A Declarative Model of Atonal Analysis

Author(s): John Roeder
Source: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Fall, 1988), pp. 21-34
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40285414
Accessed: 30/07/2010 02:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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

attempting to define data representations and relations that are commensurate with human cognition. However.pitch.Music Perception © 1988 BY THE REGENTSOF THE UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA Fall 1988.and othercomposersin the firsttwo decadesof this century. Much contemporary AI research. British Columbia V6T 1W5. a predominantly procedural analysis risks sacrificing the form of musical understanding to obtain efficiency or compatibility with a particular computer language.expresslyor tacitly.These features. 6361 Memorial Road. which plan and follow agendas and goals. 21-34 A DeclarativeModel of Atonal Analysis TOHN ROEDER University of British Columbia Most computational models of musical understanding have focused on procedural aspects of analysis. Characteristics of Atonal Analysis In "atonal"music. Vol. or adapting discovery procedures of artificially intelligent (AI) inference systems. However.upon certainfundamental issues. Naturally. and I present a functioning declarative system that infers complex musical structures from the elementary musical relations that it identifies.lead analyststo hearthe musicin manydifferentways. Canada. for a significant body of twentieth-century music. also focuses on declarative aspects of knowledge.(2) the natureof musical structures.register. comparing. 1.(3) the natureof the eventsthat make up those structures. and (4) the natureof musical meaning.Webern. 21 .including(1) the natureof musicalanalysis. In this article I argue that. 6. and the phrasestructuresand formsassociatedwith moretraditionalmeansof pitchorganization.and negativelyby the lack of sustainedmelody. Vancouver. and consonance. however. No.composedby Schoenberg. musical analysis has both procedural and declarative aspects: the declarative determines what the form of the analysis is. Requests for reprints may be sent to John Roeder.pitch is structured withoutreferenceto a controllingkey.Theworksto whichthe termis commonlyapplied.most of themagree.keys. and the procedural determines how the analysis is obtained. suggesting techniques for parsing. and durations. University of British Columbia.texture.and the lack of themes.are morespecificallycharacterizedby extremeand rapidcontrastsof timbre.in the broadestsenseof the term. pitch class.For the present discussionthese points of agreementwarranta brief summary. regular pulse. and transforming various representations of a piece. School of Music. a declarative system models the structure of analytical understanding better than do existing procedural programs.

contemplated. For instance Babbitt(1972) claimsthat the operationsof inversion. or contour. derivefrom these same perceivedpropertiesof their events. So a segmentmay be a collectionof eventswhose temporaladjacencydefines a melodicline."(Hasty.or "segments"of associatedevents (Forte.analystsdo not ordinarilyconsider extramusicalconnotationsof the musicin determiningits segmentaistructure.Thesesegmentspossess"a unitaryvalue in some domain.dependingupon the style of the music underconsideration.and total" must be basedon a detailedknowledge of everyeventin thepiece.essentiallythe attacktime and durationof the events.and intervallie value under transpositionin a semitonal system. (4) The meaningof a musicaleventdepends.Hasty (1981) identifiessome segmentsby the collectiveproperties. are learned in detail and associatedin variousways.1981).timbre.not simplyimmediateexperience. The analyticalunderstandingthat Milton Babbitt(1972) calls "reflective. a simultaneityof multipleimplicationsof the same entity." Similarly.a segmentmay also be articulatedby othermusicalproperties.gainedfrom"listeningto themusicverycarefully and notingvariousstructuralperceptions"(Hasty.The structuralimportanceof each musicaldomain variesfrom composerto composerand betweenor evenwithinpieces.andno two of whicharecon- . but ratherby the coordinationof multiplehearingsand mentalrehearsals. Sucha synoptic understandingis manifestlynot acquiredin the courseof a singlelistening. The propertiescited in most analysesare those that are perceivedin the intensivelisteningdescribedabove:rhythm.but their comparativebrevityand untraditionalconstructioncompelsthe analyst to discovermany relationsamong the events. theiridentityand coherencearise from the perceivedpropertiesof the basic musicalevents of the piece. upon its "multiplicity. in which the eventsof the piece.pitch. An analysisexpressesa "segmentation"which attributesto everymusicaleventmembershipin at least one significantcollectionof events. That is.transposition.and retrogressionare "familiarand rudimentarynotions which dependupon only the most uncontrovertible[sic] and essentialfacts of musicalperception: the capacityto recognizepitchidentityand nonidentity. (2) The structuralcomponentsof a musicalworkarecollections. or whose simultaneitydefinesa chord. (3) The only propertiesof musicaleventsthat are significantto musical structurearethosethatdefinesegments.attackstypes.andloudness. 1973).which they have in common with other segments. even temporallydistantones.or multivalence.such as the instrumentaltype and arthe relationsamongsegments ticulation.22 John Roeder (1) Music is an objectfor contemplation.Furthermore. 1981) that is.accordingto Boretz(1970a.of reference. compareRoads. 1984).such as patternsof intervals. eachone of whichis cognitiveandspecifiable.

. as a continuousstringof alphanumericcharacters. 1966). Rahn. and.and comparison.in which the systemis realizedis especiallywell suitedfor such standardoperationsupon stringsas concatenation. the same label given to two differentsegmentsindicatesthat theirpc contentis relatedby transpositionor inversion. Similarly.For example."is "a segment formedby segmentsor subsegmentsthat are contiguousor that are otherwise linked in some way. see also Beach.the parseridentifiesjustone type of primary segment. 1980).1973). Circlesand bracketson these scores indicatethe structuralcomponentsof the work. The programemploystheseoperationsto analyzethe stringrepresentation of the musicwithout regardto how they correspondto humancognitiveprocesses.the meaningof each event is dynamically modifiedand augmenteddue to the continuallychangingrelations that successiveevents manifestwith it and its predecessors.consistingof rest-delimitedinstrumentalparts. As its representationof music. SNOBOL.Forte conceivesof segmentationas a process. [Thereare] severalperfectlyclear but distinct 'meanings' attachableto singleevents.search.A Declarative Model of Atonal Analysis 23 tradictory. 1973. to some extent. part by part. 1974."The segmentsto which an event belongsthus providea meaningfulcontext for that event.1972.pitch.demonstratingin effect a networkof abstractrelationsamongpitch-classmotives.timbraipropertiesof everymusicalevent. A more complex kind of segment." Forte'sanalyticalstatementsassertpitch-class and interval-classcontentrelationsamong segments. 1985. Thesefourpoints of agreementabout atonalanalysisunderliethe pitchclass (pc) set analysesof Allen Forte (Forte.in Hasty's (1981) model of atonal musicalprocesses.In fact he attemptedto automatesegmentationby meansof a computerprogramthat parsesa score into segments and classifiesthem (Forte.Thusthemeaningof an individualeventderivesfrom its membershipin varioussegmentsin a complex networkof relatedsegments. Forte'sprogramuses DARMS. Procedural Analyses of Atonal Music Despite the inherentlyrelationalnature of pc-set analyses. 1979.Theprogramminglanguage. other examplesof primary segmentsincludea rest-delimitedmelodic fragmentand a chord. whichbelongto segmentsof two basictypes.Forinstance.which Forte calls "composite. .andthattheyhavethe same interval-classcontent. Secondaryseg- .which encodes a score.A primarysegmentis a "configurationthat is isolatedas a unit by conventionalmeans.such as a rhythmicallydistinctmelodicfigure"(Forte. Theirsynopticcomprehensivenessnecessitatestheirpresentationon modifiedscoresthat representtemporal.

the author cites a transcription of a student's analysis of Debussy's Syrinx. 1980). Ironically. however. it. however. but which can also function to produce a pc-set segmentation. in logical predicates analogous to the declarative statements of Boretz and Rahn. For instance. the arbitrarilyrestrictive definition and representation of primary segments. then plans and executes an agenda to find significant relations among segments. Laske's system represents a small set of given concepts as "frame" structures. and redundant results removed. Similarly."1 Like Lenat and Harris's (1978) scientific discovery system. that analysis also points out a crucial omission from Laske's description: the specific and logical representation of musical relations (Smoliar. Hasty (1981) states that in the second step of analysis "rules are devised to form a theory which might account for these [structural] perceptions. like Forte's program. who constructed an analytical language from formal definitions of perceivable event relations. However. The resulting segments are similarly combined in pairs. the student analyst describes a "redundancy" of motives in the piece. 1. concerned with the logical definition of musical events and relations rather than the process by which they are perceived. Another formalized procedure more closely modeled upon human analytical behavior was proposed by Laske (1984) to produce "a systematized set of examples for newly synthesized concepts. 1970b). would benefit from a consistent and logical representation of musical relations obtained through the "painstaking exploration of the cognitive processes specific to the structuring of music" (Alphonce. rather than by the more subtle analytical procedures Forte describes in his other writings. Such representations have been proposed by Boretz (1969. Although this procedure is well defined. 1980)." Whatever validity Laske's system may possess as a model of musical discovery. recently developed programming languages have made it possible to construct a declarative system which not only represents those musical properties and relations specific to atonal analysis. 1986). Both of these formal systems are declarative rather than procedural." . logically. the "basic cell. and the arbitrarily binary combination procedure make it "overselective" (Alphonce. Laske claims that this concept is newly created. this arbitrarily binary combination procedure also seems motivated by the operations available in SNOBOL. Without it the analytical system cannot tell which concepts are new. who proposed a collection of definitions to describe a hierarchical analysis of tonal music. and by Rahn (1979). which does seem to involve finding examples for musical concepts. As evidence for his procedural model.24 John Roeder ments are produced by combining these primary segments into pairs according to the relative temporal positions of their first and last events. it would seem to be prior to and implicit in the definition of one of the given concepts.

The 2. Along with these formal specifications. Since an event only has meaning in a context of which it is part. An event E is an element of a context that begins with an event Y and ends with the context T if E is an element of the context T. Each event is a set of specific values for each of those four attributes.2 To attribute declarative meaning to a musical event in a simple pc-set analysis. in order to be as declarative as possible within the limitations of a procedural machine architecture. a section.[E|T]. the system must recognize the membership of an event in a context. the instrument that plays it. the design of the system was also constrained to avoid metalogical constructs (such as cuts and asserts in Prolog). Thus the analytical understanding that could be represented procedurally by the results of a segmentation process is represented instead declaratively by the instantiation of musical relations among events and segments.T). A context may be a segment. Instrument. Still higher-level predicates specify how segments are related in a segmentation.Tl).A Declarative Model of Atonal Analysis 25 The Structure of a Declarative Analytical System Following the form of atonal analysis outlined above. which describe the properties of every event in sufficient detail to support analytical statements. The system only recognizes structures and relations of events if the events belong to the musical context under consideration.[Y|Tl]):element(E. and all event relations and structures are associated with musical contexts. an entire piece. The system attributes meaning to events by identifying their membership in segments that have significant set-theoretical relations. Any collection of such events forms a context in which the events may have meaning. the system needs information about just four properties of the event: its pitch. or even a collection of pieces. .[Y|T]. and each segment possesses its own local structures and relations. its attack time. the system consists of a collection of predicates that describe the formal structure of a segmentation. event(Pitch. Representing a more complex level of musical understanding are predicates that express how events may associate in various kinds of segments. An event E is an element of a context that begins with E and ends with the context T. These and subsequent relational declarations are expressed in the Edinburgh syntax of the programming language Prolog (Clocksin & Mellish. and its duration. 1984). The most primitive statements are the "facts" of a piece. and correspond to Horn clauses in first-order predicate logic. Duration). Attack. This is accomplished by the following declarations: element(E.T. element(E.

" The system similarly represents the subset relation of a collection of events to a context that contains them. Reprinted by permission of European-American Music Distributors Corporation.26 John Roeder Fig. 3. symbol:.S. No." and the semicolon stands for "or. sole U. and a collection of events. 1. a title. No. Segmentation of Webern's Op. Copyright 1924 by Universal Edition. 11.) A piece is the relation of a composer. Opus 11." the comma stands for "and. along with the remainder of the events in the context. agent for Universal Edition.stands for "if. Copyright renewed 1952 by Anton Webern's Erben. It can be represented declaratively as follows: . (The definitions of subset and other clauses omitted in the main text can be found in the Appendix. 3 (transcribedfrom program output). Figure 1 shows the score of Webern's piece for cello and piano.

same_attack(event(Pl.partitioningthe context into related events and unrelatedevents.0. Two events are related if they have the sameattacktime in the context C.C.Dl).A Declarative Modelof AtonalAnalysis piece(webern.cello. event(P2.I.D2). 3. R):subset([event(Pl.Dl).. .Al. primary([X|T].the most fundamentalanalytical statementthe systemcanmakeabouta contextis the associationof all pairs of eventsin all possiblerelations. Competing interpretations of unorganized data also characterize the local organizing processes in Arbib's (1979) model of visual cognition. event(P2.A.I2.Al.0.12. [event(27.Context._):element(H. A singleeventH belongingto a context is a primarysegment. event(38.I..A.3 A primarysegmentis definedas a collectionof events that are related in the same way: primary([H. 3 is a collectionof events includingan Et 3 and a Ft 3 playedby the cello at the start of the piece for the durationof 12 tripletsixteenths.cello.Rem. The remainderof the eventsin the context form R. event(48.Relation):-A collection of events containing eventsH and X is a primarysegment Goal= .Dl).Context.a cello C4 12 tripletsixteenths afterthe firsteventof the piece.X..15. sameJnstrument(event(Pl. under the stipulated Relation in a call(Goal). The remainderof the eventsin the contextform R.H.piano.I.X|T].I2.15).Il. given Contextif H is so relatedto X in that Context. the and have to the same context appropriate temporalrelations. R)..R]. This representationwill allow the system to use informationabout one work to directits analysisof another. a D3 playedby thepiano 15 tripletsixteenthsafterthefirstevent of the piece for the durationof 15 triplet sixteenths.eventsmay be temporally_adjacent.[Relation.etc.op1I_no3.Remainder).Relation).8). primary([H].and if all the events in the collectionexcept H are a primarysegmentunderthe same Relation in the same Context.R).D2)]. Everyeventrelationhas the sameform. event(P2.A.C.12).cello.[X|R].D2)].Remainder. belong These low-level predicatesexpressthe basic relationsa listenermay perceiveamongmusicalevents. No.Rem.Dl). or sound_together. Two eventsare relatedif the same instrumentplaysthembothin thecontextC.D2).C.A2.]).Il. 27 Webern'sOpus11.C.I. event(28.if they Similarly.Accordingly.suchthatseveraldifferentrelationsobtain for everyevent.R):subset([event(Pl.Context.12).Context.A.A2. event(P2.

event relations. of events played by the same instrument. Although a comprehensive set of definitions of all types of primary segments is beyond the scope of this brief description of the system.4 Some of Forte's more complex segments can be expressed as primary segments of one type contained within the context of primary segments of another type.a primarysegmentRDIPof temporallyadjacenteventsin the contextof a primary segment. a declarative definition of the restdelimited melodic lines in the instrumental parts of a piece: _. Other types of primary segments recognized in atonal analysis may also be expressed declaratively.Context. A "chord" is a collection of events with the same attack. for example.same_attack). which the system satisfies by applying the cognitively based relations it knows to the facts of the piece. the system similarly represents them all as collections of cognitively associated events in various contexts._. Events belonging to more than one primary segment in the same context are describing by the conjunction of clauses. For instance.IP.same_instrument). that is. but not necessarily to each other. .28 John Roeder That is.Context. Con4. Most of Forte's "conventional" primary segments are covered by this definition. for example: An eventE is partof a chordalpriprimary([E_]. Consider. primary([E_].Context. An "instrumental part. in one kind of primary segment all events are related in the same way to one event in the segment.temporally_adjacent)." for example. every event in the line is immediately preceded or followed by another event in the line. This collection of Prolog clauses thus constitutes a functional segmenter that can identify and relate many sorts of primary segments. A rest-delimitedinstrumentalpart is primary(IP. and formally identical. The segmentation of contexts according to various defined musical relations constitutes the basic analytical capability of the system.mary segmentand also part of a melodicprimarysegment. is a collection of events associated by the relation sameJnstrument.temporally_adjacent). primary(RDIP. the cognitively based relations are the basis for the cognitively most important types of segments. A somewhat more sophisticated analysis exposing the multiple functionalities of events can also be achieved using only the declarations cited above. A query by the user is expressed in the form of a goal. IP. Thus the formal structures of seemingly different types of segments are in fact identical: a segment of every type is a collection of events associated by one of the basic. In a "melodic line" the events are temporally adjacent.

opll_no3.Relation) collection S is a primary segment for the specified Context and Relation.tions such that the events in each collection belong to the context of Webern's Op.A DeclarativeModel of AtonalAnalysis 29 siderthis declarationof an exhaustivepartitionof a context into primary segmentsof a single type: primary_segmentation([S|R].we can representinterestingaspects of the segmentaistructureof this piece. by rewritingthis conjunctionusingotherdeclaredrelations.Rem.Relation).Context).Relation):. primary_segmentation(S_list. primary_segmentation([]. 3 and are attacked at the same time. 397-400).which indicatesthe segments . respectively. Thishigherlevelpredicatecan be usedto expressanalyticalgoals that may be satisfiedin a varietyof ways consistentwith the cognitivelybasedsegmentationrules. No. For example. these correspondto what we conceiveto be the individualinstrumentalpartsand the rest-delimitedmelodic lines.Context. same-duration. two.nearlyeveryeventhas thesamedurationas anothereventin thepiece (Berry. The firsttwo lines below the score show the segments based upon the relations sameJnstrumentand temporally_adjacent.the systemsimplyrecognizesthe presenceof primarysegmentsbased of the networkof cognitivelybasedrelationsin the data. or three events.no procedureforms or comparesstructures. pp.The last two lines show that interestingsegments can also consistof nonadjacentevents.temporally_adjacent.Forinstance. nearly every event has the same pitch class as anotherevent:the bottomline underthe score.suchas sameJnstrument. for a specified Relation if the first primary_segmentation(R. as shown below Figure1. and it will do so identicallyfor all knownrelations. Also. .Context._). the relationpartitionsthe piece into severalsegmentscontainingone.In fact.same_attack). 11.any chord in Webern'sOpus 11.1976.Rem. True to the declarativerepresentation. 3 is expresseddeclarativelyas a primarysegmentby the conjunctionof two clauses: SJist is a list of event collecpiece(webern.and same_pc.[]. An empty context has an empty primary segmentation. and if the rest of the list R is a primary segmentation of the rest of the Context under the same Relation.Context.A list of event collections is a primary segmentation of a Context primary(S. The eventcollectionssatisfyingthis relationarelistedaboveFigure1. No.

[l.Set. The general definition of a segmentation for an arbitrarylist of relations is: A list of primary segmentations is a segmentation of a Context for a specified list of relations if the first primary segmentation on the list.H).Context. With these added relations the system can express the relation of segments to set-class labels. The crucial analytical statements in a pc-set analysis assert that the pitchclass contents of two or more segments are identical under transposition or inversion. or type. and if the rest of the list Y is a segmentation of the Context under the other relations. Consistent with this relation.30 John Roeder containing events with the same pitch class. intervaLnormal Jorm('3-2'. 1975).l]). X. this setclassification procedure can be very simply declared as the relation of the collection to the standard form of the abstract set-type in a particular context: set_type(Set. 1974).2]).Context). of a pc collection by using a procedure to reduce the collection to a standard form that can be found in a table of set types.T). subset(Ordering. 1973). The intervalnormal form of a set belongingto class3-1 is the seriesof pc intervals[1. is a primary segmentation of the specified Context under the relation H. so that the following conjunction of clauses: .1]. the standard table of set classes is declared as a collection of relations among interval series and set-class labels: interval_normal_form('3-l'.[1. segmentation(Y. so that the segments belong to the same Tn/TnI-equivalence class (Rahn. Forte. segmentation([X|Y]. A Set belongs to a certain Type in a Context. However. etc. The analyst normally determines the class.Context. reveals that the second half of the piece recapitulates the pcs of the first half (Wintle. if an Interval-Seriesassociated with that Type spans some Ordering of the Set (Regener.[]).Context. _.Context):intervaLnormal_form(Type.Int_Series).[H|T]):primary_segmentation(X.. The clause pcJntervaLseries expresses the relation of an ordered collection of pitched events to the ordered series of pitch-class intervals that span them in a particular context.[]).. 1980. pcJntervaLseries(Ordering. segmentation([].Type. Int_Series.

S.element(L2. so the declaration piece(webern.Type.Context)._)._)._._).Context.H.Context. Context).Context._). or if there is no event between not between(X. Note that the declarative definition of set-type is not restricted to primary segments. The collection of events in a composite segment are not uniformly related as they would be in a primary segment._). Forte's composite segments are a case in point.not contiguous(X. is satisfied by any collection P of events having an interval normal form recognized by the system.Rem) ._).Context). union(Pl.Y. whether or not P is a primary segment. sound_together(X.Ll._. but Forte stipulates that each event is "contiguous" with another event in the collection._).Seg.L2.Pl. _.element(P2. element(Ll.C).P2.P2. But a more general type of contiguous segment can also be declared: A collectionof eventsSegis a con:contiguous_segment(Seg. set typeType. ment of the other primary segelement(El.A Declarative Modelof AtonalAnalysis 31 P is a primarysegmentbelongingto piece(webern.Rem). . segmentsin the context such that an element of one primarysegelement(Pl. temporally_adjacent(X. element(X.Context):X = H. 3 and are attackedat the same time.Y.Context. set_type(P. No.and consistingof temprimary(P. contiguous(El.Context.E2.Context) tiguoussegmentin a Contextifevall_contiguous(Seg.S.S.temporally set_type(P.Context. his analyses suggest the following rule: EventsX and Y are contiguousin contiguous(X.Context). Analysts often consider such a complex segment as significant if it belongs to the same type as a primary segment.adjacent).opll_no3.Context._).Type. ment. 11.Rem). The relation of two contiguous primary segments in a composite segment can then be declared as: A compositesegmentC in a Concomposite(C._). is satisfied by every rest-delimited melodic line P that belongs to the set-class Type in the Context of the Webern piece._). .Context. ment is contiguous with an elenotPl=P2.Context. or if theyaretemporallyadjacent.Relations):text is the union of two primary segmentation(S. other event in it. them temporallyin the context. all_contiguous(T.S.element(E2. porally adjacentevents that belong to the context of Webern'sOp. .5.Remainder):a Contextif they sound together. ery eventin it is contiguousto anall_contiguous([H|T].Y.Context) alLcontiguous([].Relations). Although Forte does not formally define continguity.Context). Y.opll_no3.

As an illustration. {x.Relation). contiguous_segment(Segment. in the sense that every event in the segment is contiguous.Segmentation. This conjunction of relations can be used in the Prolog system to list all composite segments that belong to the same set type as the primary segments._). and n means that there is no intervening event between the two events. this composite segmentation provides a meaningful context for every event of the piece. Figure 2 shows the composite segments the program finds that belong to the same set type (Forte number 3-3) as the first piano verticality.Context. Segment is any contiguous segment that belongs set_type(Primary_Segment.z} identifies a pitch-class collection of type 3-3 (intervalnormal form <l. 2. in one of the three ways we have defined.y. It represents abstract pc-set-analytical understanding in stages: more complex structures and relations are logical conjunctions of simpler ones. to the same set Type as a set_type(Segment. element(Primary_Segment. In all. Interestingly.Segment. to another event in the same segment. Segments consisting of contiguous events and belonging to the same set type (transcribed from program output). in which the events are related by same_attack (Williams.l>).Type. .32 John Roeder Accordingly. the system can express the relation of any primary segment to all more complexly contiguous segments of the same type: primary_segmentation(Segmentation.Context). Primary.Type. Each of these segments is perceptually coherent. In a given Context.Context). this system exhibits some basic structural characteristics of atonal pc-set analysis. and an entire network of segmentai relations are demonstrably founded upon a few cognitively based event relations. Analytical knowledge is distributed throughout the system in the form of clauses that Fig.Context). s means the events sound together. [c] indicates which type of contiguity obtains between the corresponding events (see the Appendix: t means the events are temporally adjacent. 1983).3>or<3.

Il. .event(P2. subset([event(Pl.X). event(P2. order(First.andit suggeststhat a declarativesystemmight be a useful model of more generalmusic-analyticalknowledgeas well. Remainder). Dl).Remainder). AKA2 + D2. and relate differentsegmentsbelongingto the same type.Context.Remainder) order(event(Pl.Il.Context.Middle.Remainder):order(First.Remainder) order(First.The clausesattributethe musicalmeaningof an event to the multiplicityof relationsit bearsto othereventsand to the multiplicityof structures to which it belongs.event(P2.Middle. :(X.A Declarative Model of Atonal Analysis 33 specifythe structureof each musicalevent as a collectionof audibleproperties.Last.I2.A2<A1+D1.D2)].Last. D2).Last. Remainder):successive(event(Pl.andsince the systemsupportsthe same kind of pc-set analyticalstatementsthat humans make.A2.Remainder).X. .A2. order(Last.A2.Last.Middle.definethe formof segmentsaccordingto those musical relations.Remainder).II.Dl).A2.Y.Context.Dl). Remainder):subset( [event(Pl. Remainder).Context. Appendix subset([].I2.Context.Context.Context. sound_together(event(Pl. Sincethe systemstructurecorrespondsto theorists'conceptionsof the structureof atonalanalyticalknowledge.Context.Context.Middle. subset(T.Context. A2is Al + Dl. 12.Al.D2).Context.Remainder).classifythe segmentsby type._) between(First.Remainder):subset([event(Pl. Context.First.Middle.Dl). :order(First.D2). successive(Y.X. event(P2.Y.X. subset([H|T].Al.Context.Context.Il.X. it would appearto be a good model of humananalyticalunderstandingof atonalmusic.Il.Dl). A2.D). order(Middle.I2. Al._).D.D2)].event(P2.D2)].Al. They relate musical events accordingto their audibleproperties.Last.Al.Dl).Il.A2.Remainder) temporally_adjacent successive(X.Remainder) . .I2.event(P2.12.Context. AKA2.Al.Context.R):element(H.R).

A. 1975. In TheoryOnly. Boretz. 34-43. On Mod 12 complementaryintervalsets. 330-364. Rahn.. of the Beach.Musical Roads. Pitch-classset analysistoday. 7-22.OrchestralPieces (1913).B. 130-141. 1-74. S. W. 1973.(Eds.B. Berry.Machine Intelligence. Boretz.). C.J. MusicAnalysis. Forte. & Harris. Boretz. 1969.A. 1-22.PartII). MovementI (Bewegt). 13-43. B. Forte.1970a. Designinga rulesystemthat searchesfor scientificdiscoveries. Meta-Variations(I).1980.A fieldfortheoryformation.. discoveries. Keith:A rule-systemfor makingmusic-analytical Florence:Leo S. 8(2). . computer grammars Callegari 1984. F. AnalysisSymposium:Webern.1979.S. 9. and Musical (Eds. Baroni& L. Logic.New York:Norton. Programmingin Prolog (2d éd.).C. 25-52.A.ComputerMusic Journal. An overviewof musicrepresentations. Olschki.1981. 191-212.G.M.Perspectivesof New Music. Lenat.H. 10(2). 54-73. 114-127.A. Leo S. Perspectivesof New Music.New York:AcademicPress. 13(1). Clocksin. Olschki. 3.1985. 30(1). 7-37. 165-199. 1983. 13(12). New York:SpringerVerlag.C.Perspectivesof New Music. Forte. Localorganizingprocessesandmotionschémasin visualperception. 7(2).In Boretz& E.NT:Prentice-Hall.Journalof Music Theory. grammars computer Smoliar. Set and nonsetsin Schoenberg'satonalmusic.D. & Mellish. 26-35. Segmentationandprocessin post-tonalmusic. 18. Jr. pp.Journalof MusicTheory. Regener. Arbib. 43-64.Perspectivesof New Music. 1986.197r4.A. Perspectivesof New Music. 11(1). Waterman& F. Cone (Eds. W.Pattern-Directed InferenceSystems.1966. 287-298.MusicTheorySpectrum.W. T. 8(2). Sketchof a musicalsystem(Meta-Variations. 8(8).D.1980. 49-111. 19(1). In D.M. The structureof atonal music. Forte.In M.1979.B.34 John Roeder References Alphonce. A. Remarkson the recentStravinsky. Baroni& L. Callegar(Eds. Laske. On Allen Forte'stheoryof chords. Pitchstructureand the analyticprocessin atonalmusic:An interpretation theoryof sets.E. 4(2). InM. Journalof Music Theory.1972. analysis.1976. Florence: and analysis. Music TheorySpectrum.Perspectivesof New Music. Forte.E. Babbitt.C.W. Reviewof Musicalgrammarsand computeranalysis.1978. Structuralfunctionsin music. 165-177.B. An earlyversionof derivation:Webern'sOp. Rahn.). ll/III. 29-58. Basic atonal theory.CollegeMusicSymposium. Wintle.EnglewoodCliffs.New Haven and London:Yale UniversityPress.set theory. Conversationwith ElliottCarter. Hasty. Hayes-Roth. 1. 1970b. 165-185. A programfor the analyticreadingof scores.A.Perspectives on Schoenbergand Stravinsky. 4(1 & 2).J.). 197r4.1979.).1984.O.musictheory. 1972.New York:Longman.Musicanalysisbycomputer. Williams. 1984.