Eitan & Granot 2008 PDF

Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:47
Page 397
Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment
397
G ROWING O RANGES ON M OZART S A PPLE T REE :

I NNER F ORM AND A ESTHETIC J UDGMENT
Z OHAR E ITAN
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
R ONI Y. G RANOT
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
that the sections of
a musical masterwork match organically, enhancing
unity and value. This inner form should be distinguished from coherence associated with inter-opus
constraints, such as conventional forms. Studies indicate that violating inter-opus constraints hardly affects
listeners aesthetic judgments. Here we examine how
violating inner form affects such judgments. Musically
trained and untrained listeners heard the intact opening movements of Mozarts piano sonatas, K. 280 and
332, as well as hybrids mixing sections from these two
movements while maintaining overall form and tonal
structure. Participants rated originals and hybrids on
aesthetically relevant scales (e.g., liking, coherence,
interest), after a single hearing and following extended
exposure. Results show no significant preference for
originals, even after repeated hearings. Music training
tended to enhance preference for hybrid over original.
Thus, inner form and its supposed organic unity, presumed tenets of musical genius, may not affect listeners evaluation.
MUSIC THEORISTS OFTEN PRESUME
Received August 3, 2006, accepted January 11, 2008.

Key words: musical form, music theory, inner unity,
aesthetic evaluation, concatenationism
UDOLPH RTI, THE PIVOTAL
and controversial proponent of thematic unity in music, recalled

that the first impetus to his work in music analysis was a question that he submitted to one of his professors, which was left unanswered: Why is it that we
cannot produce a convincing musical composition by
taking a group or section from one work and linking it
to that of another even assuming an affinity of key,
rhythm and tempo? (Rti, 1951, p. 348).
Music Perception
VOLUME
25,
ISSUE
5,
PP.
397417,
ISSN
0730-7829,
Though Rtis own attempt at answering this question

his theory of the thematic process in musichas
been widely contested, the premises underlying the
question have been at the core of diverse approaches to
music theory and criticism for more than two centuries. Two widely shared premises seem to motivate
Rtis question. First, that in a convincing musical work
(let alone an acknowledged musical masterpiece) the
different sections are somehow unified into a coherent
whole. Hence, as 18th century music theorist and pedagogue Francesco Galeazzi maintains, The art of the
perfect composer does not consist of the discovery of a
galant motive or agreeable passages, but it consists of
the exact conduct of an entire piece of music.
(Galeazzi, 1796/1998, p. 86). Second, and more specifically, Rtis question implies that in order to generate
real musical unity, broad affinities such as common
tempo or key are not sufficient. Nor, one may add, are
external generic constraints on the relationships
among sections, like the stipulations of conventional
musical forms. Rather, unity should be based upon distinct features of the piece in question: it should be
inner, rather than merely external unity.1
The 18th century Classical style presents the issue of
inner versus external unity most patently, as it stipulates clear normative procedures defining musical
forms (e.g., allegro-sonata form, minuet and trio) and
constrains the ordering of cadences, overall tonal
structure, thematic return, or phrase structure.
Musicians and aestheticians have nonetheless repeatedly suggested that the value of a masterwork does not
chiefly rely on such external constraints, but on inner
form and inner unity, stemming from the structure
and characteristics of the specific materials of the particular musical work. Thus, in 1807, Koch (quoted in
Bonds, 1991, p. 126) maintains that, If one is speaking
of the form of art-works in the sense in which the
1
The sources of these notions of artistic (not only musical) unity
go further back than the 18th century, and may be traced to
Aristotles Poetics (in particular Chapters 7 & 8).
ELECTRONIC ISSN
1533-8312 2008
BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED. PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUCE ARTICLE CONTENT THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS S
RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS WEBSITE , HTTP :// WWW. UCPRESSJOURNALS . COM / REPRINTINFO. ASP.
DOI:10.1525/MP.2008.25.5.397
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
398
14:47
Page 398
Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot
content is appropriated to beauty, then one is not

referring to that external form of art-works by which
genres differ, but rather to the particular manner in
which variety is bound to unity. In different ways,
such appeals for an inner bind unifying the specific
piece of music continued to pervade music aesthetics
and criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus,
more than a century later, evoking a favorite metaphor
of organicist aesthetics sourced in Goethe and
Schlegel, Arnold Schoenberg suggests an even stronger
inner bind as a prerequisite for musical value: an
organic relationship in which the entire piece stems
from a single and unique generative musical idea. A
real composer does not compose merely one or more
themes, but a whole piece. In an apple trees blossoms,
even in the bud, the whole future apple is present in all
its detailsthey have only to mature, to grow, to
become the apple, the apple tree, and its power of
reproducing (Schoenberg, 1947/1984, p. 161).
Though the premise that inner unity is a prerequisite for musical value has been widely shared, views
regarding its nature and its musical determinants are
diverse, and often derive from contrasting aesthetic
tenets, music-theoretical systems, and analytical methodologies (see also Bonds, 1991). For instance, while early
18th century sources emphasize the overall unity of
musical idea or of affect (and consequentially the need
for an unithematic conception of a musical composition), in the latter part of the century musical unity is
perceived to be generated by the pattern of relationships
among ideas that may themselves be highly dissimilar
in both affect and musical structure (Schwartz, 2001).
Thus, unity and artistic value are achieved by maintaining a unifying pattern of restraint, balance, reciprocity,
or complementarity among conflicting passions or
events. This brings into conjunction themes and
motives of widely differing character, bringing about
contrasts of mood or activity at every structural level.
(Schwartz, 2001, p. 74).
Both approachesunity by resemblance and unity
through relationships among contrastsare integrated in 19th century notions of organic unity which, as
Schoenbergs quotation indicates, have carried on well
into 20th century music analysis and theory.
Organicist music criticism maintains that, the form is
given as necessaryparts cannot be removed, added,
rearranged without . . . marring or even destroying the
whole (Solie, 1980, p. 149). However, these widely
shared organicist tenets have themselves yielded, in the
last century, a wealth of contrasting views as to the
actual musical structures and processes that generate
organic unity. Music theorists relate unity, for instance,
to a strict harmonic and voice-leading hierarchy stemming from a single high-level structure (Schenker,
1935/79), to the hidden repetition of a few voice-leading or pitch configurations at different structural levels
(Schenkerian analysis, e.g., Burkhart, 1978; see also
Schenker, 1935/1979), to a small number of initial
motivic cells, generating an entire musical work
through transformational procedures (Rti, 1951), or
to the production (at the works outset) and resolution
of a generative imbalance or unrest, represented by the
pieces 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, as
proponents of the so-called new musicology have
revealed its ideological underpinning and called for
alternative models for music criticism (e.g., Kerman,
1980; Maus, 1999; Solie, 1980; Street, 1989).
Nevertheless, as recently published debates among leading music theorists attest, concepts of musical unity and
their implications for music analysis are still a central
issue in music-theoretical discourse.3 Furthermore, any
survey of recent publications in music analysis would
reveal thatideological debates notwithstandingthe
search for hidden inner unities in musical masterworks
still underscores, explicitly or implicitly, many recent
works of music analyses, vastly differing from each
other in methodology and subject matter. Thus, for
instance, four of the five articles in a recent issue of the
highly influential Journal of Music Theory (Vol. 47/1,
2003; actually published 2005) try to demonstrate how
unity is generated by elements or structures characteristic of the musical work in question. James Bakers
study of Haydns String Quartet, Op. 76, No. 6, for
example, suggests that motivic materials of the opening
theme of the quartet are the basis for an extraordinarily unified four-movement cycle, and that the entire
quartet is in fact a series of variations on its opening
theme (Baker, 2003, p. 85). Kathryn Whitney suggests
that the particular expressive character and overall
unity in the first scene of Schoenbergs Erwartung
(an athematic, seemingly chaotic composition) is
2
For a discussion and critique of the way the organicist credo
shapes influential 20th century approaches to music analysis
(Schenkers and Rtis), see Solie (1980).
3
See, for example Robert Morgans defense of the role of unity in
music analysis (2003), and a series of responses by Agawu, Chua,
Dubiel, Korsyn, and Kramer, published in Music Analysis 23/2
(2004).
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:47
Page 399
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, concludes with an analysis of Schuberts An die Musik,
showing how subtle hyper-metric relationships within and between phrases provide for overall unity and
closure in the song (Temperley, 2003); and Byron
Almn proposes a number of narrative archetypes
(e.g., a theme or motive with a problematic element
sheds that element and achieves fuller musical development, Almn, 2003, p. 31) as a basis for music
analysis.
What these recent examples (all taken from a single
issue of a leading music theory journal) indicate is that
notions of inner, piece-specific unity still underlie
much current analysisperhaps because the search for
how elements of a musical piece work together is inherent in the very definition of music analysis (see Bent,
1987). In addition, however, these analyses clearly
demonstrate that (just as in previous centuries) there is
no general consensus on what such unity is and how it
works. Thus, while in two of the four examples above
(Baker, Whitney) unity is provided in part by deriving
diverse materials from a few motives or pitch sets (thus
following the conceptual, though not the technical,
footsteps of Rti or Schoenberg), in others it is metric
complementation and stabilization (Temperley), or a
goal-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 music

have differed widely, perhaps from their inception, in
their underlying aesthetic and music-theoretic premises.
Furthermore, even when an aesthetic principle is
shared, its application in music analysis is often hotly
contested. For instance, the notion that a veiled similarity underneath contrasting surfaces unifies contrasting
sections in musical masterworks is shared by thematic
transformation 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 be
acknowledged as legitimate motives by Schenkerian
theory, and vice versa. Such complex and conflicting
notions of musical unity seem to present insurmountable difficulties for the empirical examination of its
perception and cognition. How can one test the perception of something where there is neither agreed definition, nor a clear decision procedure that would
399
determine whether this something actually exists in a

musical work?
Yet, as mentioned, two tenets seem to be shared by
otherwise extremely diverse views of musical unity.
First, the assumption that unity is primarily inner
generated by distinct relationships between different
sections of a specific musical composition, rather than
by shared generic or stylistic features. Second, the
conviction that such unity is a mark (perhaps even a
necessary attribute) of musical value, and particularly
characterizes works in the Classic-Romantic music
canonpieces widely accepted as masterpieces, by
composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms.
The experiment reported here attempts to examine
empirically these two presuppositions, succinctly conveyed by Rtis assertion that one cannot produce a
convincing 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 addressing Rtis challenge, as we created hybrids from two
Mozart masterworks (the opening movements of the
piano sonatas K. 280 and K. 332, both in F major),
while controlling for generic constraints, such as conventional form and tonal structure, and compared listeners evaluations of these hybrids with their
evaluations of Mozarts original masterworks. If the
notion of an inner, organic unity of musical masterworks (whichever way one defines it) has cognitive
validity, our blatant interference with Mozarts masterpieces should have affected listeners appreciation of the
music, such that hybrids, composed of sections of different works, would be rated lower by listeners than the
original masterworks out of which they were assembled.
The Classical style of the 18th century provides a particularly apt venue for such examination. First, its clear
constraints regarding large-scale tonal structure and
shared forms enable control over external form. In
addition, theorists and composers of the Classical style
were very much engaged with the problem of creating
unity within diversity (a problem of lesser importance
earlier, in the Baroque, in which notions of the unity of
affect reigned). As mentioned, while contrast among
themes was accepted and often demanded in the later
18th century, an inner unity of feeling, created through
subtle balance and complementation among these contrasting elements, was a chief aesthetic principle voiced
by musicians and aestheticians of the period (see
Holtmeier, 2000, 2002; Schwartz, 2001). Mozart, perhaps more than any other Classical master, has represented this principle for generations of musicians and
critics and, indeed, this study utilizes two of his exemplary piano sonatas to investigate its perception.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
400
14:48
Page 400
FIGURE 2. The arpeggiated motives of the opening of K. 280/I evoked

in the 2nd subject.
FIGURE 1. Three statements of an arpeggiated tonic triad motive

(x, y, z) in the opening theme of K. 280/I.
An Analytical Interlude: Inner Unity in K. 280
Though there is no generally agreed upon notion of

inner unity (and, as we have argued, such a notion is
not a prerequisite for our investigation), we shall
attempt to flesh out this concept by revealing relationships between different sections that may constitute
such unity in one of the two pieces investigated in this
study, relationships that are violated in the hybrid created for this experiment. In the analysis below, we shall
first discuss some connections and similarities unifying
the two main themes of the first movement of Mozarts
K. 280 (mm. 1-13, 27-43), divorced from each other in
the hybrids we created, and then suggest how the development section of the movement (mm. 57-82) integrates elements of these themes. Our analysis combines
observations of surface features and configurations in
pitch, rhythm, and articulation with analysis of foreground and lower middleground voice-leading progressions, indebted in part to Beach (1994).4
The opening of the 2nd theme (Figure 2, mm. 27-30),

also emphasizing the tonic triad motive (in the secondary key, C major), closely emulates two of the above figures. The arpeggiated bass figure y, now ascending, opens
the theme (m. 27), evoking the left-hand figure that has
initiated the 1st theme not only in pitch structure, but
also in rhythm, register, articulation, and octave doubling. Figure z is evoked by the 51(G-C) descent in mm.
28-30 (Figure 2). Like its predecessor in m. 2, it opens
with a 565 upper-neighbor figure (m. 28), and proceeds with a stepwise descent to 1 , now extended through
a sequential repetition of its opening upper-neighbor
configuration. Note that the sequence in mm. 28-30 itself
emulates another part of the opening themethe
descending 16th note figures in mm. 7, 9as both progressions are built of the same materials: a descending
third (filled by a passing tone in mm. 7, 9) and an upperneighbor figure (Figure 3).
In a different way, the structure of the 2nd theme evokes
not the opening of the 1st theme, but rather the beginning
of the bridge section that follows it (Figure 4c, mm. 13-17).
2ND AND 1ST THEMES
As Beach (1994) observes, the 1st theme opens with

three statements of an arpeggiated tonic triad motive
(Figure 1): a right-hand ascending arpeggio (motive x,
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 passing tones (anticipating the higher-level progression that
underlies the entire 1st theme, mm. 1-13).
4
Note that while adopting some of the analytical insights of Beach
(1994), the focus and music-theoretical stance of the present article
are very different.
FIGURE 3. Figurations in the 2nd subject of K. 280/I deriving from the

opening subject (mm. 7-9).
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 401
FIGURE 4. The 2nd subject of K. 280/I as a variant of its transition section.
401
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
402
14:48
Page 402
FIGURE 5. A reference to m. 3 (1st subject) in the development section

of K. 280/I.
Figure 4a (indebted to Beach, 1994, Example 1) shows

the structure of the opening phrase of the bridge. This
phrase projects a stepwise ascent from 1I through V2
(repeated twice), to 3I, elaborated on a lower level by two
third progressions, 123 (F-G-A) and 234 (G-A-B ).
The very same progression establishes the connection
between the two opening phrases of the 2nd theme
(Figure 4d, mm. 27-30, 31-34), by way of an inner voice
articulated by the closing figures of the two phrases (see
Figure 4b, adapted from Figure 5 in Beach, 1994). The
remainder of the 2nd theme (mm. 35-43) makes the
relationship to the bridge even more explicit, by using
similar triplet figurations (compare, for instance, the
figurations in mm. 36, 38 with mm. 23-25) and chromatic bass progression (mm. 18-23, 35-40). The 2nd
theme thus elaborates features and structures prominent in the entire preceding sectionincluding both
the opening theme and the bridge passage that ensues.
THE DEVELOPMENT SECTION
The development section of K. 280 is clearly derived

from the 2nd theme. However, elements of the 1st
theme are subtly integrated into the music, becoming
most prominent in the retransition, which concludes
the development and leads toward the return of the
opening theme. These elements, which may serve to
unify both themes and prepare the listener for the
return of the opening theme, would lose their sense as
unifying features in our hybrid, where the original 1st
theme of K. 280 was replaced by that of K. 332.
The first stage in this process is the introduction (in
an inner voice) of the chromatic quarter-notes descent
C-B-B -A (877b6 in the current key of C major),
repeated twice (mm. 63-64, 65-66), which alludes to
the similar progression (Figure 5, F-E-E -D in mm. 3-4).
The second signal of the impending 1st theme is of a
different nature: not a pitch motive, but an articulation
specifically associated with the very opening of the
movement. The upward arpeggiation in the right
hand, similar to that which opened the piece, appears
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.
(concurrently with a bass progression derived from the

opening of the 2nd theme) in each link of the sequence
in mm. 69-74, and in each downbeat of the climactic
measures (75-77) that ensue (Figure 6).
Following this climax, allusions to the opening theme
become even denser. They include the appoggiatura figures deriving from mm. 5-6 of the theme (mm. 80-82); a
double neighbor figure around A (see Figure 7, A-B -G A in mm. 78-80), recalling and anticipating the structural double neighbor around C (C-D-B -C) in the 1st
theme (mm. 1-6, 83-88); and finally, yet another occurrence of the chromatic C-B-B -A progression (mm. 81-82),
now anticipating the similar figure (F-E-E -D, mm. 8586) in the forthcoming 1st theme. Thus, the development prepares the return of the opening theme by the
gradually increasing introduction of diverse motivic
allusions.
FIGURE 7. The structure of the retransition as a derivation of the

structure of the opening subject.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 403
The Perception of Global Structural Relationships
Empirical studies of the effect of large-scale structure

on listeners aesthetic judgments have mostly concentrated on generic, inter-opus constraints. Thus, listeners evaluations of intact musical works were compared
with those of scrambled or altered versions of the same
pieces that violated conventional formal schemes or
long-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 listeners are often highly sensitive to structural events and
processes, such as tonal closure or modulation, when
these occur on a local level (e.g., Thompson & Cuddy,
1992), comparable processes on a larger scale go unnoticed. This was observed for various tasks: distinguishing original from altered pieces (Marvin & Brinkman,
1999; Tillmann & Bigand, 1996), preference or ratings of
liking (Karno & Koneni, 1992), expressivity ratings
(Tillmann & Bigand, 1996), and ratings of structural
features, such as coherence or closure (Cook, 1987).
Note, however, that most of the studies cited above
focused on the initial impression gained by listeners from
a single presentation. As Pollard-Gott (1983) and
Krumhansl (1996) show, listeners awareness of structural
features (such as thematic variants) may emerge only
after repeated exposure. Thus, their sensitivity to global
aspects of musical piecesespecially relatively long and
complex musical works, which presumably cannot be fully
processed in a single hearingmay not be truly evaluated
without examining the influence of repeated exposure.
Of particular relevance to the present study, and contrasting most other studies investigating the perception
of global unity, are the results of two recent experiments
that, rather than altering structure within a single piece,
created hybrids of several pieces and compared listeners
liking and unity-ratings of hybrids with those of the
original intact compositions. Tan and Spackman (2005)
report that following a single hearing both musically
trained and nave listeners gave hybrids lower unity and
liking ratings, as compared to those given to intact compositions. This raises the possibility that even though
listeners may not be sensitive to external features such as
conventional form or to tonal relationships, other global
aspects of musical structure, such as inner, thematic
unity, are noticeable and may play an important role in
listeners aesthetic appreciation. In a follow-up study,
Tan, Spackman, and Peaslee (2006) performed a similar
experiment, but asked participants to repeat the rating
task following two, three, and four hearings of the compositions involved. While results for the first hearing
403
again show higher rating for originals, further exposure

resulted in linear increase of ratings for hybrids, and
decrease (though not linear) in ratings of intact compositions, 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-factor
arousal theory (1971), suggesting that high aesthetic
evaluation results from optimal arousal, which depends,
among other factors, on perceived complexity.
According to their interpretation, the repeated exposure
influenced the perceived complexity of both hybrids
and originals such that the initial optimal (medium)
complexity of intact pieces was reduced to sub-optimal
level, while the initial supra-optimal complexity of
hybrids was increased to optimal (medium) level.
The possible role of inner factors, such as thematic
unity, as distinguished from external (inter-opus) cohesive factors in listeners evaluations is not directly
addressed in any of the above studies. Most of them
manipulate generic structural factors, particularly conventional musical form and overall tonal closure. The
two studies by Tan and colleagues (2005, 2006), most
similar in their procedure to the present study, do not
distinguish between generic and piece-specific aspects
of unity, nor do they specify the structural differences
between altered and original pieces. Furthermore, the
hybrids created for these latter studies involved abrupt
changes in key, range, volume, tempo, mood, and style
between segments, with little in the musical content to
make the three segments sound like they belonged
together (Tan et al., 2006, p. 208). Hence, it is questionable as to whether these studies have addressed the
perception of large-scale coherence at all, since the ratings of hybrids may have been based on evaluating local
transitions between segments, rather than on assessment of global relationships and structure.
Aims and General Design
In contrast to studies manipulating structure in order

to examine listeners sensitivity to generic aspects such
as overall tonal closure or conventional form, the present
study aimed at examining the effect of the supposed
inner form, while controlling for such external constraints. Thus, unlike the above studies, we compared
listeners judgments of originals (acknowledged Mozart
masterworks) with those of hybrids, which combined
functionally equivalent segments from these masterworks. In contrast to Tan and Spackman (2005) and
Tan, Spackman, and Peaslee (2006), who also compared
hybrids to originals, in the current design important
external constraints such as conventional form and
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
404
14:48
Page 404
TABLE 1. Structure of the Hybrid Composition Used for Group 1.

Function in Allegro-Sonata Form
Sonata
Mm.
Local Initial Harmony
Exposition1st group
Exposition2nd group
Development (up to the
retransition)
Retransition
Recapitulation1st group
Recapitulation2nd group
K. 332
K. 280
K. 280
1-40
27-56
57-77
C:I
K. 332
K. 332
K. 280
125-32
133-77
109-144
tonal structure (as well as a composers style and overall features like tempo, meter, and key) were shared by
both original and hybrid. At the same time, the
assumed inner unity characterizing the original masterpieces (as Koch, Rti, Schoenberg, and many others
would suggest), was violated, by definition, in the
hybrid that was created by combining unrelated works.
Some relationships that may constitute such inner
unity were presented in the analytical interlude above.
Rating Mozarts originals higher than hybrids on evaluative scales would thus suggest that such relationships,
present in Mozarts original and violated in the hybrid,
may have some cognitive validity. In contrast, finding
no difference between the ratings given to originals and
hybrids would suggest that such supposedly unifying
features are not perceived or, at any rate, that they do
not affect listeners aesthetic judgments. Alternatively,
such a null finding may suggest that the hybrids we created are characterized by new connections, relationships and a delicate balance, which are as unifying as
those of the original Mozart piece. Although we will not
be able to dissociate these two alternative interpretations, they both have important ramifications for the
understanding of music perceptionramifications
that may call into question basic, shared assumptions of
music aesthetics and analysis (see Discussion section).
Local Final Harmony

C:V
Dm:VII7/V
Dm:V (or F: III#)

F:V
F:I
While the above design controlled for extra-opus constraints, it did not preclude the possibility that judgments
would be based on listeners evaluations of separate segments, in and of themselves, rather than on any perceived
overall relationship (either external or internal). For
instance, if listeners prefer segment x in composition A
over its equivalent x in composition B, then a hybrid
that replaces x with x may be rated lower than the
intact A simply because x is rated lower than x, and not
due to any differences in perceived overall structure.
Therefore, in our study, one group of listeners compared the original 1st movement of Mozarts piano
sonata, K. 332, with a hybrid, in which some sections of
the original movement were replaced with structurally
equivalent sections from an earlier Mozart sonata, K.
280 (for brevity we use hereafter the abbreviation
G1/K. 332). A second group of different participants
compared the intact K. 280 with a hybrid (G2/K. 280),
in which the K. 332 segments that were removed in
Experiment 1 now replaced structurally equivalent segments of K. 280 (see Tables 1 & 2).
Other factors that may affect the perception of musical structure and the ensuing aesthetic judgments are
the amount of exposure to the music, the degree to
which the music was retained in the listeners memory
following this exposure, and their previous music
TABLE 2. Structure of the Hybrid Composition Used for Group 2.

Function in Allegro-Sonata Form
Sonata
Mm.
Exposition1st group
Exposition2nd group
Development (up to the retransition)
Retransition
Recapitulation1st group
Recapitulation2nd group
K. 280
K. 332
K. 332
K. 280
K. 280
K. 332
1-26
41-93
94-124
80-82
83-108
176-229
Local Initial
Harmony
Local Final
Harmony
C:V
C:I
Dm:VII7/V
Dm:V (or F: III#)
F:V
F:I
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 405
training, which may affect their perception of structurally significant qualities, such as harmonic structure.
All of these variables were manipulated in the current
study, as described next in the Method section.
Method
Participants
One hundred and sixteen university students participated

in the experiment. Group 1 comprised 61 participants (26
male, 35 female; mean age = 24.1 years, SD = 5.8), 29 of
whom were musically trained (>7 years of formal music
training). A separate group of 55 participants comprised
Group 2 (25 male, 30 female; mean age = 24.0, SD = 4.4),
25 of whom were musically trained. Pianists and composers, who were expected to know the test pieces well,
were excluded. Participants were paid approximately $17
for 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 piano
sonata in F major, K. 332. The second was a hybrid,
which begins with the opening section of K. 332 but
progresses differently, due to the replacement of two
sections with structurally analogous sections from the
1st movement of a different Mozart piano sonata, K. 280
(Table 1). The complementary material was presented
to Group 2: the intact 1st movement of Mozarts K. 280
and its hybrid, which begins with the opening section of
K.280, but continues with analogous sections from K.
332. This hybrid thus included sections excluded from
the 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 thematic
material. We used Steinbergs Wavelab 4.5 audio editing
software to create the hybrids. Three professional classical musicians scrutinized the hybrids prior to the
experiments and found the links between their sections
smooth and stylistically credible. Mitsuko Uchidas
recording 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
405
going to listen to two versions of a movement from a

Mozart piano sonata, both composed by Mozart but
only one approved by him for publication. They then
listened to the two pieces (K. 332 and its hybrid or K.
280 and its hybrid), presented to different participant
groups in counterbalanced order. After listening to each
piece, they were presented with 10 statements about the
music they had just heard, and were asked to rate the
degree of their agreement with each statement on a
numerical scale of 0-4 for statements 1-7, and of (2) to
(+2) for statements 8-10, which were converted for the
statistical 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The piece in this version is coherent (unified).

The piece in this version is interesting.
This version is a masterpiece.
This version presents conspicuous contrasts among
different sections.
I liked the piece in this version.
All the musical ideas in this version stem from its
initial phrases.
The performance just heard is excellent.
This version is too long (mark 1 or 2), too short (1
or 2) or just the right duration (0).
The performance you have just heard is too fast (1 or
2), too slow (1 or 2) or in just the right tempo (0).
The performance you have just heard is too dramatic
(1 or 2), too flat and expressionless (1, 2) or possessing just the right measure of expressivity (0).
These evaluative statements differ in the criteria they

apply (e.g., coherence, interest, appropriate duration),
in the degree of objectivity they invite (e.g., this version is a masterpiece, vs. I like this version), and in
the object of evaluationthe musical work itself or its
performance.
Participants were given about 5 min to complete the
task. They then listened to the second version, and
repeated the task. Finally, they were asked two concluding questions: (1) Which version do you prefer? (2)
Which version, in your opinion, did Mozart choose to
publish? Participants also supplied a free account of
their choices in these questions.
To examine the effect of exposure, each of the
experiments was conducted twice: after a single hearing of each version (Session 1), and following a weeklong exposure to the music (Session 2). Thus, at the
end of the first session, participants were presented
with a CD containing the recordings of the original
and the hybrid they had just heard in the experimental
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
406
14:48
Page 406
session. They were asked to listen to the CD frequently

and attentively before returning for the second session.
Listening was encouraged by telling the participants
that their payments would be linked to their success
in a recognition test, to be taken during the second
session.
SESSION 2
The second session took place about a week after the

first session, and started with a recognition test, in
which participants heard 16 music phrases and were
asked to indicate which of these phrases had been
included in their take-home CD. Of the 16 phrases presented to Group 1, nine were included in the CD, three
were phrases of K. 280 not included in the hybrid, and
four were taken from another Mozart sonata movement (K. 570/I). In the recognition test of Group 2,
three of the seven phrases not included in the CD were
taken from K. 332. Following the recognition test, participants repeated the task performed in Session 1. At
the end of the session they were asked to explain in
writing the reasons for their selections.
Hypotheses
We hypothesized that the notion that music masterpieces possess an inner unity would be supported by
the following results:
1. Ratings of Mozarts original compositions would be
higher than those of hybrids.
2. Tendencies to prefer originals (as indicated by differences in ratings of originals and hybrids) would
strengthen in the 2nd session (following repeated
exposure to the music).
3. In the 2nd session, tendencies to prefer originals
would be stronger for participants whose scores in
the recognition test were higher, indicating a higher
level of familiarity with the music materials.
4. Tendencies to prefer originals would be stronger for
musically trained participants.
5. Ratings for coherence would correlate with overall
preferences, in particular with objectively expressed
preferences (this is a masterpiece).
Results
The hypothesis that the original masterworks, supposedly

possessing superior inner unity, would be preferred by
listeners over hybrids was not confirmed by our data.
Tables 3A-3D present results of several comparisons

between original and hybrid; each of these four tables
refers to one experimental session in one of the two participants 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 or
the hybrid as either their preferred version or the version
they assume Mozart chose is presented in the first two
rows 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; see
Table 3A), 26 participants preferred Mozarts original K.
332, whereas 34 participants preferred the hybrid (result
not significantly different from an even distribution). The
only result approaching significance was obtained in the
2nd session of Group 2 (Table 3D), in which 28 participants 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 our
first two hypotheses.
We also compared, using paired samples t-tests, the
average rating for the 10 individual statements, pooled
together, in both K. 332 and K. 280 and in both sessions
(row no. 3 in Tables 3A-3D). Consistent with the results of
the two summarizing statements, none of the results indicate a preference for the original over the hybrid. If anything, there is again a marginally significant higher
pooled rating for the hybrid over the original (p = .086)
in the 2nd session of Group 2 (Table 3D). Finally, we compared participants average rating for each of the ten individual statements in response to the hybrids versus the
originals. Wilcoxon paired sampled statistics, corrected
for multiple testing using the false discovery rate (FDR)
procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), revealed that
only statement 6 yielded a statistically significant difference between the two versions: the hybrid of K. 332 was
considered more appropriate in duration, as compared to
the original (Z = 4.21, p < .001; Z = 3.94, p < .001 in
Session 1 and Session 2 respectively). In effect, the hybrid,
which lasted 5 min and 20 s, was 98 s shorter than
Mozarts original K. 332, lasting 6 min and 58 s.
If the supposed superior inner form of masterworks
affects listeners preferences, one would expect that the
increased exposure during the week in which the participants were instructed to listen intensively to the
pieces would have resulted in increased preferences for
the originals over the hybrids (Hypothesis 2). Again,
our results do not support this hypothesis. For both
experimental groups, there was no significant difference
between Session 1 and Session 2 in the distribution
of participants who personally preferred the original,
the hybrid, or had no preference (~10%). This was
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 407
407
TABLE 3A. Comparisons of the Original K. 332/I with Its Hybrid (Session 1).
K. 332 Session 1 (N = 61)
1
2
3
N (chosen by Mozart)
N (personally preferred)
Mean and SD of ratings across 10 statements
Mean and SD for duration ratings (statement 8)
Original
Hybrid
26
23
2.74
0.54
2.47
1.36
35
33
2.90
0.48
3.53
0.94
Statistic
x2 = 1.33, df = 1
x2 = 1.79, df = 1
t = 1.66
Wilcoxon = 4.21**
**p < .01
TABLE 3B. Comparisons of the Original K. 332/I with Its Hybrid (Session 2).
K. 332 Session 2 (N = 59)
1
2
3
Mean and SD for duration ratings
Original
Hybrid
28
25
2.86
0.46
2.32
1.40
31
28
2.90
0.52
3.44
1.05
Statistic
x2 = 0.15, df = 1
x2 = 0.17, df = 1
t = 0.36
Wilcoxon = 3.94**
**p < .01
TABLE 3C. Comparisons of the Original K. 280/I with Its Hybrid (Session 1).
K. 280 Session 1 (N = 53)
1
2
3
Original
Hybrid
21
19
2.66
0.50
3.19
1.14
32
27
2.78
0.52
2.65
1.25
Statistic
x2 = 2.28, df = 1
x2 = 1.39, df = 1
t = 1.33
Wilcoxon = 2.21
TABLE 3D. Comparisons of the Original K. 280/I with Its Hybrid (Session 2).
K. 280 Session 2 (N = 51)
1
2
3
*p < .1 > .05
Original
Hybrid
20
16
2.67
0.61
3.27
1.12
31
28
2.85
0.64
2.88
1.28
Statistic
x2 = 2.37, df = 1
x2 = 3.27*, df = 1
t = 1.75*
Wilcoxon = 1.52
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
408
14:48
Page 408
TABLE 4. Comparison of the Relative Ratings for Originals and Hybrids before (Session1) and after (Session2)
Extended Exposurea.
Mean Difference between
Rating of Original &
Hybrid (SD) in K. 332
Statement
Coherence
Interest
Masterpiece
Contrast
Like
Derived from
a single motive
Session 1
(N = 61)
0.14
1.25
0.00
1.13
0.03
1.23
0.19
1.37
0.02
1.43
0.02
1.12
Session 2
(N = 59)
Mean Difference between

Rating of Original &
Hybrid (SD) in K. 280
Z
(Wilcoxon)
Session 1
(N = 53)
Session 2
(N = 51)
Z
(Wilcoxon)
0.21
0.29
1.38
0.14
1.06
0.33
0.99
0.08
1.68
0.37
1.17
0.37
1.52
0.31
1.33
0.20
1.28
0.49
1.19
0.00
1.83
0.53
1.42
0.14
1.17
0.16
0.17
1.33
0.10
1.12
0.09
0.84
0.17
1.49
0.03
1.47
0.05
1.16
0.90
0.55
0.05
0.35
0.40
0.41
1.03
0.53
0.82
2.76
Negative rating values indicate that mean ratings for the hybrid are higher than for the original.
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 the
relative proportion of participants attributing either
original 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 same
pattern of results is also evident in the rating of the
individual statements. In Table 4 we present the data for
the first six statements (excluding the statements that
relate to performance features, rather than to structural features of the experimental items). For each statement we compare the differences () between the mean
ratings of original and hybrid in Session 1 with those in
Session 2 (i.e., following a week-long exposure).
Wilcoxon paired samples statistics, corrected for multiple testing using the false discovery rate (FDR) procedure, 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 compared, for each of the 10 statements, ratings of high
scorers (above the mean) in the recognition test performed at the 2nd session, with those given by low scorers
5
The McNemar-Bowker test extends the McNemar test, so that the
measured variable can have more than two possible outcomes
(Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2006, p. 127).
(Hypothesis 3). This measure was taken as an indication

of a higher degree of familiarity with the music materials,
derived either from more extensive listening between sessions or from higher musical memory skills. Table 5A
presents, using the Mann-Whitney U test, the rating
differences between the original and the hybrid with
respect to the first six statements described above.
Results indicate no significant difference between good
and bad memorizers with regard to any of these statements. Correspondingly, chi-square tests indicate that
both good and bad memorizers responded similarly to
the two summarizing questions (Table 5B). In sum,
repeated exposure, as well as familiarity (as indicated by
performance in the recognition test), did not result in
preference for Mozarts masterworks over our hybrids.6
Finally, we tested the hypothesis that familiarity with
the relevant musical style would result in a clear preference for the Mozart originals over the hybrid versions.
More specifically, we assumed that musically trained
participants, who had been exposed to music of the
6
This is also consistent with the fact that we did not find any significant differences between the rating of participants who indicated
they were unfamiliar with the pieces and those few (9 in Group 1 and
10 in Group 2) who attested to prior exposure to the pieces in question. Importantly, none of those familiar with the piece was aware of
the structural intervention in the pieces. Hence, we pooled the
results of these participants together with those of the others.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 409
409
TABLE 5A. Mean Difference (Upper Cell Entry) and SD (Lower Cell Entry) of Rating between Original and Hybrid for
Both Levels of Success at Recognition in Session 2.
Mean Difference & SD of Rating
between Original and Hybrid K. 332
Statement
Coherence
Interest
Masterpiece
Contrast
Like
Derived from a
single motive
Bad
Memorizers
N = 29
0.14
1.39
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
2.00
0.10
1.61
0.10
1.45
Good
Memorizers
N = 23
Mean Difference & SD of Rating

between Original and Hybrid K. 280
MannWhitney
U
Bad
Memorizers
N = 37
Good
Memorizers
N = 21
MannWhitney
U
376.0
0.26
1.32
0.17
1.30
0.39
1.12
0.32
1.70
0.30
1.18
0.09
0.95
0.24
1.35
0.28
1.31
0.55
1.24
0.24
1.88
0.76
1.57
0.17
1.31
314.0
0.24
1.28
0.16
1.14
0.11
0.94
0.16
1.40
0.08
1.42
0.14
0.98
382.5
368.5
376.5
363.0
352.5
317.5
289.5
287.5
272.5
324.5
TABLE 5B. Distribution of Responses to Summarizing Questions Comparing the Original and Hybrid for Both Levels
of Success at Recognition in Session 2.
K. 332
N-Mozart vs. N-Hybrid
Summarizing
Questions
Personally
preferreda
Chosen by
Mozart
Good
Memorizers
N = 21
Bad
Memorizers
N = 37
8 vs. 9
9 vs. 12
K. 280
Good
Memorizers
N = 29
Bad
Memorizers
N = 23
16 vs. 19
0.08
8 vs. 17
8 vs. 11
0.48
18 vs. 19
0.18
20 vs. 9
11 vs. 11
1.88
Analysis excludes participants who had no preference for either version.
Classical style through extended listening, performance,

and studies of music theory and history, would be more
likely to recognize the subtle unifying features in
Mozarts masterworks and thus rate them as superior to
the hybrids (Hypothesis 4). Once more, this hypothesis
was not supported by our results. Mann-Whitney U
tests, comparing the differences between mean ratings
of the original and the hybrid in the musicians group
with those of the nonmusicians, revealed no significant
differences as a function of music training (Tables 6 & 7).
Paradoxically, the only significant difference between
musicians and nonmusicians is revealed in the second
session in Group 1 (K. 332), albeit in a direction that contradicts our hypothesized training effect (see Table 6b).
Musically trained participants, after extensive exposure

to the musical pieces, selected the hybrid as the piece
chosen by Mozart for publication more than the musically nave participants. Whereas 40.6% of the musically
nave participants attributed the hybrid to Mozart,
66.7% of the musically trained assumed that the hybrid
had been chosen by Mozart for publication (p < .05).
Correlations Among Evaluative Scales
The multifaceted evaluations used in this study enable

an investigation of the relationships among different
evaluative measures. Specifically, they afford an examination of how general judgments, such as I like this
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
410
14:48
Page 410
TABLE 6A. Mean Difference (Upper Cell Entry) and SD (Lower Cell Entry) of Rating between Original (K. 332) and
Hybrid as a Function of Music Training.
Mean Difference & SD of
Rating between Original
and Hybrid (K. 332) in
Session 1
Statement
Coherence
Interest
Masterpiece
Contrast
Like
Derived from a
single motive
Nonmusicians
N = 32
0.22
1.36
0.00
1.11
0.03
1.12
0.28
1.44
0.16
1.32
0.06
1.05
Musicians
N = 29
0.03
1.21
0.00
1.16
0.17
1.34
0.07
1.28
0.10
1.52
0.07
1.25
MannWhitney
U
Mean Difference & SD of

Rating between Original
and Hybrid (K. 332) in
Session 2
Nonmusicians
N = 32
0.06
1.34
0.13
0.83
0.09
0.73
0.38
1.68
0.06
1.48
0.03
1.33
413.5
449.0
444.0
424.5
429.5
410.5
Musicians
N = 27
0.30
1.32
0.07
1.41
0.08
0.98
0.07
1.21
0.00
1.49
0.15
0.91
MannWhitney
U
379.5
408.5
381.5
348.5
399.5
371.5
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 Both
Sessions as a Function of Music Training.
Session 1
Summarizing
Questions
Personally
preferreda
Chosen by Mozart
Session 2
Nonmusicians
N = 32
Musicians
N = 29
Nonmusicians
N = 32
Musicians
N = 27
11 vs.17
12 vs. 16
0.74
17 vs. 14
8 vs. 14
1.76
16 vs. 16
10 vs. 19
1.50
19 vs. 13
9 vs. 18
3.98*
* p < .05
a
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
Summarizing
Questions
Personally preferreda
Chosen by Mozart
a
Session 2
Nonmusicians
N = 28
Musicians
N = 25
Non Musicians
N = 28
Musicians
N = 25
12 vs.13
10 vs. 18
7 vs. 14
11 vs. 14
1.01
0.38
9 vs. 14
10 vs. 17
7 vs. 14
10 vs. 14
0.16
0.11
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 411
411
TABLE 8. Correlation Matrix (Spearmans Correlation Coefficient r) in Group1/K. 332.
Like in Session 1a
Like in Session 2
Masterpiece in Session 1
Like
Coherence
.50***
.64***
.31*
.18
.23
.19
Interest
Performance
(general)
.68***
.69***
.64***
.57***
.54***
.44**
.46**
.27
Performance
Tempo
.43**
.40**
.02
.13
Expression in
Performance
.34*
.32*
.356*
.24
Duration
.28
.55***
.41**
.40**
Two statementsthematic contrast (4) and thematic derivation (6)did not correlate with like or masterpiece in either session, and thus do not appear in this table.
*p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
version or this version is a masterpiece correlate

with more specific evaluative measures. To examine
these 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 two
versions presented. We were particularly interested in
correlations between each of the two general evaluative
statements, I like this version (subjective evaluation;
statement 5) and this version is a masterpiece (objective evaluation; statement 3) with statements associated
with structural unity, particularly coherence (no. 1),
contrasts (no. 4), and derivation (no. 6), as such correlations would support Hypothesis 5. In Group 1 (K. 332;
see Table 8), differences in rating the original and the
hybrid with respect to the two general statements 5
(liking) and 3 (masterpiece) were not significantly
correlated with differences in rating the two pieces with
regard to statements 4 (contrasts) and 6 (derivation).
Coherence (no. 1) was correlated with liking only in the
first session, and not correlated with masterpiece at
all. Note that these results do not seem to stem from a
lack of understanding of the notion of musical coherence: an indication that participants did understand
this notion (though perhaps superficially) lies in the
positive correlation found between statement 1The
piece in this version is coherent (unified) and statement
6All the musical ideas in this version stem from its

initial phrases (r = .33, p < .05 in Session 1, and r = .57,
p < .0001, in Session 2), and the expected negative correlation between statement 1 and statement 4This
version presents conspicuous contrasts among different
sections (r = .45, p < .01 in Session 1, and r = .37, p <
.05 in Session 2).
In contrast to the generally low correlations between
features associated with coherence and the two general
evaluations, differences in rating the original and the
hybrid with respect to the two general statements I like
this version and this version is a masterpiece were highly
correlated with the different evaluations of performance
(statements no. 7, 9, and 10), or appropriateness of duration (statement no. 8). Like and masterpiece were also
strongly associated with each other.
Though most correlations in Group 2 (K. 280; see
Table 9) are similar to those in Group 1, one noteworthy
difference emerged in Session 2. In contrast to Group 1,
in Group 2/K. 280 there was a correlation between ratings of the pieces coherence and ratings of both liking
and masterpiece.
By and large, most correlations were shared by both
musicians and nonmusicians. Notably, regardless of
music training, performance considerations (statements 7, 9, 10) correlate with the general preferences/
judgments of like and masterpiece better than
TABLE 9. Correlation Matrix (Spearmans Correlation Coefficient r) in Group 2/K. 280.
Like in Session 1a
Like in Session 2
a
Like
Coherence
Interest
Performance
(general)
Expression in
Performance
Duration
.78***
.84***
.16
.53***
.32
.37*
.63***
.62***
.64***
.36*
.55***
.55***
.51***
.48*
.55***
.40*
.32
.37*
.36*
.37*
.31
.35*
Three statementsthematic contrast (4), thematic derivation (6) and performance tempo (9)did not correlate with like or masterpiece in either session, and thus do
not appear in this table.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
412
14:48
Page 412
TABLE 10. Classification of Free Verbal Responses in Group 1 (K. 332) and Group 2 (K. 280).
Category of Response
Interest, complexity, richness, originality
Example (K. 280): The second version has more musical
ideas. It is more varied, has many themes, and it is more
surprising and exciting.
Expressivity, drama, depth
Example (K. 332): The first version is more interesting.
It is as if it has subdivisions into scenes and one can actually
build around it an interesting story with events which
develop but at the beginning it sounds less coherent than
the second version.
Lightness, delicacy charm, Mozartness
Example (K. 332): The first version is more modern in
style and in certain points too winding, too long and less
unified. The second version is more consistent with the style
and epoch of the composer, lightermore logical,
more correct.
Coherence, continuity, completeness, less contrasts
Example (K. 280): The second version presents less contrasts.
On my view, in the first version there are low bass notes which
create a contrast with the character of the rest of the piece,
and therefore the second version in which there are less
contrasts is more appropriate to the Classical style...the
second version seems to me more delicate and therefore
more appropriate to the Classical style.
Brevity, faster tempo
Example (K. 280): The first version, because it is shorter.
Aspects of dynamics
Example (K. 280): The performance is more expressive,
interesting with more changes in dynamics as compared
to the first version in which there are no perceivable
dynamic changes, and less expression.
structural ones, such as coherence, (statement 1) and

derivation (statement 6). One surprising training-related difference, however, should be noted: contrary to
our expectations, in Group 2, Session 2, higher coherence
ratings correlate with ratings of liking for nonmusicians (r = .626, p < .01), but not for musicians.
Free Verbal Responses
In order to gain some further insights regarding participants considerations in evaluating the works, we
examined their free accounts of the reasons that led
them to select a particular version as their preferred
version or as Mozarts preferred version. In Table 10 we
summarize these free comments, classifying the
motives in the participants statements into six categories: interest or complexity; drama; features of the
280
Original
280
Hybrid
332
Original
332
Hybrid
presumed Classical or Mozart style; coherence or lack

of contrasts; considerations of duration or tempo; and
considerations of dynamics, timbre, and register (secondary parameters; see, e.g., Meyer, 1973). We did not
perform any statistical analysis on these data, for several reasons. First, about half of the participants chose
not to address the free text question. Second, in several
comments more than a single consideration is mentioned (e.g., in the second citation both interest and
drama appear), in which case we included the same
comment in the two or more appropriate categories,
thus giving extra weight to some participants views.
Third, the categories themselves, and the assignment of
participants texts into these categories, result from the
authors rather subjective judgments. Nevertheless, we
believe that the free texts provide valuable information
as to the participants judgments, and we discuss some
of their implications below.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 413
413
Discussion
Support for Strict Concatenationism?
Perception of Inner Form
How can the above findings be interpreted? The lack of

listeners preference for Mozarts originals seems to concur with previous findings (summarized previously)
indicating that violations of large-scale structure have little effect on aesthetic appreciation, and are often unnoticed even by experienced listeners. Such findings have led
to the conclusion that large-scale structure has only a
minor role in aesthetic response to music (Tillmann &
Bigand, 2004), supporting the concatenationist position
voiced by philosopher Jerrold Levinson (1997). Levinson,
following 19th century musician and psychologist
Edmund Gurney, attributes aesthetic response in music
chiefly to local effects and relationshipsto the appreciation of individual phrases and sections and to the
cogency of succession between them. In fact, while
Levinson carefully qualifies this strict concatenationist
view, results of empirical studies, including the present
one, suggest that these qualifications may be unnecessary.
In supporting a concatenationist view, this study
complements previous studies in an important way.
Earlier studies have examined how conventional external form (such as formal schemas and large-scale tonality), which any moderately trained composer could
have successfully applied, affect aesthetic appreciation.
Here, in contrast, we examined (albeit in a limited way;
see caveats below) the perceptibility of what generations of musicians and music critics have presumed to
be the hallmark of musical genius: inner form and the
supposed organic unity it entails. This hallmark seems
to evade listeners, both trained and untrained, after
either a single or multiple listenings.
At the beginning of this article we quoted Rtis rhetorical question, asking why a convincing musical composition cannot be produced by taking a group or
section from one work and linking it to that of another.
The findings presented above suggest that, music theorists convictions notwithstanding, a convincing
musical composition may indeed be produced in precisely that way. In both experimental groups, and for
musicians and nonmusicians alike, musical hybrids
seemed as convincinginteresting, likeable, preferable, truly Mozarteanfor our participants as
Mozarts original compositions, even after extended,
repeated hearings.
In contrast with our hypotheses, neither extended
exposure nor better recognition of the music resulted in
preference for the original. Rather (for musically trained
participants), repeated exposure even tended to enhance
a preference for the hybrid over Mozarts original
(Group 1). In other words, our hypothesis that better
acquaintance with the piece, gained over repeated hearings, would lead, at least for the musically trained, to
acknowledgment of the subtle effects of inner form, and
hence to a preference for Mozarts originals, was not
confirmed. This result is in line with findings reported
by Tan et al. (2006), although in their study exposure
tended to elevate the hybrid ratings for both musically
trained and untrained participants, while in our study
this tendency (itself weaker than in Tan et al.) was confined to the musically trained listeners, probably due to
the subtler nature of the alterations we employed.
Note that although repeated exposure did not
enhance the original over the hybrid ratings, it did have
an effect on listeners evaluative criteria. For instance,
whereas in the 1st session of Group 2 (K. 280) listeners
ratings of coherence did not significantly correlate with
overall liking of the music, in the 2nd session this correlation was highly significant; in contrast, the correlation of liking and masterpiece evaluations with ratings
of performance expressiveness considerably declined
from Session 1 to Session 2 (see Table 9). This suggests
that the role of structural features in determining the
overall evaluation of the music increased with repeated
hearings, a result consistent with findings of previous
studies involving repeated exposure to music (PollardGott, 1983; Krumhansl, 1996). Nevertheless, this seeming increase in attention to structural features did not
result in a preference for the supposedly better structured, more unified original over the hybrid.
Distinguishing Distinct and Style Related Features
While the present results lend some support to concatenationism, the listeners lack of preference for Mozarts
originals over the hybrids could have stemmed from
sources other than a general inability to grasp large-scale
or temporally remote musical relationships. The idea of
inner, as differentiated from external form, is necessarily
related to a notion of distinctive features, that is, features
appearing in the relevant composition more frequently
or saliently than in a relevant wider corpus, such as
Mozarts piano music. In assuming inner unity we presuppose that some features or relationships distinct to
the piece in question contribute to a sense of coherence
within it. To appreciate inner unity, then, listeners must
not only identify and categorize such features across
wide time-spansitself a difficult long-term memory
and categorization taskbut also differentiate them
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
414
14:48
Page 414
from the style related features characterizing the wider

corpus in question, and use this distinct in evaluating the
piece (see also Huron, 2001). Added to the other tasks of
long-term memory, categorization, and schematization
demanded of the attentive listener, this cognitive
demand may be a tall order for most listeners, even those
familiar with the relevant musical idiom (here, 18th century Classical style). Listeners may either fail to distinguish between distinctive and style related features or
simply do not care to do so, and thus base their evaluation of musical unity primarily on the latterin the
present case, on features of the Classical style present in
the hybrids as well as in the originals.
Furthermore, given the constraints of musical form,
genre, and style, unifying features or relationships,
including those distinctive of the composition in question, may accidentally arise even in a random assemblage of fragments of the same musical style. Indeed,
striking unifying relationships of that sort can be
observed in our hybrids. For instance, in the hybrid
provided to Group 1, whose exposition combines the
first key area group of K. 280/I with the second key area
of K. 332/I, the opening theme, from K. 280 (Figure 8a),
shares with the secondary theme, taken from K. 332,
(Figure 8b, mm. 41-42) a remarkable combination of
features: the exact opening rhythm, the melodic contour (a triple repetition of the opening note, followed
by a descent), as well as the ascending arpeggiation,
which initiates both themes. The same rhythm and
melodic profile are also featured in the next thematic
group, also from K. 332 (see Figure 8c, mm. 71-72). In
the hands of a competent advocate of organic inner
FIGURE 8. Derivation of two themes of K. 332/I from the opening of

K. 280/I.
form (and perhaps in the mind of similarly inclined

listeners as well), such relationships would surely provide triumphant evidence for the supreme unity of
Mozarts compositionand of Mozarts greatness.
Inner Unity and Perceived Coherence
As Table 9 reveals, following repeated exposure, participants in Group 2 associated the evaluation of the
hybrid vs. the original with ratings of coherence.
However, most participants also preferred the hybrid
over Mozarts original. We have suggested above some
possible sources for this seeming incongruityan
inability to distinguish distinctive features from style
related ones, or the coincidental emergence of unifying
features in the hybrids.
Yet another possible basis for this unsettling disparity may derive from the listeners diverse conceptions of
what musical coherence is. As Levinson or Gurney
would suggest, the participants sense of incoherence
may be primarily based on the presence of local contrasts between adjacent events, rather than on global or
remote relationships. Moreover, as several empirical
studies have indicated, listeners judgments of thematic similarity often rely on musical dimensions such as
dynamics, pitch register, and texture, rather than on
the dimensions that most music theorists view as the
bases of musical unity, such as tonal relationships and
pitch intervals (Eitan & Granot, 2007; Lamont &
Dibben, 2001; Ziv & Eitan, 2007). Simple auditory
cues, not specific to music, thus play a central role in
similarity perception and categorization in music, even
in those musical styles (such as the Classical style)
where, according to established music theories, they are
supposed to be almost irrelevant to such tasks. As a
result, listeners perception of thematic structure may
be at odds with music theorists notions and composers strategies, particularly since thematic variants,
as described by music theorists, often exhibit considerable contrasts with their thematic source in such surface features, while maintaining underlying pitch or
rhythmic structure.
Several of our listeners free comments indeed suggest such disparity, as they cite contrasts in dynamics or
register as the central source of incoherence in the
music. Thus, while analyses of K. 280 (including Beach,
1994, and our analysis above) would point out the bass
figure in m. 27 as a source of unity in the piece, as it
stems from the initial arpeggiation (m. 1-2), several listeners pointed out the very same figure as a source of
incoherence, due to the sharp local contrasts in pitch
register and dynamics it introduces.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 415
Coherence vs. Expressiveness?
An even more radical approach to the aesthetic role of

coherence is suggested by the correlation analysis for
Group 1 (see Table 8). Here, after repeated exposure
(Session 2), none of the three statements concerning
coherence or unity significantly correlated with liking of
the piece, or with agreement with the assertion that it is
a masterpiece. In other words, it would seem that, by
and large, the participants in this group did not view
coherence or unity as important considerations in judging the hybrid versus the original (K. 332indeed, a
hallmark of striking thematic contrasts in the Classical
style). This may, of course, reflect an aesthetic preference
typical of the post-modern age, very different from aesthetic considerations of the Classical epoch.
Several of the participants free texts (in both groups)
shed some light upon these aesthetic considerations.
Following are a few examples (emphases added by the
authors):7
In Mozarts time, richness and strong impression were
preferred over coherency and orderly structure. Hence,
it is reasonable that [the original], in which playing is
more powerful and sections more heterogeneous was
chosen by Mozart. (Group 1)
[I prefer the original since it] is more interesting.
It is as if it has subdivisions into scenes and one can
actually build around it an interesting story with
events which develop, though at the beginning it
sounds less coherent than the second version. (Group 1)
Mozart chose [the hybrid] since [the original]
exhausts the musical ideas too much. (Group 1)
I preferred [the hybrid], since it has more musical
ideas: it is more varied, has many themes, and it is
more surprising and exciting. (Group 2)
Mozart was not that imbecile (sic), he wouldnt
choose the [original], since the 2nd subject is utterly
stupid (sic), and is actually a copy of the 1st subject.
(Group 2)
It would thus seem that, for some listeners, coherence,
orderly structure, exhausting the musical material, and
unifying similarity of different musical ideasprinciples of organicist musical aestheticsseem to stand in
contrast to richness, expressiveness, and even interest.
Quite a few of the participants evaluated the latter over
the former, or even assumed that such evaluation was
the standard of Mozarts or of Classical aesthetics.
7
In these quotes from the free texts we have replaced the terms
first version or second version with [original] and [hybrid].
415
Thus, even the very attributes that to Rti or

Schoenberg would seem to offer evidence of sublime
inner unity, such as a derivation of a secondary subject
from the principal one, or exhaustion of the musical
material, served for some participants as proofs of lesser
musical value, even musical imbecility, since they supposedly work against the demands of richness and interest. Even when inner unity was perceived, therefore, it
may have been considered an aesthetic weakness rather
than an asseta result that in itself may attest more to
our own Zeitgeist than to cognitive strategies or abilities.
The Work and Its Performance
While structural aspects such as coherence, derivation

from initial material, and the degree of contrast only occasionally correlated with general judgments and preferences, ratings of different aspects of the pieces
performance (overall performance assessment, assessment
of tempo selection, and appropriateness of expressivity in
performance) correlated strongly and consistently with
preferences for the piece itself in both experiments.
Notably, such correspondence was found not only for
nonmusicians (where the notion of the performanceindependent musical work may not be clear and stable)
but also in the group of musically trained participants,
even following repeated listenings. This suggests that the
notion of an autonomous musical work, independent of
any specific performance, may not be reflected in listeners
actual evaluation of music. Rather, listeners (perhaps since
many of them are accustomed to musical genres where a
distinction between composition and performance is not
clear cut) may freely mix evaluations of composition and
performance without making any clear distinction
between the two. Paradoxically, this implication of the
results is particularly noteworthy since in fact all the music
in the experiment was recorded by the same performer
(M. Uchida, noted for a distinct style of performance), in
the same recording session. Nevertheless, listeners seem to
have attributed perceived differences between the two versions to their performance (though they were in fact identical), rather than their structure, and this perceived
difference in performance quality strongly affected the
overall evaluations of the compositions.
Open Questions and Suggested Follow-Ups
This study calls for further research not only due to its
rather unsettling results but also due to the nature of the
musical materials it used. The need for additional
research arises from characteristics of the Classical style,
of Mozarts specific idiom, and of the particular sonatas
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
416
14:48
Page 416
used in the experiments, all of which may restrict the

import of the present study. As mentioned in the introduction, the constraints of tonality and form, which were
patently defined and understood within the Classical
style, allow for considerable freedom in combining specific musical materials, provided such constraints are followed. Indeed, our experiment may be viewed as a latter
day version of the ars combinatorial dice games, developed by composers and theorists such as Mozart, Haydn,
and Kirnberger, in which the dice selected each structural unit from a number of choices, analogous in their harmonic and structural functions (Ratner, 1970).
Furthermore, Mozartperhaps more than Haydn
and Beethovenfrequently uses dramatic juxtaposition
and extreme contrasts as a compositional principle,
such that Mozartian themes and forms appear with a
certain accidental quality, as if something different
could sound in their place, as if they were exchangeable
(Holtmeier, 2002, p. 307). As mentioned, the piece often
seen as a paradigm of such dramatic juxtapositions is
actually the opening movement of K. 332 itself. These
characteristics of the Classical style, Mozarts in particular, made the choice of Mozarts music for this experiment almost inevitable. However, they also suggest that
examining whether and how inner form is perceived in
other musical styles and epochs is clearly called for.
Finally, a tentative yet intriguing aspect of the results,
suggesting further examination, should be noted: the different weighting of evaluative criteria in the two experiments. Most importantly, in Group 2 (K. 280 vs. hybrid 2)
evaluations of the pieces coherence correlated strongly with
overall judgments (this version is a masterpiece,I like this
version), but in Group 1 (K. 332 vs. hybrid) such correlation was hardly found, and instead other factors (such as
appropriate duration) were prominent (see Tables 8 & 9).
This diversity may suggest that even within the same style
and genre, listeners apply an ad hoc weighting of the various aesthetic criteria available to them (perhaps guided by
the conspicuous facets of each piece), rather than using a
stable set of aesthetic criteria. Such a conclusion is of course
premature; since it is based on comparing two different participant groups, the results may be due to inter-participant
differences. It is, however, intriguing and deserves further
study, examining within-participant correlation of different
aesthetic criteria in the evaluation of diverse musical works.
only. We disassembled two musical masterpieces so that

sections that (according to that credo) should associate
through distinct, unifying relationships were severed
from each other; these sections were then reassembled
into newly composed musical hybrids, which do not possess (as exemplified in our analytic interlude) these
unifying relationships. That cruel operation did not,
however, affect listeners evaluation of the musical pieces;
rather, many of them, including musically trained ones,
preferred our hybrids over the original masterpieces.
Perhaps more important than the results themselves
are the questions that they raise as to the role of largescale unity in aesthetic perception of music. As we suggested in the (admittedly speculative) discussion above,
the results may stem from different grounds, or from
their combination and interaction: an inability to perceive (or a disregard for) large-scale structure, as also suggested by previous studies; the emergence of accidental
similarities and unities in the hybrids; the prevalence of
notions of unity based on surface connections and contrasts, particularly in secondary parameters such as
dynamics and timbre; and even disdain of unity and
coherence themselves as aesthetic criteria. Investigating
these possible sources of musical judgment empirically
may further our understanding of how actual listeners
aesthetic perception is related to, and in what ways it is
distinct from, music theorists beliefs.
A Tentative Conclusion
Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Dr. Zohar Eitan, School of Music, Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv, Israel 69978. E-MAIL: zeitan@
post.tau.ac.il, and Roni Y. Granot, Department of
Musicology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, Israel 91905. E-MAIL: rgranot@huji.013.net.il
This study has examined a major credo of generations of

musicians and music aestheticians, and its results suggest
that, insofar as listeners cognition is concerned, this
credo may be based on deep (perhaps admirable) faith
Author Note
We thank Richard Ashley, Lola Cuddy, Stephen McAdams,

and two anonymous reviewers for Music Perception for
helpful suggestions, David Steinberg and Ilana Galenter
for assistance in statistical analysis, and Motti Adler and
Golan Gur for help in data collection and design of music
examples. This study was supported by an Israel Science
Foundation Grant no. 800/02-27.0.
Findings reported in this article were presented at the
9th International Conference on Music Perception &
Cognition (ICMPC9), Bologna, Italy, August 2006, and
reported at the conference proceedings (Eitan &
Granot, 2006). Findings were also presented at the 3rd
International Symposium on the Science of Musical
Language (SLM3), Bologna, Italy, February 2006. The
SLM3 proceedings are currently (June 2008) in press.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
14:48
Page 417
417
References
A LMN , B. (2003). Narrative archetypes: A critique, theory, and
method of narrative analysis. Journal of Music Theory, 47, 1-40.
B AKER , J. M. (2003). Chromaticism, form, and expression in
Haydns Quartet Op. 76, No. 6. Journal of Music Theory, 47,
41-102.
B EACH , D. (1994). The initial movements of Mozarts piano
sonatas K. 280 and K. 332: Some striking similarities. Intgral,
8, 125-146.
B ENJAMINI , Y., & H OCHBERG , Y. (1995). Controlling the false
discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple
testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57,
289-300.
B ENT, I. (1987). Analysis (Norton/Grove handbooks in music).
New York: Norton.
B ERLYNE , D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
B ONDS , M. E. (1991) Wordless rhetoric: Musical form and the
metaphor of the oration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
B RACE , N., K EMP, R., & S NELGAR , R. (2006). SPSS for
psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows.
London: Routledge.
B URKHART, C. (1978). Schenkers motivic parallelisms. Journal
of Music Theory, 2, 145-175.
C ARPENTER , P. (1983). Grundgestalt as tonal function. Music
Theory Spectrum, 5, 15-38.
C OOK , N. (1987). The perception of large-scale tonal closure.
Music Perception, 5, 197-205.
E ITAN , Z., & G RANOT, R. Y. (2006). Growing oranges on
Mozarts apple tree: Inner form and aesthetic judgment.
In M. Baroni, A. R. Addessi, R. Caterina, & M. Costa
(Eds.). Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Music Perception & Cognition (pp. 1020-1027). Bologna:
Alma Mater Studiorum Universita Degli Studi Di
Bologna.
E ITAN , Z., & G RANOT, R. Y. (2007). Intensity changes and
perceived similarity: Inter-parametric analogies. Musicae
Scientiae, Discussion Forum 4A, 99-133.
G ALEAZZI , F. (1998). Theoretical-practical elements of music
(excerpts) (B. Churgin, Trans.). In W. O. Strunk & L.
Treitler (Eds.). Source readings in music history (pp. 85-91).
New York: Norton. (Original work published 1796)
H OLTMEIER , L. (2000). Versuch ber Mozart. Juxtaposition und
analytische Collage: KV 332. In W. Gruhn & H. Mller (Eds.),
Wahrnemung und Begriff (pp. 109-74). Kassel: Gustav Bosse
Verlag.
H OLTMEIER , L. (2002). Reconstructing Mozart. Music Analysis,
21, 307-325.
H URON , D. (2001). What is a musical feature? Fortes analysis of
Brahmss Opus 51, No. 1, revisited. Music Theory Online, 7.
Retrieved October 1, 2006 from http://www.societymusictheory.org/mto/issues/mto.01.7.4/mto.01.7.4.huron.html

K ARNO, M., & KONENI , V. J. (1992). The effects of structural
interventions in the first movement of Mozarts symphony in
G minor, K.550, on aesthetic preference. Music Perception, 10,
6372.
K ERMAN , J. (1980). How we got into analysis, and how to get
out. Critical Inquiry, 7, 311-31.
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (1996). A perceptual analysis of Mozarts
Piano Sonata K. 282: Segmentation, tension, and musical
ideas. Music Perception, 13, 401432.
L AMONT, A., & D IBBEN , N. (2001). Motivic structure and the
perception of similarity. Music Perception, 18, 245-274.
L EVINSON , J. (1997). Music in the moment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
M ARVIN , E. W., & B RINKMAN , A. (1999). The effect of
modulation and formal manipulation on perception of tonal
closure. Music Perception, 16, 389-408.
M AUS , F. E. (1999). Concepts of musical unity. In N. Cook &
M. Everist (Eds). Rethinking music (pp. 171-192). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
M EYER , L. B. (1973). Explaining music. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
M ORGAN , P. R. (2003). The concept of unity and musical
analysis. Music Analysis, 22, 7-50.
P OLLARD -G OTT, L. (1983). Emergence of thematic concepts in
repeated listening to music. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 66-94.
R ATNER , L. (1970). Ars combinatoria: Chance and choice in
eighteenth-century music. In H. C. Robbins Landon (Ed.),
Studies in eighteenth century music: A tribute to Karl Geiringer
on his seventieth birthday (pp. 34363). Oxford: Allen &
Unwin.
R TI , R. (1951). The thematic process in music. New York:
Da Capo.
S CHENKER , H. (1979). Free composition (E. Oster, Trans.). New
York: Longman. (Original work published 1935).
S CHOENBERG , A. (1984). Folkloristic symphonies. In L. Stein
(Ed.), Style and idea: Selected writings of Arnold Schoenberg
(pp. 161-166). London: Faber. (Original work published
1947)
S CHOENBERG , A. (1995). The musical idea and the logic,
technique, and art of its presentation. P. Neff &
P. Carpenter (Eds. & Trans.). New York: Columbia
University Press.
S CHWARTZ , J. L. (2001). Conceptions of musical unity in the
18th century. Journal of Musicology, 18, 56-75.
S OLIE , R. A. (1980). The living work: Organicism and musical
analysis. 19th-Century Music, 4, 147-156.
S TREET, A. (1989). Superior myths, dogmatic allegories: The
resistance to musical unity. Music Analysis, 8, 77-124.
Music2505_01
05/12/2008
418
14:48
Page 418
TAN , S., & S PACKMAN , M. P. (2005). Listeners judgments of

the musical unity of structurally altered and intact musical
compositions. Psychology of Music, 33, 133-153.
TAN , S., S PACKMAN , M. P., & P EASLEE , C. L. (2006). The
effects of repeated exposure on liking and judgment of
musical unity of intact and patchwork compositions. Music
Perception, 23, 407-421.
T EMPERLEY, D. (2003). End-accented phrases: An analytical
exploration. Journal of Music Theory, 47, 125-154.
T ILLMANN , B., & B IGAND, E. (1996) Does formal structure
affect perception of musical expressiveness? Psychology of
Music, 24, 317.
T ILLMANN , B., & B IGAND, E. (2004). The relative importance
of local and global structures in music perception. Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 62, 211-222.
T ILLMAN , B., B IGAND, E., & M ADURELL , F. (1998). Local

versus global processing of harmonic cadences in the
solution of musical puzzles. Psychological Research, 61,
157-174.
T HOMPSON , W. F., & C UDDY, L. L. (1992). Perceived key
movement in four-voice harmony and single voices. Music
Perception, 9, 427438.
W HITNEY, K. (2003). Schoenbergs single seconds of
maximum spiritual excitement: Compression and expansion
in Erwartung, op. 17. Journal of Music Theory, 47,
155-214.
Z IV, N., & E ITAN , Z. (2007). Perceiving thematic
structure: Similarity judgments versus categorization
tasks. Musicae Scientiae, Discussion Forum 4A,
39-75.

Eitan & Granot 2008 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Eitan & Granot 2008 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Music2505_01

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment

G ROWING O RANGES ON M OZART S A PPLE T REE :

MUSIC THEORISTS OFTEN PRESUME

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

UDOLPH RTI, THE PIVOTAL

and controversial proponent of thematic unity in music, recalled

Though Rtis own attempt at answering this question

BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . ALL

Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot

content is appropriated to beauty, then one is not

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment

chiefly due to the prominence of a few motivic gestures,

Our brief survey suggests that notions of unity in music

determine whether this something actually exists in a

Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot

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

FIGURE 1. Three statements of an arpeggiated tonic triad motive

An Analytical Interlude: Inner Unity in K. 280

Though there is no generally agreed upon notion of

The opening of the 2nd theme (Figure 2, mm. 27-30),

2ND AND 1ST THEMES

As Beach (1994) observes, the 1st theme opens with

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

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment

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

Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot

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

Figure 4a (indebted to Beach, 1994, Example 1) shows

The development section of K. 280 is clearly derived

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

(concurrently with a bass progression derived from the

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

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment

The Perception of Global Structural Relationships

Empirical studies of the effect of large-scale structure

again show higher rating for originals, further exposure

In contrast to studies manipulating structure in order

Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot

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

Local Initial Harmony

Local Final Harmony

Dm:V (or F: III#)

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

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment

One hundred and sixteen university students participated

Participants in Group 1 listened to two musical pieces.

Experimental sessions were conducted in small groups

going to listen to two versions of a movement from a

The piece in this version is coherent (unified).

These evaluative statements differ in the criteria they

Zohar Eitan & Roni Y. Granot

session. They were asked to listen to the CD frequently

The second session took place about a week after the

The hypothesis that the original masterworks, supposedly

Tables 3A-3D present results of several comparisons

Inner Form and Aesthetic Judgment

Mean and SD for duration ratings (statement 8)

**p < .01

Mean and SD for duration ratings

**p < .01

Mean and SD for duration ratings