音楽分析の理論は、客観性を欠くがゆえに数限りなく唱えられる。しかし、認知音楽学や音楽心理学、そしてまた、音楽知能などコンピュータサイエンスの研究者たちが注目し、関心を抱いている音楽理論はLerdahl & JackendoffとE.Namourによる理論の二つに収斂されつつあると言ってよいだろう。このうち前者は、言語学の生成文法をモデルにしているとはいえ、シェンカ一理論に近く、古典和声に依拠しているために理解しやすい。一方、後者、ナームアの理論は「Beyondo Schenkerism」以降、マイヤー理論から独自の理論へと急速な展開を見せているため注目はされても理解することが難しい。ナームア理解の鍵となるものは、おそらく3つの原型理論、すなわちシエンカーのUrsaze、マイヤーのArchetype、そして90年代ナームアのMelodic Archetypeを区別することだろう。言い換えれば、歴史的文脈の中に今日のナームア理論を位置づけるということである。Among many music theories, two by Jackendoff & Lerdahl and E.Narmour have occupied the attention of computer scientists and psychologists in music. Narmour's theory, has not been applied to in scientific studies like Jackendoff & Lerdahl's theroy. This is probably due to the difficulty of understanding many new terms invented by Narmour himself. As a result his theroy is seen as a curiosity or something new or unique. The worst of it is that the philosophical standing point is missed or sometimes understood in the opposite. In order to understand his latest theory correctly and make it applicable to computer science, the process of how Narmour has developed Meyer's theory must be clarified. In this paper, we point out three different concepts of fundamental structure which are named "Ursaze" by H.Schenker, "Archetype" by L.B.Meyer and "Melidic Archetype" by E. Namour. Despite the fact Namour was one of Meyer's students, his concept "Melidic Archetype" is far from the other two concepts. While both Schenker and Meyer pointed out their concepts of fundamental structure in terms of top-down style schema, Narmour found his archetype structure as a bottom-up pan-style structure. This difference makes Namour's theory so unique and difficult to understand. Put another way, the difference between Mcyer and Namour is the key for understanding the latest Narmourian theory.