Lerdahl (1983) An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music

University of California Press
An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music

Author(s): Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff
Source: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, Hierarchical Structure in
Music (Winter, 1983/1984), pp. 229-252
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40285257
Accessed: 25-10-2015 08:02 UTC
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
This content downloaded from 128.111.121.42 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 08:02:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Music Perception 1984 by the regents of the
Winter 1983-84, Vol. 1, No. 2, 229-252 university of California
An Overviewof HierarchicalStructurein Music
FRED LERDAHL
Columbia University
RAY JACKENDOFF
Brandeis University
Afterreviewingtheirtheoreticalapproach,theauthorspresentfourkinds
of hierarchicalstructurein music:groupingstructure,metricalstructure,
time-spanreduction,andprolongationalreduction.A musicalanalysisis
givento illustratethesestructures.Intheensuingdiscussion,comparison
is madewith Schenker'stheory,the nonoverlapping conditionon hierar-
chies is considered,and relationshipsamong the hierarchical,associa-
tional,andimplicativedimensionsof musicalstructurearementioned.
our book, A generative theory of tonal music (henceforth GTTM), we

propose a detailed theory of musical hierarchies.1 In this paper we (1)
sketch our theoretical approach, (2) present some essentials of the theory
through an analysis of a Bach chorale, and (3) discuss some general ques-
tions about musical hierarchies arising from the analysis.
Theoretical Perspective
GTTM develops a grammar of tonal music based in part on the goals,

though not the content, of generative linguistics. The grammar is intended
to model musical intuition. It takes the form of explicit rules that assign, or
"generate," heard structures from musical surfaces. By "musical surface"
we mean, broadly, the physical signal of a piece when it is played. By "heard
structure"we mean all the structure a listener unconsciously infers when he
FredLerdahlis a composerandassociateprofessorof musicat ColumbiaUniversity.Ray

Jackendoffis professorof linguisticsand chairof the Programin Linguisticsand Cognitive
Scienceat BrandeisUniversity.Inadditionto hisworkwithFredLerdahlon musictheory,he
is the authorof Semanticinterpretationin generativegrammar,X-Barsyntax,and Seman-
tics and cognition.
Requestsfor reprintsmay be sent to FredLerdahl,Departmentof Music, Columbia
University,New York,New York10027, or RayJackendoff,Departmentof English,Bran-
deisUniversity,Waltham,Massachusetts02154.
229
230 Fred Lerdahland Ray Jackendoff
listensto andunderstandsa piece,aboveandbeyondthedataof thephysical

signal.
There are two relatedways in which the theory differsfrom previous
music theories.First,it is psychological,in that it attemptsto explicatea
cognitivecapacity.Listenershearcertainstructuresratherthanothers.How
can these structuresbe characterized,and by what principlesdoes the lis-
tenerarriveat them?One would ultimatelyhope to specifythose cognitive
principles,or "universals,"that underlieall musicallistening,regardlessof
musical style or acculturation.Second, the theory attemptsto produce
formal descriptionsin a scientificsense. That is, the goal is not just the
descriptionof formalrelations,as happensin mathematicsand in certain
recentvarietiesof music theory.Rather,the descriptionspertainto some-
thingin the "real"world- eventhough,in thiscase,the realityis mental.
Thusthe theoryis predictive.In additionto criteriaof internalcoherence
and parsimony,its principlescan be verifiedor falsifiedby comparingthe
analysesit generateswith one'sintuitionsaboutparticularpiecesof music.
In addition,many of its principlescan be investigatedthroughlaboratory
experiment.
Implicitin this programof researchare two simplifyingidealizations
familiarto cognitivescience. First,we assumean "experiencedlistener."
Obviously,no two listenersareexactlyalike,nor are any two listeningsby
the samelistener.But once a listeneris familiarwith a musicalidiom, he is
highly constrainedin the ways he hears a piece in the idiom. A theoryof
musicalunderstandingneedsto characterizethesecommonconstraintsas a
foundationfor the study of individualdifferencesin hearing.Second,the
theoryprovidesstructuraldescriptionsonly for the finalstateof a listener's
understandingof a piece.Inour judgment,a substantivetheoryof real-time
listeningprocessescannot be constructedwithout first consideringwhat
informationtheseprocessesmustdeliver.2
The theoryis at presentrestrictedin scope in two importantways. First,
it focuseson classicaltonal music.One cannothope to addressin any deep
way the questionof musicaluniversalswithout first developinga precise
1. Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983). Also see Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1977, 1981), Jack-
endoff and Lerdahl (1981, 1982).
2. This idealization corresponds to one sense of Chomsky's (1965) notion of "compe-

tence." It is also parallel to Marr's (1981) pursuit of a "computational" level of description
in the theory of vision. Marr shows how nearly every previous theory of visual processing
has failed because of inadequate attention to this aspect of the problem. Along with Chomsky
and Marr, we do not disparage theories of real-time processing; they are an essential part of
a complete psychological theory. But, methodologically, it appears crucial to characterize
mental structures before asking how they are computed over time (see Jackendoff, in press,
for more extended remarks).
An Overviewof HierarchicalStructurein Music 23 1
theoryof at least one complexmusicalidiom. (However,evidencetoward

the analysisof othertonalidiomsappearsat a numberof pointsin GTTM.)
Second,the presentform of the grammardeals explicitlywith only those
aspectsof heardstructurethatarehierarchical.
Byhierarchywe meanan organizationcomposedof discreteelements(or
regions)relatedin such a way that one elementmay subsumeor contain
otherelements.Theelementscannotoverlap;at anygivenhierarchicallevel
the elementsmustbe adjacent;andthe relationof subsumingor containing
cancontinuerecursivelyfromlevelto level.
Ourtheoryproposesthat fourtypesof hierarchicalstructureare associ-
atedwith a tonal piece. Groupingstructuredescribesthe listener'ssegmen-
tation of the musicinto units of varioussizes. Metricalstructuredescribes
the hierarchyof beatsthat he attributesto the music.Time-spanreduction
establishesthe relativestructuralimportanceof pitch-eventswithin the
heardrhythmicunits of a piece. Prolongationalreductiondevelopsa hier-
archyof pitchstabilityin termsof perceivedpatternsof tensionand relaxa-
tion. (Thislast componentis the closestequivalentin our theoryto Schenk-
erianreduction.)
Eachof thesestructuresis describedformallyby a separatecomponentof
themusicalgrammar,andwithineachcomponenttherearethreeruletypes.
Well-formedness rules(WFRs)providetheconditionsforhierarchicalstruc-
ture for each component. Transformationalrules (TRs) permit a con-
strainedclass of modificationson musicalsurfacesso that certainappar-
ently ill-formedphenomena(suchas groupingoverlapand elision)can be
treated as well-formed.Preferencerules (PRs) establish which formally
possible structurescorrespondto the listener'sactual hearingof a given
piece. Thus WFRs and TRs describeformal conditions, and PRs relate
formalconditionsto particularmusicalsurfaces.
It is impossiblewithinthe spaceof this paperto explainthe actualrules.
Buta few wordsshouldbe includedhereaboutthe natureof the PRs,since
they are an innovationas a rule-typewithin generativegrammars.These
rules, which do the major work of analysiswithin the theory, pick out
featuresin musicalpassagesthat influencethe listener'sintuitions.In the
groupingcomponent, for example, one grouping PR marks a potential
groupingboundaryat a pausein the music;anotherdetectsthematicparal-
lelism betweentwo groupswhich are potentiallyfar apartat the musical
surface;a thirdencodesthe effectof large-scalepitchstructureon grouping
decisions.As these instancessuggest, some PRs are local in application,
othersare global, and some relateeffectsacrossthe four components.Out
of this processemergesthe most "preferred," or most coherent,analysisor
analysesfor the piecein question.Generally,a musicalpassagein whichthe
variousrulesare mutuallyreinforcingstrikesthe listeneras clearor stereo-
typical.Wherethe rulesconflict,on the other hand, the musicalstructure

seemsvagueor ambiguous,andmorethanone overallstructuraldescription
maybe assigned.
Thusthe grammarmarksnot the categoricalcorrectnessor incorrectness
of an analysisbut ratherits relativeviability.Althoughthis characteristic
may seem unusualby comparisonwith standardlinguisticgrammars,it is
quite normalin theoriesof vision (see Koffka,1935 and Marr, 1981, for
example)and appearsto be ubiquitousin cognitivesystems(see GTTM,
andJackendoff, in press).
An Analysis
Weturnnow to a rule-generatedanalysisof the Bachchorale,"Ichbin's,
ich sollte biissen" (from the St. MatthewPassion).We have chosen this
piece becauseit is shortyet musicallyrich,and is easy to play at the piano;
moreover,some readersmay wish to makea comparisonwith Schenker's
(1932) analysis.Ourexplanationswill be brief;thereaderis urgedto follow
the intuitivesense of the examples.For those interestedin pursuingmore
closelythe workingsof the grammar,we will notatein parenthesesthe rules
of GTTMthatapplymost critically.
GroupingStructure
Whenhearinga musicalsurface,listenerschunkit into motives,phrases,
and sections.We representgroupsby slursplacedbeneaththe musicin an
embeddedfashion.Figure1 givesthe musicof "Ichbin's. . ." togetherwith
its groupinganalysis.
As with mostBachchorales,the groupingof "Ichbin's. . ." is simpleand
unambiguous.Thereareno salientgroupingsbeneaththe phraselevel.The
phrase endings are markedby fermatas(GPR2a and perhapsGPR 2b,
dependingon whetherthe fermatasare interpretedjust as indicatorsfor
breathingor also as actual"holds")andby cadences(GPR7 in conjunction
with TSRPR7). At largerlevelsthe phrasesareorganizedby a high degree
of symmetryand parallelism(GPRs5 and 6). In particular,the secondhalf
of the pieceis melodicallyalmostidenticalto the firsthalf: phrasesa and b
are repeatedin phrasesd and e, and phrasef completesphrasec. These
considerationsgrouptogethera andb intog, andd ande into h; similarly,g
and c groupinto /, andh and/into /'.Finally,the whole pieceis perceivedas
a group(groupk) (GWFR2).
MetricalStructure
Insofaras the signalpermits,the listenerinfersfroma musicalsurfacea
hierarchyof strongand weak beats. In the classicaltonal idiom, beats are
/';-=09 )(8*=-0/']
234 Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff
Figure 2.
equidistant,and strongbeats occur everytwo or three beats apartat any

givenmetricallevel.If a beatat a particularlevelis felt to be strong,it is also
a beat at the next largerlevel;this is how metricalstructureis hierarchical.
The notatedmeter,which of courseis not heardas such but is a visualcue
for theperformer,usuallyindicatesan intermediatemetricallevel.
Becausebeats do not have durationbut are points in time, we notate
metricalstructureby rows of dots, as in Figure2. Here beats2, 3, 5, and 6
areweak,andarebeatsonly at the eighth-notelevel;beat4 is stronger,and,
alongwith beat 1, is also a beatat the dottedquarter-notelevel;beat 1 is the
strongest,andis also a beatat the dottedhalf-notelevel.3
The metricalstructureof "Ichbin's . . .", shown in Figure3 for the first
phraseonly, derivesin a straightforwardfashion.The phrasesare of equal
length and exhibit considerableparallelism,so the derivationfor the first
phrasesufficesfor the whole piece (MPR1). Here the attackpatternsand
the regularharmonicrhythmclearlyestablishthe quarter-notelevel (MPRs
3 and 5f ). At the half-notelevelthereis a momentaryambiguitydue to the
occurrenceof the identicaltonic sonoritythreeand then four beats apart
(MPR9): it is initiallyunclearthat the openingtonic is to be heardas an
upbeat.Buttheprolongationof boththebassandtheharmonyin thesecond
half of measure1 (MPRs5e and 6, MPR 5f), plus the long note in the
melodyandthe suspensionat the beginningof measure2 (MPRs5a and 8),
all conspireto establishthehalf-notelevelas notated.Thelong melodicnote
and the suspensionalso supportthe givenmetricalstructureat the whole-
note level. This choice is reinforcedby the generalpreferencefor strong
beatsrelativelyearlyin a phrase(MPR2); the otherpossiblechoicefor the
whole-notelevelwouldleadto an anacrusisthreequarterslong, a lessstable
situation.
3. This notation is preferable to the traditional prosodic notation (-v-/), which obscures
the relationship between strength of beat and hierarchicallevel. In Cooper and Meyer (1960),
matters are furthercomplicated by the intermingling of prosodic notation with the properties
of grouping structure (see GTTM for furtherdiscussion).
An Overview of Hierarchical Structurein Music 235
Figure 3.
To the analysis in Figure 3, Figure 4 adds the time-span segmentation,

which describes the apprehended rhythmic units produced by the interac-
tion of grouping and meter. Weak beats are bracketed with the previous
strong beats as afterbeats, unless grouping boundaries intervene, in which
case they are bracketed as upbeats to the following strong beats. Besides
capturing the distinction between upbeats and afterbeats, the time-span
segmentation serves as input to the time-span reduction, as will be seen
shortly.
Reductions
A reduction in music theory is a way to represent hierarchical relation-
ships among pitches in a piece. Pitches perceived as relatively embellishing
can be "reduced out" recursively,leaving at each stage a simplified residue
of structurally more important material. At the end of this process only one
event remains- the most stable structure, or tonic. The term "tonal" can be
broadly defined as referring to music that is heard in such a hierarchical
fashion.
In our theory we have tightened the notion of reduction by adding the
following conditions: (a) pitch-events are heard in a strict (nonoverlapping)
hierarchy; (b) structurallyless important events are heard as elaborations of
specific more important events, rather than simply as insertions or interpo-
lations between more important events. Time-span reduction and prolon-
gational reduction, while expressing different musical intuitions, both fulfill
these conditions.
We notate reductions by means of trees. A right branch such as el in
Figure 5 signifies an event that is subordinate to a preceding event; a left
Figure 4.
branchsuchas e3 signifiesan eventthatis subordinateto a succeedingevent.

More specifically,el in Figure5 is subordinateto (or embellishes)el, e3 is
subordinateto e4, and e4 is subordinateto el. Thus thereis an underlying
levelin which el and e3 havebeenreducedout and in which e4 is adjacent
to el.
Unlikesyntactictreesin linguistictheory,reductionaltreesdo not express
grammaticalcategories.Linguistictreesrepresentis-a relations:an adjec-
tiveplus a noun is a nounphrase,a verbplusa nounphraseis a verbphrase,
andso forth.A grammaticalcategorycombineswith anotherto forma third
grammaticalcategory.Musicaltrees, by contrast,representelaborational
relations:e3 (Figure5) elaboratese4, e4 elaboratesel, and so forth. An
elaboratedevent does not disappearor change from level to level, but
proceedsintact up the tree until it too is an elaboration.The absenceof
grammaticalcategoriesin musicmarksa profounddifferencebetweenmu-
sic andlanguage.4
4. The elaborational nature of pitch hierarchiesand the absence of grammatical categories

in music are confirmed by more than 400 years of music theory. For support of this view from
a psychological standpoint, see Deutsch and Feroe (1981). On the other hand, see Keiler
(1977) for a music-theoretic approach based on quasi-linguistic trees.
Figure 5.
Time-span Reduction
Time-span reduction expresses the way in which pitch-events are heard
in the context of hierarchically organized rhythmic units. As suggested by
Figure4, these units, or time-spans, are determined by metrical structure at
the most local levels, by a combination of meter and grouping at intermedi-
ate levels, and by grouping structure at large levels. Within each unit, events
are compared in terms of mutual "stability," depending on such factors as
the metrical position of the events, their intervallic configurations, voice-
leading properties, and so forth. Starting at the most local levels, the most
stable event in a unit is selected as head; other events in the unit are elabora-
tions of the head, and are reduced out. Each head then goes on to the next
larger time-span for comparison against another head from another time-
span; and so on, until a single event is head for the whole piece.
Figure 6 illustrates for the first phrase of the chorale. Since the tree
notation is unfamiliar, we include in the example a more traditional reduc-
tional notation beneath the music. The correspondence between the two
notations is indicated by the labeling of the time-spans by level, of the nodes
in the tree, and of the levels in the musical notation. For instance, level b in
the musical notation consists of the heads of the time-spans labeled b. In the
tree, this level consists of the branches that pass through or terminate at the
node labeled b, leaving out all the branches that terminate lower. The
choices for head in this passage are determined chiefly by relative local
consonance (TSRPR2), supplemented by metrical position (TSRPR 1).
To proceed further with the reduction, we must introduce the notions of
structural beginning and structural ending (or cadence), which articulate
grouping structure at the phrase level and all larger levels. The essential
motion of a phrase takes place between these two structural points. A
23 8 Fred Lerdahland Ray Jackendoff
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
00
An Overview of Hierarchical Structurein Music 24 1
> :
J1-"V rli^r' ^^ll
:-i Iril I-- IF :F \
"I
a
|
00
u- O "O <->
60
structuralbeginning is a relatively stable event appearing early in the phrase.

A cadence is a harmonic/melodic formula of one or two members (in tonal
music, most often V or V- I) at the end of the phrase. The structural impor-
tance of a particular structural beginning or cadence to the piece as a whole
depends on its position in the larger grouping structure: if it abuts a bound-
ary of a large-scale group, it serves as a structural beginning or cadence for
that group (TSRPRs 7 and 8). Figure 7a shows schematically the hierarchi-
cal function of each structural beginning (marked b in the diagram) and
cadence (marked c in the diagram) in the grouping structure of "Ich bin's
. . . ." Figure 7b translates Figure 7a into the tree notation. Figure 7c adds
the reduction of the two-membered final cadence (the egg-like shapes in the
tree signify subordination to the cadence as a whole).
Figure 8 completes Figure 6 and Figure 7 by giving the time-span reduc-
tion for the entire chorale. Levels a-e in Figure 8 correspond to Figure 7c;
that is, these levels show the global hierarchical relationships among struc-
tural beginnings and cadences. Starting with level /",the branches represent
local elaborations within the individual phrases. A good way to penetrate
the analysis is to play at the piano the actual piece and then its successive
reductional levels as represented in the musical notation. Each level should
sound like a natural simplification of the previous level.
The naturalness of the reduction in Figure 8 is strained in the fourth and
fifth phrases (measures 7-10), due to a structural ambiguity that requires
comment. The melody in these measures repeats that of the first two
phrases, and implies the tonic region. But the harmonization establishes the
relative minor region, while at the same time ingeniously passing through
the tonic in the course of each phrase (measure 7 and measure 9). Are these
phrases, then, in the relative minor, or are they in the tonic with deviant
cadences? As with Wittgenstein's (1953) rabbit-duck figure, a single re-
sponse is insufficient. The musical grammar mirrors this situation through
conflicting rule applications: it is a question of local harmonic stability
(TSRPR2b) versus a largerparallelism (TSRPR4). In the tree we have opted
for the relative-minor interpretation, but have indicated the alternative in
brackets in the relevant levels of the musical notation.
Prolongational Reduction
One of the most important kinds of intuition a listener has is how the
motion among the pitch-events of a piece tenses or relaxes. The prolonga-
tional component is intended to express such intuition explicitly and in
detail. Briefly,if two events are heard as connecting prolongationally (at the
musical surface or at an underlying level), and if the second event is heard as
less stable than the first, the overall progression is felt as tensing. If the
Figure 9.
second event is more stable than the first, the progression is felt as relaxing.
Further, the degree of tension or relaxation between two events is deter-
mined by the degree of continuity between them. In a succession of two
identical events, there is little sense of tension or relaxation. If an event is
followed by itself in another form (say, by a chordal inversion), there is some
sense of tension or relaxation (one or the other, depending on the relative
stability of the two events). If an event is followed by a completely different
event, there is a stronger sense of tension or relaxation.
In the prolongational tree, we representa tensing pattern by right branch-
ing and a relaxing pattern by left branching. Figure 9a- c gives right-branch-
ing patterns, 9d- f left-branching patterns. The various nodes in the trees
indicate contrasting degrees of continuity, hence of tension and relaxation.
An open circle, as Figure 9a and 9d, describes an attachment where an event
3 3..
is replicated (say, I- I); this is called strong prolongation. A filled-in circle,
as in Figure 9b and 9e, describes an attachment where an event progresses
to another form of itself (say, I-I6 or I-I); this is called weak prolongation.
A node without any circle, as in Figure 9c and 9f, describes an attachment
where an event progresses to a completely different event (say, I-V or ii6-
V); this is called progression.
Figure 10 illustrates these branchings through a prolongational analysis
of the first phrase of "Ich bin's . . . ." As an aid, we again supply a secondary
notation beneath the music; the slurs stand for branching connections, with
the dashed slurs reserved for strong prolongations. The tree twice shows a
tensing-relaxing pattern- from the opening sonority to its prolongation on
the third beat of the first measure, and similarly from there to the end of the
phrase.
We have found that a particular pattern of tensing and relaxing is needed
if the listener is to experience closure: there must be at least one right-
branching progression (9c) in the course of a group, followed by two left-
branching progressions (9f ) at the end of the group (two because the first
left branch must be "prepared"). We call such a pattern normative prolon-
244 Fred Lerdahland RayJackendoff
Figure 10.
gationalstructure(PRPR6). In Figure11, for instance,the thirdphraseof

the chorale (lla) is incompletenot just becauseit lacks a final tonic, but
becausethe finaleventis not precededby a sequenceof two eventsthatrelax
into it. Bycontrast,the lastphraseof the chorale(lib) fulfillsthe branching
requirementfor closure.5
Normativeprolongationalstructureis a shapingforceat the phraselevel
and at all largerlevelsof tonal architecture.The cumulativeresultof such
5. In the figure, the dotted lines at the top indicate that these branches attach at more
global levels of the tree than is shown in the analysis (compare Figure 12). An exclusively
phrasal prolongational analysis would show all branches within a phrase as attaching locally,
with no branches connecting above the phrase level. We will not pursue this possibility here.
Figure lla.
multi-leveledstructuresin a pieceis to producea complextreethat is at the

same time filledwith internalstructuralrepetitions.The existenceof such
an organizationappearsto bearon why tonalmusicis richyet learnable.
Unliketime-spantrees,prolongationaltreesareconstructedfromglobal
to local levels(i.e., fromthe top downwards).This is necessarybecausethe
prolongationalimportanceof an event- its role in patternsof tensionand
relaxationis determinedby its largercontext. Further,an event'simpor-
tancecannotbe evaluatedsolely fromits pitchcontent;rhythmicinforma-
tion is also needed. In our theory,the requisitecontextual and rhythmic
informationis not a matterof the analyst'sartisticintuition,as in Schenker-
Figure lib.
ian analysis, but is derived formally from the time-span tree for the piece,
which in turn encodes all the rhythmic information concerning grouping
and meter (PRPR 1). Thus, directly or indirectly, all four components are
implicated in the description of patterns of tension and relaxation.
Besides the derivation from the time-span tree, the other critical factor in
building a prolongational tree is the stability of connection between two
events (PRPR3 ). In a tensing pattern, the least increase in tension is the most
stableconnection;hencea rightstrongprolongation(9a) is highlyfavored.

In a relaxingpattern,the greatestincreasein relaxationis the most stable
connection;hencea leftprogression(9f) is highlyfavored.
Skippingthe step-by-stepderivation,6we offer a full prolongationalre-
ductionof the choralein Figure12. For simplicity,the analysisproceeds
only to a certaindegreeof detail. The musicalnotation of the reduction
appearsin two stages:grapha presentsthose connectionsmade above the
dashed line in the tree, graph b those made below the dashed line. As
suggestedby the Roman-numeral andscale-stepdesignationsat the bottom
of the example,grapha displaysthe overalllinear/harmonicmotion of the
piece. Note how the relativeminorsection (measures7-10) tenses off the
dominantarrivalin measure6, and how all of this is enclosedwithin the I
prolongationfrom measure 1 to measure 11, after which closure takes
place.Graphb revealsmorelocalpatternsof tensionandrelaxation.
The readershouldbearin mindthatthe reductionin Figure12 is not the
only "preferred"prolongationalanalysis.Variousdetailsareopen to inter-
pretation;and if the ambiguityin the time-spanreductiondiscussedin
connectionwith Figure8 were resolvedotherwise,a different(thoughper-
hapslessinteresting)overallprolongationaltreewould result.
Discussion
Wealludedaboveto the resemblancebetweenour prolongationalreduc-
tion and aspectsof Schenkeriananalysis.Thoughthis resemblanceis genu-
ine, we shouldbeginthis sectionby pointingout variousbroaddifferences
betweenSchenker'stheoryandours.Theseremarkswill leadgraduallyinto
briefdiscussionsof the nonoverlappingconditionon hierarchiesand of the
nonhierarchical dimensionsof musicalstructure.
Somedifferencesbetweenthe two theoriesareless a matterof conviction
thanof focus.Forexample,we havenot developeda veryinterestingnotion
of voice-leading,a centralconceptin Schenker.The reasonfor this is that
voice-leadingas such is not hierarchical.On the other hand, our theory
dealsmorecentrallywith rhythmandits relationto pitchthandoes Schenk-
er's.Again,thisis becausegrouping,meter,andtime-spansegmentationare
hierarchical.
6. The derivation for the most part follows applications of PRPRs 1 and 3, supplemented
by principles not mentioned here. Readers familiar with GTTM will appreciate that the
strong prolongational connection of the opening tonic to the I in measure 1 1 comes about
through the Interaction Principle, since in the associated time-span tree this I is one level
below the current level of derivation. This is an excellent illustration of the Interaction
Principle, supplementing those in GTTM.
248 Fred Lerdahland RayJackendoff
Figure 12.
A more importantcontrastis that Schenker'stheory,though sophisti-

catedas an analyticsystem,lacksany counterpartto our musicalgrammar
(i.e., the rulesystemthat generatesstructuraldescriptions).It is our gram-
marthat assignsstructure,regardlessof what we as analystswould person-
ally like to say about a piece. In other words, our role is not to develop
analysesbutto createa systemthatdevelopsanalyses.Thisapproachentails
(temporarily,we hope) analysesthat are limitedin scope and sometimesin
subtlety.But it also entailsthe intellectuallydeepergain of puttinganalytic
principleson a formalandgeneralizedbasis.
A still more essentialdifferencelies in the fact that Schenker'stheoryis
aestheticand ours is psychological.His purposeis to illuminatemusical
masterpieces,ours to findprinciplesof musicalcognition.All of our rules

are motivatedfrom simple,"prosaic"musicalexamples,of the sort a psy-
chologistof musicperceptionmightuse in an experiment.If our theoryhas
anythingto say about masterpieces,it is becauselistenersmake sense of
Beethovenby the samecognitiveprinciplestheyuse in understandingtrivial
examples.If some of these principlesrelateto Schenker,it is presumably
becauseSchenkerhimselfwas at least implicitlyconcernedwith musical
cognition.
Schenker(1935) posits the basis of his theory,the Ursatz,as an a priori
aestheticlaw. Whateverthe value of Narmour's(1977) criticismsof this
aspectof Schenker,theydo not applyto ourtheory,whichis neithera priori
nor axiomatic,but empirical.Forexample,the Ursatz-likestructuresat the
highestbranchinglevelsof Figure8 and Figure12 do not resultfrom any
presumedstatusof thesestructures.Rather,theyarisedirectlyout of appli-
cationsof the rules,which togetherpredictmaximallystablestructures.If
the pieceanalyzedweretonallyless stable,Ursatz-liktstructureswould not
appear.Fromour vantage,Schenker'sUrsatzsimplyembodiesmanyof the
stability-making featuresof the tonalidiom.
In a similarvein, Schenkeroften makes transformationson a musical
surfaceto makeit conformto his aestheticlaws. (Herewe mean transfor-
mationin the technicalsenseof some operationon a sequencethat changes
its order or content. A hierarchicaldescriptionis not a transformation.)
Thoughwe too use transformationsto explicatecertainmusicalphenom-
ena, their role in our theoryis much more restricted.An excessiveuse of
them leads away from the data, the musical surface, and into a priori
abstractions.7
A technicaldifferencebetweenthe two theoriesconcernsour strictdefi-
nition of pitch hierarchy:branchesmust be rightor left, and they cannot
overlapor intersect.ThoughSchenkeroften makesone event subordinate
to another,thereare numerouscaseswherehe does not. And overlapping
hierarchicalinterpretationsfor differentvoice-leadinglines arecommonin
Schenker'slooserversionof reduction.Letus considerthesepointsin turn.
It is clear that a suspensionis subordinateto its resolution (as a left
branch);but what about a passing or neighboringtone? One can easily
imaginea hierarchicaldescriptionin whichsome eventsbranchand others
7. There are many examples of transformation in Schenker's(1932) analysis of "Ich bin's

. . . ." One of them deserves special comment: he turns the IV7on the downbeat of measure
12 into a IV-I^ progression at a background level. Assuming a transformation is required
here, we would opt for a ii, both on stylistic grounds (Bach hardly ever employs a cadential
-
%in his chorales, whereas ii- V- I is entirely typical not that such matters would bother
Schenker), and for systematic reasons (less transformation is needed, especially rhythmically,
to arriveat the \\%from the surface).
250 Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff
are simplysubordinate"insertions."We have avoidedthis alternativebe-

causewe havebeenableto assignstructuralinterpretationsto rightandleft
branchingthathavea psychologicaldimension.Intime-spanreduction,the
branchingsshow the position of pitch importancewithin groupingand
meter. In prolongationalreduction,they reveal patternsof tension and
relaxation(evena neighboringtone tensesor relaxesas a resultof rhythmic
factors).Thusthe casefor the branchingconditionseemsto us strong.
The nonoverlappingconditionraisesa numberof issues.Inherentin our
treenotationis the conceptionof a musicalsurfaceas a sequenceof discrete
events.Thisview is only partlyaccurate:musicis also perceivedas simulta-
neouspolyphoniclines.Todescribepolyphony,the grammarwouldhaveto
generatemultiple (but related)groupingsand trees, with one structural
descriptionforeachline.Eachsuchdescriptionwouldneverthelesscontinue
to observethe nonoverlappingcondition.Wereservefor futureresearchan
extensionof the theoryin this direction.
Meanwhilethereare threeareasin which our currenttheoryaccommo-
dates apparentoverlappingor intersectingstructures.The first involves
certaintransformational rules.Forexample,one transformational ruleana-
lyzesgroupingoverlapsandelisions,permittingdoublebranchingfor over-
lappedevents;anothertreats functioningevents that are literallymissing
from the musicalsurface(an instanceappearsin measure10 of Figure8);
yet anotherallowsthe fusionof arpeggiatedfiguresandaccountsfor "audi-
tory streamsegregation"in music (Bregman&cCampbell,1971). In these
casesthe nonoverlappingconditionis weakenedonly in a restrictedmanner
andonly for certainwell-definedphenomena.
The second areawhere overlappingor intersectingapparentlyoccursis
in moments of structuralambiguityfor which one might seek multiple
branchinginterpretations.As suggestedfor Figure8, however,the correct
solutionis not to assigncrossingbranches- thiswouldtell us nothing- but
to generatecompetingpreferredstructures,each of which is well-formed.
The competingrule applicationsand descriptionsthereby explicate the
senseof the ambiguity.
The thirdareahas to do with the existenceof four hierarchicalcompo-
nents in a structuraldescription.Theoristswith only one hierarchicaldi-
mension at their disposal might feel compelledto cross branches(or the
equivalent)in an attemptto capturetheiranalyticintuitions.The problem
lies with their impoverishedtheoreticalmodel. Once groupingand meter
areconceptuallydisentangledand the two kindsof reductionareboth seen
as necessary,it becomespossibleto representa varietyof musicalintuitions
clearlyandwithoutoverlappinghierarchies.Eachcomponentremainswell-
formed but enters into a structuralcounterpointwith the others. Some
flavorof this can be obtainedby comparingthe time-spanand prolonga-
tional reductionsof "Ich bin's . . ." (Figure8 and Figure12). If superim-
An Overview of Hierarchical Structurein Music 25 1
posed, theirrespectivebranchingswould crossprofusely,showinghow the

music both articulates(time-spanreduction)and progresses(prolonga-
tionalreduction):8
Despitetheseremarks,let us imaginefor a momenta structurecharacter-
ized by the completeabsenceof the nonoverlappingcondition,whose only
constraintis noncontradictionin dominationand subordination,and in
whichthe only criterionfor relationshipamongits elementsis somekindof
quasi-elaborationalconnection.For illustration,considerthe first, third,
andlast phrasesof the chorale.One mightobservecertainsimilaritieshere,
suchas the closemelodicconnectionsamongthe threephrases,thepresence
of a I on the thirdbeat of the firstmeasurein eachphrase,and the parallel
harmonicprogressionsat theendsof the firstandlastphrases(especiallythe
IV7son the downbeatsof theirrespectivesecondmeasures).Similarly,the
secondand fifthphraseswould connect,creatinga structurewith crossing
branches.Is sucha structurepossible?
In reply,we note Meyer's(1973) importantdistinctionbetweenhierar-
chical,associational(hiswordis "conformant"),andimplicativestructures
(also see Narmour,1977, on implicativestructures).The just-mentioned
connectionsin the choraleare not hierarchicalbut associational;that is,
these aspectsof the variousphrasesare perceivedas related,but not in a
subsumingor containingmanner.A tree representationfor these connec-
tions would thereforebe inappropriate.(In termsof our theory,associa-
tional structureslack well-formednessconditions,and must be treatedby
preferencerulesalone.)
The choralecan also illustrateimplicativestructure.The melodicBt at
the end of the thirdphraseimpliesa "realization"on At, which arrivesat
the end of the sixth phrase.The invertedIV7-V-I progressionat the end of
the firstphraseperhapsimpliesits realizationin root positionat the end of
thepiece;the effectof thisrelationship,in anycase,is powerful.
Otherdetailsaside,it is apparentthat associationsand implicationsare
stronglyinfluencedby hierarchicalfunction.Forexample,the finalBt>in the
third phraseresolvesto the final At in the last phrase,not to any of the
interveningAts, becauseof theirrespectiveimportanceand functionin the
time-spanreduction.This suggeststhat an implicativetheorymusttake as
its inputnot justthemusicalsurfacebutthe associatedtime-spanreduction.
Conversely,ourrulesforparallelismin all fourcomponentsdemandgreater
specificityfroman adequateassociationaltheory.
In developingour theoryof musicalcognition,we havefoundit method-
8. Incidentally, multiple tree descriptions are also necessary in linguistic theory. Recent
research has shown that sentences are assigned both a syntactic tree and a phonological tree
(see Liberman& Prince, 1977; and GTTM).
252 FredLerdahlandRayJackendoff
ologicallyfruitfulto concentrateon hierarchicalstructuresat the expense

of associationalandimplicativestructures.Thewell-formednessconditions
imposethe kind of constraintsin theory-buildingthat enablesprogressto
be made. With this relativelyfirm foundation,it may be possible to ap-
proachthe other,moreopen-endeddimensionsin a rule-governedway.
References
Bregman,A. A., & Campbell,J. Primaryauditorystreamsegregationand perceptionof
orderin rapidsequencesof tone.Journalof ExperimentalPsychology,1971, 89, 244-
249.
Chomsky,N. Aspectsof the theoryof syntax.Cambridge,Mass.:M.I.T.Press,1965.
Cooper,G., & Meyer,L. B. Therhythmicstructureof music.Universityof ChicagoPress,
1960.
Deutsch, D., & Feroe,J. The internalrepresentationof pitch sequencesin tonal music.
PsychologicalReview,1981, 88, 503-522.
Jackendoff,R. Semanticsand cognition.Cambridge,Mass.:M.I.T.Press,in press.
Jackendoff,R., & Lerdahl,R Generativemusictheoryandits relationto psychology.Journal
of Music Theory,1981,25,45-90.
Jackendoff,R., & Lerdahl,R A grammaticalparallelbetweenmusicand language.In M.
Clynes(Ed.),Music,mind, and brain.New York:PlenumPress,1982.
Keiler,A. Thesyntaxof prolongationI. In TheoryOnly, 1977, 3.5, 3-27.
Koffka,K.Principlesof Gestaltpsychology.New York:Harcourt,Brace& World,1935.
Lerdahl,R, &cJackendoff,R. Towarda formaltheoryof tonal music.Journalof Music
Theory,1977,21, 111-171.
Lerdahl,R, & Jackendoff,R. On the theoryof groupingandmeter.TheMusicalQuarterly,
1981,67,479-506.
Lerdahl,R, & Jackendoff,R. A generativetheoryof tonalmusic.Cambridge,Mass.:M.I.T.
Press,1983.
Liberman,M., & Prince,A. On stressand linguisticrhythm.LinguisticInquiry,1977, 8,
249-336.
Marr,D. Vision.SanFrancisco:W. H. Freeman& Co., 1981.
Meyer,L. B. Explainingmusic.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1973.
Narmour,E. BeyondSchenkerism. Universityof ChicagoPress,1977.
Schenker,H. Fu'nfUrlinie-Tafeln. New York:DoverPublications,Inc., 1969. (Originally
published,Vienna:UniversalEdition,1932.)
Schenker,H. [Der freie Satz] (E. Oster,Ed. and trans.)New York:Longman,Inc., 1979.
(Originallypublished,Vienna:UniversalEdition,1935.)
Wittgenstein,L. Philosophicalinvestigations.Oxford:Blackwell,1953.

Lerdahl (1983) An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Lerdahl (1983) An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

University of California Press

An Overview of Hierarchical Structure in Music

An Overviewof HierarchicalStructurein Music

our book, A generative theory of tonal music (henceforth GTTM), we

GTTM develops a grammar of tonal music based in part on the goals,

FredLerdahlis a composerandassociateprofessorof musicat ColumbiaUniversity.Ray

listensto andunderstandsa piece,aboveandbeyondthedataof thephysical

2. This idealization corresponds to one sense of Chomsky's (1965) notion of "compe-

theoryof at least one complexmusicalidiom. (However,evidencetoward

typical.Wherethe rulesconflict,on the other hand, the musicalstructure

equidistant,and strongbeats occur everytwo or three beats apartat any

To the analysis in Figure 3, Figure 4 adds the time-span segmentation,

branchsuchas e3 signifiesan eventthatis subordinateto a succeedingevent.

4. The elaborational nature of pitch hierarchiesand the absence of grammatical categories

J1-"V rli^r' ^^ll

:-i Iril I-- IF :F \

structuralbeginning is a relatively stable event appearing early in the phrase.

gationalstructure(PRPR6). In Figure11, for instance,the thirdphraseof

multi-leveledstructuresin a pieceis to producea complextreethat is at the

stableconnection;hencea rightstrongprolongation(9a) is highlyfavored.

A more importantcontrastis that Schenker'stheory,though sophisti-

masterpieces,ours to findprinciplesof musicalcognition.All of our rules

7. There are many examples of transformation in Schenker's(1932) analysis of "Ich bin's

are simplysubordinate"insertions."We have avoidedthis alternativebe-

posed, theirrespectivebranchingswould crossprofusely,showinghow the

ologicallyfruitfulto concentrateon hierarchicalstructuresat the expense

S-ar putea să vă placă și