Architectural Metaphors in Music Discourse and Music Experience - Steve Larson

7/25/2019 Architectural Metaphors in Music Discourse and Music Experience - Steve Larson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/architectural-metaphors-in-music-discourse-and-music-experience-steve-larson 1/15

Here is a reprint o

Larson, Steve Johnson, Mark (2002-03). Architectural Metaphors in Music Discourse

and Music Experience. Yearbook o omparative and General Literature 50

pages 141-154.



RCHITECTUR L MET PHORS IN

MUSIC DISCOURSE ND MUSIC

EXPERIENCE

Steve Larson nd Mark Johnson

en Frank Zappa said that talking about music is like dancing about

architecture, he was commenting on how language can seem inade-

quate to the task

of

capturing the charm of music. To describe our

experience and understanding ofmusic, we inevitably tum to metaphor. It

is

par-

ticularly interesting that Zappa's jest combines the topics of this section

of

the

Yearbook

The conception of musical structure as architecture

is

one of th

basic metaphors in our repertoire ofmusical discourse. While the other article in

this section of the

Yearbook

asks us to consider the musical qualities

of

architec-

ture, ours will tum things around to consider the architectural qualities

of

music.

We will apply what is known as conceptual metaphor theory to our experi-

ence and conceptualization

of

music. The architectural metaphors described below

play an essential role, not only in talking about music but also in creating and

listening to music. Although these metaphors are often imperceptible, they are

also unavoidable. Although they are culturally shaped, they are also physically

grounded in our bodily experience. Although they are not exhaustive

of

our con-

cepts of musical form, they have a specific internal logic that makes it possible

for us to understand and reason about crucial aspects

of

musical structure.

Most

of

us never even notice the fundamental metaphors by which we un-

derstand our musical experience. However, composers and music theorists often

explicitly develop and extend the metaphors that form the foundations of their

thinking. For example, Heinrich Schenker's article on

J.

S. Bach's Sarabande,

from the Suite 1

for

Solo Cello in C major, begins by comparing the structure

of

that piece to an architectural structure.



142

YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE

50

The eye can follow and encompass the lines of a painting or architectural

structure in all their directions, breadth and relationships;

if

only the ear

could hear the background

of

the fundamental structure

Ursatz)

and the

continuous musical motion

of

the foreground as profoundly and as exten

sively.

We

would then envisage the twenty-four bars

of

this Sarabande as

a gigantic structure, whose many broad and striking events, while seeming

to have a private, autonomous existence, all bear a profound and exacting

relationship to the whole.

Example

1,

below, gives Schenker s analysis of this Sarabande. Example 2 pro

vides the score of the whole piece.

Example

11

i

crF

~ : : : : : : ~ : : : ;

.__

J ~ ~

I

- - - - - - - - - - - V· .....

-

.. ' - . ; . ~ . -

•• ... ...

••

•

; . . ~ - ..

C major

..

6 1

6$

5-- 7

i

r

·5

Si 5

:l.

A ~

- - - - ~ - - - - - - - N } v-- - - - - - - - - - -- N )

rt regrol.md

graph

~ 1 J r l i i l h ~ ' i r a f e n

1:

d)

@

@

1 6 5



RCHITECTUR L MET PHORS N MUSIC

.j ..

.

D i v . ~ I - - - - ; ' - - - - - - V

. ~ ~ . ; . _ . ~ - - ~ . _ .--d .

.....

.Ieo-. . . . _ •

• • •

•

_

¥._ _· li6oolll l. : , , ........ - .. ~ - . . : ..... : - ~

5

';

3

. ~ . . . . .

.

.

... ..... . . •

· - - - V - - - - - - - , . l ~ 1

..

_ ' ___

.

,.'-:-._ .. _ ...... ..._

__

. ... ;._ .__

' . ' ' - ' - . ' ' ' ~

... -.:-;.. •.

_'i-: :o'

,:

;3- 3

--·iDiv. -A-.. - - - - - - - - V - - - - - - - I ~ I

143



144

YEARBOOK

OF

COMPARATIVE

AND GENERAL

LITERATIJRE 50

Example 2

Sarabande

,., .

.

l t ~ J J i ' ~

Jj,rinl?jla;

I

ii mt

flf JI

I

~ i f f , S ~ I J ~ : t ~ P t m ~ p f £ . @ l . r _

· ~ · e · r i F W · . ~ d f l f f ' P · ~ . ~ A I ' d o * t P f 1 ' V · '

~ H , J ] J r

~ a

d # ~ ~

~ _ ~ 9 J m J ~ a :

. ' , . ' . :.:,\ , ' .

As we shall see, Schenker conceives

of

musical works as vast architectural

structures that can be viewed and analyzed as complex, massive buildings. We

will suggest that Schenker makes explicit and highly-nuanced use ofone of the

basic conceptual metaphors by which people understand the overall composition

of a piece of music.

TH

N TURE OF CONCEPTU L MET PHOR

Over the past two decades a new understanding of metaphor and meaning has

been developed under the title

of

conceptual metaphor theory. First articulated

by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), the notion of conceptual metaphor

has subsequently been developed extensively in a number ofmajor works, includ

ing those by Mark Turner, Raymond Gibbs, and

Lakoff

and Johnson (1999).

According to this theory, the term metaphor refers to an experiential and con

ceptual process by which we use entities, properties, and relations characterizing

one domain

of

experience (the

source

to understand and reason about a second

domain of experience (the target that is different in kind from the first. Source

domains for metaphorical concepts come from our everyday bodily perception

and movement. We appropriate the structure of those bodily and spatial source

domains to make sense of various target domains. In the MUSIC

IS

ARCID

TECTURE metaphor, the source domain is our experience

and

knowledge

of

architectural structures, which provides the basis for conceptualizing musical form

(the target domain) as a specific type of physical structure. Conceptual meta

phors define some ofour most important abstract concepts and playa crucial role

in how we understand our experience. s we will see, the logic of certain

metaphors shapes our understanding

of

musical structure and constrains the in-



RCHITECTUR L MET PHORS

IN MUSIC

145

ferences

we make

in

reasoning about such

structure. Indeed,

every

robust

conceptualization of musical structure

we

have is defined

via

one or more

systematic body-based conceptual metaphors. Without these metaphors

we

would

have no satisfactory

way

to make sense

of

our most basic musical experiences

and concepts.

t should

be

observed that conceptual metaphor theory directly contradicts

classical theories

of

metaphor,

as

well as most

of

the prevailing, recent views

of

metaphor in linguistics, psychology, and philosophy. Traditional theories

of

lan

guage treat metaphor

as

a ''figure

of

speech having no serious cognitive import.

Metaphor is relegated

to

a deviant (non-literal) use

of

a term to highlight literal

similarities between the source and target.

On

this view, metaphors are merely

fancy linguistic expressions used for style and charm, but they are regarded

as

having no serious conceptual or theoretical import. According

to

this classical

view, there could e nothing cognitively n ~ i s p e n s b l e about metaphor, beyond its

rhetorical or didactic value. So, to grant that we use metaphorical language to

talk

about music would

be

to say nothing about musical structure itself, nothing

about how we experience and conceptualize music.

t

would be neither possible nor useful here to survey the history

of

metaphor

theory and the attendant views

of

thought and language. For a detailed account

of

traditional theories, see George Lakoff and Mark Turner.

For

a comparison

of

traditional theories with the theory

of

conceptual metaphor, see

Lakoff

and Johnson

(1999).

In stark contrast

to

the traditional view

of

metaphor, the theory

of

conceptual

metaphor recognizes

the

essential role of metaphors

in

our abstract

conceptualization and reasoning. The metaphors that we

use

(mostly uncon

sciously) are not dispensable; that is, they cannot

be

replaced

by

literal concepts.

Rather, they characterize

our

most fundamental conceptions, and they provide

the primary means. for analyzing and reasoning about our experience. In other

words, conceptual metaphors are constitutive

of our

understanding

of

abstract

concepts.

If

we

try

to discard a particular metaphor, we will have to replace it

with some other metaphor.

Consequently,

if

metaphor lies at the heart

of

our musical understanding, then

in order to theorize about music reflectively, we

must

examine the underlying

metaphorical concepts we are using. This will involve an analysis

of

the

ways

particular metaphors structure

our

knowledge

of

musical experience,

and

it will

require a deep understanding

of

how these metaphors constrain our reasoning.

In this essay, we will focus on the internal structure and implications

of

one

particular metaphor that is used

for

musical form, namely,

the MUSI

IS

ARCIDTECTURE metaphor. We argue that this specific metaphor is

. 'pervasive in our thinking

about

music

'pervasive in our thinking in music

. often imperceptible to our conscious awareness

'systematic, with logical entailments



46

YEARBOOK

OF

COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE

50

·culturally shaped

·physically grounded

·constitutive

of

our musical experience

·less well structured than certain other metaphors for music, and yet essen

tial to those other musical metaphors

RCHITECTUR L METAPHORS A SYSTEM OF M PPINGS

In the mappings described by the theory of conceptual metaphor, elements of the

source domain (in this case, architecture) are mapped onto elements

of

the

target domain (in this case, music). The implication, in each case, is that when

we understand some element of the target domain in terms of some element of

the source domain, we import our relevant knowledge of the source domain onto

the target. In other words, we are not merely noting a similarity between two

elements

of

the domains. Rather, we import whole sets

of

inferences and entail

ments from the source domain that then shape our reasoning about the target

domain. We make that creative construction of meaning that Douglas Hofstadter

writes about: we see as

Whenever we understand the structure

of

a musical work as an architectural

entity, we are simply applying, as a source domain, an even more comprehensive

metaphor, whereby we understand functional or logical organization as physical

structure. The ORGANIZATION IS- PHYSICAL STRUCTURE metaphor is

what Joe Grady has named a primary metaphor We learn primary metaphors

simply and naturally because they are based on recurring correlations between

certain sensory-motor experiences, on the one hand, and subjective experiences

arid judgments that we make, on the other. For example, the IMPORTANT IS

BIG metaphor develops from a child's (and adult's) experience

of

big things

having significant impact on us. This repeated experiential correlation provides

the basis for the later metaphorical conception of physically big things as being

important, as in He thinks he's a big man on campus, Global wanning is a

huge problem

we ve

got to address, and The peace talks were a colossal

failure. (Notice that it is because Schenker regards the Sarabande he describes

in the quote above as an aesthetically important work that he describes its struc

ture as gigantic --even though the Sarabande is only twenty-four measures

long.) Grady has identified scores of these common primary metaphors and has

shown how we use them to build up and to articulate other systematic metaphors.

The ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE primary metaphor is

so basic to our understanding that we tend not to recognize its pervasive role in

our thinking, or even to recognize it as a metaphor. It is grounded on our experi

ence ofcorrelations between physical structures and abstract (logical or functional)

organization. For example, we routinely encounter the functional properties ofan

object as connected to its physical structure, such as when the parts and relations

of parts within. an automobile are the basis for its functional properties. Such

experiences, encountered by people thousands

of

imes each day, give rise to our



RCHITECTUR L

MET PHORS

IN

MUSIC

47

understanding

of

abstract organization as physical structure. Thus we say, Show

me how the parts of your theory fit together, and How does that premise

support your conclusion?

The MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor is a special case of the

ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE metaphor.

We

specify the

'physical structure' as an architectural entity, such as a building. By defining the

particular type of physical structure a building we make available a number

of quite determinate properties and relations

in

the source domain that can be

mapped onto the target domain. The MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor

includes the following source-to-target mappings:

Mappings in the MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor

SOURCE DOMAIN

(Architecture)

Structure or building

Process of construction

Span

Vertical spatial dimension

Vertical spacing

Horizontal spatial dimension

Horizontal spacing

Structure vs. ornament

Foundation

Supporting members

Pillars

Support

Passage

Arch

Base

Bridge

Physical forces

Balance

Symmetry

TARGETDOMAIN

(Music)

Piece

of

music

Building to climax, etc.

Interval

Interval size

Registral spacing

Temporal duration

Rhythm

Structure vs. ornament

Underlying structure

Stable hannonic

or

formal elements

Pillars ofharmony

Harmonic or contrapuntal support

Musical passage

Melodic arch

or

arch form

Bass voice, base of melodic action

Bridge (passage or section)

Musical forces

Processive and formal balance

Symmetry in pitches

or

durations



148

YEARBOOK OF

COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL

LITERATURE

50

Let

us

examine some

of

these mappings in more detail, in order to show how

their consistent logic and inherited entailments shape our thinking about music

and our experience of music.

Consider, first, the submapping that concerns the act of uilding or con-

structing the overall structure. There are two major interpretations of he building

process: (1) we understand the composition

of

a piece as the act

of

constructing

an architectural entity, or (2) we might conceptualize the musical processes them

selves as building musical intensity within a piece,

or

as building to a climax.

The MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor permits us to view a musical

work as a fixed structure open to our view (and analysis). But music is not liter

ally present all at once; we experience it diachronically, that is, in and through

time. So, when we need to consider the entire musical work synchronically, that

is, all-at-once, the ARCHITECTURE metaphor makes this possible, because the

structure can be regarded as a fixed entity. However, the ARCHITECTURE

metaphor is not the only means we have for treating the work as

an

object that

we can perceive in one glance. Other specifications

of

the ORGANIZATION

IS

PHYSICAL STRUCTURE metaphor provide alternative ways of conceiving

the overall pattern of the musical piece. For example, we often speak of shape

in music, as in an up-then-down melodic shape. Music does not literally have

physical shape. The source domain for the metaphor of melodic shape is that

of

physical

objects a

category that includes, but is not limited to, architectural

objects. In the quotation above, Schenker refers not

just

to architecture, but also

to painting. Regardless of whether the musical structure is understood as a spe

cific architectural object

or

as an unspecified physical object, the value

of

such

metaphors lies in the way they make it possible for us to conceptualize the musi

cal work as a single complex entity. The important point is that these metaphors

allow

us

to understand pieces

of

music as possessing the kinds

of

relationships

that shape fixed objects.

Another important submapping concerns the source-domain notion of an

architectural span, which applies to music in at least two. different ways. First,

when we map physical space onto pitch space, the high and low of physical

height are mapped onto pitch height, and the vertical spacing of architectural

elements becomes the registral spacing

of

musical notes. e g i s ~ l spacing is the

way that notes are distributed across the range of possible frequency.

In

typical

registral spacing, notes in lower registers are further apart and notes in higher

registers are closer together just as in a typical architectural structure, lower

(typically more massive) elements are further apart and higher elements are closer

together. Scanning the score

of

the Sarabande mentioned by Schenker reveals

that the intervals between higher notes tend to be smaller than those between

lower notes, and that the higher notes are more f r ~ q u n t than the lower. Second,

when we map physical space onto musical time, short and long physical distances

map onto short and long durations, and the horizontal spacing of architectural

elements becomes the rhythm

of

musical events.



RCHITECTUR L MET PHORS N MUSIC

49

Another central distinction in music draws on the architectural relation of

basic structure to ornament. Whenever we hear a passage of music repeated, we

compare the repetition to our memory of the passage as first heard. Music often

creates interesting effects by presenting varied repetitions. Sometimes passages

are repeated and varied immediately. Sometimes the varied repetition occurs

across intervening music. And sometimes, whole

pieces-for

example, those in

. theme and variation form-are based on varied repetition. It is easiest to hear

one passage as a varied repetition

of

another when the varied passage sounds

like an ornamented version of the passage as first heard.

This distinction between structure and ornament is also central in Schenker's

theory. Example 1 Schenker's analysis

of

the Cello Suite movement referred to

above, represents the whole piece

in

a series ofhierarchical levels. The first level

(Example la is a descending scale (harmonized

in

a particular way). Each sub

sequent, increasingly elaborate level may be thought

of

as generated from the

previous level by a process

ofadding notes that could be called ornaments (most

of

these tones function as what musicians call passing or neighbor notes). Ex

ample 2, the piece itself, in all its detail, would be the next level in this process. On

all but the first of these levels, the square brackets show the appearance of a

distinctive ornament called a suspension. In the piece itself, this ornament also

elaborates the

very.

first measure.

The comparatively basic levels in Schenker's analysis may be regarded as

the foundation

of

the

piece-they

constitute the underlying structure. Its ele

ments are the most stable ones (harmonically and formally) in the piece; like the

supporting members of a building, musicians call them the pillars of the har

monic structure. As in an architectural structure, when such pillars are clear and

well-spaced, we experience the work as stable and well-made because of the

way

in

which it rests solidly on those pillars.

Music theorists take this metaphor a step further. They insist that an analysis,

such as the one in Example

1

must be logically consistent in its choice of these

pillars. Only certain chords-the most stable one

?-.can

serve as pillars. An analysis

may raise questions amongst theorists

if

it includes an unsupported stretch. In

other words, the logic of the source domain

of

architecture constrains the music

theorist's thinking about musical structure by requiring an analogous stability

in

musical pillars. In order to support their arguments about the structure of a

piece, Schenkerian analysts will appeal to musical concepts (such as harmonic

support or contrapuntal support ).

Those who believe they can do without metaphorical concepts, but who also

experience music deeply, may be tempted to say that, while architecture rests

on its pillars, music moves between its pillars. But this just substitutes a differ

ent

metaphor-that

ofmusical motion. Music does not literally move. But it does

move metaphorically, according to a complex set

of

metaphors in which musical

motion is conceived as physical motion. (See Johnson and Larson for a detailed

analysis of three basic metaphors of musical motion).



150 YEARBOOK

OF COMPARATIVE

AND

GENERAL

LITERATURE

50

There are other theorists who, without disputing the key role

of

metaphor in

making sense

of

musical experience, still regard architectural metaphors as inap

propriate for conceptualizing music. Jerrold Levinson, for instance; argues that

what we value in music are its immediate

connections- music

in the

momenf'

and he is critical

of

he idea that architectural structures, such as those described

by Schenker, are important to the aesthetic experience

of

music. Our point here

is not so much to disagree with Levinson's valuing

of

certain modes

of

listening

(which necessarily amounts to valuing certain metaphors), but to suggest that

architectural metaphors are nevertheless unavoidable (see also Cox).

In fact, the metaphor

of

musical motion seems necessarily to draw in other

metaphors-including

architectural metaphors. Consider the term passage. One

can pass through an architectural structure (diachronically). And

if

we look

(synchronically) at a portion

of

that structure, we may call it a passage. Partly

because

of our

knowledge

of

the source domain

of

physical motion,

we

cannot

conceive of any sort of diachronic motion without conceiving of a synchronic

path for that motion. In other words, the diachronic and synchronic metaphors for

music seem importantly intertwined. Thus, after experiencing a bit of music as

diachronic motion, we also typically refer to that bit

of

music synchronically as a

passage.

Furthermore, a passage,

or

even a whole piece, may be described metaphori

cally as an arch. It is common to speak

of

a melodic arch or to describe the

form

of

a whole piece as an arch. (The description of the path

of

a melody in

terms

of

the arc

of

a thrown ball is

n o ~ h e r

common metaphor,

and is

related,

but

belongs to a different system

of

metaphors.) Marion Guck offers an insightful

discussion

of

this metaphor through an analysis

of

Chopin's Prelude in B minor.

She speaks

of

the mapping

of

physical space onto musical space,

of

the arch

shapes

of

individual melodic shapes,

of

the gestural arches

of

phrases, and the

overall arch

of

the narrative curve

of

this piece. Thus,

just

as

in a building, musi

cal arches may contain arches within arches. And,

just

as it did for Schenker,

architecture provides a model

of

hierarchical structure in music.

Our

point here is

that we conceptualize and reason about musical structure by means

of our

expe

rience and knowledge ofphysical structures, including architecture; in other words,

the metaphors are actually doing conceptual work for us.

Likewise, when the architectural term base becomes

the

baSis

for

a musi

cal term, it brings with it the consistent entailments that derive from its source

domain. If we perceive a certain pitch as a base of melodic action, we are likely

to experience it as below the other pitches, we are likely to experience it

as

more stable than the other pitches, and

we

are likely to experience the other

pitches

in

relation to that base (rather than vice versa). In fact, the lowest vocal

or

instrumental part in a texture is also called a bass. All

of

these entailments

vis-a.-vis melodic structure may thus draw upon

our

knowledge about physical

base structures in buildings.

Another submapping involves the architectural notion

of

a bridge. In the

target donlain

of

music, the bridge

of

a popular song is the B section

of

its

AABA form. More generally, a bridge passage is a transitional bit

of

music that



RCHITECTUR L MET PHORS IN MUSIC

5

connects two other sections of music and that carries us from one of those sec

tions to the other. In asking the question What makes a good bridge? Larson

makes the MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor explicit and notes that good

musical bridges and good architectural bridges share the foIlowing characteris

tics: they differ from the paths they connect, but are part of a single path; they

direct motion along a more-restricted path with a clear goal; they are (unlike the

places they connect) not a place to stop; they connect more stable areas; they

cross some contrasting terrain or obstacle; they tend to be balanced and sym

metrical, yet open-ended, structures; they are more comfortable to travel on if

they are structurally sound; and they are more desirable to travel on if they take

you where you want to go.

Another important entailment of the architectural metaphors we have dis

cussed so far derives from the fact that physical structures are influenced by

physical forces. An architectural structure must be built to withstand the forces

of gravity, wind, and so on. And, as Rudolf Arnheim (1977) has pointed out,

architecture must not only stand up to physical forces, but

it is

also more success

ful

as art if its appearance communicates a relationship with those forces,

as

this

reinforces our perception

of

the use and function

of

the building.

The entailed forces appear as musical analogues to gravity, magnetism, and

inertia. Recent research on these musical forces makes this set

of

metaphori

cal entailments explicit. RudolfAmheim (1986), Candace Brower, Robert Hurwitz

and Steve Larson, Steve Larson, Fred LerdahI (1996 and 2001), William Pelto,

a nd

Leigh VanHandel and Steve Larson have used the idea

of

musical forces to

illuminate issues

of

heory, analysis, cognition, and pedagogy.

In measure 4

of

the Sarabande mentioned above, G passes through

F

to E In

so doing it gives in to ail three forces. Musical gravity (the tendency

of

notes to

descend) pulls the F to E Musical magnetism (the tendency to move to the clos

est stable pitch) pulls the F to E. And musical inertia (the tendency for a pattern

of

motion to continue in the same direction) also pulls the F to E Because all

three forces suggest that the C-B-Bb-A of measures

1-2

will lead to a

G

on the

downbeat

of

measure 3, we hear the G as implied there (thus the G appears

in

parentheses

in

Example Id, measure 3). In other situations, the musical forces

may disagree with one another. The ascending sequence in measures 20-23

gives

in

to inertia but goes against

g r v i t y ~

The sense of effort

in

overcoming

gravity contributes to our experience of the expressive meaning of this passage.

t is in the context of such forces which Arnheinl refers to as dynamic

perceptual

tendencies that

aesthetic issues concerning symmetry and balance

arise.

To

discu,ss or experience symmetry

or

balance

in

architecture or music we

must necessarily draw on our embodied knowledge of interacting forces.

That knowledge is, of course, shaped by culture. Different cultures produce

different types of architecture. And different types of architecture may lead to

different types of architectural metaphors.

This system of mappings given above for the MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE

metaphor is· thus centrally important to music discourse and music experience.

As we have seen, it is a complex of inter-related mappings that shape the way



152

YE RBOOK OF COMP R TIVE ND GENER L LITERAWRE

50

we conceptualize and reason about musical fonn. Nevertheless, we saw that the

system

of

mappings is only partial. There are some entities in the source domain

that are not carried over into the target domain. Many architectural

tenns

have

no clear musical analogues.

To

refer to a musical window, door, tower, or

castle would require novel extensions within that target· domain. There is no

obvious musical analogy for the architectural split-level, mansion,

or

con

struction worker.

Nevertheless, whether we are conscious

of

them or not, architectural meta

phors play and important role in music discourse and in music experience, both in

our ordinary understanding and equally in sophisticated musical theory. Talking

about music may be like dancing about architecture, in more ways that Zappa

intended. Talking about music and even dancing to i t is richer because of

architectural metaphors.

University

o

regon



ARCHITECTURAL MET PHORS IN MUSIC

53

WORKS ITED

Arnheim, Rudolf. The Dynamics ofArchitectural Form: Based on the 1975 Mary Duke Biddle

Lectures at the Cooper Union. Berkeley: U ofCalifornia P 1977.

.

Perceptual Dynamics in Musical Expression. In New Essays on the Psychology of Art.

Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: U of California

P

1986.

Brower, Candace. Pathway, Blockage, and Containment in Density 21.5. Theory

and

Practice

(1997-98): 22-23, 35-54.

.

A Cognitive Theory of Musical Meaning. Journal ofMusic Theory 44/2 (2000): 323-79.

Cox, Arnie. Imagined Meaning in Immediate and Reflective Musical Experience. Music Percep

tion 16/4 (1999): 467-73.

Gibbs, Raymond.

The Poetics

o f

Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding.

Cambridge; New York: Cambridge

UP

1994.

Grady, Joseph. Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Diss. U of

California, ~ e r k e l e y 1997.

Guck, Marion. Two Types

of

Metamorphic Transfer. In Music

and

Meaning. Ed. J. Robinson.

Ithaca: Cornell Up 1997.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. Metamagical Themas: Quest ingfor the Essence ofMind and Pattern. New

York: Basic Books, 1985.

Hurwitz, Robert I. and Steve Larson. Step Collections

in

Aural Theory. Applying a Theory of

Expressive Meaning in the Written- and Aural-Theory Classrooms. National Meeting

of

the

College Music Society. Savannah. 1994.

Johnson, Mark, and Steve Larson. 'Something in the Way She M o v e s - M ~ t a p h o r s

of

Musical

Motion. Metaphor and Symbol 1812 (2003): 63-84.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U

of

Chicago

P

1980.

Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New

York:

Basic Books, 1999.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.

Chicago: U ofChicago P 1989.

Larson, Steve. Computer Models of Melodic Implication and Key Determination in Tonal

Music. The Society for Music Perception and Cognition. Philadelphia. 1993.

Modeling Melodic Expectation: Using Three 'Musical Forces' to Predict Melodic Continu

ations.

Proceedings

of

he Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science

SOCiety

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.

.

'On Rudolf Amheim's Contributions to Music Theory. Journal ofAesthetic Education 27/4

(1993): 97-104.

.

Another Look

at.

Schenker's

Counterpoint. Indiana Theory Review

15/1 (1994): 35-52.

.

Musical Forces, Step Collections, Tonal Pitch Space, and Melodic Expectation. Proceed-

ings

of

he Third International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition. Liege, 1994.

. Expert

Expectations: Professional Theorists' Continuations Compared with a Computer

,Model of Musical Forces. Current Research in Music Cognition and Aural Training [post

er]. National Meeting of the Society for Music Theory. Baton Rouge. 1996.

. The

Problem of Prolongation in Tonal Music: Terminology, Perception, and Expressive

Meaning. Journal ofMusic Theory 4111 (1997): ,101-36.

. Musical Forces and Melodic Patterns. Theory

and

Practice 22-23 (1997-98): 55-71.

.

Musica l Imagery and Melodic Expectation. Conference on Musical Imagery. Oslo, Norway.

1999.

. Swing and Motive in Three Performances by Oscar Peterson. [In Analysis Forum on Cole

Porter's Night and Day. ] Journal ofMusic Theory 43/2 (1999): 283-313.

.

Musical Forces, Melodic Expectation, and Jazz Melody. Music Perception 19/3 (2002):

351-85.

.

Musical Forces and Melodic Expectation: Comparing Computer Models and Experimental

Results. Music Perception. (forthcoming)



154

YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND

GENERAL

LITERATURE 50

. WhatMakes a Good Bridge?

Tijdschrift voor MusiektheorielDutch Journal ofMusic Theory

8/1 (2003): 115.

Lerdahl, Fred. Calculating Tonal Tension. Music Perception 13/3 (1996): 319-63.

.

Tonal Pitch Space

New York; Oxford: Oxford Up, 2001.

Levinson, Jerrold. Music in the Moment Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1997.

Pelto, William. An Alternative to Rule Memorization for Written Theory. Applying a Theory

of

Expressive Meaning in the Written- and Aural-Theory Classrooms. National Meeting

of

the College Music Society. Savannah. J994.

Schenker, Heinrich. The Sarabande

of

J S Bach's Suite No.3 for Unaccompanied Violoncello,

[BWV 1009]. Trans. Hedi Siegel. The Music Forum Ed. WilIiam 1 Mitchell and Felix Salzer.

Vol 2 New

York; London: Columbia Up, 1970.

Turner, Mark. Reading Minds: The Study

of

English in the

ge

ofCognitive Science Princeton:

Princeton Up, 1991. .

Van

Handel, Leigh, and Steve Larson. MeaSuring Musical Forces. Art Meets Science. Special

Joint Session

of

the Society for Music Theory and the Society for Music Perception and

Cognition. Musical Intersections. 2000

Architectural Metaphors in Music Discourse and Music Experience - Steve Larson

Documents

Transcript of Architectural Metaphors in Music Discourse and Music Experience - Steve Larson