Cognition of Musical and Visual Accent Structure Alignment in Film and Animation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Cognition of musical and visual accent structure alignment in film and animation A doctoral dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Music by Scott David Lipscomb 1995 © Copyright by Scott David Lipscomb 1995 ii The dissertation of Scott David Lipscomb is approved. __________________________________________ Roger Bourland __________________________________________ Edward C. Carterette __________________________________________ William Hutchinson __________________________________________ James Thomas __________________________________________ Roger A. Kendall, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 1995 ii To my son, John David. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page # LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OF TABLES xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvi VITA xvii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION xix CHAPTER ONE—INTRODUCTION 1 Research Questions 2 Film Music Background 3 Purpose and Significance of the Study 6 Basic Assumptions 7 Delimitation 8 Hypotheses 9 CHAPTER TWO—RELATED LITERATURE 12 Proposed Model and Its Foundation 15 Musical and Visual Periodicity 17 The Communication of Musical Meaning 19 A 3-Dimensional Model of Film Classification 23 Accent Structure Alignment 26 Determinants of Accent 26 Sources of Musical Accent 29 Sources of Visual Accent 34 iv A Common Language 38 Potential Sources of Musical and Visual Accent in the Present Study 39 Mapping of Audio-Visual Accent Structures 41 CHAPTER THREE—METHOD 42 Research Design 42 Subject Selection 43 Stimulus Materials 43 Experiment One 43 Experiment Two 45 Experiment Three 47 Exploratory Studies 47 Main Experiments 48 Alternative Hypotheses 51 Brief Summation 51 CHAPTER FOUR—EXPERIMENT ONE 53 Exploratory Study 53 Stimulus Materials 54 Auditory 54 Visual 54 Equipment 57 Subject Procedure 57 Data Analysis 58 Results 59 v Statistical Analysis 63 Stimulus Selection for Experiment One 64 Main Experiment 65 Subjects 65 Equipment 66 Stimulus Materials 67 Stratification of Accent Structures 67 Experimental Task 68 Group One 68 Group Two 69 Results 70 Group One Data Analysis and Interpretation 70 Collapsing Alignment Conditions Across AV Composites 75 Analysis and Interpretation of Data Collapsed Across Alignment Con- 78 ditions Group Two 79 Data Analysis 79 Multidimensional Scaling 80 Cluster Analysis 80 Conclusions 82 CHAPTER FIVE—EXPERIMENT TWO 84 Exploratory Studies 84 Stimulus Selection 84 Establishing Accent Structure 85 vi Alignment Conditions 88 Main Experiment 92 Research Design, Hypotheses, and Subjects 92 Equipment 92 Stimulus Materials 92 Experimental Tasks 93 Results 94 Group One Data Analysis and Interpretation 94 Group Two Data Analysis 97 Multidimensional Scaling 97 Cluster Analysis 99 Conclusions 100 A Reassessment 102 CHAPTER SIX—EXPERIMENT THREE 104 Exploratory Studies 104 Stimulus Selection 104 Establishing Accent Structure 106 Alignment Conditions 109 Main Experiment 111 Research Design, Hypotheses, Subjects, and Equipment 111 Experimental Tasks 112 Results 112 Group One Data Analysis and Interpretation 112 vii Group Two Data Analysis 117 Multidimensional Scaling 118 Cluster Analysis 120 Conclusions 121 Confirmation of Perceived Difference Between Consonant and Out-of- 122 Phase Composites Interpretation of Data Analysis Across All Three Experiments 124 VAME Ratings 124 Synchronization 125 Effectiveness 127 Similarity Ratings 129 CHAPTER SEVEN—DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, AND CONCLUSIONS 132 Discussion 132 Limitations 139 Summary 141 Experiment One 144 Exploratory Studies 144 VAME Procedure 144 Similarity Judgment Procedure 146 Experiment Two 147 Exploratory Studies 147 VAME Procedures 148 Similarity Judgment Procedure 148 Experiment Three 149 viii Exploratory Studies 149 VAME Procedure 150 Similarity Judgment Procedure 150 Data Analysis Across All Experiments 151 Synchronization 151 Effectiveness 153 Conclusions 153 Confirmation or Disconfirmation of Null Hypotheses 153 Research Questions Answered 156 Suggestions for Further Research 158 ENDNOTES 163 REFERENCES 169 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Lipscomb & Kendall's (in press) model of Film Music Perception. 17 Figure 2.2. Scale used by composer Max Steiner to suggest geographical region 23 in the opening titles of Casablanca. Figure 2.3. Hypothetical example of films and animations placed within the 25 proposed Lipscomb & Kendall (in press) Model of Film Music Classifi- cation. Figure 2.4. Illustration of the creation of distinctive boundaries. 28 Figure 2.5. Visual illustrations of the Gestalt principles (after Dowling & Har- 30 wood, 1986, p. 154). Figure 3.1. Visual representations of relationships between sources of accent. 46 Figure 4.1. Notation of the musical stimuli used in the exploratory study. 55 Figure 4.2. Visual stimulus patterns used in the exploratory study. 56 Figure 4.3a. Mean subject responses to the auditory portion of the exploratory 61 study. Figure 4.3b. Mean subject responses to the visual portion of the exploratory 61 study. Figure 4.4a. Equalized mean subject responses to the auditory portion of the 62 exploratory study. Figure 4.4b. Equalized mean subject responses to the visual portion of the ex- 62 ploratory study. Figure 4.5. Scroll bar used to collect Group One subject responses. 69 Figure 4.6a. Mean subject ratings to the two VAME scales when viewing the 72 combination of Visual #1 and Audio #1 across alignment conditions. Figure 4.6b. Mean subject ratings to the two VAME scales when viewing the 73 combination of Visual #1 and Audio #2 across alignment conditions. Figure 4.6c. Mean subject ratings to the two VAME scales when viewing the 73 combination of Visual #2 and Audio #1 across alignment conditions. x Figure 4.6d. Mean subject ratings to the two VAME scales when viewing the 74 combination of Visual #2 and Audio #2 across alignment conditions. Figure 4.7. Comparison of all VAME responses across AV composite and 74 alignment conditions. Figure 4.8. Standard deviations of mean responses to VAME scales across 75 alignment conditions. Figure 4.9. VAME ratings for all consonant, out-of-phase, and dissonant combi- 77 nations across all AV composites. Figure 4.10. Mean VAME ratings for Experiment One averaged across all levels 79 of musical training. Figure 4.11. Multidimensional scaling solution for the similarity judgments in 81 Experiment One. Figure 4.12. Cluster Analysis tree diagram—complete linkage (farthest neigh- 81 bor)—for similarity ratings provided by subjects in Experiment One, Group Two. Figure 4.13. Illustration of the mirroring relationship between elements in the 83 upper cluster of composites incorporating Visual One. Figure 5.1. Musical notation for audio excerpts of the Norman McLaren anima- 86 tions. Permission to use granted by Pioneer Entertainment (USA) L.P., based on their license from National Film Board of Canada. Figure 5.2. Mean subject responses for the exploratory study to Experiment 87 Two. Figure 5.3. Equalized mean subject responses for the exploratory study to Ex- 87 periment Two. Figure 5.4. Mean subject VAME responses to the AV composites in Experiment 95 Two. Figure 5.5. Mean VAME responses from subjects in Experiment Two, collapsed 96 across alignment condition. Figure 5.6. MDS solution derived from mean similarity judgments in Experi- 98 ment Two. xi Figure 5.7. Cluster Analysis tree diagram—complete linkage (farthest 100 neighbor)—for similarity ratings provided by Group Two subjects in Ex- periment Two. Figure 5.8. Illustration of the mirroring relationship between the lowest six 100 branches in the cluster tree diagram from Experiment Two (Figure 5.7). Figure 6.1. Notation (reduced by author) representing excerpts from Bernard 107 Herrmann’s musical score for “Obsession.” Permission to use granted by Hal Leonard Corporation and George Litto Productions, Inc. Figure 6.2. Equalized mean subject responses to the auditory portion of the 109 exploratory study. Figure 6.3. Mean subject VAME responses to the AV composites in Experiment 113 Three. Figure 6.4. Mean synchronization ratings from subjects in Experiment Three, 115 collapsed across alignment condition. Figure 6.5. Mean effectiveness ratings for subjects of varying levels of musical 115 training, collapsed across alignment condition (Experiment Three). Figure 6.6. Mean ratings of effectiveness from Experiment Three, combining 117 groups as appropriate. Figure 6.7. MDS solution derived from mean similarity judgments in Experi- 119 ment Three. Figure 6.8. Line graph representing the mean responses in Table 6.5. 120 Figure 6.9. Cluster Analysis tree diagram—complete linkage (farthest 121 neighbor)—for similarity ratings provided by Group Two subjects in Ex- periment Three. Figure 6.10. Mean synchronization ratings for each alignment condition across 127 all three experiments. Figure 6.11. Mean effectiveness ratings for each alignment condition across all 128 three experiments. Figure 6.12. Relationship of mean similarity judgments for comparisons of 131 identical stimulus pairs (i.e., consonant to consonant) and consonant-to- out-of-phase stimulus pairs in a) Experiment One, b) Experiment Two, xii and c) Experiment Three. Figure 7.1. Revised version of the Film Music Perception Paradigm. 136 xiii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Potential sources of musical accent. 34 Table 2.2. Potential sources of visual accent. 37 Table 2.3. Proposed variables to be utilized in the initial pilot study labeled with 40 direction. Table 4.1. Relationship of stimulus numbers to stimulus patterns and IOIs. 59 Table 4.2a. The number of subjects