The present study on Maderna's quartet aims to compare the “macroform” (the large-scale structure of a musical piece) perceived by subjects while listening to the piece in real time, and the “macroform” as perceived by professional analysts. The study also examines the correlation between “macroform” and perception of tension/relaxation. Two groups of subjects took part in the experiment: 25 non-musicians and 32 musicians. The experiment was carried out both in Bologna and in Edinburgh. We made use of a special computer program, which allows each subject to listen to a piece through head-phones and indicate the points of division and the tension/relaxation perceived while listening in real time. The experiment lasted approximately 60 minutes and involved various steps and tasks. After an initial listening which served to become familiar with the piece and with the computer program, the subjects had to listen to the piece again and identify its main sections. They then had to indicate the criteria they used in formulating their solutions. In the next listening they had to indicate the largest zones of tension and relaxation they perceived. The macroforms perceived by the subjects were compared with 4 macroforms indicated by professional analysts based on listening rather than on analytical theories. The data showed higher correlation between macroforms perceived by the subjects and only 2 macroforms indicated by the analysts, and correlation between the macroforms and tension/relaxation perceived by subjects. The differences between musicians and non musicians and Italian and Edinburgh groups were not significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddessiA. R., & CaterinaR. (2000). Perceptual musical analysis: Segmentation and perception of tension.Musicæ Scientiæ, 4(1), 31–54.
2.
AddessiA. R., & CaterinaR. (2002). Perception of the macroform in the Quartetto per Archi in due tempi (1955) by Bruno Maderna. In BuzzancaG., Di MaioG., NottoliG., & Olivetti BelardinelliM. (Eds.), Second International Conference: Understanding and Creating Music.Caserta, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli (Available on CD).
3.
AddessiA. R., & CaterinaR. (2005). Analysis and perception in post-tonal music: an example from Kurtág's String Quartet Op. 1., Psychology of Music, 33(1), 94–116.
4.
AgawuK. (1991). Playing with signs. A semiotic interpretation of classic music.Princeton University Press.
5.
BambergerJ. (1994). Coming to hear in a new way. In AielloR., SlobodaJ.A. (Eds.), Musical Perception (pp. 132–151). Oxford University Press, New York.
6.
BaroniM. (2003). The macroform in post-tonal music. Listening and analysis.Musicae Scientiae, 7(2), 219–240.
7.
BaroniM., & DalmonteR. (Eds.) (1985). Bruno Maderna, documenti, Suvini Zerboni, Milano.
8.
BerioL. (1957). Bruno Maderna: Quartetto in due tempi, in Concerti degli incontri musicali, quarto concerto, Notes for the concert, Milano, Sala Piccola del Conservatorio, 2 marzo 1957.
9.
BigandE. (1993). L'organisation perceptive d'oeuvres musicales tonales, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.
10.
BigandE. (1997). Perceiving musical stability: the effect of tonal structure, rhythm, and musical expertise.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 808–822.
11.
BigandE., ParncuttR., & LerdhalF. (1996). Perception of musical tension in short chord sequences: The influence of harmonic function, sensory dissonance, horizontal motion, and musical training.Perception & Psychophysics, 58(1), 125–141.
12.
BigandE. (2003). More about the musical expertise of musically untrained listeners.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 999, 1–10.
13.
BigandE., & Poulin-CharonnatB. (2006). Are we “experienced listeners”? A review of the musical capacities that do not depend on formal musical training.Cognition, 100, 100–130.
14.
CrossI. (1998). Music analysis and music perception.Music Analysis, 17(1), 3–20.
15.
DeliègeI. (1989). A perceptual approach to contemporary musical forms. In McAdamsS., and DeliègeI. (Eds.). Music and Cognitive Sciences.Contemporary Music Review, 4, 213–230.
16.
DeliègeI. (1998). Wagner “Alte Weise”: Une approche perceptive.Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue, 63–90.
DeliègeI. (2001b). Prototype effects in music listening: An empirical approach to the notion of imprint.Music Perception, 18(3), 371–403.
19.
DeliègeI. (2007). Similarity relation in listening to music: How do they come into play?.Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 4A, pp. 9–37.
20.
DeliègeI., & El AhmadiA. (1990). Mechanisms of cue extraction in musical groupings: A study of perception on Sequenza VI for viola solo by L. Berio.Psychology of Music, 18(1), 18–44.
21.
DibbenN. (1999). The perception of structural stability in atonal music: The influence of salience, stability, horizontal motion, pitch commonality, and dissonance.Music Perception, 16(3), 265–294.
22.
HabibM., BessonM. (2009). What do music training and musical experience teach us about brain plasticity?Music Perception, 26(3), 279–285.
23.
HastyC. (1981). Segmentation and process in post-tonal music.Music Theory Spectrum, 3, 54–73.
24.
ImbertyM. (1987). L'occhio e l'orecchio. Sequenza III di Berio. In MarconiL., and StefaniG. (Eds.), Il senso in musica (pp. 163–186). Bologna: Clueb.
25.
ImbertyM. (1993). How do we perceive atonal music? Suggestions for a theoretical approach.Contemporary Music Review, 9, 325–338.
26.
ImbertyM. (2005). La Musique creuse le temps.L'Harmattan, Paris.
27.
KrumhanslC. (1996), A perceptual analysis of Mozart's Piano Sonata K 282: Segmentation, tension, and musical ideas, Music Perception, 13.
28.
KrumhanslC. (1997), Musical tension: Cognitive, motional and emotional aspects, in GabrielssonA. (Ed.), Third Triennal ESCOM Conference. Proceedings, Uppsala: Uppsala University.
29.
KrumhanslC. (2009). Plink: Thin Slices in Music. Oral presentation at the 7th Conference of ESCOM, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, August 12-16, 2009.
30.
LalitteP., BigandE., MartynuskaK., DelbéC. (2009). On listening to atonal variants of two piano sonatas by Beethoven.Music Perception, 26(3), 223–234.
31.
La RueJ. (1970). Guidelines for style analysis.New York: Norton and Company.
32.
LerdahlF. (1989). Atonal prolongation structure. In S. McAdams and I. Deliège (Eds.), Music and Cognitive Sciences. Contemporary Music Review, 4, 65–88.
LerdhalF. (1999). Spatial and psychoacoustic factors in atonal prolongation.Current Musicology, 63.
35.
LerdahlF., & JackendoffJ. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music.Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
36.
MeyerL. B. (1956). Emotion and Meaning in Music, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
MurailT. (2002). “Esplorando il suono”. Interview by A. R. Addessi, Il Giornale della Musica, 185, 2.
38.
NielsenF. (1989). Musical ‘tension’ and related concepts. In SebeokTh., Umijer-SebeokJ. (Eds.), Basic Concepts of Musical Signification, Special Issue of THe Semiotic Web, Berlin: Mouton.
39.
PantevC., EngelienA., CandiaV., ElbertT. (2001). Representational cortex in musicians: Plastic alterations in response to musical practice. In ZatorreR.J., PeretzI. (Eds.), The biological foundations of music (pp. 300–314). New York Accademy of Sciences, New York.
40.
Pascual-LeoneA. (2001). The brain that plays music and is changed by it. In ZatorreR.J., PeretzI. (Eds.), The biological foundations of music (pp. 315–329). New York Accademy of Sciences, New York.
41.
RussoM. (2010). Introduction. In MadernaB., Quartetto per Archi in due tempi, Suvini Zerboni, Milano.
42.
RuwetN. (1966). Méthodes d'analyse en musicologie.Revue belge de Musicologie, 20, 65–90.
43.
SchlaugG., & ChenC. (2001). The brain of musicians: A model for funziona and structural adaptation. In ZatorreR.J., PeretzI. (Eds.), The biological foundations of music (pp. 281–299). New York Accademy of Sciences, New York.
44.
SlobodaJ.A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind: Cognition, emotion, ability, function.Oxford University Press, New York.
45.
ToiviainenP. (Ed.) (2007). Similarity perception in listening to music. Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum A/B.
