Some Mathematical Aspects of David Lewin's Book: Generalized Musical Intervals and

Transformations
Author(s): Dan Tudor Vuza
Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Winter, 1988), pp. 258-287
Published by: Perspectives of New Music
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/833330
Accessed: 10/08/2010 14:56

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=pnm.

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.

Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives
of New Music.

http://www.jstor.org
 SOMEMATHEMATICAL
ASPECTS
OFDAVIDLEWIN'SBOOK
GENERA MUSICALIN IER
LTZED VALS
AND TRANSFORMATIONS

DAN TUDORVUZA

IHAVE STUDIED with great interest Professor David Lewin's book as,
beside my basic activities in functional analysis, I am working myself in
the domain of applicationsof algebraicstructuresto musical theory. It is a
great pleasure for me to review this prestigious book, from which I have
extracted a lot of valuablesuggestions.
The present review article, primarily concerned with the mathematical
aspects involved in Lewin's book (1987), is organized in four parts. Part1 is
a presentation of the content of the book viewed from a mathematical
angle, with emphasis on the author's algebraicconstructions derived from
his musical theories and analyses. In Part 2 I make some comments upon
the above constructions; in particularI establish the relationship between
them and some standard mathematicalobjects. In Part 3 I examine some
connections between Lewin 1987 and my work on Anatol Vieru's modal
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 259

theory, while in Part 4 I examine some connections between Lewin's

model of rhythm and my model of periodic rhythm (Vuza 1985).

1. In order to avoid repetitions let me establish here some notational

conventions.

Z: the additive group of all integers.

Zn: the group of integers modulo n.

Q: the field of rationalnumbers.

Q+ : the set of strictly positive rationalnumbers.
R: the field of real numbers.
R+ : the set of strictly positive real numbers.
S12 the set of twelve pitch-classes.

Lewin uses the word "transformation" for a map of a set into itself and
refers to bijective transformationsas "operations." I shall make use of his
terminology.

1.2. Readers of Lewin 1987 must master elementary set theory and some
algebraicgroup-theoretic concepts, such as groups and homomorphisms;
all the needed material is included in chapter 1, making the book the-
oretically self-contained. Nevertheless, I consider that the book would be
better understood by readers already possessing a certain amount of
algebraictraining.

1.3. A centralconcept in the book is that of ageneralizedintervalsystem(GIS

for short). It is defined in chapter 2 as an ordered triple (S, IVLS, int)
where S is a set (the space of the GIS), IVLS is a group (the group of gener-
alized intervals) and int is a map from SxS into IVLS, all subject to (A) and
(B) below:

(A) int(r,s)int(s,t) = int(r,t) for all r, s, t in S.

(B) For every s in S and i in IVLS there is a unique t in S such that
int (s,t) = i.
260 of NewMusic
Perspectives

"In conceptualizing a particularmusical space, it often happens that we

conceptualize along with it... a family of directed measurements, distances
or motions of some sort. Contemplating elements s and t of such a musical
space, we are characteristicallyaware of the particular directed measure-
ment, distance or motion that proceeds 'from s to t.'." This is one of
Lewin's motivations for the introduction of the above concept. Precisely,
this motivates condition (A). As concerns (B), it is dictated by a meth-
odological point: "Essentially, it guaranteesthat the space S is largeenough
to contain all the elements we could conceive in theory" (Lewin 1987, 27).
That is, if we can conceive an intervali and an element s in S, we must con-
ceive a t in S lying the intervali from s. In fact, (B) demands a unique such
t. It is shown that a weakened GIS, in whose definition condition (B)
would be replaced by a (B') demanding only the existence of t, could be
reduced to obtain a GIS.
There are eleven examples of GIS in chapter 2 (in fact there are twelve,
but one of them is a negative example). All of them are inspired by current
musical practiceand thereby show how tied to that practiceis the abstract
concept of a GIS. For instance, among them one finds:

Example2.1.2 : an indefinitely extended chromatic scale, int(s,t) being

the signed number of semitones from s to t (hence IVLS is Z here).

Example2.1.3 : the classicalsystem of twelve pitch-classes, int(s,t) being

the reduction modulo 12 of the preceding number (hence IVLS is Z12
here).
Example2.2.1: a succession of time points pulsing at regular temporal
distancesone time unit apart, int(s,t) (the duration from s to t) being the
signed number of temporal units which separatest from s.
Example2.2.2 : it is obtained by breakingthe time points, with respect
to the durations from the above example, into classes modulo N. For
N = 12 one finds Babbitt's systems of twelve beat classes.

The space S is so large to include all theoretical potentialities; in some

cases the whole of S is accessibleto practice(as in examples 2.1.3 and 2.2.2)
while in some cases it is not (as in examples 2.1.2 and 2.2.1)
Apart from the above melodic and rhythmic examples, there are har-
monic examplesmodelling pitches and pitch-classesin just intonation; they
involve the multiplicative groups {2a3b5c Ia, b, c E Z} (Example 2.1.5,
which deals with absolute pitches) and {3b5c I b, c EZ} (Example 2.1.6,
which deals with pitch classes). Other examples, which require theoretical
prerequisites,are found in the following chapters.
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 261

1.4. Chapter 3 presents the formal study of GIS's and includes three dis-
tinct topics.
The problem of labelling the members of S with the aid of the members
of IVLS is first undertaken. Namely, given a referentialmember refof S, the
bijection LABEL of S onto IVLS is defined by

LABEL(s) = int(ref,s).

Every member of S can be chosen as "ref," and distinct-choiceswill corres-

pond to distinct LABEL functions. There is no a priori distinguished ele-
ment in S to be designated as ref. In particular, when applying Lewin's
viewpoint to the twelve-tone system, one finds that there is no special rea-
son to assign the pitch-class C the referentialstatus (and hence, no special
reason to label C by 0, COby 1, ... B by 11). In this respect, Lewin's pres-
entation differsfrom other textbooks. Certainly, one can argue that in the
case of the twelve-tone system, a long tradition assigns to C the status of
referent; nevertheless, what might be regardedas justified for this classical
interval system would not be for ageneralized one. And besides, Lewin
shows by musical arguments that even in the classical context of pitch
classes there are situations when choosing C as "ref." would be embarass-
ing rather than enlightening. I would like to sustain his viewpoint by two
algebraicarguments; they will be given in sections 2.11 and 3.4.

1.5. Next, chapter 3 introduces two procedures which allow constructing a

new GIS from an old one. The first shows how, given a GIS (S, IVLS, int)
and a congruence on IVLS, one can construct a new GIS by factoringboth S
and IVLS. It is in this way that example 2.1.3 is obtained from example
2.1.2 and example 2.1.6 from example 2.1.5 (for instance).
The second procedure deals with the direct product of two GIS's and is
preceded by a suggestive musical analysisjustifying the musical pertinence
of this construction.

1.6. The last part of chapter 3 is devoted to the study of three basictypes of
operations on a GIS: transpositions, interval-preserving operations, and
inversion operations.
Given i in IVLS, the transpositionTi generated by i is defined by the
equation

int(s,T,(s)) = i, s S.
262 of NewMusic
Perspectives

Given u and v in S, the operation J of u/v inversionis defined by the

equation

int(v,jZ(s)) = int(s,u) , s E S.

A transformationX on S is called interva-preserving

if

int(X(s),X(t)) = int(s,t)

for all s, t in S.
There are a number of interesting theorems about these operations.
Thus, the group of transpositionsis canonicallyanti-isomorphicwith IVLS.
The group of interval-preservingoperations is (not canonically) isomorphic
with IVLS: in fact, to every LABEL-function there corresponds the iso-
morphism k -> Pk between them, where

Pk(s) = LABEL- (kLABEL(s)).

Transpositions commute with interval-preservingoperations. Operations

on S which can be represented as a composition between a transposition
and an interval-preservingoperation form a group called PETEY, while the
union of PETET with the set of all inversion operations forms another
group, called PETINV.
One basicidea emphasized by the above study is the distinction between
the behavior of commutative and non-commutative GIS's (a GIS is called
commutativeif IVLS is). Thus, it is seen that the set of transpositions and
the set of interval-preservingoperations coincide if and only if the GIS is
commutative. Another aspect is furnished by interval-reversingoperations.
Lewin calls a transformationY on S interval-reversing if

int(Y(s), (t)) = int(t,s) (1)

for all s, t in S. He proves that in a commutative GIS, the interval-reversing

transformationsare precisely the inversion operations, while in a non-com-
mutative GIS there are no interval-reversingtransformationsat all.

1.7. The largest part of chapter 4 introduces the first example of a non-
commutative GIS. It is a very interesting rhythmic model. Earlier, when
illustratingthe notion of a direct product of a GIS, the author considered a
commutative rhythmic GIS which assumes the existence of an absolute
time-unit. This model deals with time spans, that is, ordered pairs (a,x)
with a E R and x E R ; it models an event which is separated a times
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 263

the time-unit from a referential zero time-point and lasts for x times the
unit. Here the int function is given by

int((a,x),(b,y)) = (b- a,ylx)

(IVLS is the direct product between the additive group R and the multi-
plicative group R+ ).
One sees that though the interval is invariant under changing the zero
time-point, it is not under changing the time-unit. Examination of some
musical situations projects the idea that the notions of an absolute concep-
tual time-unit and of an absolute zero time-point are fraught with meth-
odological problems. A solution could be to replace these absolute con-
cepts by contextual ones, "restricting our attention to music in which we
can identify and assert a referential time-unit and a referential zero time-
point contextually" (Lewin 1987, 66). In such a situation one could use
the above commutative GIS. "On the other hand, there are also pieces and
passagesin which we cannot identify such referentialentities contextually."
Consequently, one would like to replace the above int function by a func-
tion invariantunder changing the referentialentities. This is preciselywhat
Lewin does when constructing his non-commutative rhythmic GIS. In this
GIS, the space S is the set TMSPS of all time spans, IVLS is the set { (i,p)
i E R, p E R+ } with the composition

(i,p)(j,q) =(i+pj,pq),

and int is given by

int((a,x) ,(b,y)) =((b- a)/x, y/x).

Thus, though time spans rely numericallyon the referentialtime span (0,1),
the invarianceproperties of int ensure that no matter what the choice of a
time span as referential,the interval between two given time spans would
not change; or, as Lewin put it, "it does not matter to what percept we
attach the numericaltime-span label (0,1)." The definition of the int func-
tion reflects the idea that "any time span has the potential for becoming a
local contextual time-unit, setting a local tempo" (Lewin 1987, 67).
Indeed, int(s,t) = (i,p) means that the time span t begins i times the dura-
tion of s afters begins and lasts forp times the duration ofs.
Two mathematical results about this GIS are of importance. The first
asserts that the group of interval-preservingoperations is formed here pre-
ciselybythe operationsdescribingthe changeof referentials.The second is an iso-
morphism theorem, showing that there is an essentiallyunique GIS having
the time spans as space and sharing the same invariance properties as the
one constructed above.
264 of NewMusic
Perspectives

1.8. Chapter 5 is dominated by two major ideas. The first is the introduc-
tion of the X/Y interval function, a far-reachinggeneralization of Forte's
intervalvector. Given a GIS (S, IVLS, int), two finite subsets X,Tin S and i
in IVLS, IFUNC(X,Y) (i) is defined as the number of pairs (s,t) in Xx Y
such that int(s,t) = i. After some musical analysis certifying IFUNC as a
useful tool, a list of theorems on its formal propertiesis displayed. The the-
orems are especially concerned with the way in which IFUNC(X, Y)
changes when one applies to X and/or Y transpositions and interval-pre-
serving operations. As concerns inversion operations, Lewin mentions the
formula

IFUNC(I(X)() IFUNC(Y,X) (1)

is true for every inversion operation in a commutative GIS; however, he

considers that "there is not much to be said in general [i.e., in the non-
commutative case] about the effect of applying an inversionoperation to X,
Y or both, so faras IFUNC is concerned" (Lewin 1987,101). Nevertheless,
he proves later on (afterthe introduction of the injection function in chap-
ter 6) the formula

IFUNC(I (X),I(Y) )(i) =INJ(X,r)(Pk) (2)

where Pk is the interval-preserving operation labelled by

k = LABEL(u) i-l.LABEL(u)-1. We shall see in section 2.10 that (2) can be
given a more symmetricalform, so that an IFUNC occurs in bothmembers
(but not the same IFUNC!) and so that the new formula reduces to (1)
when the GIS is commutative.

1.9. The other major idea in chapter 5 is canonicalequivalence. The author

considers a set S together with a group CANON of operations on it
( a group of operations to be regardedas CANONical in some context; for
instance, for S12, CANON could be the group of transpositions, or the
group of transpositionsplus inversions, or the group of transpositionsplus
inversionsplus circle-of-fifthstransformations). Two finite subsets X',X of
S are called canonically equivalent if there is A in CANON such that
X' =A(X); in such a case one calls X' a form of X. Tightly related to this
concept is that of an embedding number EMB(X, Y): it is defined as the
number of forms of X that are included in Y. Among the results involving
embedding numbers we remarka kind of a "transitivityformula" express-
ing EMB(X,Z) in terms of EMB(X,Y) and EMB(T,Z), where Yruns over
a collection of non-equivalent finite subsets of a given cardinality.
 Generalized
MusicalIntervalsand Transformations 265

1.10. In the last part of Chapter 5, Lewin undertakesthe problem of classi-

fying dyads. He considers TMSPS as set S and the group of all interval-pre-
serving operations attached to his non-commutative GIS as the CANONical
group. By a dyadhe means any subset of TMSPS consisting of two distinct
elements. The collection of all dyads breaks up into classes of canonical
equivalence; his problem is to find a convenient labelling for these classes.
To this purpose, he introduces a strict ordering on TMSPS, called "attack-
order"; we shall denote it by <a. Namely, (al,xl) <a (a2,X2) either if a1
<a2 or if al =a2 and Xl<x2. Having set this, every dyad can be written as
an ordered pair (s,t) so that s<a t: such a pair is referred as an "attack-
ordered dyad." Any interval of the form int(s,t) with s< t is called "for-
wards-oriented." His fundamental result is: two attack-ordereddyads s1, t1
and (s2,t2) are canonicallyequivalent if and only if int (sl, tl) = int (s2,t2). As
a corollary, he obtains that equivalence classes of dyads one-to-one corres-
pond to forwards-oriented intervals. However, when analyzing a musical
passage, he arrivesat the conclusion that attack-order,the use of which was
natural in connection with dyad classification, is not adequate at all for
reflectingthe true order of our time-span perception. The latter task is bet-
ter assumed by another strict ordering on TMSPS, which he calls "release-
order"; we shall denote it by <.. Namely (al,xl) <r (a2,x2) either if a + x1
<a2 + x2 or if a1 + x1= a2 + x2 and x2<xl. The reader could get the
impression that one has to use both orderings on TMSPS; one for dyad
classificationand the other to reflect perception well. I shall show in section
2.13 that <r is good for classificationas well as < (and hence, one could
completely forget about <a): besides, I shall show how Lewin's ideas
about dyad classificationextend to an arbitraryGIS.

1.11. Chapter 6 is devoted to the theory and the applicationsof the injec-
tion function. Given a set S, a transformationf on S, and two finite subsets
X, Y of S, INJ(X,Y)( f) is defined as the number of elements s in X such
that f(s) E Y. It is shown that INJ is a generalization of IFUNC: indeed,
when S is the space of a GIS, then IFUNC(X,Y)(i) = INJ(X,Y)(Ti). The
injection function allows one to analyze the behavior of general musi-
cal transformations. Thus, transformationsf for which INJ(X,X)( f) is
high are called "X-internal": "Intuitively, an X-internal transformation
tends to extend/elaborate/develop/prolong X in music, while a pro-
gressive transformation tends to urge X onwards, to become some-
thing else (like Y)" (Lewin 1987, 142). A "progressive" transformation
is one for which INJ(X,Y)( f) is high. Similarly, a transformation f
for which INJ(X,X) (f) is small is called "X-external," and one for
which INJ(X,Y) ( f) is small is called "dispersive." In this way, Lewin's
266 of NewMusic
Perspectives

injection function gives precise numerical measures for our intuitions

concerning transformationalaspects of music.
The formalpart of the study includes some useful formulasshowing how
INJ(X,Y) changes when X and Yare transformedin a specific way, as well
as a very broad generalization, in terms of INJ, of Babbitt's Hexachord
Theorem.
Among the applications, one of the most interesting is concerned with
protocol pairs. A protocolpairis an ordered pair (p,q) of distinct elements in
S2; the set of all these objects is denoted by PROT. Strict partialorderings
on S12can be viewed as subsets of PROT. Consequently, if <i (i =1,2) are
two strict partialorderings on S12, if Xi is the subset of PROT correspond-
ing to <i (Xi = { (p,q) Ip< iq}) and iff is a certain transformation on
PROT, then one can consider the number INJ(X,X2)( f). The concept of
a partialordering on S2 enlarges that of a twelve-tone row, as twelve-tone
rows are put in one-to-one correspondencewith linearorderingson S,2 and
there are interesting structures in twelve-tone theory which are modelled
by orderings that are not linear. Thus, an extensive analysis is concerned
with a list of linearorderingsand a partialordering obtained by partitioning
S12 into four classes so that each class is linearly ordered and elements
belonging to distinct classesare mutually incomparable(it models an aggre-
gate governing four voices) (Lewin 1987, 136-40). Then the INJ numbers
are computed by lettingf run through a group of operations on PROT,
isomorphic to the twelve-tone group (transpositions, inversions and
retrogradeinversions) on the twelve-tone rows. As a result, one can obtain
a deeper insight, based on precise measurements,into the system of interre-
lations governing the given order structures. As Lewin says, such measure-
ments are for instance useful "to express structural differencesamong
sections of a piece that sounds at first extremely homogeneous in texture
throughout" (Lewin 1987,139).

1.12. Let me remark that chapter 6 provides several instances of applica-

tions of what in mathematics is called "the principle of structure trans-
port": given two (possibly equal) sets X, and a bijection T from X onto
Y, every mathematicalstructure on X can be "transported" via T onto Y:
in particular,a transformationf on X related in some way to the X-struc-
ture will be "transported" into the transformationTfT-1on Y which will
be related in the same way to the Y-structure.

1.13. Chapters 7-10 together form a connected group which aims to

achieve the author's program leading towards a transformationalconcep-
tion of music.
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 267

The discourse opens with the idea that from a strict mathematicalview-
point, the theory of GIS's could be entirely subordinated to transforma-
tional theory as being a "special branch" of it, "namely that branch in
which we study a space S and a simply transitivegroup STRANS of opera-
tions on S" (Lewin 1987, 158) (simply transitivemeans that for every s,t in
S there is a unique operation OP in STRANS such that OP(s) = t); we shall
comment upon this idea in section 2.14. Thus, continues the author, one
could adopt a more formal attitude, by studying first the general theory of
groups of operations and then presenting GIS theory as a part of the for-
mer. However, he considers that from a methodological viewpoint, the
order of presentationadopted in his book is more convenient: "By starting
with a study of GIS structure, we have built a link between the historically
central concept of 'interval' and our present transformationalmachinery.
To some extent for some cultural-historicalreasons, it is easierfor us to hear
'intervals' between individual objects than to hear transpositionalrelations
between them; we are more used to conceiving transformationsas affecting
Gestalts built up from individual objects." The "intervallic" attitude cor-
responds to our position of observers outside music, while a "transforma-
tional" attitude would correspond to someone inside music (Lewin 1987,
158-59).

1.14. Mathematically, the transition from an "intervallic" towards a

"transformational"attitude is reflected by the following facts:

a) While in chapters1-6 various transformationswere acting on elemen-

tary objects such as pitch-classesand time spans, in chapters 7-10 one
deals with transformations acting on complexes such as chords and
rows.

b) Even if in chapters 1-6 one could encounter transformations on

aggregatesmade up from elementaryobjects, these all have been can-
onically deduced from transformationson elementaryobjects (such a
canonical deduction is used in chapter 5: if A is a transformationon
S, then it induces a transformation X ->A (X) on the set of all
finite subsets of S). This is not the case with the transformationsused
in chapters 7-10.

To be more explicit, consider the following example. Let T7 be the trans-

position by a fifth; it is an operation on S2. Let ROWS be the set of all
twelve-tone rows. Then T7 canonicallyinduces an operation T7 on ROWS:
each row is transposed by a fifth. Even if T7 acts between complex objects,
it emphasizes an intervallicrelation (the fifth) between elementaryobjects.
But consider now the transformationTCH on ROWS defined on page 181
268 of NewMusic
Perspectives

of Lewin 1987: it transposes a given row by an interval dependingon that

row. Consequently, the attention is here not directed towards a particular
interval spanned by elementary objects, but towards the transformation
TCH regardedas a whole.

1.15. In order better to reflect transformationalrelations, the author makes

extensive use of two formal concepts throughout his musicalanalysis:trans-
formationalgraphs and transformationalnetworks.The former are directed
graphswhose arrowsare labelled by elements in a semigroup in such a man-
ner that when composing the sequence of elements along the arrows of a
directed chain in the graph, the result depends only on the starting and
ending points of the chain; the latter are transformationalgraphs whose
semigroups are semigroups of transformationson a set S and whose nodes
are labelled by elements in S in such a manner that every transformation
that labels a given arrow must carry the label of the starting point of that
arrow into the label of the ending point of it.
Lewin uses the concept of isography as an admissible type of iso-
morphism for transformational network structures. A methodological
remarkis worth making here: isographyinvolves only the underlying trans-
formational graphs of the given transformational networks (and not the
labels of the nodes). This corresponds to the author's endeavour to find
commongestureswhile studying various kinds of actions performed on vari-
ous kinds of musical objects.
Two special structuresin graphs, namely input/output nodes and prece-
dence relations, are interpreted within many musical contexts.
I would like to note a suggestive interpretation, within the context of
precedence relations, of the classicaltheorem from set theory characterizing
partialorderings as intersections of linear orderings (Lewin 1987, 211-12).

1.16. The book closes with two appendices. I shall remark only upon
Appendix B, the one concerned with group-theoretic ideas. Here one can
find a second example of a non-commutative GIS. It is constructed by
observing that a non-commutative group made up from some transposi-
tions and inversions acts simply transitivelyon the octatonic scale {C, CO,
DO, E, F#, G, A, At}. This example is chosen in order to illustrate an
abstract algebraic principle: given a simply transitive group STRANS of
operations on a set S, the group STRANS' of all operations commuting
with all members of STRANS is also simply transitive, and STRANS is pre-
cisely the group of all operations commuting with all members of
STRANS'.
 Generalized
MusicalIntervals
and Transformations 269

1.17. Before ending this presentation, let me remark that Lewin suggests
ways in which mathematicsat a higher level than the ones used throughout
the book could be used for further study. Thus, on page 103 one sees how
problems about the intervallicfunction can generate problems about con-
volution on locally compact groups; on pages 152-56 one sees how meas-
ure theory, in particularHaar measure, could be used in order to extend
the constructions involving the injection function INJ(X,Y) to the case
when X and Y are infinite subsets.

2.1. I shall start with a list of definitions, which are by now classicaland well
known to every mathematician.

Let G beagroup, S bea set. A leftactionof G on S is a mapcalledactfrom G

x S into S with thefollowingproperties:

(Al) act(e,s) = sfor everys in S (e denotesthe unit of G).

(A2) act(gh,s) = act(g,act(h,s)) for everyg,hin G and s in S.

A right actionof G on S is a map calledact'from G x S into S verifying(Al)

aboveand (A2') belowinsteadof(A2):

(A2') act(gh,s) = act(h,act(g,s))for everyg,h in G and s in S.

When the map act is clear from the context, one writesgs (respectively
sg) instead ofact(g,s) whenever act is a left (respectivelyright) action. One
also says that G operatesat left/right on S or that S is a left/right G-set.
One can pass from left to right actions and conversely by the following
procedure: if G is any group, let G? be the opposite group of G, that is, the
set G endowed with the composition a given by gah = hg (in the right side
one has the initial composition on G). Then any left action of G on S is a
right action of G? on S and conversely. By virtue of this principle, I shall
continue the list of definitions considering one type of action only.

Let G operateon S at left, say. Ifs ES, thesubgroupofallg G suchthatgs = s

is calledthe stabilitysubgroupof s.
Twoelementss,t in S aresaid to beconjugateif thereis ag in G suchthat t =gs.
Conjugationis an equivalencerelation;equivalence classesdeterminedby it are
knownunderthe name of orbits.
270 of NewMusic
Perspectives

Foreverys in S, the map os from G into S given by co (g) =gs is calledthe

orbitalmapdefinedbys; its imageis the orbitof s.
S is calleda principalhomogeneous (left) G-set(PH G-setin short) ifsome (and
hence,all) orbitalmap is a bijection.

Now consider two groups G1, G2 and suppose that Gi operates at right
on Si (i = 1,2). A map f from S] into S2 is said to be compatiblewith a group
homomorphism ( from G1 into G2 if =
f(sg) f(s)(p(g) for every s in S] andg
in G1.In particular,a G-isomorphism between two G-sets is a bijection com-
patible with the identity map on G.
A special situation occurs when G1and G2 operate on opposite sides.
Consider for instance the case when G1operates at right and G2 at left (for
the opposite case the definition is similar). The map f is said to be compati-
blewith the homomorphism p if f(sg) = (p(g-l) f(s) for every s in S, andg
in G1.The link between this situation and the preceding one is furnished by
the fact that, when regardingS2 as a right G2-set, f is compatible (in the
sense of the preceding definition) with the homomorphismg - (<(g-')
from G1into G2.
There are two more group-theoretic notions which will be used below.
An automorphism of the group G is an isomorphism of G onto itself; the set
of all automorphisms of G is a group under compositions of maps and will
be denoted by Aut(G). For everyg in G, the map ag given by og(h) = ghg-'
is an element of Aut(G), called the internalautomorphismdefined byg; the
set of all internal automorphisms of G is a subgroup of Aut(G) and will be
denoted by Int(G). The map takingg into a. is a homomorphism of G onto
Int(G), denoted by intaut.
All definitions above can be found in Bourbaki1971, chapter 1, ?5 with
the only exception of the locution "f is compatiblewith (p" which is taken
from Bourbaki1965 chapter 3, ?2; the same thing is expressed in Bourbaki
1971as "f is a (p-morphism," but for my present purposes, I preferthe for-
mer locution as more convenient.

2.2. From an algebraicviewpoint, there is a complete equivalence between

the concept of a GIS and the concept of a PH right G-set. Indeed, there is a
one-to-one correspondencebetween GIS and triples (S,G, act) where S is a
set, G is a group and act is a right action of G on S so that S becomes a PH
G-set. To a GIS (S, IVLS, int) corresponds the triple (S, JVLS, act) where
act(i,s) = Ti(s); to the triple (S,G, act) correspondsthe GIS (S,G, int) where
int(s,t) is the uniqueg in G for which t= sg.
 MusicalIntervalsand Transformations
Generalized 271

2.3. PH G-sets are widespread objects in mathematics, although Bour-

baki's terminology "ensembleprincipalhomogene"is not used by everyone.
For instance, a significant class of such objects is represented by affine
spaces, that is, PH V-setswhere Vis the additivegroup of a vector space. In
fact, affinespacesare introduced in most standardtextbooks as triples (S, V,
d) where S is a set, V is the additive group of a vector space and d is a map
from S x S into V satisfying(A) and (B) in Lewin's definition of a GIS.

2.4. Every group G operates on itself at right via the map act defined by
act(g,s) = sg for everyg,s in G. The G-set so obtained is PH and Bourbaki
denotes it by Gd.IfS is a PH right G-set, the G-isomorphismsfrom Gdonto
S are preciselythe orbital maps; if (S, IVLS, int) is a GIS and if we consider
(as in 2.2) S as a right /VLS-set, then the IVLS-isomorphismsfrom S onto
IVLSdare precisely the LABEL-functions, that is, the inverses of orbital
maps.

2.5. Given a group G of operations on a set S, one canonically defines a

structure of left G-set on S via the map act given by act(N, s) = r(s) for 7rin
G and s in S. This G-set is PH if and only if G is simply transitiveon S.
Given a finite set S and an operation n on S, denote by [7] the group of
operations generated by z. 7ris called a cyclicpermutation(Bourbaki 1971,
chapter 1, ?5) if S is a PH [r]-set. Thus, to every cyclic permutation ir on S
one can attach a GIS (S,[ir], int) (the distinction between left and right is
immaterial here, as [n] is commutative). The reader has already encoun-
tered an applicationof this principleon page 180 of Lewin 1987, where the
operation MED, in fact a cyclic permutation, is defined.

2.6. Let two GIS's (Si, IVLSi, inti) (i= 1,2) be given and let us consider Si
as a right IVLS/-set. Then a map f from S1onto S2 is compatible with a
homomorphism (pfrom IVLS1into IVLS2if and only if

int2(f(s),f(t)) = (c(intl(s,t))

for everys,t in S1.

For a given f, there is at most one homomorphism (psuch that f and (p
are compatible; this unique (p (if it exists) is denoted by f and is called the
homomorphism associated with f. This association commutes with com-
positionof maps: ff 2 = f f2.
There is no universally adopted terminology for designing the maps
between PH sets which are compatible with some group homomorphism
272 of NewMusic
Perspectives

(except for the case of affine spaces, where one uses the word "affine map"
to design a map compatible with a linear map between vector spaces); I
shall refer these maps asprincipalhomomorphisms.
The notion of a principal homomorphism provides a reasonableway to
work with transformationson a GIS which are not in the group PETINV
(Lewin 1987, 57). For instance if we work within S12and if we would like
to introduce circle-of-fifths transformationswithout resorting (as in Rahn
1980) to a particularLABEL-function, we should define them as principal
homomorphisms M for which M is multiplication of intervals by 7. The
readerof Lewin 1987 could note the use, on the staves of pages 166-67, of
several principal homomorphisms M such that M is multiplication of
intervalsby 2.
In sections 2.7-2.9 below we shall fix a GIS (S, IVLS, int).

2.7. Interval-preservingoperations are precisely the maps on S which are

compatible with the identity map on IVLS.

2.8. A transformation on S belongs to the group PETET (see 1.6) if and

only if it is compatible with an internal automorphism.

2.9. What about inversions?As noted earlier (section 1.16), S is a PH left

IP-set, where IP denotes the group of interval-preservingoperations; con-
sequently, S is a PH right IPo-set and we can, accordingto 2.2, consider the
GIS (S, IlP, int') attached to it.
For every x in S let k, be the isomorphism of IP onto IVLS defined by

kx(P) = int(x,P(x)).

The formula

kx = (1)
inyt(xy)Y

shows that Int(IVLS) operates at left on the set K = {kx I xES} and that
the map x I- kx (which is not one-to-one in general!) from the right
IVLS-set S into the left Int(IVLS)-set K is compatible with the homo-
morphism intaut. In fact, K is a PH Int(IVLS)-set. When IVLS is com-
mutative, Int(IVLS) reduces to the identity map and K reduces to a single-
element set, the element being the canonical isomorphism can between IP
and IVLS.
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervals
and Transformations 273

The following theorem can be proved:

Let I bea transformation on S. Then thefollowingare equivalent:

a) I is an inversionoperation.
b) I, as a mapfrom the leftIP-setS into the right IVLS-setS, is compati-
blewith someisomorphism in K.

c) I, as a mapfrom the right IVLS-setS into the leftIP-setS, is compati-

blewith the inverseof someisomorphism in K.

This interpretation of inversions as principal homomorphisms between

(S, IVLS, int) and (S, IPO, int') has at least three advantages:

1) It allows one to better understand the role played by u and v in any

representationof Ias ^: indeed, the isomorphism occurring in b) above
is just k., while the isomorphism occurring in c) is kv.

2) It allows us to obtain shorter (and label-free!) proofs for theorems

3.5.3-3.5.8 in Lewin 1987, all based on the following generalprinciple:
two principalhomomorphismsf,g from a PH Gl-set S1into a PH G2-set
S2 coincide if and only if i) f(s) =g(s) for some s in SIand ii) f = ~.

For instance, let us rephrasethe proof of theorem 3.5.3 :?= Jw if and

only if w = J (x) and int (x,u) is central. Indeed, t==wif and only if: i)
4J(x)= 4x(x)= w and ii) k, = k,. But in view of formula (1), the latter is equiv-
alent to int(x,,u) = identity, that is, int(x,u) is central.
Another example : the formula

T, t = I where x = T(u)

(Lewin 1987, theorem 3.5.6). Consider t4 and I as principal homo-

morphisms from the IVLS-set S into the IPo-set S and Tn as a principal
homomorphism of the IP?-set S into itself. As T,J(v) = J(v) (by the defi-
nition of x!), it remains to verify that T,= 4. But Tn = identity and
U^-= V in view of remark1) above. Hence

TX = Tn V= I= I.
3) The formula in theorem 3.5.8 can be written in a label-free manner:

4 w= kv- (int(x,v))Tintw,u,.
274 of NewMusic
Perspectives

Now let us see, according to 2.6, what condition b) above means in

terms of int and int'. It says that

int(I(s),I(t)) = k(int'(t,s)) (2)

for some k in K. When IVLS is commutative, all k equal can and the com-
position between int' and can equals int; hence, (2) reduces in this case to
formula (1) from 1.6.

2.10. Consider now two GIS's (Si, IVLSj, intj) (1=1,2) and let f be a one-
to-one principal homomorphism from SI into S2. Then denoting by
IFUNCj the intervallicfunction (Lewin 1987, 88) attached to the j-th GIS,
one has

IFUNC2(f(X),(T))(f (i)) = IFUNC(X,Y)(i)

for every pair of finite subsets X, in S1and every i in IVLS1.

We saw in 2.9 that inversionson a GIS (S, IVLS, int) are principalhomo-
morphisms when regardedas maps from the IPo-set S into the IVLS-set S;
consequently, we obtain from the above formula that

IFUNC'(X,Y)(P) = IFUNC(I(X),I(Y) )(I (P))

(the prime stands for the intervallicfunction computed in (S, IPo, int')).
This relation is more symmetric than (2) in section 1.8, as an intervallic
function occurs in both sides, and more "self-contained," as it relies nei-
ther on any particularLABEL-function, nor on any particularrepresenta-
tion of Ias I. Of course, when one writes down an explicit form for I, one
finds again Lewin's formula (2) from 1.8.

2.11. Earlier, we have seen that Lewin's procedures for constructing new
GIS's from old are concerned only with quotients and direct products. I
think that the notion of a subsystem-the dual notion for a quotient sys-
tem-is of equal importance in the theory of GIS's. It could be defined as
follows:

A GIS (S', IVLS', int') is calleda subsystem

of the GIS (S, IVLS, int) ifS' is
a subsetofS , IVLS' is a subgroupof IVLS and int' is the restrictionof int to
S'xS'.

For instance, if (S12, Z12, int) is the classical twelve-tone system, then
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervals
and Transformations 275

({B, D, F, Ab} , {0, 3, 6, 9} , int') is a subsystem of the above, if one

defines int' by restrictingint. As the space of the latter system does not con-
tain C, one cannot choose, among the four LABEL-functions attached to
this GIS, a distinguished one. Hence we see that, although some LABEL-
functions may be privileged in the context of the whole system (in our
example, the one which maps C into 0), there might be no such function in
the context of a subsystem of it.
How could a LABEL-function be "privileged"? In at least two ways.
First, by a preferentialuse (Forte's traditionuses a "fixed DO" system with
C = zero). Second, in a purely algebraicway. Thus, in chapter 3 of Rahn
1980, the following procedure is used (rephrasedin terms of GIS theory)
for defining the basic operations on S2: a certain LABEL-function is
chosen, say LABELo (not necessarilythe one which maps C into 0!), the
basic operations on Z12are defined and then they are considered as defined
on S12by transportof structurevia LABELo.In particular,Rahn defines the
multiplicativeoperations Mk (k= 1, 5, 7, 11)on Z12 by Mk(x) = kx and he
points out that they form a group M, which in fact equals Aut(Z12). Thus
Z12 becomes an M-set, and, by transport of structure, S2 also becomes an
M-set; it is understood that all four multiplicative operations should be
transported on S12 via the sameLABEL-function LABELo, otherwise they
would not form a group of operations on S12.Once this is settled, it is easy
to see that LABELoand LABEL1given by LABELl(s) = LABELo(s) + 6
are privileged in the sense that they are the only LABEL-functions which
establishM-isomorphisms between the M-sets Z12 and S12.

2.12. There are other kinds of G-sets, beside PH G-sets, which occur in
Lewin's book. Some of them are connected with the canonicalequivalence
discussed in chapter 5. Given a group CANON of operations on a set S, a
left action of CANON on the collection of all finite subsets of S is defined
by act(A,X) = A(X). Canonical equivalence is precisely conjugation with
respect to the above action; the set IXI (definition 5.2.2 in Lewin 1987) is
precisely the orbit of X.
The notion of a stabilitysubgroup, though not explicitly stated in Lewin
1987, is implicitly assumed by the formula

EMB(X Y) = RGNPF(X,Y)(card X)
RGNPF (X,X) (cardX)

given (without proof) on p. 152 and also, by the organization of the set of
tritones as the space of a GIS (p. 203), the latter representing in fact the
expression, in this particularcase, of the generalalgebraicprincipleasserting
276 of NewMusic
Perspectives

that in every G-set with G commutative, the orbit of any element x is a PH

G/Hx-set (G/Hxdenotes the quotient of G by the stabilitysubgroupHx ofx).

2.13. Let a GIS (S, IVLS, int) be given. Consider a subset P of IVLS satisfy-
ing the following requirements:

(P1) e doesnot belongto P and all elementsi in IVLS but e suchthat i = i-

belongto P.
(P2) Foreveryi in IVLS suchthat i * i- , oneand onlyoneof the elements
belongsto P.

Such a set always can be extracted from a finite group. For instance, in
Z12one usually works with the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}. One can do that also for
infinite groups; in general one must invoke the axiom of choice, but in
some concrete cases one can write down P without resortingto that axiom.
By a dyadI mean a subset of S consisting of two distinct elements; by a
directeddyadI mean an ordered pair (s,t) such that int(s,t) EP.
The group of interval-preservingoperations operates at left on the col-
lection C2 of all dyads, breakingit into orbits. The extension to an arbitrary
GIS of Lewin's theorem on dyad classification in his non-commutative
rhythmic GIS sounds: Let (sl,tl) and (s2,t2) be two directed dyads. Then
the (undirected) dyads {s1,tj} and {s2,t2} are conjugated if and only if
int(sl,t) = int(s2,t2). Consequently, there is a one-to-one correspondence
between P and the orbits of C2.
Now suppose that IVLS satisfiesthe condition

(* ) i i- lfor everyi in IVLS distinctfrom e

and that we can choose P so that, beside (P1) and (P2), it also verifies

(P3) ifi andj belongto P, sodoesij.

This cannot be done for every group satisfying(*). When one can do it,
the relation < on S defined by

s< t if int(s,t) EP

is a strict linearordering on S. In that case, one can classifynot only dyads,

but also sets of a given cardinality.For any integer n 2, the group of inter-
val-preservingoperations operates at left on the collection C, of all subsets
of S of cardinality n, breaking it into orbits. Every element of C, can be
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 277

uniquely written as an ordered n-tuple (s,... ,s,) so that s<s2 < ... <s,. It
turns out that two such n-tuples (sl,... ,s) and (t1,... ,tn) are conjugated if
and only if int (s,sj+ 1) = int(tj,t.+ 1) forj = 1,... ,n -1. Consequently, there
is a one-to-one correspondence between P"-1 (the Cartesian product of
n - 1 copies ofP) and the orbits of C,.
For instance, if (TMSPS, IVLS, int) is Lewin's non-commutative rhyth-
mic GIS, one can make at least two choices Pa, Pr for P:

P, is thesetofall (i,p) in IVLSsothateitheri> O,ori = 0 andp> 1.

Pr is the set of all (i,p) in IVLS so that eitheri + p > 1, or i + p= 1 and
p<l.

Pa defines attack-orderon TMSPSwhile Pr defines releaseorder.

2.14. At the beginning of chapter 7, Lewin proves the following theorem:

Given a GIS (S, IVLS, int), the group of transpositionsattached to it is sim-
ply transitiveon S. Conversely, given a simply transitivegroup STRANS on
S, there is a GIS (S, IVLS, int) so that its group of transpositionsis precisely
STRANS. He takes this theorem as a basis for his statement concerning the
possibility of replacing the idea of a GIS structure by the idea of a space S
together with a simply transitivegroup of operations on it.
The purpose of the present remarkis to point out that while GIS can be
substituted by PH G-sets, they cannot be entirelysubstituted by couples (S,
STRANS) where S is a set and STRANS is a simply transitivegroup of oper-
ations on S. This happens because the correspondence between GIS and
such couples is not one-to-one : given a couple (S, STRANS), there are in
general several distinct GIS having the same space S, the same group of
intervalsand the same group STRANS as group of transpositions.
To make the situation precise, let me introduce the following notion.
Two GIS's (S, IVLSi, inti) (i = 1,2) having the same space S are called equiv-
alent if the identity map on S is a principal homomorphism, when consid-
ered as a map from the first GIS into the second; this means that there is an
isomorphism (pofIVLS1 onto VLS2so that

int2(s,t) = p(intl(s,t))

for every s,t in S. The reader of Lewin 1987 has already encountered this
kind of equivalencein a particularcontext, namely in the statement of the-
orem 4.1.5 about the essential uniqueness of Lewin's non-commutative
rhythmic GIS. One can prove that two GIS's are equivalent if and only if
their groups of transpositions are equal as sets of operations on S; hence,
278 of NewMusic
Perspectives

couples (S, STRANS) correspond one-to-one to classesof equivalent GIS's

having S as a common space; in contrast to this, triples (S, G, act), where
the action act defines a structure of PH G-set on S, correspond one-to-one
to individualGIS's.
For instance, given a couple (S, STRANS), let us determine all GIS's
having S as space, STRANS0 as group of intervalsand STRANS as group of
transpositions. To this purpose, consider S as a right STRANS?-set and for
every (pEAut(STRANS? ) choose an operation 7t on S compatible with (p.
The set H of all such chosen t is put in one-to-one correspondence with
the set of GIS'swe are looking for: namely, to a r in H correspondsthe GIS
in which the interval from s to t is defined as the unique operation in
STRANS0 which takes nt (s) into ;t(t). Hence, one sees that a GIS means
more than a couple (S, STRANS); in the present situation, an operation Iz
is also involved.
While working within a GIS (S, IVLS, int), it may be that certainproper-
ties of configurationson S are better reflected by another equivalent GIS (S,
IVLS', int'). To illustrate this, I shall indicate three GIS's having S12 as a
common space and the group of usual twelve-tone transpositionsas a com-
mon group of transpositions.
The first is the classicalGIS (S12,Z12,int) where int(s,t) counts clockwise
the number of semitones from s to t.
The second is (S12, Z12, int'), where int'(s,t) counts clockwise the
number of fifths from s to t; it is used especiallyin classicalharmony, where
one measuresthe distance between two major scalesin fifths ratherthan in
semitones.
The third is (S12, Z3 x Z4, int"),where int"(s,t) is obtained as follows:
let r be the unique pitch-class which lies both in the augmented triad con-
taining s and in the diminished seventh chord containing t. Then int"(s,t)
= (ij), where i counts clockwise the number of major thirds from s to r,
while j counts clockwise the number of minor thirds from r to t. This GIS
allows the introduction of rectangularsets, a notion which is not apparent
within the frameworkof the preceding GIS. A subset X of S2 is called rec-
tangularif LABEL(X) can be written as Y1x Y2 where YT(respectively Y2)
is a subset of Z3 (respectivelyZ4); the definition does not depend upon the
particularLABEL-functionused in it. The readerof my paper, Vuza 1986a,
will understand how this GIS can be useful; in particular,it is proved there
that rectangular sets are precisely the sets of pitch-classes displayed by
reducible sequences (see section 3.4).

2.15. In connection with Appendix B, let me mention that every subgroup

of the group G12of all transpositions and inversions on Sn which has less
than twelve elements is simply transitiveon some suitable chosen subset of
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 279

S12,while there are precisely two twelve-element subgroups of G2 which

are simply transitiveon the whole of S2; the first is the group of transposi-
tions, the second is the non-commutative group {T T2, T4, T6, T8, To,
_C#Ic# I,IT cG,
, ICB.

3.1. The Romanian composer and professorAnatol Vieru published in 1980

his Bookof Modeswhich representsa culmination of his own researchespur-
sued along more than ten years.
Vieru has already presented to readers of Perspectives of New Music the
musical sources of his theory, which lie in modal music rather than in
twelve-tone music (see Vieru 1985).
Basically, his work is concerned with modes (i.e., sets of pitch-classes)
and modal classes (i.e., canonical equivalence classes determined by the
group of usual transpositionson S12).He studies various topics such as: set-
theoretic operations on modes, order and algebraicstructureson the collec-
tion of modal classes (such as inclusion, complementation, multiplication
by 1, 5, 7, 11, composition), special properties (such as limited transposi-
tions and inversional symmetry), inclusion numbers, and he describes a
compositional technique based on the use of periodic sequences.
As, from a strict mathematical viewpoint, Vieru's approach lies at a
semiformal level, Professor Solomon Marcus suggested to me, soon after
the publication of the volume, that I construct an algebraictheory which
would give Vieru's definitions and constructions the rigor that every math-
ematician calls for.
Thus, I started in 1980 work on a series of papers which led, in suc-
cessive steps, towards the construction of such a theory; they are published
as Vuza 1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b, 1986a, and 1986b.
The theory of the action of a group on a set turned out to be the mathe-
matical background for my whole study. I have chosen Bourbaki's
"ensemble principalhomogene" as better adapted for modelling the musi-
cal space of all twelve pitch classes in its interrelation with the group of
intervals. Although, by that time, I had no other example of a PH G-set
except S2, I neverthelesshad a strong feeling that generalPH G-sets (equiv-
alent to GIS, as seen in 2.2) would in the future play a prominent role in
modelling musical phenomena; consequently, my plan was to prepare the
theory for such future applications, even if at the moment my machinery
might seem to be a pure mathematicalspeculation. If one goes through my
papers (Vuza 1982a, b, 1983a, b, and 1986a), one finds that the PH Z12-set
280 of NewMusic
Perspectives

Su from 1982a is replacedin 1982b by a PH G-set with G an arbitarycom-

mutative finite group, while in 1983a arbitrary commutative (infinite)
groups come into study.
It is true that in all my PH G-sets, G is a commutative group; conse-
quently, I must recognize Lewin's merit in constructing a non-com-
mutative GIS with musical pertinence. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed very
much finding that, due to Lewin's work, my conjecture about the musical
importance of PH G-sets has turned by now into an undeniable reality.
A great part of my studies on abstractPH G-sets found its applications
within my model of periodic rhythm (see Part 4).

3.2. Let me examine some formal connections between Lewin's work and
mine.
As in Lewin 1987, the basis for my study is provided by a PH G-set A; I
make the additional assumption that G is commutative.
In order to establish convenient bijections between G and A, I use
orbital maps; these are the inverses of Lewin's LABEL-functions.
Lewin attaches to a GIS transpositions, interval-preservingoperations,
and inversion operations as basic types of transformationson that GIS; as a
rule, he does not consider maps acting between differentGIS's. In my the-
ory, I consider principal homomorphisms as a basic class of maps. Such
maps may act between different PH sets; transpositions and inversions
belong to this class.
A main topic in my theory is the study of mathematicalstructureson the
set M(S). The latter set is constructed in Vuza 1982a as follows: given a
group G and a left action of G on a set S, define a left action of G on the set
P(S) of all subsets of S by act(g,X) = { gx Ix EX} for everyg in G and X in
P(S). By definition, M(S) is the collection of all orbits determined by the
action of G on P(S). In order to compare this construction with Lewin's
classesof canonical equivalence, let me remarkthat the latter are the orbits
determined by the restriction of the action of G on P(S) to the subset of
P(S) consisting of all finite subsets of S (in Lewin's theory, G is a group
CANON of operations on S). It is true that my theory is especially con-
cerned with the sets M(S) in the case when S is a PH G-set and G is com-
mutative, while in Lewin's theory, CANON is in general neither com-
mutative, nor simply transitive on S. On the other side, while Lewin
considersonly the canonicalequivalenceof finite sets, my model of periodic
rhythm makes extensive use of a collection of elements in M(S) such that
each of them is an orbit consisting of infinite subsets of S.
When A is a PH G-set, I shall refer the elements of P(A) as "modes"
and the elements of M(A) as "modal classes."
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 281

3.3. Lewin motivates the introduction of his basic types of operations by

certain musicallymeaningful requirements (for instance, the behavior with
respect to intervals). Likewise, I have tried to justify my use of principal
homomorphisms through a specific musical behavior. Namely, I remark
that, given the PH Grset Ai (i = 1,2), every principalhomomorphism f
from A1 into A2 satisfiescondition (C) below:

(C) The imagebythe mapX+ f (X) (XEP(A1)) of everymodalclassin A1 is

containedin a modalclassin A2.

I ask in Vuza 1983a to what extent (C) characterizesprincipal homo-

morphisms. The problem is discussed in detail there. It is seen for instance
that every map satisfying(C) is a principalhomomorphism provided that it
takes at least five distinct values. The transformation on S12taking one
whole-tone scaleinto C and the other into C# provides an example of a map
which satisfies(C) and is not a principalhomomorphism.

3.4. A significantway to justify, as Lewin does, the non-preferentialuse of

different orbital maps occurred in the following context of my theory: In
his last chapter, Vieru (1980) is interested in a compositional technique
based on periodic sequences of pitch-classes with the property that if one
first takes the sequence of intervals spanned by pitch-classes in successive
positions, then takes the sequence of differencesbetween successive inter-
vals, and then the sequence of differences between successive differences
and so on, one obtains the zero sequence after a finite number of steps.
Aiming to generalize to abstractPH G-sets Vieru's technique I consider a
finite commutative group G and the following definitions:

By a sequenceI meanany mapdefinedon Z.

A G-valuedsequence providedthatD)(p = 0
cpis calledreducible(reproducible)
(Dk(p = (p) for some k 1; here D(p(n) = (p(n) - (p(n -1 ) and Dk(p =
D. .. D(p (k times). Reducibleand reproducible sequencesare the bricksfrom
whichperiodicG-valuedsequences are built up (seeVuza1986a, wherethe the-
oryof reducible/reproducible
sequencesis workedout).
Givena PH G-setA, an A-valuedsequenceis calledreducible(reproducible) if
the G-valuedsequenceof abstractintervalsspannedby successivetermsin the
sequenceunderconsiderationis so.

It turns that whenever f is an A-valued reproduciblesequence, there is a

unique orbital map (depending on f!) which carries f into a G-valued
reproduciblesequence.
282 of NewMusic
Perspectives

3.5. When A is a PH Zn-set (n an arbitraryinteger 2 2) I study the inclu-

sion number on any modal class on A into another; these numbers are a
particular instance of Lewin's embedding numbers EMB(IXI,TIY), pre-
cisely when the group of transpositionsis taken as a canonicalgroup. In his
theory, the most significantresult about embedding numbers seems to be a
generalization of Babbitt's Hexachord Theorem. In my theory, the most
significant result about inclusion numbers seems to be a generalization of
the following interesting statement discovered by Vieru: The sum between
the number of major chords in a given mode and the number of major
chords in its complement does not change when replacing "major" by
Cminor. '

3.6. In the case of a PH Zn-set I also consider the intervallicfunction in its

relation to the number of u-connectivity components of a mode, a notion
that extends Vieru's diatonic and chromatic components (see Vieru and
Vuza 1985 and Vuza 1983c).

3.7. Vieru introduced a natural composition on M(S12) turning it into a

commutative semigroup; I did not find an analogous definition in other
authors' works.
I have generalized Vieru's composition to the case of an abstractPH G-
set A, G being an arbitrarycommutativegroup. The formal definition reads:

given M1 and M2 in M(A), defineM1 + M2 as the modalclassof the mode

{(ws(w'(t1) + o)sl(t2)) I tE X1, t2EX2}

whereX1EM1, X2 EM2 ands EA

(the definition does not depend on the particularchoices of these). The

musical interpretationis: M1 + M2 is the modal class of the union of the
transpositionsof X1 by the intervalsfrom a fixed referentialelement to the
members of X2.
Composition of modal classesis extensively studied in my abstractmodal
theory; this is perhaps the reason I have confined myself to PH G-sets with
G commutative, as I still do not know any reasonable definition of com-
position applying to the non-commutative case.
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 283

4.1. A relativelyshort interval separatesthe publication of Lewin's (1984)

non-commutative rhythmic GIS from the publication in Vuza 1985 of my
model of periodic rhythm. I shall briefly examine the relations between
them and, more generally, the relationbetween my model and Lewin's GIS
theory.

4.2. The basic definitions in my model are the following.

A periodicrhythmis a (possibly
empty)subsetR of Q satisfying(RI) and (R2)
below:

(R1) t+ R=Rfor somet E Q (t+ Rdenotesthe set {t + r r ER}).

(R2) Foreverya,b EQ with a< b, the set {r I r ER, a < r< b} isfinite.

The elements in R should be viewed as markingthe transition moments

from one musical event to another during the discourse delivered by a sin-
gle voice.

A rhythmicclassis an orbitdeterminedbytheactionof theadditivegroupQ on

the collectionof all periodicrhythmsdefinedbyact(t,R) = t+ R

4.3. Looking first at the differences, one sees that while Lewin's model
applies to rhythm in general, my model applies to a special class of periodic
rhythms. Time axis is R in Lewin's model, Q in mine; in other words, I
consider a temporal space in which events are separatedby commensurable
durationsonly. This has at least two formal advantages:First, the collection
of all periodic rhythms is closed under taking unions, intersections, and dif-
ferences (that is, it is what in mathematicsis called a ring of sets). Second,
one can compose rhythmic classes in the same way as it is done for modal
classes. Composition of rhythmic classes has a natural musical interpreta-
tion and is very useful when studying the construction of canons.

4.4. A significant similaritybetween Lewin's model and my model is fur-

nished by the fact that both give to every object considered within them as
"primary" (time spans in the first, periodic rhythms in the second) the
capacityto settle contextual time units.
The contextual time unit attached to the periodic rhythm R is the
284 of NewMusic
Perspectives

number Div(R), defined as the greatest d in Q. such that the difference

between every two elements in R is an integralmultiple ofd. To pick up its
role, consider the following problem : two voices V, V2start beating certain
rhythmic patterns, repeating them over and over again in such a manner
that all beats of V2 overlap with certain beats of V1.Which are the admissi-
ble moments after the start of V1and V2when a third voice V3should start
beating and repeating the same rhythmic pattern as V2 in such a manner
that all beats of V3overlap with certain beats of V1but there is no complete
overlappingbetween V2and V3 ? Within my model, the problem translates
as: given the periodic rhythms R,R' so that R' is a subset of R, determine
the set

SR,'= {tI tEQ+, t+ R'CR, t+ R' R'}. (1)

The sets R,R' and SRR, arejust mathematicalmodels; numerically,they rely

on an absolute time-unit and they change when one chooses another time-
unit. On the other side, the answer to the above problem is entirely deter-
mined by the perceptual context created by V1and V2 and does not resort
to any time-unit from outside of that context. This realityis reflected in my
model by the fact that the set

{t/Div(R) ItESRR,} (2)

does not depend upon the particulartime-unit used when we have written
down R and R'. Hence, Div(R) plays here the role of a contextual time-
unit, the admissiblemoments we are looking for being separatedby integral
multiples of that unit from the startingmoment. A more formalway to put
this is to say that the collection of all periodic rhythms is stable under the
action of the group formed by all operations t-->at+ b (a EQ+, b EQ)-
the Q-analog of the group of interval-preserving maps used in Lewin's
model-and the set (2) is an invariantfor that group.
The readershould note how the numbers Div(R) are used in Vuza 1985
to model polyrhythm.

4.5. The idea of a rhythmic class provides the connection between my

rhythmic theory and my abstractmodal theory; in fact, many mathematical
structureson the sets M(A) of modal classesfound their analogsin the col-
lection of rhythmic classes. In this respect, one can say that my rhythmic
theory is connected to Lewin's abstracttheory in general, not only to the
special aspect represented by the non-commutative rhythmic model. For
instance, my rhythmic inclusion numbers are computed according to the
same formal definition as his embedding numbers: the inclusion number of
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 285

one rhythmic class into another is obtained by counting the number of

rhythms in the first class that are contained in a fixed rhythm from the sec-
ond. In the generalframeworkof Lewin's theory, one asksthat both X and
Yshould be finite in order to obtain a finite EMB(IXI/,YI); my rhythmic
model provides an instance of computing such (finite!) numbers in a situa-
tion when X and Y range over a collection of infinite sets, each of them
having an infinite number of forms.

I would like to conclude this review with the idea that the publication of
Lewin's book representsan event markingin a decisive way the process of
the introduction of mathematical structures and reasoning into music-
theoretic activities. Consequently, I consider that musicians as well as
mathematicianswill be interested in studying it.
Musicianswill discover through it the role played by the modelling func-
tion of mathematicsin better understanding the structuralunity of a phe-
nomenon which is manifest through a variety of forms. Indeed, it is not a
fortuitous but a rather deep fact that the same formal tools can describe
aspects from different domains (such as melodic, rhythmic, timbral) of the
musical phenomenon. And, last but not least, the book responds to a
necessity which will become (at least I think so) quite pressing in the near
future: to accustom musicians to the rigors of mathematicalreasoning, by
offering them real mathematicaldefinitions, theorems, and proofs.
It is quite possible that the professional mathematician would find the
mathematicaltheory in the book ratherelementary. It is my conviction that
the author consciously confined his exposition to a medium mathematical
level, taking into account the audience he addresses. Nevertheless, the
mathematician's attention will be captivated by the way in which the
author gives new and, sometimes, unexpected interpretations to classical
mathematicalideas when applied to musical contexts. These new interpre-
tations lead in turn to new mathematicalproblems; and this is the aspect
which should especially concern the mathematician, most of these prob-
lems requiring, as the author himself points out, mathematicalmethods of
a higher level. Let me recall to the reader that Lewin-whose academic
training is both musical and mathematical-employed as early as 1959
sophisticated devices such as convolution and Fourier transformin order to
solve problems inspired by musical considerations (see Lewin 1959).
In 1982 I was closing my conference on mathematicalmethods in music
delivered at a scientificsession of the Romanian Academy in the spirit of the
idea that the future will decide if music theory will integrate mathematical
reasoning as a response to an internal necessity. Professor David Lewin's
book pleads for a strongly affirmativeanswer.
286 of NewMusic
Perspectives

REFERENCES

(Chapters 3-8). Third edition.

Bourbaki, Nicolas. 1965. Topologiegenerale
Paris: Hermann.
.1971. Aqgebre(Chapters1-3). Third edition. Paris:Hermann.
Lewin, David. 1959. "Intervallic Relations between Two Collections of
Notes. " Journalof Music Theory3:298-301.
. 1984. "On Formal Intervals between Time-Spans." Music Per-
ception1, no. 4 (Summer): 414-23.
. 1987. GeneralizedMusical Intervals and Transformations.New
Haven and London: YaleUniversity Press.
Rahn, John. 1980. BasicAtonal Theory.New Yorkand London: Longman.
Vieru, Anatol. 1980. CarteamodurilorI (The book of modes I; summaries
in French and English). Bucharest:Editura Muzicala.
. 1985. "Modalism-a 'Third World'." Perspectives
of NewMusic 24,
no. 1 (Fall-Winter):62-71.
Vieru, Anatol, and Dan Vuza. 1985. "En forant le domaine." Muzica 35,
no. 4:43-48.
Vuza, Dan. 1982a. "Aspects mathematiques dans la theorie modale
d'Anatol Vieru." RevueRoumainede MathematiquesPures et Appliquees
27, no. 2:219-48.
. 1982b. "Aspects mathematiques dans la theorie modale d'Anatol
Vieru." Part 2. RevueRoumainede MathematiquesPureset Appliquees27,
no. 10:1091-99.
. 1983a. "Aspects mathematiques dans la theorie modale d'Anatol
Vieru." Part 3. RevueRoumainede MathematiquesPress et Appliquies28,
no. 7:665-73.
. 1983b. "Aspects mathematiques dans la th6orie modale d'Anatol
Vieru." Part 4. RevueRoumainede MathematiquesPureset Appliquees28,
no. 8:757-73.
. 1983c. "Lectii de teoria matematica a modurilor" (Lessons of
mathematicaltheory of modes). The Music Conservatory "Ciprian Por-
umbescu," Bucharest. Mimeographed.
. 1985. "Sur le rythme periodique." RevueRoumainede Linguis-
tique-Cahiers de LinguistiqueThioriqueet Appliquee22, no. 1:73-103 (to
be reprinted in Musikometrika1 (forthcoming)) .
 GeneralizedMusicalIntervalsand Transformations 287

. 1986a. "Aspects mathematiques dans la theorie modale d'Anatol

Vieru." Part 5. RevueRoumainede MathematiquesPureset Appliquees31,
no. 5:399-413.
. 1986b. "Les structuresmodales, instrument d'etude des modes et
des rythmes. " RevueRoumainede Linguistique-Cahiers de Linguistique
Theoriqueet Appliquee23, no. 1:55-68.