Subset-class relation, common pitches, and common interval structure guiding estimations of similarity

Music Perception

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-11

  Kuusi, Tuire ^a  

^a Sibelius Akatemia   (Finland)

Author keywords

Closeness estimation; Common intervals; Common pitches; Set class consonance; Subset class

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548453662     PISSN: 07307829     EISSN: 15338312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/mp.2007.25.1.1     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. BRUNER, C. (1984). The perception of contemporary pitch structures. Music Perception, 2, 25-39.
2. CASTRÉN, M. (1989). Joukkoteorian peruskysymyksiä [The basic questions of pitch-class set-theory]. Helsinki: Sibelius Academy.
3. CASTRÉN, M. (1994). Recrel. A similarity measure for set-classes. Helsinki: Sibelius Academy.
4. CHRISMAN, R. (1979). Describing structural aspects of pitch-sets using successive-interval arrays. Journal of Music Theory, 21, 1-28.
5. FORTE, A. (1973). The structure of atonal music. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
6. GIBSON, D. B. (1988). The aural perception of similarity in nontraditional chords related by octave equivalence. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 5-17.
7. GIBSON, D. B. (1993). The effects of pitch and pitch-class content on aural perception of dissimilarity in complementary hexachords. Psychomusicology, 12, 58-72.
8. GOLDSTONE, R. L. (1994). The role of similarity in categorization: Providing a groundwork. Cognition, 52, 125-157.
9. GOODMAN, N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In N. Goodman (Ed.), Problems and Projects (pp. 23-32). New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
10. HURON, D. (1994). Interval-class content in equally tempered pitch-class sets: Common scales exhibit optimum tonal consonance. Music Perception, 11, 289-305.
11. HUTCHINSON, W. & KNOPOFF, L. (1979). The significance of the acoustic component of consonance in western triads. Journal of Musicological Research, 3, 5-22.
12. KAMEOKA, A. & KURIYAGAWA, M. (1969). Consonance theory part II: Consonance of complex tones and its calculation method. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 45, 1460-1469.
13. KUUSI, T. (2001). Set-class and chord: Examining connection between theoretical resemblance and perceived closeness. Helsinki: Sibelius Academy.
14. KUUSI, T. (2005a). The consonance and the context guiding the participants' ratings of chords representing different set-classes. Musicae Scientiae, 9, 313-339.
15. KUUSI, T. (2005b). Chord span and other chordal characteristics affecting connections between perceived closeness and set-class similarity. Journal of New Music Research, 34, 259-271.
16. LANE, R. C. (1997). A multidimensional scaling study of seven theoretical indexes of intervallic similarity and musicians' perceptions among twenty-one pitch-class sets. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina.
17. MALMBERG, C. F. (1918). The perception of consonance and dissonance. Psychological Monographs, 25, 93-133.
18. MORRIS, R. (1987). Composition with pitch-classes. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
19. SAMPLASKI, A. (2000). A comparison of perceived chord similarity and predictions of selected twentieth-century chord-classification schemes, using multidimensional scaling, and cluster analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
20. SAMPLASKI, A. (2004). The relative perceptual salience of Tn and TnI. Music Perception, 21, 545-559.
21. STRAUS, J. N. (2003). Uniformity, balance, and smoothness in atonal voice leading. Music Theory Spectrum, 25, 305-352.
22. WILLIAMSON, V., & MAVROMATIS, P. (1999, August). Categorizing atonal sonorities: Multidimensional scaling, free-fitting and clustering compared. Paper presented at the Society for Music Perception and Cognition Conference, Evanston, Illinois.