(I will add to this post, as I read through new material.)
KVIFTE, T. (2007). Categories and timing: On the perception of meter. Ethnomusicology, 51(1), 64-84.
Summary: Kvifte’s article is largely theoretical; he argues several central points: first, he considers a reversal of a ‘common fast pulse’ theoretical paradigm, forwarded among certain metric theorists such as London particularly in the context of ‘complex’ or non-isochronous meters. He proposes a ‘common slow pulse’ paradigm, which, in broad strokes, holds that lower metric levels are divisive, and higher levels are additive. Second, Kvifte makes a distinction between ‘models of metric timing’ and ‘models of metric category’. Finally, Kvifte, although agreeing with London on several points, disagrees with the latter’s requiring that a non-isochronous level be upheld by an isochronous lower level.
Use: While Kvifte’s overall discussion is worth thinking about some more, most of it has no direct bearing on my work. Yet, in his discussion of the vexed binary of ‘additive meter’ vs. ‘divisive meter’, Kvifte surfaces some very useful and relevant ideas for my project. First, he quotes London (it seems the quote comes from London’s Grove article on ‘Rhythm’): “It is acknowledged that some melodic pattern may be heard in a number of different metric contexts”. This is exactly at least part of what I am investigating: theoretically, the rhythm I investigate projects a number of equally plausible meters (pulse hierarchies). Kvifte continues, digging up Curt Sachs (Rhythm and Tempo 1953). In response to Sachs distinction, Kvifte writes, “To perceive a rhythm as additive is fundamentally different than perceiving it as divisive” (67). This again is exactly what I investigate. I could say alternatively that I am testing this claim empirically, although not through the binary ‘additive’ vs. ‘divisive’. Later, he re-writes the same idea more summarily, “The point is that it is possible to perceive a given musical sound in both way [additive vs. divisive time], with distinctly different musical experiences” (67). Indeed, my tentative hypothesis is that study participants will not be able to identify the same rhythm when it is played in different metric contexts; that is, I suspect the rhythm will be experienced in ways distinctly different enough that the participant would not be able to discern rhythmic compositional identity.
TOUSSAINT, G., CAMPBELL, M., & BROWN, N. (2011). Computational models of symbolic rhythm similarity: Correlation with human judgments. Analytical Approaches to World Music, 1(2), 380-430.
This article has proved useful in that it points toward other potentially scholarship specifically relevant to my research subject. The authors write, ‘It is well known that the perception of musical rhythm is dependent on the underlying meter in which the rhythm is embedded’ (382). This seems to be more or less the same idea that I wish to test, although the specifics and the theoretical grounding will likely prove different. The authors attach several sources by which one can expand their summary statement. I will look into the following:
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1991. “Rhythm And Meter: A Theory At The Computational Level.” Psychomusicology 10.2: 88–106.
Shmulevich, I. & Povel, D.-J. 2000. “Measures Of Temporal Pattern Complexity.” Journal of New Music Research 29.1: 61–69.
Palmer, C. & Krumhansl, C. L. 1990. “Mental Representations For Musical Meter.” Journal of Experimental Psychology – Human Perception and Performance 16:4: 728–41.
Longuet-Higgins, H. C. & Lee, C. S. 1984. “The Rhythmic Interpretation Of Monophonic Music.” Music Perception 1.4: 424–41.