Eitan & Granot MP 2008

8/2/2019 Eitan & Granot MP 2008

1/22

Music Perception VOLUME 25, ISSUE 5, PP. 397417, ISSN 0730-7829, ELECT RONIC ISSN 1533-8312 2008 B Y T H E R E GE N TS O F T HE U N IV E RS I TY O F C AL I FO R NI A. ALLRIGHT S RESERVED. P LE A SE D I RE C T A L L R E QU E ST S F O R P E RM IS S IO N T O P HO TO CO P Y O R R E PR OD U CE A RT I CL E C O NT E NT T HR OU G H T HE U N IV E RS I TY O F C AL I FO R NI A P R ES SS

RIGHT S AND PERMISSIONS WEBSIT E, HTTP:// WWW.UCPRESSJOURNALS.COM /REPRINTINFO.AS P. DOI:10.1525/MP.2008.25.5.397

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment 397

ZOHAR EITANTel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

RONI Y. GRANOTThe Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

MUSIC THEORISTS OFTEN PRESUME that the sections ofa musical masterwork match organically, enhancingunity and value. This inner form should be distin-guished from coherence associated with inter-opusconstraints, such as conventional forms. Studies indi-cate that violating inter-opus constraints hardly affects

listeners aesthetic judgments. Here we examine howviolating inner form affects such judgments. Musicallytrained and untrained listeners heard the intact open-ing movements of Mozarts piano sonatas, K. 280 and332, as well as hybrids mixing sections from these twomovements while maintaining overall form and tonalstructure. Participants rated originals and hybrids onaesthetically relevant scales (e.g., liking, coherence,interest), after a single hearing and following extendedexposure. Results show no significant preference fororiginals, even after repeated hearings. Music trainingtended to enhance preference for hybrid over original.

Thus, inner form and its supposed organic unity, pre-sumed tenets of musical genius, may not affect listen-ers evaluation.

Received August 3, 2006, accepted January 11, 2008.

Key words: musical form, music theory, inner unity,aesthetic evaluation, concatenationism

R

UDOLPH RTI, THE PIVOTAL and controversial pro-ponent of thematic unity in music, recalledthat the first impetus to his work in music analy-

sis was a question that he submitted to one of his pro-fessors, which was left unanswered: Why is it that wecannot produce a convincing musical composition bytaking a group or section from one work and linking itto that of another even assuming an affinity of key,rhythm and tempo? (Rti, 1951, p. 348).

Though Rtis own attempt at answering this questionhis theory of the thematic process in musichasbeen widely contested, the premises underlying thequestion have been at the core of diverse approaches tomusic theory and criticism for more than two cen-turies. Two widely shared premises seem to motivateRtis question. First, that in a convincing musical work(let alone an acknowledged musical masterpiece) thedifferent sections are somehow unified into a coherentwhole. Hence, as 18th century music theorist and ped-agogue Francesco Galeazzi maintains, The art of theperfect composer does not consist of the discovery of a

galant motive or agreeable passages, but it consists ofthe exact conduct of an entire piece of music.(Galeazzi, 1796/1998, p. 86). Second, and more specifi-cally, Rtis question implies that in order to generatereal musical unity, broad affinities such as commontempo or key are not sufficient. Nor, one may add, areexternal generic constraints on the relationshipsamong sections, like the stipulations of conventionalmusical forms. Rather, unity should be based upon dis-tinct features of the piece in question: it should beinner, rather than merely external unity.1

The 18th century Classical style presents the issue of

inner versus external unity most patently, as it stipu-lates clear normative procedures defining musicalforms (e.g., allegro-sonata form, minuet and trio) andconstrains the ordering of cadences, overall tonalstructure, thematic return, or phrase structure.Musicians and aestheticians have nonetheless repeat-edly suggested that the value of a masterwork does notchiefly rely on such external constraints, but on innerform and inner unity, stemming from the structureand characteristics of the specific materials of the par-ticular musical work. Thus, in 1807, Koch (quoted inBonds, 1991, p. 126) maintains that,If one is speakingof the form of art-works in the sense in which the

GROWING OR AN GE S O N MOZARTS APPLE TRE E:INNER FOR M AN D AESTHETIC JUDGMENT

1The sources of these notions of artistic (not only musical) unitygo further back than the 18th century, and may be traced toAristotles Poetics (in particular Chapters 7 & 8).


2/22

content is appropriated to beauty, then one is notreferring to that external form of art-works by whichgenres differ, but rather to the particular manner inwhich variety is bound to unity. In different ways,

such appeals for an inner bind unifying the specificpiece of music continued to pervade music aestheticsand criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus,more than a century later, evoking a favorite metaphorof organicist aesthetics sourced in Goethe andSchlegel, Arnold Schoenberg suggests an even strongerinner bind as a prerequisite for musical value: anorganic relationship in which the entire piece stemsfrom a single and unique generative musical idea. Areal composer does not compose merely one or morethemes, but a whole piece. In an apple trees blossoms,even in the bud, the whole future apple is present in allits detailsthey have only to mature, to grow, to

become the apple, the apple tree, and its power ofreproducing (Schoenberg, 1947/1984, p. 161).

Though the premise that inner unity is a prerequi-site for musical value has been widely shared, viewsregarding its nature and its musical determinants arediverse, and often derive from contrasting aesthetictenets, music-theoretical systems, and analytical method-ologies (see also Bonds, 1991). For instance, while early18th century sources emphasize the overall unity ofmusical idea or of affect (and consequentially the needfor an unithematic conception of a musical composi-tion), in the latter part of the century musical unity isperceived to be generated by the pattern of relationshipsamong ideas that may themselves be highly dissimilarin both affect and musical structure (Schwartz, 2001).Thus, unity and artistic value are achieved by maintain-ing a unifying pattern of restraint, balance, reciprocity,or complementarity among conflicting passions orevents. This brings into conjunction themes andmotives of widely differing character, bringing aboutcontrasts of mood or activity at every structural level.(Schwartz, 2001, p. 74).

Both approachesunity by resemblance and unitythrough relationships among contrastsare integrat-ed in 19th century notions of organic unity which, as

Schoenbergs quotation indicates, have carried on wellinto 20th century music analysis and theory.Organicist music criticism maintains that, the form isgiven as necessaryparts cannot be removed, added,rearranged without . . . marring or even destroying thewhole (Solie, 1980, p. 149). However, these widelyshared organicist tenets have themselves yielded, in thelast century, a wealth of contrasting views as to theactual musical structures and processes that generateorganic unity. Music theorists relate unity, for instance,

to a strict harmonic and voice-leading hierarchy stem-ming from a single high-level structure (Schenker,1935/79), to the hidden repetition of a few voice-lead-ing or pitch configurations at different structural levels

(Schenkerian analysis, e.g., Burkhart, 1978; see alsoSchenker, 1935/1979), to a small number of initialmotivic cells, generating an entire musical workthrough transformational procedures (Rti, 1951), orto the production (at the works outset) and resolutionof a generative imbalance or unrest, represented by thepieces Grundgestalt (Carpenter, 1983; Schoenberg,1995).2

In recent decades, the validity of the notion of organic,inner unity for music analysis has come under attack, asproponents of the so-called new musicology haverevealed its ideological underpinning and called foralternative models for music criticism (e.g., Kerman,

1980; Maus, 1999; Solie, 1980; Street, 1989).Nevertheless, as recently published debates among lead-ing music theorists attest, concepts of musical unity andtheir implications for music analysis are still a centralissue in music-theoretical discourse.3 Furthermore, anysurvey of recent publications in music analysis wouldreveal thatideological debates notwithstandingthesearch for hidden inner unities in musical masterworksstill underscores, explicitly or implicitly, many recentworks of music analyses, vastly differing from eachother in methodology and subject matter. Thus, forinstance, four of the five articles in a recent issue of thehighly influential

Journal of Music Theory(Vol. 47/1,

2003; actually published 2005) try to demonstrate howunity is generated by elements or structures character-istic of the musical work in question. James Bakersstudy of Haydns String Quartet, Op. 76, No. 6, forexample, suggests that motivic materials of the openingtheme of the quartet are the basis for an extraordinar-ily unified four-movement cycle, and that the entirequartet is in fact a series of variations on its openingtheme (Baker, 2003, p. 85). Kathryn Whitney suggeststhat the particular expressive character and overallunity in the first scene of Schoenbergs Erwartung(an athematic, seemingly chaotic composition) is

398 Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot

2For a discussion and critique of the way the organicist credoshapes influential 20th century approaches to music analysis(Schenkers and Rtis), see Solie (1980).

3See, for example Robert Morgans defense of the role of unity inmusic analysis (2003), and a series of responses by Agawu, Chua,Dubiel, Korsyn, and Kramer, published in Music Analysis 23/2(2004).


3/22

chiefly due to the prominence of a few motivic gestures,based on three specific trichords (Whitney, 2003).David Temperleys discussion of end-accented phrases,though not centered on issues of musical unity, con-

cludes with an analysis of Schuberts An die Musik,showing how subtle hyper-metric relationships with-in and between phrases provide for overall unity andclosure in the song (Temperley, 2003); and ByronAlmn proposes a number of narrative archetypes(e.g., a theme or motive with a problematic elementsheds that element and achieves fuller musical devel-opment, Almn, 2003, p. 31) as a basis for musicanalysis.

What these recent examples (all taken from a singleissue of a leading music theory journal) indicate is thatnotions of inner, piece-specific unity still underliemuch current analysisperhaps because the search for

how elements of a musical piece work together is inher-ent in the very definition of music analysis (see Bent,1987). In addition, however, these analyses clearlydemonstrate that (just as in previous centuries) there isno general consensus on what such unity is and how itworks. Thus, while in two of the four examples above(Baker, Whitney) unity is provided in part by derivingdiverse materials from a few motives or pitch sets (thusfollowing the conceptual, though not the technical,footsteps of Rti or Schoenberg), in others it is metriccomplementation and stabilization (Temperley), or agoal-directed narrative involving a musical element(Almn), that provides for unity.

Investigating the Perception of an Elusive Feature

Our brief survey suggests that notions of unity in musichave differed widely, perhaps from their inception, intheir underlying aesthetic and music-theoretic premises.Furthermore, even when an aesthetic principle isshared, its application in music analysis is often hotlycontested. For instance, the notion that a veiled similar-ity underneath contrasting surfaces unifies contrastingsections in musical masterworks is shared by thematictransformation theorists like Rti and by some

Schenkerian analyses of motivic parallelism (Burkhart,1978). However, most motives presented in Rti (1951)as a demonstration of such deep unity would not beacknowledged as legitimate motives by Schenkeriantheory, and vice versa. Such complex and conflictingnotions of musical unity seem to present insurmount-able difficulties for the empirical examination of itsperception and cognition. How can one test the percep-tion of something where there is neither agreed defini-tion, nor a clear decision procedure that would

determine whether this something actually exists in amusical work?

Yet, as mentioned, two tenets seem to be shared byotherwise extremely diverse views of musical unity.

First, the assumption that unity is primarily innergenerated by distinct relationships between differentsections of a specific musical composition, rather thanby shared generic or stylistic features. Second, theconviction that such unity is a mark (perhaps even anecessary attribute) of musical value, and particularlycharacterizes works in the Classic-Romantic musiccanonpieces widely accepted as masterpieces, bycomposers such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms.

The experiment reported here attempts to examineempirically these two presuppositions, succinctly con-veyed by Rtis assertion that one cannot produce aconvincing musical composition by taking a group or

section from one work and linking it to that of another(Rti, 1951, p. 348). This was done by directly address-ing Rtis challenge, as we created hybrids from twoMozart masterworks (the opening movements of thepiano sonatas K. 280 and K. 332, both in F major),while controlling for generic constraints, such as con-ventional form and tonal structure, and compared lis-teners evaluations of these hybrids with theirevaluations of Mozarts original masterworks. If thenotion of an inner, organic unity of musical master-works (whichever way one defines it) has cognitivevalidity, our blatant interference with Mozarts master-

pieces should have affected listeners appreciation of themusic, such that hybrids, composed of sections of dif-ferent works, would be rated lower by listeners than theoriginal masterworks out of which they were assembled.

The Classical style of the 18th century provides a par-ticularly apt venue for such examination. First, its clearconstraints regarding large-scale tonal structure andshared forms enable control over external form. Inaddition, theorists and composers of the Classical stylewere very much engaged with the problem of creatingunity within diversity (a problem of lesser importanceearlier, in the Baroque, in which notions of the unity ofaffect reigned). As mentioned, while contrast among

themes was accepted and often demanded in the later18th century, an inner unity of feeling, created throughsubtle balance and complementation among these con-trasting elements, was a chief aesthetic principle voicedby musicians and aestheticians of the period (seeHoltmeier, 2000, 2002; Schwartz, 2001). Mozart, per-haps more than any other Classical master, has repre-sented this principle for generations of musicians andcritics and, indeed, this study utilizes two of his exem-plary piano sonatas to investigate its perception.



4/22

An Analytical Interlude: Inner Unity in K. 280

Though there is no generally agreed upon notion ofinner unity (and, as we have argued, such a notion isnot a prerequisite for our investigation), we shallattempt to flesh out this concept by revealing relation-ships between different sections that may constitutesuch unity in one of the two pieces investigated in thisstudy, relationships that are violated in the hybrid cre-ated for this experiment. In the analysis below, we shallfirst discuss some connections and similarities unifyingthe two main themes of the first movement of MozartsK. 280 (mm. 1-13, 27-43), divorced from each other inthe hybrids we created, and then suggest how the devel-opment section of the movement (mm. 57-82) inte-grates elements of these themes. Our analysis combinesobservations of surface features and configurations inpitch, rhythm, and articulation with analysis of fore-ground and lower middleground voice-leading pro-gressions, indebted in part to Beach (1994).4

2ND AND 1ST THEMES

As Beach (1994) observes, the 1st theme opens withthree statements of an arpeggiated tonic triad motive(Figure 1): a right-hand ascending arpeggio (motivex,m. 1); a left-hand broken chord, in quarter notes(motive y, mm. 1-2); and a 531 descent (motive z,m. 2), elaborated by a 565 upper neighbor and pass-ing tones (anticipating the higher-level progression thatunderlies the entire 1st theme, mm. 1-13).

The opening of the 2nd theme (Figure 2, mm. 27-30),also emphasizing the tonic triad motive (in the second-

ary key, C major), closely emulates two of the above fig-ures.The arpeggiated bass figurey, now ascending, opensthe theme (m. 27), evoking the left-hand figure that hasinitiated the 1st theme not only in pitch structure, butalso in rhythm, register, articulation, and octave dou-bling. Figure zis evoked by the 51(G-C) descent in mm.28-30 (Figure 2). Like its predecessor in m. 2, it openswith a 565 upper-neighbor figure (m. 28), and pro-ceeds with a stepwise descent to 1, now extended througha sequential repetition of its opening upper-neighborconfiguration.Note that the sequence in mm. 28-30 itselfemulates another part of the opening themethedescending 16th note figures in mm. 7, 9as both pro-

gressions are built of the same materials: a descendingthird (filled by a passing tone in mm. 7, 9) and an upper-neighbor figure (Figure 3).

In a different way, the structure of the 2nd theme evokesnot the opening of the 1st theme, but rather the beginningof the bridge section that follows it (Figure 4c,mm. 13-17).


FIGURE 1. Three statements of an arpeggiated tonic triad motive

(x, y, z) in the opening theme of K. 280/I.

4Note that while adopting some of the analytical insights of Beach(1994), the focus and music-theoretical stance of the present articleare very different.

FIGURE 2. The arpeggiated motives of the opening of K. 280/I evoked

in the 2nd subject.

FIGURE 3. Figurations in the 2nd subject of K. 280/I deriving from the

opening subject (mm. 7-9).


5/22


FIGURE 4. The 2nd subject of K. 280/I as a variant of its transition section.


6/22

Figure 4a (indebted to Beach, 1994, Example 1) showsthe structure of the opening phrase of the bridge. Thisphrase projects a stepwise ascent from I

1 through V2

(repeated twice), to I3, elaborated on a lower level by two

third progressions, 123 (F-G-A) and 234 (G-A-B ).

The very same progression establishes the connectionbetween the two opening phrases of the 2nd theme(Figure 4d, mm. 27-30,31-34), by way of an inner voicearticulated by the closing figures of the two phrases (seeFigure 4b, adapted from Figure 5 in Beach, 1994). Theremainder of the 2nd theme (mm. 35-43) makes therelationship to the bridge even more explicit, by usingsimilar triplet figurations (compare, for instance, thefigurations in mm. 36, 38 with mm. 23-25) and chro-matic bass progression (mm. 18-23, 35-40). The 2ndtheme thus elaborates features and structures promi-nent in the entire preceding sectionincluding boththe opening theme and the bridge passage that ensues.

THE DEVELOPMENT SECTION

The development section of K. 280 is clearly derivedfrom the 2nd theme. However, elements of the 1sttheme are subtly integrated into the music, becomingmost prominent in the retransition, which concludesthe development and leads toward the return of theopening theme. These elements, which may serve tounify both themes and prepare the listener for thereturn of the opening theme, would lose their sense asunifying features in our hybrid, where the original 1sttheme of K. 280 was replaced by that of K. 332.

The first stage in this process is the introduction (inan inner voice) of the chromatic quarter-notes descentC-B-B -A (877b6 in the current key of C major),repeated twice (mm. 63-64, 65-66), which alludes tothe similar progression (Figure 5, F-E-E -D in mm.3-4).The second signal of the impending 1st theme is of adifferent nature: not a pitch motive, but an articulationspecifically associated with the very opening of themovement. The upward arpeggiation in the righthand, similar to that which opened the piece, appears

(concurrently with a bass progression derived from theopening of the 2nd theme) in each link of the sequencein mm. 69-74, and in each downbeat of the climacticmeasures (75-77) that ensue (Figure 6).

Following this climax, allusions to the opening themebecome even denser. They include the appoggiatura fig-ures deriving from mm. 5-6 of the theme (mm. 80-82); adouble neighbor figure around A (see Figure 7,A-B -G -

A in mm. 78-80), recalling and anticipating the structur-al double neighbor around C (C-D-B -C) in the 1sttheme (mm. 1-6, 83-88); and finally, yet another occur-renceof the chromatic C-B-B -A progression (mm. 81-82),now anticipating the similar figure (F-E-E -D, mm. 85-86) in the forthcoming 1st theme. Thus, the develop-ment prepares the return of the opening theme by thegradually increasing introduction of diverse motivicallusions.


FIGURE 6. A repeating figure in the development section of K. 280/I

(c) merging the openings of the 1st (a) and 2nd (b) subjects.

FIGURE 7. The structure of the retransition as a derivation of the

structure of the opening subject.

FIGURE 5. A reference to m. 3 (1st subject) in the development section

of K. 280/I.


7/22

The Perception of Global Structural Relationships

Empirical studies of the effect of large-scale structureon listeners aesthetic judgments have mostly concen-

trated on generic, inter-opus constraints. Thus, listen-ers evaluations of intact musical works were comparedwith those of scrambled or altered versions of the samepieces that violated conventional formal schemes orlong-range tonal closure (Cook, 1987; Karno &Koneni, 1992; Marvin & Brinkman, 1999; Tillmann &Bigand, 1996; Tillman, Bigand, & Madurell, 1998).These studies have repeatedly shown that while listen-ers are often highly sensitive to structural events andprocesses, such as tonal closure or modulation, whenthese occur on a local level (e.g., Thompson & Cuddy,1992), comparable processes on a larger scale go unno-ticed. This was observed for various tasks: distinguish-

ing original from altered pieces (Marvin & Brinkman,1999; Tillmann & Bigand, 1996), preference or ratings ofliking (Karno & Koneni, 1992), expressivity ratings(Tillmann & Bigand, 1996), and ratings of structuralfeatures, such as coherence or closure (Cook, 1987).

Note, however, that most of the studies cited abovefocused on the initial impression gained by listeners froma single presentation. As Pollard-Gott (1983) andKrumhansl (1996) show, listeners awareness of structuralfeatures (such as thematic variants) may emerge onlyafter repeated exposure. Thus, their sensitivity to globalaspects of musical piecesespecially relatively long andcomplex musical works, which presumably cannot be fullyprocessed in a single hearingmay not be truly evaluatedwithout examining the influence of repeated exposure.

Of particular relevance to the present study, and con-trasting most other studies investigating the perceptionof global unity, are the results of two recent experimentsthat, rather than altering structure within a single piece,created hybrids of several pieces and compared listenersliking and unity-ratings of hybrids with those of theoriginal intact compositions. Tan and Spackman (2005)report that following a single hearing both musicallytrained and nave listeners gave hybrids lower unity andliking ratings, as compared to those given to intact com-

positions. This raises the possibility that even thoughlisteners may not be sensitive to external features such asconventional form or to tonal relationships, other globalaspects of musical structure, such as inner, thematicunity, are noticeable and may play an important role inlisteners aesthetic appreciation. In a follow-up study,Tan, Spackman, and Peaslee (2006) performed a similarexperiment, but asked participants to repeat the ratingtask following two, three, and four hearings of the com-positions involved. While results for the first hearing

again show higher rating for originals, further exposureresulted in linear increase of ratings for hybrids, anddecrease (though not linear) in ratings of intact compo-sitions, such that after four hearings, ratings for hybrids

became higher than those for the originals. Tan et al.interpret these results in light of Berlynes two-factorarousal theory (1971), suggesting that high aestheticevaluation results from optimal arousal, which depends,among other factors, on perceived complexity.According to their interpretation, the repeated exposureinfluenced the perceived complexity of both hybridsand originals such that the initial optimal (medium)complexity of intact pieces was reduced to sub-optimallevel, while the initial supra-optimal complexity ofhybrids was increased to optimal (medium) level.

The possible role of inner factors, such as thematicunity,as distinguished from external (inter-opus) cohe-

sive factors in listeners evaluations is not directlyaddressed in any of the above studies. Most of themmanipulate generic structural factors, particularly con-ventional musical form and overall tonal closure. Thetwo studies by Tan and colleagues (2005, 2006), mostsimilar in their procedure to the present study, do notdistinguish between generic and piece-specific aspectsof unity, nor do they specify the structural differencesbetween altered and original pieces. Furthermore, thehybrids created for these latter studies involved abruptchanges in key, range, volume, tempo, mood, and stylebetween segments, with little in the musical content to

make the three segments sound like they belongedtogether (Tan et al., 2006, p. 208). Hence, it is ques-tionable as to whether these studies have addressed theperception of large-scale coherence at all, since the rat-ings of hybrids may have been based on evaluating localtransitions between segments, rather than on assess-ment of global relationships and structure.

Aims and General Design

In contrast to studies manipulating structure in orderto examine listeners sensitivity to generic aspects suchas overall tonal closure or conventional form, the present

study aimed at examining the effect of the supposedinner form, while controlling for such external con-straints. Thus, unlike the above studies, we comparedlisteners judgments of originals (acknowledged Mozartmasterworks) with those of hybrids, which combinedfunctionally equivalent segments from these master-works. In contrast to Tan and Spackman (2005) andTan, Spackman, and Peaslee (2006), who also comparedhybrids to originals, in the current design importantexternal constraints such as conventional form and



8/22

tonal structure (as well as a composers style and over-all features like tempo, meter, and key) were shared byboth original and hybrid. At the same time, theassumed inner unity characterizing the original master-

pieces (as Koch, Rti, Schoenberg, and many otherswould suggest), was violated, by definition, in thehybrid that was created by combining unrelated works.

Some relationships that may constitute such innerunity were presented in the analytical interlude above.Rating Mozarts originals higher than hybrids on eval-uative scales would thus suggest that such relationships,present in Mozarts original and violated in the hybrid,may have some cognitive validity. In contrast, findingno difference between the ratings given to originals andhybrids would suggest that such supposedly unifyingfeatures are not perceived or, at any rate, that they donot affect listeners aesthetic judgments. Alternatively,such a null finding may suggest that the hybrids we cre-ated are characterized by new connections, relation-ships and a delicate balance, which are as unifying asthose of the original Mozart piece. Although we will notbe able to dissociate these two alternative interpreta-tions, they both have important ramifications for theunderstanding of music perceptionramificationsthat may call into question basic, shared assumptions ofmusic aesthetics and analysis (see Discussion section).

While the above design controlled for extra-opus con-straints, it did not preclude the possibility that judgmentswould be based on listeners evaluations of separate seg-ments, in and of themselves, rather than on any perceived

overall relationship (either external or internal). Forinstance, if listeners prefer segment x in composition Aover its equivalent x in composition B, then a hybridthat replaces x with x may be rated lower than theintact A simply because x is rated lower than x, and notdue to any differences in perceived overall structure.Therefore, in our study, one group of listeners com-pared the original 1st movement of Mozarts pianosonata, K. 332, with a hybrid, in which some sections ofthe original movement were replaced with structurallyequivalent sections from an earlier Mozart sonata, K.280 (for brevity we use hereafter the abbreviationG1/K. 332). A second group of different participantscompared the intact K. 280 with a hybrid (G2/K. 280),in which the K. 332 segments that were removed inExperiment 1 now replaced structurally equivalent seg-ments of K. 280 (see Tables 1 & 2).

Other factors that may affect the perception of musi-cal structure and the ensuing aesthetic judgments arethe amount of exposure to the music, the degree towhich the music was retained in the listeners memoryfollowing this exposure, and their previous music


TABLE 1. Structure of the Hybrid Composition Used for Group 1.

Function in Allegro-Sonata Form Sonata Mm. Local Initial Harmony Local Final Harmony

Exposition1st group K. 332 1-40 C:V

Exposition2nd group K. 280 27-56 C:IDevelopment (up to the K. 280 57-77 Dm:VII7/V

retransition)Retransition K. 332 125-32 Dm:V (or F: III#)Recapitulation1st group K. 332 133-77 F:VRecapitulation2nd group K. 280 109-144 F:I

TABLE 2. Structure of the Hybrid Composition Used for Group 2.

Local Initial Local FinalFunction in Allegro-Sonata Form Sonata Mm. Harmony Harmony

Exposition1st group K. 280 1-26 C:VExposition2nd group K. 332 41-93 C:IDevelopment (up to the retransition) K. 332 94-124 Dm:VII7/VRetransition K. 280 80-82 Dm:V (or F: III#)Recapitulation1st group K. 280 83-108 F:VRecapitulation2nd group K. 332 176-229 F:I


9/22

training, which may affect their perception of struc-turally significant qualities, such as harmonic structure.All of these variables were manipulated in the currentstudy, as described next in the Method section.

Method

Participants

One hundred and sixteen university students participatedin the experiment.Group 1 comprised 61 participants (26male, 35 female; mean age = 24.1 years, SD = 5.8), 29 ofwhom were musically trained (>7 years of formal musictraining). A separate group of 55 participants comprisedGroup 2 (25 male, 30 female; mean age = 24.0, SD = 4.4),25 of whom were musically trained. Pianists and com-posers, who were expected to know the test pieces well,

were excluded. Participants were paid approximately $17for two 40-min sessions and a home listening assignment.

Musical Stimuli

Participants in Group 1 listened to two musical pieces.The first was the opening movement of Mozarts pianosonata in F major, K. 332. The second was a hybrid,which begins with the opening section of K. 332 butprogresses differently, due to the replacement of twosections with structurally analogous sections from the1st movement of a different Mozart piano sonata,K. 280(Table 1). The complementary material was presentedto Group 2: the intact 1st movement of Mozarts K. 280and its hybrid, which begins with the opening section ofK.280, but continues with analogous sections from K.332. This hybrid thus included sections excluded fromthe hybrid presented to Group 1 (Table 2).

The two movements used in this study share meter,tempo (in the performance used), key, tonal structure,and some voice-leading and registral features (Beach,1994), but differ considerably in character and thematicmaterial. We used Steinbergs Wavelab 4.5 audio editingsoftware to create the hybrids. Three professional clas-sical musicians scrutinized the hybrids prior to the

experiments and found the links between their sectionssmooth and stylistically credible. Mitsuko Uchidasrecording of Mozarts sonatas (Philips B00005QDYG)was used for all music materials.

Procedure

SESSION 1

Experimental sessions were conducted in small groups(3-6 participants). Participants were told that they were

going to listen to two versions of a movement from aMozart piano sonata, both composed by Mozart butonly one approved by him for publication. They thenlistened to the two pieces (K. 332 and its hybrid or K.

280 and its hybrid), presented to different participantgroups in counterbalanced order. After listening to eachpiece, they were presented with 10 statements about themusic they had just heard, and were asked to rate thedegree of their agreement with each statement on anumerical scale of 0-4 for statements 1-7, and of (2) to(+2) for statements 8-10, which were converted for thestatistical analysis, such that zero was coded as 4, (1)and (+1) as 2 and (2) and (+2) as 0.

The statements (presented in random order) were:

1. The piece in this version is coherent (unified).2. The piece in this version is interesting.

3. This version is a masterpiece.4. This version presents conspicuous contrasts among

different sections.5. I liked the piece in this version.6. All the musical ideas in this version stem from its

initial phrases.7. The performance just heard is excellent.8. This version is too long (mark 1 or 2), too short (1

or 2) or just the right duration (0).9. The performance you have just heard is too fast (1 or

2), too slow (1 or 2) or in just the right tempo (0).10. The performance you have just heard is too dramatic

(1 or 2), too flat and expressionless (1, 2) or pos-sessing just the right measure of expressivity (0).

These evaluative statements differ in the criteria theyapply (e.g., coherence, interest, appropriate duration),in the degree of objectivity they invite (e.g., this ver-sion is a masterpiece, vs. I like this version), and inthe object of evaluationthe musical work itself or itsperformance.

Participants were given about 5 min to complete thetask. They then listened to the second version, andrepeated the task. Finally, they were asked two conclud-ing questions: (1) Which version do you prefer? (2)

Which version, in your opinion, did Mozart choose topublish? Participants also supplied a free account oftheir choices in these questions.

To examine the effect of exposure, each of theexperiments was conducted twice: after a single hear-ing of each version (Session 1), and following a week-long exposure to the music (Session 2). Thus, at theend of the first session, participants were presentedwith a CD containing the recordings of the originaland the hybrid they had just heard in the experimental



10/22

session. They were asked to listen to the CD frequentlyand attentively before returning for the second session.Listening was encouraged by telling the participantsthat their payments would be linked to their success

in a recognition test, to be taken during the secondsession.

SESSION 2

The second session took place about a week after thefirst session, and started with a recognition test, inwhich participants heard 16 music phrases and wereasked to indicate which of these phrases had beenincluded in their take-home CD. Of the 16 phrases pre-sented to Group 1, nine were included in the CD, threewere phrases of K. 280 not included in the hybrid, andfour were taken from another Mozart sonata move-ment (K. 570/I). In the recognition test of Group 2,

three of the seven phrases not included in the CD weretaken from K. 332. Following the recognition test, par-ticipants repeated the task performed in Session 1. Atthe end of the session they were asked to explain inwriting the reasons for their selections.

Hypotheses

We hypothesized that the notion that music master-pieces possess an inner unity would be supported bythe following results:

1. Ratings of Mozarts original compositions would behigher than those of hybrids.

2. Tendencies to prefer originals (as indicated by dif-ferences in ratings of originals and hybrids) wouldstrengthen in the 2nd session (following repeatedexposure to the music).

3. In the 2nd session, tendencies to prefer originalswould be stronger for participants whose scores inthe recognition test were higher, indicating a higherlevel of familiarity with the music materials.

4. Tendencies to prefer originals would be stronger formusically trained participants.

5. Ratings for coherence would correlate with overallpreferences, in particular with objectively expressedpreferences (this is a masterpiece).

Results

The hypothesis that the original masterworks, supposedlypossessing superior inner unity, would be preferred bylisteners over hybrids was not confirmed by our data.

Tables 3A-3D present results of several comparisonsbetween original and hybrid; each of these four tablesrefers to one experimental session in one of the two par-ticipants groups (Group 1, comparing K. 332 with its

hybrid, and Group 2, comparing K. 280 with its hybrid).The distribution of participants selecting the original orthe hybrid as either their preferred version or the versionthey assume Mozart chose is presented in the first tworows of Tables 3A-3D. Overall, chi-square tests (df= 1)indicate that this result does not differ from chance (50%).For example, in the 1st session of Group 1 (N= 61; seeTable 3A), 26 participants preferred Mozarts original K.332, whereas 34 participants preferred the hybrid (resultnot significantly different from an even distribution). Theonly result approaching significance was obtained in the2nd session of Group 2 (Table 3D), in which 28 partici-pants preferred the hybrid version versus only 16 who

opted for the original 2(1,N= 51) = 3.27,p = .07; note,though, that this result is opposite to that suggested by ourfirst two hypotheses.

We also compared, using paired samples t-tests, theaverage rating for the 10 individual statements, pooledtogether, in both K. 332 and K. 280 and in both sessions(row no.3 in Tables 3A-3D). Consistent with the results ofthe two summarizing statements,none of the results indi-cate a preference for the original over the hybrid. If any-thing, there is again a marginally significant higherpooled rating for the hybrid over the original (p = .086)in the 2nd session of Group 2 (Table 3D).Finally, we com-pared participantsaverage rating for each of the ten indi-vidual statements in response to the hybrids versus theoriginals. Wilcoxon paired sampled statistics, correctedfor multiple testing using the false discovery rate (FDR)procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), revealed thatonly statement 6 yielded a statistically significant differ-ence between the two versions: the hybrid of K. 332 wasconsidered more appropriate in duration, as compared tothe original (Z= 4.21,p < .001;Z= 3.94,p < .001 inSession 1 and Session 2 respectively). In effect, the hybrid,which lasted 5 min and 20 s, was 98 s shorter thanMozarts original K. 332, lasting 6 min and 58 s.

If the supposed superior inner form of masterworks

affects listeners preferences, one would expect that theincreased exposure during the week in which the par-ticipants were instructed to listen intensively to thepieces would have resulted in increased preferences forthe originals over the hybrids (Hypothesis 2). Again,our results do not support this hypothesis. For bothexperimental groups, there was no significant differencebetween Session 1 and Session 2 in the distributionof participants who personally preferred the original,the hybrid, or had no preference (~10%). This was



11/22


TABLE 3A. Comparisons of the Original K. 332/I with Its Hybrid (Session 1).

K. 332 Session 1 (N= 61)

Original Hybrid Statistic

1 N(chosen by Mozart) 26 35 x2 = 1.33, df= 12 N(personally preferred) 23 33 x2 = 1.79, df= 1

3 Mean and SD of ratings across 10 statements 2.74 2.90 t= 1.660.54 0.48

4 Mean and SD for duration ratings (statement 8) 2.47 3.53 Wilcoxon = 4.21**1.36 0.94

**p < .01

TABLE 3B. Comparisons of the Original K. 332/I with Its Hybrid (Session 2).

K. 332 Session 2 (N= 59)

Original Hybrid Statistic1 N(chosen by Mozart) 28 31 x2 = 0.15, df= 12 N(personally preferred) 25 28 x2 = 0.17, df= 1


4 Mean and SD for duration ratings 2.32 3.44 Wilcoxon = 3.94**1.40 1.05

**p < .01

TABLE 3C. Comparisons of the Original K. 280/I with Its Hybrid (Session 1).

K. 280 Session 1 (N= 53)


1 N(chosen by Mozart) 21 32 x2 = 2.28, df= 12 N(personally preferred) 19 27 x2 = 1.39, df= 1


4 Mean and SD for duration ratings 3.19 2.65 Wilcoxon = 2.211.14 1.25

TABLE 3D. Comparisons of the Original K. 280/I with Its Hybrid (Session 2).

K. 280 Session 2 (N= 51)


1 N(chosen by Mozart) 20 31 x2 = 2.37, df= 12 N(personally preferred) 16 28 x2 = 3.27*, df= 1

3 Mean and SD of ratings across 10 statements 2.67 2.85 t= 1.75*0.61 0.64

4 Mean and SD for duration ratings 3.27 2.88 Wilcoxon = 1.521.12 1.28

*p < .1 > .05


12/22


confirmed using the McNemar-Bowker test (2(3, 59) =3.72,p > .2 in K. 332 and 2(3, 51) = 2.14,p > .5 in K.280).5 Similarly, extended exposure did not change therelative proportion of participants attributing eitheroriginal or hybrid to Mozart, 2(1, 59) = 0.26,p > .6 in

K.332 and 2

(1, 51) = 0.004,p > .9 in K. 280. The samepattern of results is also evident in the rating of theindividual statements. In Table 4 we present the data forthe first six statements (excluding the statements thatrelate to performance features, rather than to structur-al features of the experimental items). For each state-ment we compare the differences () between the meanratings of original and hybrid in Session 1 with those inSession 2 (i.e., following a week-long exposure).Wilcoxon paired samples statistics, corrected for multi-ple testing using the false discovery rate (FDR) proce-dure, indicate that the relative ratings of original vs.hybrid in all 10 statements was not affected by exposure

in either Group 1 (K. 332) or Group 2 (K. 280).To further explore the effect of familiarity, we com-pared, for each of the 10 statements, ratings of highscorers (above the mean) in the recognition test per-formed at the 2nd session,with those given by low scorers

(Hypothesis 3). This measure was taken as an indicationof a higher degree of familiarity with the music materials,derived either from more extensive listening between ses-sions or from higher musical memory skills. Table 5Apresents, using the Mann-WhitneyU test, the ratingdifferences between the original and the hybrid withrespect to the first six statements described above.Results indicate no significant difference between goodand bad memorizers with regard to any of these state-ments. Correspondingly, chi-square tests indicate thatboth good and bad memorizers responded similarly tothe two summarizing questions (Table 5B). In sum,repeated exposure, as well as familiarity (as indicated byperformance in the recognition test), did not result inpreference for Mozarts masterworks over our hybrids.6

Finally, we tested the hypothesis that familiarity withthe relevant musical style would result in a clear prefer-ence for the Mozart originals over the hybrid versions.

More specifically, we assumed that musically trainedparticipants, who had been exposed to music of the

6 This is also consistent with the fact that we did not find any sig-nificant differences between the rating of participants who indicatedthey were unfamiliar with the pieces and those few (9 in Group 1 and10 in Group 2) who attested to prior exposure to the pieces in ques-tion. Importantly, none of those familiar with the piece was aware ofthe structural intervention in the pieces. Hence, we pooled theresults of these participants together with those of the others.

TABLE 4. Comparison of the Relative Ratings for Originals and Hybrids before (Session1) and after (Session2)Extended Exposurea.

Mean Difference between Mean Difference betweenRating of Original & Rating of Original &

Hybrid(SD) in K. 332 Hybrid(SD) in K. 280

Session 1 Session 2 Z Session 1 Session 2 ZStatement (N = 61) (N = 59) (Wilcoxon) (N = 53) (N = 51) (Wilcoxon)

Coherence 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.29 0.31 0.161.25 1.33 1.38 1.33

Interest 0.00 0.10 0.90 0.14 0.20 0.411.13 1.12 1.06 1.28

Masterpiece 0.03 0.09 0.55 0.33 0.49 1.031.23 0.84 0.99 1.19

Contrast 0.19 0.17 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.531.37 1.49 1.68 1.83

Like 0.02 0.03 0.35 0.37 0.53 0.821.43 1.47 1.17 1.42

Derived from 0.02 0.05 0.40 0.37 0.14 2.76a single motive 1.12 1.16 1.52 1.17

aNegative rating values indicate that mean ratings for the hybrid are higher than for the original.

5The McNemar-Bowker test extends the McNemar test, so that themeasured variable can have more than two possible outcomes(Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2006, p. 127).


13/22

Classical style through extended listening, performance,and studies of music theory and history, would be morelikely to recognize the subtle unifying features inMozarts masterworks and thus rate them as superior to

the hybrids (Hypothesis 4). Once more, this hypothesiswas not supported by our results. Mann-Whitney Utests, comparing the differences between mean ratingsof the original and the hybrid in the musicians groupwith those of the nonmusicians, revealed no significantdifferences as a function of music training (Tables 6 & 7).Paradoxically, the only significant difference betweenmusicians and nonmusicians is revealed in the secondsession in Group 1 (K. 332), albeit in a direction that con-tradicts our hypothesized training effect (see Table 6b).

Musically trained participants, after extensive exposureto the musical pieces, selected the hybrid as the piecechosen by Mozart for publication more than the musi-cally nave participants. Whereas 40.6% of the musically

nave participants attributed the hybrid to Mozart,66.7% of the musically trained assumed that the hybridhad been chosen by Mozart for publication (p < .05).

Correlations Among Evaluative Scales

The multifaceted evaluations used in this study enablean investigation of the relationships among differentevaluative measures. Specifically, they afford an exam-ination of how general judgments, such as I like this


TABLE 5A. Mean Difference (Upper Cell Entry) and SD (Lower Cell Entry) of Rating between Original and Hybrid forBoth Levels of Success at Recognition in Session 2.

Mean Difference & SD of Rating Mean Difference & SD of Ratingbetween Original and Hybrid K. 332 between Original and Hybrid K. 280

Bad Good Mann- Bad Good Mann-Memorizers Memorizers Whitney Memorizers Memorizers Whitney

Statement N= 29 N= 23 U N= 37 N= 21 U

Coherence 0.14 0.24 376.0 0.26 0.24 314.01.39 1.28 1.32 1.35

Interest 0.00 0.16 382.5 0.17 0.28 317.51.00 1.14 1.30 1.31

Masterpiece 0.00 0.11 368.5 0.39 0.55 289.51.00 0.94 1.12 1.24

Contrast 0.00 0.16 376.5 0.32 0.24 287.52.00 1.40 1.70 1.88

Like 0.10 0.08 363.0 0.30 0.76 272.51.61 1.42 1.18 1.57

Derived from a 0.10 0.14 352.5 0.09 0.17 324.5single motive 1.45 0.98 0.95 1.31

TABLE 5B. Distribution of Responses to Summarizing Questions Comparing the Original and Hybrid for Both Levelsof Success at Recognition in Session 2.

K. 332 K. 280N-Mozart vs. N-Hybrid N-Mozart vs. N-Hybrid

Good Bad Good BadSummarizing Memorizers Memorizers Memorizers Memorizers

Questions N= 21 N= 37 2 N= 29 N= 23 2

Personally 8 vs. 9 16 vs. 19 0.08 8 vs. 17 8 vs. 11 0.48preferreda

Chosen by 9 vs. 12 18 vs. 19 0.18 20 vs. 9 11 vs. 11 1.88Mozart

aAnalysis excludes participants who had no preference for either version.


14/22


TABLE 7. Personal Preference and Attribution to Mozart of the Original K. 280 versus its Hybrid: Results in Both Sessions

as a Function of Music Training.

Session 1 Session 2N-Mozart vs. N-Hybrid N-Mozart vs. N-Hybrid

Summarizing Nonmusicians Musicians Non Musicians MusiciansQuestions N= 28 N= 25 2 N= 28 N= 25 2

Personally preferreda 12 vs.13 7 vs. 14 1.01 9 vs. 14 7 vs. 14 0.16Chosen by Mozart 10 vs. 18 11 vs. 14 0.38 10 vs. 17 10 vs. 14 0.11

aAnalysis excludes participants who had no preference for either version.

TABLE 6A. Mean Difference (Upper Cell Entry) and SD (Lower Cell Entry) of Rating between Original (K. 332) andHybrid as a Function of Music Training.

Mean Difference & SD of Mean Difference & SD ofRating between Original Rating between Originaland Hybrid(K. 332) in and Hybrid (K. 332) in

Session 1Mann-

Session 2Mann-

Nonmusicians Musicians Whitney Nonmusicians Musicians Whitney Statement N= 32 N= 29 U N= 32 N= 27 U

Coherence 0.22 0.03 413.5 0.06 0.30 379.51.36 1.21 1.34 1.32

Interest 0.00 0.00 449.0 0.13 0.07 408.51.11 1.16 0.83 1.41

Masterpiece 0.03 0.17 444.0 0.09 0.08 381.51.12 1.34 0.73 0.98

Contrast 0.28 0.07 424.5 0.38 0.07 348.5

1.44 1.28 1.68 1.21Like 0.16 0.10 429.5 0.06 0.00 399.5

1.32 1.52 1.48 1.49

Derived from a 0.06 0.07 410.5 0.03 0.15 371.5single motive 1.05 1.25 1.33 0.91

Note: negative values indicate that mean ratings for the hybrid are higher than for the original.

TABLE 6B. Personal Preference and Attribution to Mozart of the Original K. 332 versus its Hybrid: Results in BothSessions as a Function of Music Training.

Session 1 Session 2

N-Mozart vs. N-Hybrid N-Mozart vs. N-HybridSummarizing Nonmusicians Musicians Nonmusicians MusiciansQuestions N= 32 N= 29 2 N= 32 N= 27 2

Personally 11 vs.17 12 vs. 16 0.74 17 vs. 14 8 vs. 14 1.76preferreda

Chosen by Mozart 16 vs. 16 10 vs. 19 1.50 19 vs. 13 9 vs. 18 3.98*

* p < .05aAnalysis excludes participants who had no preference for either version.


15/22

version or this version is a masterpiece correlatewith more specific evaluative measures. To examinethese relationships, we tested Spearmans correlations(two-tailed) among listeners ratings of the 10 specific

statements. Correlations were measured, in each group,with regard to differences between ratings of the twoversions presented. We were particularly interested incorrelations between each of the two general evaluativestatements,I like this version (subjective evaluation;statement 5) and this version is a masterpiece (objec-tive evaluation; statement 3) with statements associatedwith structural unity, particularly coherence (no. 1),contrasts (no. 4), and derivation (no. 6), as such corre-lations would support Hypothesis 5. In Group 1 (K.332;see Table 8), differences in rating the original and thehybrid with respect to the two general statements 5(liking) and 3 (masterpiece) were not significantly

correlated with differences in rating the two pieces withregard to statements 4 (contrasts) and 6 (derivation).Coherence (no. 1) was correlated with liking only in thefirst session, and not correlated with masterpiece atall. Note that these results do not seem to stem from alack of understanding of the notion of musical coher-ence: an indication that participants did understandthis notion (though perhaps superficially) lies in thepositive correlation found between statement 1Thepiece in this version is coherent (unified)and statement

6All the musical ideas in this version stem from itsinitial phrases(r= .33,p < .05 in Session 1, and r= .57,p < .0001, in Session 2), and the expected negative cor-relation between statement 1 and statement 4This

version presents conspicuous contrasts among differentsections (r= .45,p < .01 in Session 1, and r= .37,p

Eitan & Granot MP 2008

Documents