# Is Dominantly Consonant Classical Music Beautiful Even at it's Most Aggressive?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm starting to think so and I think it may have to do with the nature of the timber of the instruments utilized in orchestras. String instruments, in consonant music, are by nature beautiful and pleasant to hear.

I listen to the fury and struggle during Beethoven, but it is still gorgeous to me. Mahler is undeniably aggressive, but you cannot deny the beauty of these instruments.

What do you think? 

:tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I feel Classical Music, consonant, can express all emotions, but all under the blanket of beauty.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I feel about the opposite way, but you'd probably guess that, and I accept your opinion. It depends on what you mean by "beautiful" though. I find loudness in any music to always be unpleasant, but sometimes I find unpleasantness to be pleasant (a strange statement). In my opinion, quiet dissonance is always more beautiful than loud consonance, and quiet consonance is usually a bit boring and is usually indicative that there's a loud part coming up that's more important than the quiet part. I find loud consonance and loud dissonance to be equally unpleasant and beautiful simultaneously.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm starting to think so and I think it may have to do with the nature of the timber of the instruments utilized in orchestras. String instruments, in consonant music, are by nature beautiful and pleasant to hear.
> 
> I listen to the fury and struggle during Beethoven, but it is still gorgeous to me. Mahler is undeniably aggressive, but you cannot deny the beauty of these instruments.
> 
> ...


I don't think anything is beautiful 'by nature' when it comes to human perceptions. We suppress quite a few natural instincts in order to live in a humane society and the way we respond to aesthetics is just as developed as that.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

At his time, Beethoven's music was considered as too aggressive AND extraordinarily ugly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I feel about the opposite way, but you'd probably guess that, and I accept your opinion. It depends on what you mean by "beautiful" though. I find loudness in any music to always be unpleasant, but sometimes I find unpleasantness to be pleasant (a strange statement). In my opinion, quiet dissonance is always more beautiful than loud consonance, and quiet consonance is usually a bit boring and is usually indicative that there's a loud part coming up that's more important than the quiet part. I find loud consonance and loud dissonance to be equally unpleasant and beautiful simultaneously.


Interesting post and I see 100% where you are coming from, it's just not how I hear it. I do think string instruments offer a more delicate sound compared to something like a distorted guitar which lends itself to the concept of beauty vs aggression.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> I don't think anything is beautiful 'by nature' when it comes to human perceptions. We suppress quite a few natural instincts in order to live in a humane society and the way we respond to aesthetics is just as developed as that.


Or perhaps because we find some of this music 'naturally beautiful', we don't need to suppress anything when listening to it. IMO, the most beautiful classical music was composed the way it was because so many of us respond to it so naturally.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Or perhaps because we find some of this music 'naturally beautiful', we don't need to suppress anything when listening to it. IMO, the most beautiful classical music was composed the way it was because so many of us respond to it so naturally.


Or maybe you are both right, depending on the listener.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> At his time, Beethoven's music was considered as too aggressive AND extraordinarily ugly.


After about 1800, Beethoven's music was pretty much universally praised and he was considered by some the finest composer in Vienna. I see no mention in contemporary reviews of ugliness or aggression, although some considered his music too "learned" and joyless.

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I believe the basic timbre of each instrument by itself is designed to be fundamentally pleasant and beautiful - it must be capable of that - or it never would have evolved in the way that it did, regardless of any other factors. But of course, each one can also be played harsh or ugly as needed. After many years of listening, I believe that consonance is needed for beauty. _Speaking broadly_, if the dissonances are too sharp, such as intervals that are clashing minor seconds, the mood is destroyed and the spell of beauty is broken. What dissonances do, sharp or otherwise, is add drama, stimulate tension and conflict that is ideally resolved back to a consonant finale. Consonance in music can be harmonizing and calming to the listener, and some listeners need that if they are stressed or tense. For others, too much consonance can act as a soporific and they need the stimulation of the dissonances to motive or stimulate them. Virtually every piece of music is a combination of those two factors to various degrees, except when it isn't. Xenaxis's _Ergma_, for instance, is _all_ dissonance, and he must have loved it. But I wouldn't describe it as beautiful. 'Aggressive' is a different factor than consonance and dissonance. Can something that's 'aggressive' be beautiful at the same time? I rather think that's more related to _passion_.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe the basic nature of each instrument is that its sound is fundamentally pleasant and beautiful, or that it must be capable of that. But of course, they can also be ugly or harsh as needed. Consonance is needed for beauty. _Speaking broadly_, if the dissonances are too sharp, such as intervals that are clashing minor seconds, the mood is destroyed and the spell of beauty is broken. What dissonances do, sharp or otherwise, is add drama, stimulate tension and conflict that is ideally resolved back to a consonant finale. Consonance in music can be harmonizing and calming to the listener, and some listeners need that if they are stressed or tense. For others, too much consonance can act as a soporific and they need the stimulation of the dissonance to motive or stimulate them. Virtually ever piece of music is a combination of those two factors in various degree, and during the 20th century there was no longer the need to end in a consonance. That's what some hated about it.


Excellent post! Though the Trumpet has a pretty harsh sound.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Or perhaps because we find some of this music 'naturally beautiful', we don't need to suppress anything when listening to it. IMO, the most beautiful classical music was composed the way it was because so many of us respond to it so naturally.


When you are hungry and you see a deer in the wild, I highly doubt it would be instinctive for you to chase it down, tire it out and kill it and eat it. There are heaps of natural instincts and natural responses to sound that have been suppressed over thousands of years to allow us to live and communicate in the way we do.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

shirime said:


> When you are hungry and you see a deer in the wild, I highly doubt it would be instinctive for you to chase it down, tire it out and kill it and eat it. There are heaps of natural instincts and natural responses to sound that have been suppressed over thousands of years to allow us to live and communicate in the way we do.


What about the reaction to the first performance of Rite of Spring?


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Interesting post and I see 100% where you are coming from, it's just not how I hear it. I do think string instruments offer a more delicate sound compared to something like a distorted guitar which lends itself to the concept of beauty vs aggression.


I think it's important to consider all the aspects of music when talking about stuff like this. Rhythm, tempo, dynamics, and tonality all affect the emotions conveyed. Music for strings that is fast and loud (regardless of tonality) I would call intense and aggressive rather than beautiful, but music for strings that is slow and loud I would call beautiful and intense. I think stringed instruments are conducive to "beauty" because they produce a more stable sustained tone as opposed to any other instrument. They can still produce harsh sounds and noises though, just like how any other instruments can produce beautiful sounds, including distorted guitar. Of course fast and loud distorted punk/metal-style guitar will not sound "beautiful" and "pleasant" by the average person's definitions of those words, but that's just one style of playing guitar. I'm a guitarist, and I can produce beautiful pleasant sounds with harsh distortion, as well as harshly intense sounds with clean guitar.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What about the reaction to the first performance of Rite of Spring?


A product of its time, as this is a product of ours. Tastes change.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I think it's important to consider all the aspects of music when talking about stuff like this. Rhythm, tempo, dynamics, and tonality all affect the emotions conveyed. Music for strings that is fast and loud (regardless of tonality) I would call intense and aggressive rather than beautiful, but music for strings that is slow and loud I would call beautiful and intense. I think stringed instruments are conducive to "beauty" because they produce a more stable sustained tone as opposed to any other instrument. They can still produce harsh sounds and noises though, just like how any other instruments can produce beautiful sounds, including distorted guitar. Of course fast and loud distorted punk/metal-style guitar will not sound "beautiful" and "pleasant" by the average person's definitions of those words, but that's just one style of playing guitar. I'm a guitarist, and I can produce beautiful pleasant sounds with harsh distortion, as well as harshly intense sounds with clean guitar.


Maybe I just find the sound of dominantly consonant classical music beautiful regardless of all these valid complexities you mention.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

shirime said:


> A product of its time, as this is a product of ours. Tastes change.


It just seems like the reactions weren't so suppressed during that performance.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> When you are hungry and you see a deer in the wild, I highly doubt it would be instinctive for you to chase it down, tire it out and kill it and eat it. There are heaps of natural instincts and natural responses to sound that have been suppressed over thousands of years to allow us to live and communicate in the way we do.


What does that have to do with listening to music? Still, if you were starving and you had a suitable weapon, or maybe even if you didn't, you might be surprised how naturally you might hunt that deer. Survival is pretty instinctual. Even now.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> After about 1800, Beethoven's music was pretty much universally praised and he was considered by some the finest composer in Vienna. I see no mention in contemporary reviews of ugliness or aggression, although some considered his music too "learned" and joyless.
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/


The grosse fugue was universally condemned, called 'horrific', etc.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> I believe the basic timbre of each instrument by itself is designed to be fundamentally pleasant and beautiful, or that it must be capable of that. But of course, they can also be ugly or harsh as needed. After many years of listening, I believe that consonance is needed for beauty. _Speaking broadly_, if the dissonances are too sharp, such as intervals that are clashing minor seconds, the mood is destroyed and the spell of beauty is broken. What dissonances do, sharp or otherwise, is add drama, stimulate tension and conflict that is ideally resolved back to a consonant finale. Consonance in music can be harmonizing and calming to the listener, and some listeners need that if they are stressed or tense. For others, too much consonance can act as a soporific and they need the stimulation of the dissonances to motive or stimulate them. Virtually every piece of music is a combination of those two factors to various degrees, except when it isn't. Xenaxis's _Ergma_, for instance, is _all_ dissonant, and he must have loved it. But I wouldn't describe it as beautiful.)


This is a fine opinion if you would have stated it as one. You speak just like someone who has been conditioned to believe that consonance equals beautiful and dissonance equals ugly, objectively. Obviously if someone listens exclusively to tonal music, they will be conditioned to believe the concepts behind it, and it will feel "natural" to you. When you hear dissonance, you'll expect it to "resolve" in a tonal way, and if it doesn't, you will be shocked and find it ugly and wrong.

What you describe is not the only correct way to think. To my ears, a minor 2nd sounds infinitely more beautiful than a perfect 5th. Same with any match-up of dissonant and consonant intervals. Obviously a P5 sounds more harmonious and orderly, but that is not the definition of beauty.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> What does that have to do with listening to music? Still, if you were starving and you had a suitable weapon, or maybe even if you didn't, you might be surprised how naturally you might hunt that deer. Survival is pretty instinctual. Even now.


Beauty of sound in music is no longer a survival instinct, so we have learnt to respond to its aesthetics differently since it became a part of culture and artistic expression.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

aleazk said:


> The grosse fugue was universally condemned, called 'horrific', etc.


That's one of the handful of his pieces that I enjoy. I don't understand the horrified reaction to it. It doesn't seem "avant-garde" at all. It seems perfectly normal for the time or even earlier. Do you know why people were so "scared" of it?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> Beauty of sound in music is no longer a survival instinct, so we have learnt to respond to its aesthetics differently since it became a part of culture and artistic expression.


Well, beauty of sound in music was never a survival instinct. You don't know whether we've learned to respond to its aesthetics or whether the music developed over time to something closer to what we instinctually like or love.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Fredx2098 said:


> That's one of the handful of his pieces that I enjoy. I don't understand the horrified reaction to it. It doesn't seem "avant-garde" at all. It seems perfectly normal for the time or even earlier. Do you know why people were so "scared" of it?


The wikipedia article has some details https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Große_Fuge.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Well, beauty of sound in music was never a survival instinct. You don't know whether we've learned to respond to its aesthetics or whether the music developed over time to something closer to what we instinctually like or love.


Our response to sound has certainly been a survival instinct. In art, it isn't; in art there really isn't such thing as being 'naturally' _x_ adjective due to it being an artificial, cultural construct.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

shirime said:


> When you are hungry and you see a deer in the wild, I highly doubt it would be instinctive for you to chase it down, tire it out and kill it and eat it. There are heaps of natural instincts and natural responses to sound that have been suppressed over thousands of years to allow us to live and communicate in the way we do.


If I were hungry in the wild, and I saw Stravinsky, I'd carefully finger my club while weighing his weight against mine, the possibility of surprise, whether he was armed, and so forth. I certainly wouldn't pass up a good meal simply because he was a modernist.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

shirime said:


> Our response to sound has certainly been a survival instinct. In art, it isn't; in art there really isn't such thing as being 'naturally' _x_ adjective due to it being an artificial, cultural construct.


For all you know, we respond to the beauty in music because it is connecting with something that is instinctually beautiful to us. You can keep stating the opposite all you want, but that doesn't make it so. The difference between us is that you are stating your position as fact.

I started listening to classical music at 3 years of age. Did I learn to respond to the aesthetic or was I instinctually drawn to it. Keep in mind that what is instinctual to one person may not be for another. How does the savant seem to be able to instinctively do complex calculations? You can ask them how they do it and they say, ' I don't know, I just do.'


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm starting to think so and I think it may have to do with the nature of the timber of the instruments utilized in orchestras. String instruments, in consonant music, are by nature beautiful and pleasant to hear.
> 
> I listen to the fury and struggle during Beethoven, but it is still gorgeous to me. Mahler is undeniably aggressive, but you cannot deny the beauty of these instruments.
> 
> ...


I don't know exactly what you mean by "consonant" and "dissonant" but Beethoven's music has a healthy amount of dissonance, in a technical sense. Compared with some of his contemporaries such as Weber, Beethoven was conservative in his emphasis of a consistent tone center, but strong dissonance was often present. In particular, you may notice the harmonies of the 7th symphony having a completely different "coloration" than the 6th, and it is because of pervasive dissonance, compared with the triadic harmony in the 6th.


----------



## les24preludes (May 1, 2018)

Fredx2098 said:


> I find loudness in any music to always be unpleasant, but sometimes I find unpleasantness to be pleasant (a strange statement). In my opinion, quiet dissonance is always more beautiful than loud consonance


I'm fairly new here, but I am starting to see some kindred spirits, and Fredx is one of them. I would agree with the above and I have often been trying to find words to express pretty much this.

Dissonance - after music passed through chromaticism and serialism it became clear to listeners of modern music that the rules of the classical period, while relevant for the time, needed updating. One way to look at it is that there are degrees of "dissonance" (if we continue to call it that) which are more or less acceptable to the ear. These vary from the untrained ear to the trained ear. Bartok's string quartets or Messiaen's organ works are good examples - once you accept the scales, modes and intervals being used, you can see these works as chains of melodies. Both composers are very melodic. So is Prokofiev with his "ironies". I'd call all of this "beautiful" music.

Atonalism - in its simplest expression, this is just music that avoids root chords and organising around the tonic. The music is free to float and doesn't need a key signature. This doesn't mean that the music is particular dissonant - it's just organised in a different way. Plenty of examples of this from Tristan and Isolde onwards. And again plenty of "beautiful" music.

Loudness - this is a personal thing, and for personal reasons I am not interested in heroic music, energetic performances or any kind of bombast. I find a lot of Beethoven and Mozart's orchestral music uninteresting when it revolves around tonic, subdominant and dominant chords reinforced by blows on the timpani. Conversely I get a lot out of the late quartets of both composers and the late piano sonatas of Beethoven. But there are so many exceptions to this in terms of modern music. Particularly when we think of "programme music" the loudness may be an intrinsic part of the programme rather than something used in a heroic way. The Rite of Spring has loud parts which are quite acceptable to me and I even enjoy Mossolov's Zavod (The Iron Foundry). Try this one out, guys - it's very short. Is it ugly or beautiful? You decide....


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

les24preludes said:


> I'm fairly new here, but I am starting to see some kindred spirits, and Fredx is one of them. I would agree with the above and I have often been trying to find words to express pretty much this.
> 
> Dissonance - after music passed through chromaticism and serialism it became clear to listeners of modern music that the rules of the classical period, while relevant for the time, needed updating. One way to look at it is that there are degrees of "dissonance" (if we continue to call it that) which are more or less acceptable to the ear. These vary from the untrained ear to the trained ear. Bartok's string quartets or Messiaen's organ works are good examples - once you accept the scales, modes and intervals being used, you can see these works as chains of melodies. Both composers are very melodic. So is Prokofiev with his "ironies". I'd call all of this "beautiful" music.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I'm new as well!

I agree with everything you say here. I love the loud parts of The Rite of Spring and such because they don't seem to be the obvious climaxes or the "most important" parts. I like that piece you linked. I'm listening to his first piano concerto now and enjoying it as well!

For some dissonant modern music without bombast, may I suggest..... Morton Feldman?


----------



## Crawford Glissadevil (Jul 23, 2018)

Beauty is in the eye; ensconced in the bombastic elements of The Rite of Spring, I behold beauty.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

shirime said:


> Beauty of sound in music is no longer a survival instinct, so we have learnt to respond to its aesthetics differently since it became a part of culture and artistic expression.


You are suggesting this is like an evolutionary thing? That's an interesting idea. I still find some sounds like in Jazz music from trumpets and trombones and such, that remind me of animals, and are interesting to listen to. Something with their timbres. But for me consonantly organized, pretty music still stands apart. I don't think what we thought were interesting sounds when we were apes would quite constitute as music for listening for artistic purposes, but for practical purposes, like finding a certain call attractive for purposes of mating, etc.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

les24preludes said:


> I'm fairly new here, but I am starting to see some kindred spirits, and Fredx is one of them. I would agree with the above and I have often been trying to find words to express pretty much this.
> 
> Dissonance - after music passed through chromaticism and serialism it became clear to listeners of modern music that the rules of the classical period, while relevant for the time, needed updating. One way to look at it is that there are degrees of "dissonance" (if we continue to call it that) which are more or less acceptable to the ear. These vary from the untrained ear to the trained ear. Bartok's string quartets or Messiaen's organ works are good examples - once you accept the scales, modes and intervals being used, you can see these works as chains of melodies. Both composers are very melodic. So is Prokofiev with his "ironies". I'd call all of this "beautiful" music.
> 
> ...


This could be the theme for a WWF fighter! :lol: It's full of fighting spirit I feel, lots of testosterone.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fred, have you heard Frank Zappa's album, "Jazz From Hell"? I think you'd really appreciate a lot of it.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Fred, have you heard Frank Zappa's album, "Jazz From Hell"? I think you'd really appreciate a lot of it.


I've heard a bit of it. I love "Night School" and "St. Etienne" (which doesn't really count). I'll check out the rest right now. My favorite albums of his are probably Uncle Meat, Joe's Garage (all of it!), and Baby Snakes.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> You are suggesting this is like an evolutionary thing? That's an interesting idea. I still find some sounds like in Jazz music from trumpets and trombones and such, that remind me of animals, and are interesting to listen to. Something with their timbres. But for me consonantly organized, pretty music still stands apart. I don't think what we thought were interesting sounds when we were apes would quite constitute as music for listening for artistic purposes, but for practical purposes, like finding a certain call attractive for purposes of mating, etc.


What I mean by survival instinct is that yes through evolutions human beings would have developed an awareness that a lion's roar could pose a threat to one's life and that other sounds are therefore immediately more pleasant, life affirming. Through the development of human beings across history when we began to live in much more complex societies and sound became music, a part of culture and art in this complex society, the way we respond to sound as art is a completely different and much more philosophical and issue of aesthetics. How we respond to consonance or dissonance is no longer derived from the natural survival instincts of our primitive ancestors, but is more personal and culturally influenced.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm starting to think so and I think it may have to do with the nature of the timber of the instruments utilized in orchestras. String instruments, in consonant music, are by nature beautiful and pleasant to hear.
> 
> I listen to the fury and struggle during Beethoven, but it is still gorgeous to me. Mahler is undeniably aggressive, but you cannot deny the beauty of these instruments.
> 
> ...


I must say that three pages in and I am not sure I understand what this thread is about! Is music beautiful? Is that the question? Or is it that all music except some music is beautiful? I would be nice if someone could explain and give examples of the music that is being described as beautiful in the OP and the music that is for some reason not included. Thanks.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm starting to think so and I think it may have to do with the nature of the timber of the instruments utilized in orchestras. String instruments, in consonant music, are by nature beautiful and pleasant to hear.
> 
> I listen to the fury and struggle during Beethoven, but it is still gorgeous to me. Mahler is undeniably aggressive, but you cannot deny the beauty of these instruments.
> 
> What do you think?


If you mean aesthetic beauty, you are misusing the word and cheapening the concept. What you are describing is not beauty, it is euphony, a purely sensory phenomenon. Aesthetic beauty doesn't properly apply to this kind of low level phenomenon. What you are doing is equivalent to saying "My ice cream tastes beautiful" or "What a beautiful foot massage that was."


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> If you mean aesthetic beauty, you are misusing the word and cheapening the concept. What you are describing is not beauty, it is euphony, a purely sensory phenomenon. Aesthetic beauty doesn't properly apply to this kind of low level phenomenon. What you are doing is equivalent to saying "My ice cream tastes beautiful" or "What a beautiful foot massage that was."


I agree - the tonal language, the sounds themselves, are just the raw material of music. The beauty is in the composition, the arrangement of the material.

I particular love the way it was sung in Sondheim's 'Sunday in the Park with George':

_All things are beautiful, Mother
All trees, all towers beautiful
That tower-Beautiful, Mother
See? A perfect tree

Pretty isn't beautiful, Mother
Pretty is what changes
What the eye arranges
Is what is beautiful_


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> If you mean aesthetic beauty, you are misusing the word and cheapening the concept. What you are describing is not beauty, it is euphony, a purely sensory phenomenon. Aesthetic beauty doesn't properly apply to this kind of low level phenomenon. What you are doing is equivalent to saying "My ice cream tastes beautiful" or "What a beautiful foot massage that was."


But music can be a very visual experience, vivid in its colors and orchestration, painting a picture one finds and attributes the word beautiful too.

Food, like Ice Cream, can also be a very visual experience. The way it looks is a big part of what attracts us to it in the first place. That's why high end restaurants go through the trouble of creating visually stimulating presentations.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

It's a matter of balance. I'm turned away if there's nothing but agressive dissonance, but I like dissonance in healthy doses and it's the contrast that makes consonance even more beautiful.
I must say that having familiarized myself with more dissonant music over time, my tolerance for dissonance has increased a lot. In fact I barely perceive certain dissonance anymore that I used to find very unpleasant.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Consonance and dissonance are normal bedfellows in music. Music which is only consonant becomes very tiresome and uninteresting to the ear, and quite rapidly so. I think OP you'll find that many or most of those moments in music which give you great deal of pleasure are the movement between consonance-dissonance, tension-release.

As you're on a Mahler run at the moment this should be obvious.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Consonance and dissonance are normal bedfellows in music. Music which is only consonant becomes very tiresome and uninteresting to the ear, and quite rapidly so. I think OP you'll find that many or most of those moments in music which give you great deal of pleasure are the movement between consonance-dissonance, tension-release.
> 
> As you're on a Mahler run at the moment this should be obvious.


I agree, moderation is key.


----------



## Thomyum2 (Apr 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I agree, moderation is key.


I can't imagine what Beethoven's music would have sounded like if he had stuck to moderation!

_"Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess."

"Everything in moderation, including moderation."_

- Oscar Wilde


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Thomyum2 said:


> I can't imagine what Beethoven's music would have sounded like if he had stuck to moderation!
> 
> _"Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess."
> 
> ...


Well, a little indulgence here and there never hurts!


----------

