>>One could make the argument that beat #3 is an echo of #1. But then beat #2 couldn't also be an echo of beat #1. That isn't true! Beat #1 can have an infinit

>>One could make the argument that beat #3 is an echo of #1. But then beat #2 couldn't also be an echo of beat #1. That isn't true! Beat #1 can have an infinite number of echos. N.B.: When I was initially thinking about this I was thinking of subsequent beats as "echos," and I mentioned the echo concept here in the hope that it would be something concrete and instantly relatable. But the echo concept only goes so far, because the "echos" don't have to sound like the original (orig: crash! echo: whistle), and the echos can be removed and replaced over time (say, a change every 4 bars). The concept of an "echo" is that 1. It comes after the "cause" 2. It's less accentuated The theory is supposed to describe how rhythms sound to the ear. The concept is that the listener builds a theory of "what goes with what", i.e. they break the rhythm down into groups of sounds and form a tree of causation. Presumably, this is how we are able to perceive very complex rhythms: we unconsciously form a tree where earlier sounds "cause" later sounds, and this breaks the rhythm down and makes it easier to build a mental model of how the rhythm works. Your mind internalizes the rhythm and anticipates what's coming next. Rather than treat each sound as independent, we just remember transitions from one sound to the next. For example, when listening to a rhythm, you construct rules like: "Boom" comes before "whoosh" So you hear "boom" and you start expecting "whoosh". It will sound awkward if "boom" goes away and "whoosh" remains in place, because you thought "whoosh" was caused by "boom". It will sound slightly less awkward if "whoosh" goes away but "boom" stays.