https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232450135_Cognitive_Constraints_on_Compositional_Systems
i know the title doesn't exactly grab you by the lapels but this is pretty interesting. it concerns the question raised earlier of whether or not all the complex theory behind this stuff amounts to anything intelligible from a listener’s pov. investigating (well, asserting) the rules that shape how we perceive music.
the idea that i’ve inadvertently been sort of obsessed with for while that it touches on is “discretization”. in order to get your head around something complex, you need to be able to mentally break it down into small, easier to understand,
defined parts. when you do that, the music becomes comprehensible.
personally i think this criterion is very insightful. i get way less out of music when i can’t pull it apart in this way, i.e. can’t decide where one phrase or “thought” ends and another begins.
it’s also probably somewhat applicable to other forms of art. for example it might relate to what luka was saying earlier in this thread about prynne, how in his poetry the frame of reference constantly changes. same thing of needing to figure out how to break something very complex and confusing into manageable parts.
of course the paper seems to have generated some predictably snarky responses, accusing lerdahl of pulling these “rules” out of his ass, and of being a reactionary sneakily trying to dismiss everything that isn’t mozart. both of which are probably true, but i still think it’s a good read.