]  R. Shepard,et al.  Quantification of the hierarchy of tonal functions within a diatonic context. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  R. Shepard,et al.  Tonal Schemata in the Perception of Music in Bali and in the West , 1984 .

[7]  G. Seth.  Psychology of Language , 1968, Nature.

[8]  Lorraine Komisarjevsky Tyler,et al.  SERIAL AND INTERACTIVE-PARALLEL THEORIES OF SENTENCE PROCESSING , 1981 .

[9]  C. Krumhansl,et al.  Tracing the dynamic changes in perceived tonal organization in a spatial representation of musical keys. , 1982, Psychological review.

[10]  Frank Restle,et al.  Theory of Serial Pattern Learning: Structural Trees. , 1970 .

[11]  A. Gregory.  Perception of clicks in music. , 1977, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  R. Jarvella.  Syntactic processing of connected speech , 1971 .

[13]  J. Carroll.  Sentence perception units and levels of syntactic structure , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Psychology of Language , 1974 .

[15]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Perceptual organization of nine-element auditory temporal patterns , 1970 .

[16]  F. Campbell,et al.  The Magic Number 4 ± 0: A New Look at Visual Numerosity Judgements , 1976, Perception.

[17]  R. Jarvella.  Effects of syntax on running memory span d for connected discourse , 1970 .

[18]  J G Martin,et al.  Rhythmic (hierarchical) versus serial structure in speech and other behavior. , 1972, Psychological review.

[19]  J. Fodor.  Psychology and Language. , 1970 .

[20]  F. Keil,et al.  Acquisition of the hierarchy of tonal functions in music , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[21]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The On-Line Effects of Semantic Context on Syntactic Processing , 1977 .

[22]  WILLIAM MARSLEN-WILSON,et al.  Linguistic Structure and Speech Shadowing at Very Short Latencies , 1973, Nature.

[23]  J. Bharucha,et al.  Anchoring effects in music: The resolution of dissonance , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  John A. Sloboda,et al.  Phrase units as determinants of visual processing in music reading. , 1977 .

[25]  S Handel,et al.  Temporal segmentation of repeating auditory patterns. , 1973, Journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  Desmond Shawe-Taylor,et al.  The Classical Style , 1977 .

[27]  A. Treisman.  Contextual Cues in Selective Listening , 1960 .

[28]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[29]  Leonard B. Meyer.  Emotion and Meaning in Music , 1957 .

[30]  Willem J. M. Levelt,et al.  Hierarchical chunking in sentence processing , 1970 .

[31]  David F. Preusser,et al.  The effect of structure and rate on the recognition and description of auditory temporal patterns , 1972 .

[32]  T G Bever,et al.  Harmonic structure as a determinant of melodic organization , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[33]  W D Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Sentence Perception as an Interactive Parallel Process , 1975, Science.

[34]  D Deutsch,et al.  The processing of structured and unstructured tonal sequences , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[35]  C. Krumhansl,et al.  Tonal hierarchies in the music of north India. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[36]  J M Carroll,et al.  Functional Completeness as a Determinant of Processing Load During Sentence Comprehension , 1979, Language and speech.

[37]  C. Krumhansl,et al.  The representation of harmonic structure in music: Hierarchies of stability as a function of context , 1983, Cognition.