# Concatenationism and Anti-architectonicism in Musical Understanding **Abstract:** 248 position (Section II), I discuss the three intuitions that Levinson presents as evidence for his account (Sections III and IV). While these intuitions may tap important parts of our musical experience, I attempt to show that each of them fails to provide a counterargument against architectonicism. Further problems are then seen to arise in how Levinson’s central notion of aural cogency is connected both with musical understanding and musical value, rendering the two dependent on one another (Section V). Finally, I discuss alternative possibilities of formulating concatenationistic theories, suggesting that the anti-architectonicist guise of Levinson’s account is a consequence of his disciplinary position, the reason for his argumentative hurdles, and an obstacle for the development of a more open-minded account of concatenationistic musical understanding (Section VI). ii. anti-architectonicism and its problems To get a firmer hold on Levinson’s theory, it is useful to review its core claims by drawing together the various qualifications made during his argument. First, Levinson’s theory is exclusively presented in the context of Western art music of the common practice period. Second, Levinson thinks that appropriate aural comprehension of even small-scale stretches of music requires some prior exposure to the piece of music being listened to, and he thereby restricts his theory to hearing music with which one is already familiar.12 Indeed, he states that once aural cogen **Authors:** [[ERKKI HUOVINEN]]