GTTM and post-tonal music

Abstract

A musical grammar, according to Fred Lerdahl's theory (Lerdahl 1988), is not only formed by a system of rules able to produce music, but also by structural aspects allowing listeners to implicitly infer a description of a piece and to build a mental representation of it: a compositional grammar also includes a listening grammar. In much avant-garde music (starting from Schönberg's serial system) a coherence between compositional and listening procedures is lacking: for example some works by Pierre Boulez follow private codes, idiosyncratic grammars, unknown to the listeners, who cannot form efficient mental representations of the piece.

Several aspects of this theory are discussed in the article. One of these is the concept of musical style: sometimes Lerdahl speaks of musical “idioms” suggesting that they are variants of the musical language he is speaking about. But musical styles are often radically different from one another. The list of cognitive constraints he proposes in order to define the conditions of a “natural” listening is in fact deduced from the European music of the “classical” epoch that is not necessarily a universal model of music.

Other aspects of the theory can raise further problems. Musical structures, compositional procedures and listening strategies are different phenomena: even if they are strictly related to each other, it is necessary to distinguish their different functions. A listener can grasp important syntactical relationships among different structural units, but is not necessarily able to reconstruct, and even less to perceive, the operational techniques (the composition procedures) by means of which the musical events have been built. The main object of listening is not to infer the procedures used by the composer, but to understand their results.

A third aspect to be discussed and deepened is the listening component of a musical grammar. The attention of a listener is not only attracted by “primary” parameters such as pitch and duration, and by musical syntax, but also by “secondary” not discrete parameters, such as timbre, dynamics or time nuances and by the expressive and emotional purposes of a composition. The status of a musical grammar requires particular conditions: in order to manifest aesthetic purposes a composer must undertake a careful selection and dosing of different parametric units (both of primary and secondary nature) and of their changes in time; in order to understand a piece of music a listener must make hypotheses with regards an appropriate interpretation of the expressive purposes of the compositional choices.

In complex societies many musical grammars are present, each of them linked to a different musical genre. Musicians always live in a culture where different stylistic models are at their disposal. Normally composers are subtle experts of a given style, because of their attentive and passionate listening to it. When they compose a work taking into account their listening experiences, they are able to choose a note or a group of notes to be written in their own score. At this moment their compositional choices belong to an actual grammar, if by grammar we mean the system of structural rules that connect composing to listening.

Can we say that serialism adopts an “artificial” grammar out of touch with listening because listeners cannot perceive and understand the logic of a series? The serial rules are techniques employed to obtain particular kinds of musical structures. What a listener can perceive are not such techniques but their results, that is the musical structure itself. While it is absolutely true that serial techniques are not perceptible, it is also true that the aims of listening are not normally oriented towards knowing the compositional strategies of a composer, but understanding their syntactic results and interpreting their aesthetic purposes.

Keywords

musical grammar musical style listening strategies compositional procedures avant-garde music

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arom

, Léothaud

& voisin

(1997). Experimental ethnomusicology: An interactive approach to the study of musical scales. In Deliège

, & Sloboda

(eds) Perception and cognition of music, (3–30). Hove: Psychology Press.

Baroni

. (in press). Grammatica dello stile. Considerazioni sulla cantata italiana del XVII secolo. Rivista di Analisi e Teoria Musicale, 15(2).

Baroni

, Dalmonte

& Jacoboni

(1999). Le regole della musica. Indagine sui meccanismi della comunicazione, EDT, Torino (engl. transl. A computer-aided inquiry on music communication. The rules of music. Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2003).

Boulez

. (1975). Conversations with Célestin Deliège. London: Eulenburg Books.

Boulez

. (1952). Schönberg is dead. The Score, 6, 18–22.

Caplin

W. E.

(1998). Classical form: A theory of formal functions for the instrumental music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clarke

E. F.

(1991). Expression and communication in musical performance. In Sundberg

, Nord

, & Carlson

(eds) Music, language, speech and brain, (pp. 184–93). London: Macmillan.

Cook

. (1987). The perception of large-scale tonal closure. Music Perception, v (2), 197–206.

Cook

. (2007), Performance analysis and Chopin's mazurkas. Musicæ Scientiæ, 11(2), 183–205.

10.

Cope

. (2001). Virtual Music, Computer Synthesis and Musical Style. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

11.

Deliège

(1989). A perceptual approach to contemporary music forms, Contemporary Music Review, 4, 213–30(S. Mc Adams & I. Deliège (eds) Music and the Cognitive Sciences).

12.

Deliège

& El Ahmadi

(1990). Mechanisms of cue extraction in musical groupings: A study of perception on Sequenza VI for viola solo by Luciano Berio. Psychology of Music, 18(1), 18–44.

13.

Deliège

& Mélen

(1997). Cue abstraction in the representation of musical form. In Deliège

, & Sloboda

(eds) Perception and cognition of music, 387–412. Hove: Psychology Press.

14.

Francès

(1958). La perception de la musique. Paris: Vrin.

15.

Von Hartmann

(1912). Über die Anarchie in der Musik, in Der Blaue Reiter, 43–44.

16.

Imberty

. (1979). Entendre la musique. Sémantique psychologique de la musique. Paris: Dunod.

17.

Jackendoff

. (2009). Parallels and nonparallels between language and music. Music Perception, 26(3), 195–204.

18.

Juslin

P.N.

& Persson

R.S.

(2002). Emotional Communication. In Parncutt

, & McPherson

(eds) The science and psychology of music performance (pp. 219–36). Oxford University Press.

19.

Koblyakov

. (1977). P. Boulez, “Le Marteau sans Maitre”, analysis of pitch structure. Zeitschrift für Musiktheorie, 8(1), 24–39.

20.

Lakoff

& Johnson

(1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

21.

Lamont

& Dibben

(2001). Motivic structure and the perception of similarity. Music Perception, 18(3), 245–74.

22.

Lerdahl

. (1988). Cognitive constraints on compositional systems. In Sloboda

J. A.

(ed), Generative processes in music. The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 231–59). Oxford University Press. Republished in Contemporary Music Review (1992), 6(2), 97-121 and—in French translation (Contraintes cognitives sur les systèmes compositionnels) — in Contrechamps (1989), 10, 25-57.

23.

Lerdahl

. (1997). Composing and listening: A reply to nattiez. In Deliège

, & Sloboda

(eds) Perception and cognition of music, (pp. 421–28). Hove: Psychology Press.

24.

Lerdahl

. (2009). Genesis and architecture of the GTTM project. Music Perception, 26(3), 187–94.

25.

Lerdahl

& Jackendoff

(1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

26.

McAdams

. (2004). Problem solving strategies in music composition: A case study. Music Perception, 21(3), 391–429.

27.

Meyer

L. B.

(1973). Explaining music. Berkeley: University of California Press.

28.

Meyer

L. B.

(1989). Style and music. Theory, history and ideology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

29.

Nattiez

J.-J.

(1987a). Répons et la crise de la “communication” musicale contemporaine. InHarmoniques, 2, 193–210.

30.

Nattiez

J.-J.

(1987b). Musicologie générale et sémiologie. Paris: Bourgois.

31.

Nattiez

J.-J.

(1997). What is the pertinence of the Lerdahl-Jackendoff theory? In Deliège

, & Sloboda

(eds), Perception and cognition of music (pp. 413–19). Hove: Psychology Press.

32.

Nattiez

J.-J.

(2008). Lévi-Strauss musicien. Essai sur la tentation homologique. Arles: Actes Sud.

33.

Nattiez

J.-J.

, Bent

, Dalmonte

, & Baroni

(eds, 2005). Enciclopedia della musica, vol. 5 (L'unità della musica) Einaudi, Torino. (French transl., Encyclopédie de la Musique, vol. 5 (L'unité de la Musique). Actes Sud-Cité de la Musique, 2007).

34.

Patel

. (2008). Music, language, and the brain, Oxford University Press.

35.

Pierrehumbert

J. B.

(1991). Music and the phonological principle: Remarks from the phoneticians’ bench. In Sundberg

, nord

, & Carlson

(eds) Music, language, speech and brain, (pp. 132–45). London: Macmillan.

36.

Pressing

. (1988). Improvisation: methods and models. In Sloboda

J. A.

(ed), Generative processes in music. The psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition (pp. 129–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

37.

Raffmann

. (1993). Language, music, and mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

38.

Repp

B. H.

(1990). Patterns of expressive timing in performances of a Beethoven minuet by nineteen famous pianists. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 622–41.

39.

Reynolds

. (2004). Compositional strategies in The Angel of Death for piano, chamber orchestra, and computer-processed sound. Music Perception, 22(2), 173–205.

40.

Rink

. (2002). Analysis and (or?) performance. In Rink

(ed) Musical performance. A guide to understanding, pp. 45–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Sloboda

J. A.

(1985). The musical mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

42.

Sundberg

, Askenfeld

& Fryden

(1983). Musical performance: A synthesis by rule approach, Computer Music Journal, 7(1), 37–43.

43.

Temperley

. (2001). The cognition of basic musical structures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

44.

Todd

. (1985). A model of expressive timing in tonal music. Music Perception, 3(1), 33–58.

45.

Wallin

N. L.

, Merker

, & Brown

(eds, 2000). The origins of music. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

46.

Ziv

& Eitan

(2007). Themes as prototypes: Similarity judgementes and categorization tasks in musical contexts. Musicæ Scientiæ (special issue: Discussion Forum 4A, Similarity perception in listening to music), 99–129.