A model for pattern perception with musical applications part I: Pitch structures as order-preserving maps
- 46 Downloads
The initial five papers of this series on pattern perception treat first, the perception of pitch in musical contexts and then, the perception of timbre and speech. Each sound is considered to be embedded in a “context” consisting of those sounds which surround it or coincide with it. The apprehension of a musical pattern depends upon the perceptibility of certain relations between, and properties of, its parts (e.g. “motifA is similar to motifB“ or “G is the tonic”). It is hypothesized that, because of the limitations of short term memory, the perception of specific relations and properties requires that certain “mental reference frames” be extracted from the various contexts. However, a reference frame which supports the perception of any specified relation may be extracted from only very few of all possible contexts. The choices of musical materials in both Western and non-Western music are shown to avoid precisely such difficulties. When they are not avoided, distortions of perception are predicted and methods for experimental verification are suggested. This theory is then applied to suggest new materials for the composition of both “microtonal” and “tonecolor” music. This is done in a manner which exposes the correspondence between each choice of musical materials and those musical properties and relations whose perception is (or is not) thereby supported.
This first paper discusses the relation between the ability to perceive relative sizes of musical intervals and the choice of reference frame from a given musical context.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.H. L. F. Helmholtz,On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music, (Translated by Alexander J. Ellis, 1885) Peter Smith, New York, 1948.Google Scholar
- 2.P. Boomsliter andW. Creel, The long pattern hypothesis in harmony and hearing,J. Music Theory 5 (1961), 2–31.Google Scholar
- 3.J. C. R. Licklider, Three auditory theories. InPsychology: a study of a science (ed. by S. Koch), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.Google Scholar
- 4.J. Kunst,Music in Java. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1949.Google Scholar
- 5.Mantle Hood,The Nuclear Theme as a Determinant of Patet in Javenese Music, J. B. Wolters-Groningen, Djakarta, 1954.Google Scholar
- 6.Mantle Hood, Slendro and Pelog Redefined,Selected Reports, Institute of Ethnomusicology, U.C.L.A., 1966.Google Scholar
- 7.D. Rothenberg,A mathematical model for the perception of redundancy and stability in musical scales, paper read at Acoustical Society of America, New York, May 1963. Also, D. Rothenberg, Technical Reports to Air Force Office of Scientific Research 1963–1969 (grants and contracts AF-AFOSR 881-65, AF49(638)-1738 and AF-AFOSR 68-1596).Google Scholar
- 8.G. M. Stratton, Vision without inversion of the retinal image,Psych. Rev. 4 (1897). 341–60; 463–81.Google Scholar
- 9.R. H. Thouless, Phenomenal regression to the real object,Brit. Jour. Psychol.,21 (1931), 339–59.Google Scholar
- 10.M. von Senden,Raum-und Gestaltauffassung beioperierten Blindgeborenen vor und nach der Operation, Leipzig, Barth, 1932.Google Scholar
- 11.Carrol C. Pratt, Comparison of tonal distance and Bisection of tonal intervals larger than an octave,Jour. of Experimental Psychol. 11 1928, 77–87, 17–36.Google Scholar
- 12.H. Munsterburg, Vergleichen der Tondistanzen,Beitrage zur Experimentelle Psychology 4 1892, 147–177.Google Scholar
- 13.H. Poinchare,The Value of Science, Dover Publications, New York, 1954.Google Scholar
- 14.P. Hindemith,The Craft of Musical Composition, Associated Music Publishers, New York, 1941.Google Scholar
- 15.Olivier Messiaen,Technique de mon Langage Musical, Alphonse Leduc, 175 Rue Saint-Honore, Paris, 1944.Google Scholar
- 16.J. F. Schouten, R. J. Ritsma, andB. Lopez Cardozo, Pitch of the Residue,Jour. of the Acoustical Society of America,34 (1962), 1418–1424.Google Scholar
- 17.J. E. Evetts, The Subjective Pitch of a Complex Inharmonic Residue, Pembroke College, England, unpublished report, 1958.Google Scholar