Show simple item record

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.18061/1811/24066

dc.creatorThomson, William
dc.date.accessioned2006-09-12T23:14:05Z
dc.date.available2006-09-12T23:14:05Z
dc.date.issued2006-07
dc.identifier.citationEmpirical Musicology Review, v1 n3 (July 2006), 182-184en
dc.identifier.issn1559-5749
dc.identifier.otherEMR000012c
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.18061/1811/24066
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1811/24066
dc.description.abstractThe author responds to points raised in David Temperley’s commentary, which appeared in Vol. 1, No. 2 of Empirical Musicology Review. The response includes a discussion of strengths and limitations of atemporal models of musical perception, with particular attention to presentations such as those of Carol Krumhansl and Fred Lerdahl.en
dc.format.extent175711 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEmpirical Musicology Reviewen
dc.subjectperceptionen
dc.subjectmelodyen
dc.subjectmelodicen
dc.subjectharmonyen
dc.subjecttonalityen
dc.subjectformen
dc.subjectstructureen
dc.titleResponse to David Temperley's Commentaryen
dc.typeArticleen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

Items in Knowledge Bank are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record