Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Music
Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
M
USIC THEORISTS REGARD IMPORTANT Longuet-Higgins (1978/1987), in an adaptation of
aspects of musical structure as hierarchical. tree structures from generative linguistics, proposes
For example, they discuss musical form a metrical tree notation that can be recast as Figure
in terms of groupings of events at successive levels: 2c, in which objects with longer branches dominate
motives take place within phrases, phrases within those with shorter branches. Thus beat 1 is superordi-
phrase groupings, and phrase groupings within sec- nate, beat 3 connects to beat 1 at the next level down,
tions. Ray Jackendoff’s and my book A Generative The- and beats 2 and 4 connect at the smallest level to beats 1
ory of Tonal Music (Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; and 3, respectively. This notation stipulates a depen-
hereafter GTTM) generalizes this kind of hierarchical dency hierarchy—that is, the explicit connection of sub-
structure in its grouping component. It represents ordinate objects to superordinate objects. A dependency
groups, regardless of level, by nested brackets as in hierarchy is to be distinguished from a non-dependency
Figure 1a. A given event belongs in one group or hierarchy such as that in Figure 1, in which subordinate
another, and a group at a smaller level is contained elements (two subgroups in this case) belong within
within a group at the next larger level. It is also possible the larger element (a group) without domination-
to represent the larger-level group by a tree notation subordination branching.
in which neither subgroup dominates the other, as in In Figure 2c, weak beats belong as afterbeats to pre-
Figure 1b. This notation resembles the parsing trees ceding strong beats. But music also has upbeats, in
discussed in Bod (2002). GTTM employs the bracket which case a weak beat groups with the following strong
beat. Figure 2d shows how a metrical tree represents
beat 4 as an upbeat, assuming a grouping boundary
between beats 3 and 4. While it is possible to adjust
metrical trees in this way according to grouping context,
GTTM opts for the grid notation in Figure 2e, in which
dots represent beats that are equidistant from one beat
to the next at any given level (this requirement can be
relaxed within limits). If a beat is heard as strong at one
level, it is also a beat at the next larger level. The grid can
FIGURE 1. Representation of musical groups. be changed to a wave notation, shown in Figure 2f, that
Music Perception, VO LU ME 33, I S SUE 1, PP. 83–95, IS S N 0730-7829, EL ECT RON IC ISSN 1533-8312. © 2015 BY T HE R EGEN TS OF T HE U NIV E R S IT Y OF CA LI FOR NIA A LL
R IG HTS RES ERV ED . PLEASE DIR ECT ALL REQ UEST S F OR PER MISSION T O PHOT O COPY OR R EPRO DUC E A RTI CLE CONT ENT T HRO UGH T HE UNI VE R S IT Y OF CALI FO RNIA P R E SS ’ S
R IG H TS A N D P E RM I S S IO N S W E B S IT E , HT T P :// W W W. UC PRESSJ OUR NALS . COM / REPR INT INF O . A S P. DOI: 10.1525/ M P.2015.33.1.83
preceding or succeeding non-adjacent events. Current decomposition. Within the theory as a whole, however,
theories of event hierarchies include GTTM’s time-span the hierarchy of the Ursatz is understood as a prolonged
and prolongational components and Rohrmeier’s tonic chord elaborated by the dominant, with the first
(2011) Generative Syntax Model. The view of pitch scale degree as the resolution of the melodic descent.
events as hierarchically related is implicit in many Schenkerian notation represents these relationships by
historical treatises, for instance in the treatment of analytic levels, as in Figure 4b, or by durational values to
cadences as structurally important (e.g., Koch, 1793/ signify relative structural importance and slurs (or
1983; Rameau, 1722/1971). At the heart of Fux’s beams) to connect events, as in Figure 4c. Both repre-
(1725/1965) pedagogy is the hierarchical elaboration sentations assign the dominant chord a subordinate
of melodic lines from first to fifth species. C. P. E. Bach’s position without specifying subordination to either
(1753-1762/1949) treatise on keyboard playing enlarges tonic.
the concept of hierarchical embellishment. 20th century GTTM, in contrast, employs a tree notation that
studies of musical form, such as Tovey (1935), Rosen entails dependency of a subordinate event to a specific
(1972), and Caplin (1998), inevitably refer to initiating superordinate event. Figures 4d-e show the same rela-
tonics, modulation to subordinate keys, and tonic tionships as Figures 4b-c but with the further stipulation
returns. Schenker (1935/2001) extends the idea of elab- that the dominant belongs to either the first tonic (4d)
oration into a comprehensive system that represents or the second (4e). Slurs and durational values can rep-
event hierarchies from the smallest details to the most resent these same relationships, so that Figure 4f corre-
global connections. sponds to 4d and 4g to 4e. Finally, the tree and slur
One of Schenker’s achievements is to represent event notations can be combined redundantly as in Figure
hierarchies not by verbal description or extrinsic sym- 4h. The tree notation ensures hierarchical dependency
bols but by musical notation. To read a Schenkerian at all levels.
analysis is to read a version of the music itself, giving Beyond its representation of hierarchy, the tree nota-
the analysis a tangibility that most music theories do not tion expresses patterns of tension and relaxation. As
convey. But Schenkerian notation is often imprecise in shown in Figure 5, a right branch signifies a tensing
its hierarchical claims. Take Figure 4a, a reproduction of motion and a left branch a relaxing motion. These ten-
the first figure in Schenker (1935/2001): an Ursatz (fun- sion patterns nest from level to level of the tree. From
damental structure) with a 3̂ - 2̂ - 1̂ Urlinie (fundamen- a temporal perspective, right branching relates a subor-
tal line), presented as an organic unit without further dinate event to a preceding more stable event and
2009; Jackendoff & Lerdahl, 2006; Lerdahl, 2013; Ler- realized as I (a chord built on the first scale degree) and
dahl & Krumhansl, 2007; Patel, 2008.) then as a G major chord. The second tonic function is
Koelsch et al. (2013) employs a model and notation rewritten as the relative minor chord acting as a tonic
for pitch-event hierarchies proposed in Rohrmeier variant (t!tp, where ‘‘tp’’ stands in German for ‘‘tonic
(2011). This approach differs in interesting ways from parallel,’’ which translates in English to ‘‘relative
GTTM’s. It is based on Riemann’s (1893/1896) function minor’’); this is realized as VI and an E minor chord.
theory of tonal harmony, with its T, D, and S functions The tonic region at the right of the top of the tree breaks
(for ‘‘tonic,’’ ‘‘dominant,’’ and ‘‘subdominant’’). Rie- down differently in its left branch to assign a dominant
mann was vague about what these functions mean region and a tonic function (TR!DR t). The dominant
(Hyer, 2011) and did not develop a syntax or hierarchy region in turn parses into a subdominant region and
of harmonic progression, not even the T!S!D!T a dominant function (DR!SR d). The dominant is
schema that subsequently became common in music- realized as V, a D major chord. The subdominant region
theory pedagogy. decomposes into a subdominant function (SR!s) and
Rohrmeier integrates Riemann’s function categories IV, a C major chord (s!IV, IV!C). The progression as
with the hierarchical prolongational tradition. To illus- a whole fulfills a slightly elaborated version of the
trate, Figure 7a displays the first measure of Rohrmeier’s T!S!D!T schema: t!tp!s!d!t.
analysis of the Bach chorale ‘‘Ermuntre dich.’’ The top Figure 7b presents a GTTM/TPS analysis of the same
of the tree specifies the key and branches into a tonic passage. A Roman numeral analysis beneath the music
prolongation (TR!TR TR). The tonic region at the left identifies the location of events in pitch space. The tonic
again branches (TR!TR TR) and converts tonic region is established by the principle of the shortest path: the
to tonic function (TR!t). The first tonic function is initial G major chord is zero distance from itself, and
FIGURE 7. Bach chorale “Ermuntre dich,” beginning: (a) Rohrmeier’s analysis (redrawn with permission); (b) a GTTM/TPS analysis.
the remaining events are closest to it if interpreted in chord is always subdominant in function. While IV in
G major (TPS, pp. 193-201). Roman numerals follow by the cadential progression IV!V!I indeed acts as a pre-
filtering out non-harmonic tones and identifying roots. dominant, in a I!IV!I progression at the ‘‘Amen’’
A function analysis appears beneath the Roman numer- conclusion of a hymn, for instance, it functions as
als: T!Dep!D!T (‘‘Dep’’ ¼ departure). Further a neighboring embellishment within a tonic prolonga-
down are the metrical grid and time-span segmentation. tion. Its interpretation depends on its hierarchical posi-
Within these segments the most stable events are tion. Therefore TPS derives functions—including a few
selected, yielding quarter-note level d of the time-span more than Riemann’s three, such as Dep for ‘‘depar-
reduction. At the next time-span level c, again the most ture,’’ P for ‘‘passing,’’ and N for ‘‘neighboring’’—from
stable events are chosen, leaving two tonic chords. The the prolongational analysis. In my view, function is not
prolongational analysis derives top-down from the a core musical concept but an attribute of hierarchical
time-span reduction via the interaction principle, which context.
strongly constrains the derivation of prolongational This discussion has referred to chord distances, repre-
levels (GTTM, pp. 227-232; TPS, pp. 16-18, 159-161). sented for instance by the numbers in the tree branches
The letters in the prolongational tree refer to time-span in Figures 6b and 7b, and to shortest paths in pitch
levels. At level c there is a tonic prolongation. At level d, space. These concepts belong not to event hierarchies
vi attaches to the first I and V to the second I, creating but to another kind of hierarchy, the tonal hierarchy,
a tensing-relaxing pattern. The numbers in the tree are a topic to which I now turn. The tonal hierarchy does
pitch-space distances computed by a distance rule (TPS, not address events in time but describes a hierarchy of
p. 60). schematic relationships in long-term memory; it repre-
The theories behind Figures 7a and 7b differ in their sents knowledge of the tonal system. Examples of the
assumptions and methods. For one thing, TPS yields tonal hierarchy are Krumhansl’s (1990) probe-tone rat-
a numerical measure of tonal tension, whereas Rohrme- ings, which yield multidimensional-scaling representa-
ier’s model is qualitative and not concerned with ten- tions, and the pitch-space constructs in TPS. Listeners
sion. Another difference lies in the tree structures intuitively construct event hierarchies using their
employed and the role played by functionality. The trees implicit knowledge of the tonal hierarchy.
in Figure 7a resemble syntactic trees from early gener- GTTM leaves its stability conditions, a crucial input
ative linguistics (Chomsky, 1965), including syntactic to the derivation of prolongational structure, in an
categories (TR, DR, SR, t, tp, d, s) that are realized as underdeveloped state. TPS fills this lacuna by proposing
musical objects (I ¼ G major chord, etc.) only at the leaf an algebraic pitch-space model inspired by Deutsch and
of the tree. In this respect, Rohrmeier’s model is Feroe’s (1981) study of tonal alphabets and by empirical
a sophisticated version of the approach taken in Keiler studies of pitch, chord, and key relations summarized in
(1977). The branches in Figure 7b, by contrast, do not Krumhansl (1983, 1990). Thus GTTM’s qualitative the-
represent syntactic categories but simply show elabora- ory becomes, in many parts of TPS, a quantitative the-
tion to the right or left. The leaves of the tree remain at ory—an important theoretical advance. The pitch-space
higher levels of the tree; for instance, the initial I is still I model calculates relatedness in terms of cognitive dis-
at levels d and c. TPS, pp. 35-40, proposes an abstraction tance. It correlates with the empirical data and unifies
of events at underlying levels, but these structures the levels of pitch, chord, and key in a formalism that
remain events instead of turning into function cate- makes distances easy to compute.
gories. Like many writers about music and language, TPS’s fundamental construct is the ‘‘basic space’’
I do not think that music possesses syntactic categories. shown in Figure 8a. The elements of the space are
I consider this to be a basic difference between music pitches or pitch classes, depending on context. A pitch
and language. (For related discussion, see Swain, 1997, or pitch class that is relatively stable at one level also
and Patel, 2008; Bernstein, 1976, takes a position closer appears at the next higher level, just as with strong beats
to Rohrmeier’s.) in a metrical grid. At the bottom level is the available
I also question the basis of Riemann’s function cate- alphabet, the chromatic scale. From this alphabet comes
gories. Riemann developed his tripartite categorization a diatonic scale, in this case the C major scale, arranged
from the Hegel-influenced theory of Hauptmann (1853/ by step from low to high. Similarly, a triad arises from
1991), with more distant echoes of Rameau’s (1726) members of the diatonic scale to which it belongs, in
tonique, dominante, and sous-dominante. But Rameau this case a C major chord. Because the fifth is more
referred to chords, not functions, a distinction often stable than the third of a triad, it forms the next level.
confused by Riemann, for whom, for example, a IV Finally, the top level is the root of the triad, the most
FIGURE 8. Diatonic basic space: (a) using note-letter names; (b) in numerical format (C ¼ 0, C# ¼ 1, . . . B ¼ 11); (c) in binary notation. All three
representations are oriented to I of C major.
FIGURE 9. Representations of the tonal hierarchy: (a) tracing the most stable position of each pitch class in TPS’s diatonic basic space; (b) the K-K
major key profile (from Krumhansl & Kessler, 1982, Figure 2, redrawn with permission).
FIGURE 11. (a) a portion of TPS’s regional space arrayed in two dimensions (major keys are in upper-case letters, minor keys in lower-case letters);
(b) Krumhansl & Kessler’s multidimensional scaling solution of key space (redrawn with permission).
2009). In my view, his space is mathematically impec- more complex. How could such basic notions as non-
cable but problematic as a space for tonal music, which harmonic tones, scales, roots, and tonicity be intro-
requires a hierarchical pitch space. One of my first duced into the simple construct of the Tonnetz without
motivations in developing TPS’s basic space and its fundamentally changing it? The TPS model is not only
transformations was to find a principled way to make more inclusive but also more flexible than the neo-
fifth-related chords more proximate than third-related Riemannian one.
chords, in correspondence with tonal practice. Beneath the intricacies of the GTTM/TPS theory lie
These limitations of neo-Riemannian theory (and, to a few basic concepts. The listener attempts to organize
a lesser extent, of Tymoczko’s theory) come from its a musical surface into rhythmic and pitch-event hierar-
origin in pitch-class set theory, which was designed to chies with the help of a multi-layered mental schema of
elucidate atonal music (Forte, 1973). Atonal music tonal space. Rhythmically structured events relate to
assumes a flat space (TPS, pp. 344-346). A premise of one another at multiple hierarchical levels by the short-
Cohn (2012) is that the triad has two natures, one based est paths in the space. The listener experiences the resul-
on psychoacoustic features and the other on group- tant event hierarchy in terms of nested patterns of
theoretic properties that obtain in a flat space. Some of tension and relaxation. The theory’s representations—
these properties are formally deep and underlie aspects of brackets, grids, trees, slurs, the basic space, distance
chromatic tonal music. Cohn (2011) makes the historical units, spatial projections, paths in pitch space, tension
argument that as triadic music becomes less diatonic, curves—attempt to render these non-verbal, non-visual
hierarchical distinctions between key, chord, and scale concepts both palpable and precise.
are increasingly vestigial. To specify a scale or even a key
in a highly chromatic passage becomes an unnecessary Author Note
distraction. In this view, TPS treats the transitional period
of late 19th-century chromatic triadic music from an 18th Thanks to Carol Krumhansl, David Temperley, and two
century perspective, and neo-Riemannian theory anonymous referees for suggestions that improved the
approaches it from a 20th century perspective. contents of this paper.
While recognizing the merit of multiple perspectives, Correspondence concerning this article should be
I observe in return that it is easier to simplify TPS’s basic addressed to Fred Lerdahl, Department of Music, Dodge
space and its transformations, for instance by suppres- Hall, M. C. 1813, Columbia University, New York, NY
sing the scale level in Figure 8, than to make the Tonnetz 10027. E-mail: awl1@columbia.edu
References
B ACH , C. P. E. (1949). Essay on the true art of playing keyboard C HOMSKY, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge,
instruments (W. J. Mitchell, Trans.). New York: Norton. MA: MIT Press.
(Original work published 1753-1762) C OHN , R. (2011). Tonal pitch space and the (neo)-Riemannian
B ERNSTEIN , L. (1976). The unanswered question. Cambridge, Tonnetz. In E. Gollin & A. Rehding (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
MA: Harvard University Press. book of neo-Riemannian music theories, pp. 322-348. New
B OD, R. (2002). A unified model of structural organization in York: Oxford University Press.
language and music. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, C OHN , R. (2012). Audacious euphony: Chromaticism and the
17, 289-308. triad’s second nature. New York: Oxford University Press.
C APLIN , W. (1998). Classical form. New York: Oxford University C OOK , N. (1987). The perception of large-scale tonal closure.
Press. Music Perception, 5, 197-205.
C HEW, E. (2008). Out of the grid and inside the spiral: Geometric D EUTSCH , D., & J. F EROE (1981). The internal representation
interpretations of and comparisons with the spiral array of pitch sequences in tonal music. Psychological Review, 88,
model. Computing in Musicology, 15, 51-72. 503-522.
C HEW, E. (2014). Mathematical and computational modeling of D IBBEN , N. (1994). The cognitive reality of hierarchic structure in
tonality: Theory and applications. New York: Springer. tonal and atonal music. Music Perception, 12, 1-25.
C HEW, E. (in press). Playing with the edge: Tipping points and the F ORTE , A. (1973). The structure of atonal music. New Haven, CT:
role of tonality. Music Perception. Yale University Press.
F UX , J. J. (1965). Steps to Parnassus (A. Mann, Trans.). New York: L ARGE , E., & PALMER , C. (2002). Perceiving temporal regularity
Norton. (Original work published 1725) in music. Cognitive Science, 26, 1-37.
G JERDINGEN , R. O. (2007). Music in the galant style. New York: L ERDAHL , F. (2001a). The sounds of poetry viewed as music. In R. J.
Oxford University Press. Zatorre & I. Peretz (Eds.), The biological foundations of music.
G OLLIN , E., & A. R EHDING (E DS .) (2011). The Oxford handbook Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930, 337-354.
of neo-Riemannian music theories. New York: Oxford L ERDAHL , F. (2001b). Tonal pitch space. New York: Oxford
University Press. University Press.
H AUPTMANN , M. (1991). The nature of harmony and meter (W. E. L ERDAHL , F. (2013). Musical syntax and its relation to linguistic
Heathcote, Ed. & Trans.). New York: Da Capo Press. (Original syntax. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), Language, music, and the brain
work published 1853) (pp. 257-272). Strüngmann Forum Reports (Vol. 10, J. Lupp
H AUSER , M. D., C HOMSKY, N., & F ITCH , W. T. (2002). The series, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it L ERDAHL , F., & J ACKENDOFF, R. (1983). A generative theory of
evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579. tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
H AYES , B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In P. Kiparsky L ERDAHL , F., & K RUMHANSL , C. L. (2007). Modeling tonal ten-
& G. Youmans (Eds.), Phonetics and phonology: Rhythm and sion. Music Perception, 24, 329-366.
meter (pp. 201-260). New York: Academic. L IBERMAN , M., & P RINCE , A. (1977). On stress and linguistic
H URON , D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249-336.
of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. L ONDON , J. (2012). Hearing in time: Psychological aspects of
H YER , B. (2011). What is a function? In E. Gollin & A. Rehding musical meter (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of neo-Riemannian music theories L ONGUET-H IGGINS , H. C. (1987). The grammar of music
(pp. 92-139). New York: Oxford University Press. [Reprint]. In H. C. Longuet-Higgins (Author), Mental pro-
JACKENDOFF, R. (1991). Musical parsing and musical affect. Music cesses: Studies in cognitive science. Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Perception, 9, 199-230. (Original work published 1978)
JACKENDOFF, R. (2009). Parallels and nonparallels between lan- M ARVIN , E. W., & B RINKMAN , A. R. (1999). The effect of modu-
guage and music. Music Perception, 26, 195-204. lation and formal disruption on perceived tonic closure.
JACKENDOFF, R., & L ERDAHL , F. (2006). The capacity for music: Music Perception, 16, 389-407.
What is it, and what’s special about it? Cognition, 100, O ETTINGEN , A. VON . (1866). Harmoniesystem in dualer
33-72. Entwickelung. Dorpat: Glaser.
K EILER , A. (1977). The syntax of prolongation, I. In Theory Only, PATEL , A. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. New York:
3.5, 3-27. Oxford University Press.
KOCH , H. (1983). Introductory essay on composition: The R AMEAU, J.-P. (1971). Treatise on harmony reduced to its natural
mechanical rules of melody (N. K. Baker, Partial Trans.). New principles (P. Gossett, Trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. (Original work published work published 1722)
1793) R AMEAU, J.-P. (1726). Nouveau système de musique théorique.
KOELSCH , S., R OHRMEIER , M., T ORRESCUSO, R., & J ENTSCHKE , S. Paris: Ballard.
(2013). Processing of hierarchical syntactic structure in music. R IEMANN , H. (1873). Über das musikalische Hören (Unpublished
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(38), doctoral dissertation). Göttingen University, Göttingen,
15443-15448. Germany.
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (1983). Perceptual structures for tonal music. R IEMANN , H. (2011). Die Natur der Harmonik (B. Steege,
Music Perception, 1, 28-62. Trans.). In E. Gollin & A. Rehding (Eds.), The Oxford
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (1990). Cognitive foundations of musical pitch. handbook of neo-Riemannian music theories (pp. 157-190).
New York: Oxford University Press. New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work pub-
K RUMHANSL , C. L., & K ESSLER , E. (1982). Tracing the dynamic lished 1882)
changes in perceived tonal organization in a spatial represen- R IEMANN , H. (1896). The theory of the tonal function of chords
tation of musical keys. Psychological Review, 89, 334-368. (H. Bewerunge, Trans.). London: Augener. (Original work
K RUMHANSL , C. L, & S HEPARD, R. N. (1979). Quantification of published 1893)
the hierarchy of tonal functions within a diatonic context. R IEMANN , H. (1992). Ideen zu einer ‘Lehre von der
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Tonvorstellungen’ R. Wason & E. W. Marvin, Annotated Trans.
Performance, 5, 579-594. in Journal of Music Theory, 36, 69-79). (Original work pub-
L ARGE , E., & J ONES , M. R. (1999). The dynamics of attending: lished 1915)
How people track time-varying events. Psychological Review, R OHRMEIER , M. (2011). Towards a generative syntax of tonal
106, 119-159. harmony. Journal of Mathematics and Music, 5, 35-53.
R OSEN , C. (1972). The classical style. New York: Norton. T EMPERLEY, D. (2009). A statistical analysis of tonal harmony.
S CHENKER , H. (1980). Harmony (E. M. Borghese, Trans.). Retrieved from http://theory.esm.rochester.edu/temperley/kp-
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work stats/index.html
published 1906) T OVEY, D. F. (1935). Essays in musical analysis. London: Oxford
S CHENKER , H. (2001). Free composition (E. Oster, Trans.). New University Press.
York: Pendragon. (Original work published 1935) T YMOCZKO, D. (2011). A geometry of music: Harmony and
S ELKIRK , E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The counterpoint in the extended common practice. New York:
relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
MIT Press. Z UCKERKANDL , V. (1956). Sound and symbol (W. R. Trask,
S WAIN , J. P. (1997). Musical languages. New York: Norton. Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.