# Ear/Brain Connection Revision



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"The expression 'tonal' has itself been wrongly used, exclusively instead of inclusively. It can mean only this: everything that results from a series of tones, whether its cohesion is the result of a direct relationship to a single tonic or from links of *a more complex kind,* forms tonality...A piece of music will always have to be tonal at least insofar as, from one tone to the next, there is bound to be a relationship by which all the tones, successive or simultaneous, produce a progression that can be recognized as such." 
-Arnold Schoenberg, from Malcolm MacDonald's book, p. 128

One can easily deduce from this, as Allen Shawn already did in his book, that Schoenberg heard everything "tonally," and we all do as well: that's the way the ear hears harmonic intervals in relation to a fundamental (not necessarily a *root*).

The ear/brain has a natural tendency to hear interval relations in terms of their relation to a fundamental tone (not "root"), so your acuity (or lack) at perceiving more abstruse harmonic meanings (meanings which shift constantly) is similar to the ability of "experts" who have learned (and have inherent propensities) to perceive other types of perceptual meanings, like seeing visual meaning in abstract art, the ability to draw, to dance, throw a football, a master chef's sense of smell/taste, and other areas.

What I'm saying is that you either hear it, or you don't. The people who can hear meaning in abstruse music are the ones who like it, and have a natural visceral propensity; the ones who say that they "reject" it are more often than not unable to hear it, based mainly on an inherently lower visceral propensity. These people are "crippled" from the start.

If a person has demonstrated that they do have a good ear/brain connection (by playing an instrument, singing, etc) and they still can't penetrate more abstruse music, then this is more likely to be from willful choice, due to unfamiliarity or refusal to explore, not an inherent inability. This type of "refusal" is much more credible than the run-of-the mill criticisms of those listeners who are inherently unable to hear and understand, from both a vicseral and cognitive standpoint.

What I'm saying is that "your ear" (visceral) is the stimulus that "draws you in" to more difficult music. This is a very natural ability, and some folks have it, while others don't. This translates (after the fact) into "preference."

This preference is not "debatable" or even definable on a credible level by those who are unable to hear it on a visceral level, because this boils down to degrees of inherent ability, not will. It's like some people don't enjoy dancing because they can't do it well (comparatively).


----------

