There is an important distinction to be drawn in the way different kinds of motivic relationships are perceived. Some relationships are detected quickly and automatically; other kinds are detected (if at all) only slowly and deliberately. There is a phenomenological difference here as well. These differences are nicely accounted for by Jerry Fodor's theory of modularity. It is argued that certain relationships are perceived in a "modular" fashion, and others are not. It is hypothesized that the relationships perceived in a modular way are those between segments that are (a) related by tonal transposition and (b) parallel relative to the metrical structure. This view accounts for the differences between perception of different kinds of relationships and also sheds light on metrical structure in general, the "rehearing" problem, and the issue of "mandatoriness" in musical perception.

[Footnotes]

[Footnotes]
2
Schoenberg (1950)
Reti (1951)
Epstein (1980)
Frisch (1984);
Tovey (1939)
Rosen (1971)
Monelle (1992)
Explaining Music (1973)
A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), pp. 16-17 and 286-287.
3
Dowling and Harwood (1986), pp. 130-144.
Krumhansl, Sandell, and Sergeant (1987), pp. 51-52.
Meyer (1967), pp. 266-293
Browne (1974), pp. 395-401
Schoenberg (1950, pp. 107-114)
Morris (1987), pp. 233-237,299.
5
Paul Churchland, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind (1979)
Churchland's article "Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor," in the collection A Neurocomputational Perspective (1989)
Fodor's articles "Observation Reconsidered" and "A Reply to Churchland" in the collection A Theory of Content and Other Essays (1990).
7
The Modularity of Mind, pp. 94-97;
"A Reply to Churchland," p. 259.
8
Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural-Language Understand- ing (Garfield, 1987)
9
Jackendoff 's article "Musical Processing and Musical Affect" (1991).
17
Garman, 1990, pp. 185-191
18
Morris (1993).
20
Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983), pp. 68-74.
21
Churchland's comments are found in "Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutral- ity: A Reply to Jerry Fodor," p. 260.
Fodor's response is in "A Reply to Churchland," pp. 255-257.
22
Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956), pp. 83-91
Explaining Music (1973), pp. 3-5.

References

References
Browne, R. (1974). Review of The structure of atonal music by Allen Forte, Journal of Music Theory, 18, 390-415.
Churchland, P. (1979). Scientific realism and the plasticity of mind. Cambridge, UK: Cam- bridge University Press.
Churchland, P. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cumming, N. (1993). Music analysis and the perceiver: A perspective from functionalist philosophy. Current Musicology, 54, 38-53.
DeBellis, M. (1993). Is there an observation/theory distinction in music?" Current Musicol- ogy, 55, 56-87.
Deutsch, D. (1982). The processing of pitch combinations. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psy- chology of music. New York: Academic Press.
Dowling, W. J., & Harwood, D. L. (1986). Music cognition. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Epstein, D. (1980). Beyond Orpheus. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1990). A theory of content and other essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frisch, W. (1984). Brahms and the principle of developing variation. Berkeley, CA: Univer- sity of California Press.
Garfield, J. L. (Ed.). (1987). Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Garman, M. (1990). Psycholinguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Musical processing and musical affect. Music Perception, 9, 199- 230.
Krumhansl, C., Sandell, G., & Sergeant, D. (1987). The perception of tone hierarchies and mirror forms in twelve-tone serial music. Music Perception, 5, 31-78.
Lerdahl, E, & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meyer, L. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, L. (1967). Music, the arts, and ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, L. (1973). Explaining music. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Monelle, R. (1992). Linguistics and semiotics in music. Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Morris, R. (1987). Composition with pitch-classes: A theory of compositional design. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Morris, R. (1993). New directions in the theory and analysis of musical contour. Music Theory Spectrum, 15, 205-228.
Narmour, E. (1990). The analysis and cognition of basic melodic structures: The implica- tion/realization model. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peretz, I., & Morais, J. (1989). Music and modularity. Contemporary Music Review, 4, 279-293.
Reti, R. (1951). The thematic process in music. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Rosen, C. (1971). The classical style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven. New York: The Viking Press.
Rothgeb, J. (1983). Thematic content: A Schenkerian view. In D. Beach (Ed.), Aspects of Schenkerian theory (pp. 61-76). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schachter, C. Motive and text in four Schubert songs. In D. Beach (Ed.), Aspects of Schenkerian theory (pp. 61-76). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schoenberg, A. (1950). Style and idea. New York: Philosophical Library.
Tovey, D. F. (1939). Essays in musical analysis (vols. 1-6). London: Oxford University Press.
This content is only available via PDF.