The cardinal error of Maess et al. (Martin Braun )

Subject: The cardinal error of Maess et al.
From:    Martin Braun  <nombraun(at)POST.NETLINK.SE>
Date:    Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:02:50 +0200

Pierre Divenyi wrote: "I want all the participants to realize that we, as a group, are unlikely to solve the problem of rules in music, ............... So, let's be modest..." Pierre, that was my intention all along. We can learn immensely from the similarities AND the differences between speech and music. But we should try to be aware of what we are doing. That's why I pointed at a serious problem in the study of Maess et al., "Musical Syntax is processed in Broca's area: an MEG study." These authors tried to find evidence in support of their highly controversial concept of a general syntax of musical chords. The data, however, which they recorded can much easier be explained by a simpler concept of tonal habituation. The cardinal error was this: They considered two different major chords, say C-E-G and Db-F-Ab, as "physically (!) identical" and then attributed brain-response differences to different grammatical functions of these chords. This is not justified. The intervals of the two chords are the same, but the acoustic frequencies are different. This means that at ALL levels of the auditory system the chords are processed by different neuron populations. We know this from numerous physiological studies. The brain potentials recorded by Maess et al. signaled expectancy violations. The crucial question in this study is, WHICH expectancies were violated. The authors - in line with their concept - concluded that expectancies concerning a grammar of chord progression were violated. A much simpler interpretation, however, would be that TONAL HABITUATION was violated: The tones Db and Ab (concerning the example above) had not previously appeared in the given chord sequence (which was based on the C-major scale in this example). It's a "rule" in science to focus on the simplest explanation of an observation. The authors here didn't do that. This is a "violation" of a rule that has got nothing to do with arts. It can cause a lot a avoidable confusion and can delay progress in understanding hearing. Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: Pierre Divenyi <pdivenyi(at)MARVA4.NCSC.MED.VA.GOV> To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 8:15 PM Subject: Re: On the Grammar of Music and rules

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University