# Dissonance = harmony



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Greetings.

I had originally started to post this as a reply to a thread dealing with beautiful dissonances in Prokofiev, but decided to maybe give it its own thread.

Bear in mind that the following is as ever the opinion of just one person. :tiphat:

To consider:

I fear that far too many people recoil in fear when they think "dissonance," as if it were as listenable as a jackhammer at a construction site, or something dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. It's as if that word has a defacto negative Pavlovian response. I fear that just the mention of this word turns people off and automatically closes their mind to any works which might be described using this word. Before they've even heard the music in question.

The following is always how I've heard this, and I suggest this approach to others:

*I don't hear it as "dissonance." I hear it as close-voiced harmony. *

In other words, if we look at someone like Beethoven e.g., his harmonic language was largely diatonic, and as such, his harmonies were open-voiced, which some people think of as "consonant." Largely if not entirely triadic, which was the standard harmonic lingua franca until Wagner, Debussy, and others around the late 19th/early 20th centuries. I'd even go one step further and posit that there is no such thing as dissonance; only close-voiced harmonies. Debussy's signature harmonic structure was largely quartal, and what people unfairly hear as "dissonance" is largely secundal in harmonic structure.

The more you expose yourself to this kind of harmony in an open-minded and open-eared way, and it IS harmony, the more it will start to make sense to you. Just as the OP in the Prokofiev thread has stated that he hears Prokovfiev's dissonances as beautiful.

Just a thought. Try it, and see if it doesn't open up many new musical and artistic horizons for you.

Regards,
-09


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

I like your idea about close-voiced harmony to describe the use of sevenths and ninths (which invert to seconds). But how would you fit tritones (augmented fourths/diminished fifths) into this system? They are dissonant, and have always been recognized as such ever since the medieval period - but they are not a close interval. They span six half steps.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Hi Bettina,

A fine point. I still do not hear those intervals as dissonant at all, but I've been listening to this kind of harmony for many years. I'll quote from myself, as it applies here:

"The more you expose yourself to this kind of harmony (in this case, altered fourths/fifths) in an open-minded and open-eared way, and it IS harmony, the more it will start to make sense to you."

To put a finer point on it: think of a food or beverage that you now love, but might have tasted foreign or awful to you the first time you tried it. You acquired the taste, and now you can't even imagine that dish/beverage being distasteful to you.

Regards,
-09


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Omicron9 said:


> Hi Bettina,
> 
> A fine point. I still do not hear those intervals as dissonant at all, but I've been listening to this kind of harmony for many years. I'll quote from myself, as it applies here:
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you that exposure to dissonance helps us make sense of what we're hearing. But it still remains dissonant, even if we learn to process it as an enjoyable sound. For centuries, the tritone has been recognized as the most dissonant interval - it was even called the "devil in music" in the medieval period. In fact, tritones serve as the basis of many dissonant chords such as the Tristan chord.*

*I hope this doesn't start another Wagner fight!! :lol:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Omicron9 said:


> Hi Bettina,
> 
> A fine point. I still do not hear those intervals as dissonant at all, but I've been listening to this kind of harmony for many years. I'll quote from myself, as it applies here:
> 
> ...


Dissonance does not equate "not making sense". And it does not have any bad aesthetic connotation (another story is how the dissonance is used in a piece of music). I love a lot of dissonant music, but the fact that I like it does not make it less dissonant. It's a physical thing. A major third is a smaller interval than a dimished fifth, but it's definitely more consonant.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Norman,

My suggestion was not that there's no such thing as music theoretical dissonance. My suggestion was for and to those listeners who have shied away from anything marked as "dissonant music." My suggestion was just that: a suggestion for a new approach which might open things up a bit for those listeners; hopefully a helpful hint. 

I am fully aware of the history of the tritone, and all the connotations.

My thoughts and suggestions were not aimed at folks like you and I who routinely listen to and enjoy what is in some circles branded as "dissonant music."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

-09


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Dissonance is built-in to tonal music. It is that which requires, in terms of the musical language being employed, a resolution.
The suspensions found in Bach for e.g.. (when a note from one chord is suspended over the following chord and then resolved to the anticipated note) count towards it'd expressive beauty. 

It's all about context. A string of 7ths found in Debussy would have made no sense to Beethoven. In Debussy they are not treated as dissonant and in the context, are also not heard as dissonant.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

dissonance is part of harmony [two or more notes sounded simultaneously]....

dissonance is part of the harmonic progression of a musical piece....it is crucial in the direction, the flow of the music.

music without any dissonance - ie -"New Age" stuff - is hopelessly boring, wimpy, and uninvolving. why bother, it is worse than muzak....


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

One of the definitions of dissonance is _'lack of harmony_' so I find it hard to accept a premise that dissonance is harmony, closed-voice harmony or otherwise. As I see it there are gradations of dissonance. There is a spectrum starting with limited dissonance which creates a sense of tension resulting in a satisfying resolution with the return of harmony such as in Beethoven's Grosse Fuge all the way to music with more continuous dissonance. The limited dissonance is more easily tolerated; the more extensive dissonance likely requires more effort to appreciate.

It would be interesting to see a Pet Scan of one's brain on listening to purely harmonic music vs. music with a lot of dissonance. My bet is that different parts of the brain would light up, perhaps depending on the experience of the listener. I do accept the fact that some people more naturally appreciate dissonance than others and some can learn to accommodate to it. My guess is that the younger you are the more likely you can do the latter.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

This discussion can get a little bit muddled because, building on what Petwhac wrote above, "dissonance" is being used to mean two things that are related but not the same.

One is a harmony that sounds discordant to the listener. This is partly subjective but also rooted in natural acoustic phenomena.

The other is a harmony that requires resolution according to the rules of the system in which it is used. Sometimes this kind of dissonance is closely related to the first kind but sometimes not: for example in classical music a fourth above the bass is dissonant and must resolve, even though no one thinks a fourth by itself sounds discordant. On the other hand this kind of dissonance is context-dependent: no one feels that the altered seventh and ninth guitar chords in a James Brown song need to resolve.

Anyway I basically agree with the OP that you can find beauty in any harmony, but context is also going to play a role.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

This post overlapped with isorhythm's but I'll leave here anyway! 



DaveM said:


> One of the definitions of dissonance is _'lack of harmony_'


It's all too easy to get bogged down in arguing about definitions. Perhaps you mean lack of harmoniousness which is a different thing and is of course rather subjective.



DaveM said:


> so I find it hard to accept a premise that dissonance is harmony, closed-voice harmony or otherwise.


Strictly speaking harmony occurs when two or more notes are sounded simultaneously. But again, that is probably not the definition you are using.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

You folks know more of an understanding of this, but let me try a different opinion.

I have heard about studies where tones are played against tones and an audience has to indicate pleasing and not pleasing. And, apparently, across most cultures of the world identify mostly the same combinations of tones as pleasing or not.

Also true with intervals, and most cultures of the world can quickly "get" a pentatonic scale. 

I don't know how scientific these studies were, or if they are in fact apocryphal, but assuming they are accurate, then there is something in the eardrum or the brain of most people that responds this way for this and that way for that. In which case how someone is going to respond to "dissonance" is more or less predictable, and the composer can use that to evoke this or that acceptance or revulsion or unresolved tension or whatever.

Compared to what seems to be being said above, which is that its all what you get used to and what is in the culture, in the air, at the time we learn music. Yesterdays revolution is todays war horse and yesterdays innovation is todays dorky old tune. Which means that nothing is ultimately or objectively good or bad or pleasing or effective or ineffective, its just one is not accustomed to it. It leads to statements like "all music was new once" and makes the audience feel guilty about not finding a piece to their liking, (we are just not as familiar with this enough to appreciate it, we are not worthy) when it might really be that the audience is fine but the piece is just less good.

I am sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the middle is easier to find when the edges are defined.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I like this perspective: 
_Consonance and dissonance, in music: the impression of stability and repose (consonance) in relation to the impression of tension or clash (dissonance) experienced by a listener when certain combinations of tones or notes are sounded together. In certain musical styles, movement to and from consonance and dissonance gives shape and a sense of direction, for example, through increases and decreases in harmonic tension._

Perhaps this suggests that consonance and dissonance can work in harmony.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

DaveM said:


> One of the definitions of dissonance is _'lack of harmony_' so I find it hard to accept a premise that dissonance is harmony, closed-voice harmony or otherwise.


Harmony: <<Usually, this means simultaneously occurring frequencies, pitches (tones, notes), or chords.>>

these simultaneously occurring frequencies may be consonant, or dissonant. harmony does not mean only consonant tones. As Isorhythm states, dissonance may depend on context, and on the harmonic system being used.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dissonance is not harmony. Pure and simple.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dissonance can be part of harmony but it is not harmony.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I listen to so much contemporary avant-garde classical and jazz and so much of what we call "noise music" or in the pop/rock world "industrial", that I no longer think of harmony in traditional tone upon tone fashion. Sure, I recognize the harmony of diatonic chord building, but I consider harmony less a tone on tone thing and more a sound on sound thing, so that the sound of a jack-hammer piled on to the sounds of a taxi-cab horn and an airplane propeller starting produces "harmony" too.

I think of Penderecki's _Threnody_, where some of the notated passages are not in standard "notes on a stave" but rather directions to players to plunk or tap or bang or slap. And when one puts all of this together, it produces a "harmony" -- one group of violins is plunking, while another taps, while another bangs, while another slaps. This, to my ears, is as real a harmony as four violins playing a C, E, G, and B-flat.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There may be a good discussion topic here, but not with the word "dissonance" at its center. The definition of dissonance is a moving target, and it's _always_ in the ear of the hearer. Mozart's "Dissonant" Quartet has nothing in it that would curdle anyone's dinner. We have progressively come to love what was formerly called dissonant in Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky, Ives, Ruggles ... Once your ear gets used to it and it makes the music make sense in context, the word dissonant no longer aqpplies.


----------



## topo morto (Apr 9, 2017)

JeffD said:


> You folks know more of an understanding of this, but let me try a different opinion.
> 
> I have heard about studies where tones are played against tones and an audience has to indicate pleasing and not pleasing. And, apparently, across most cultures of the world identify mostly the same combinations of tones as pleasing or not.
> 
> ...


I can assure you such experiments still go on! We have to be careful of the conclusions though... play a C together with the D a tone above - you get an audible clash. Add the G above that, and suddenly things sound smooth again!



Heck148 said:


> music without any dissonance - ie -"New Age" stuff - is hopelessly boring, wimpy, and uninvolving. why bother, it is worse than muzak....


This may go hand-in-hand with the reason why a person might dislike a piece labelled 'dissonant' - If that piece (in their perception) is characterized _only _by dissonance and discord, it might be as involving as a piece consisting purely of saccharine consonance.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

when you just look at it etymologically:

consonance= sounding good together

dissonance= not sounding good together

So what sounds good to one may not sound good to the other and with that approach there's no objective way to define dissonant.

When you approach it more scientifically it's obvious that in general the intervals that most people would prefer and find more pleasing to the ear are the ones which share ratios in one way or the other, their frequencies match well together.

For me it gets interesting when a composer can make use of both skillfully, flirting with dissonance so to speak.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Dissonance is dissonance. Just because some individuals aren't as bothered by it or learn to accommodate to it doesn't mean it ceases to exist and now becomes harmonious. Even Beethoven used dissonance (mild by today's standards) on purpose for the very reason that it can be attractive when surrounded by consonance. Fwiw, the Moonlight sonata has dissonant octave+1 chords.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Dissonance is dissonance.


So tell me, what are the dissonant intervals and what are the consonant intervals.

Is the perfect forth dissonant or consonant?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I often hear non blending dissonance as colapsed/summarised melody, pretty much like some people hear foreign vowels as diphthongs. Well blended chords like Tristan, the spectralist stuff, etc I hear as proper chords.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Dissonance can be part of harmony but it is not harmony.


All dissonance is harmony...not all harmony is dissonance.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Dissonance is dissonance.





Razumovskymas said:


> So tell me, what are the dissonant intervals and what are the consonant intervals.
> 
> Is the perfect forth dissonant or consonant?


Also in some 11th century organums, only the prime, forth, fifth and octave were regarded consonant. All the other intervals where barely used and considered dissonants that had to dissolve.

Thirds were not yet considered consonant in 13th century polyphony. From the 14th century, forths got more and more considered dissonants and the third got more and more considered consonant.

On the other hand by that time musicians and listeners where even more used to "dissonants" in between cadenses. Probably lots more then mainstream listeners in present time. Virtually every form of dissonance was ok as long as it was dissolved with consonants at the right time. You just have to listen to some early polyphony to hear that.

In the 15th century, when thirds and even sixths where accepted and contrapuntal style was upcoming, composers started to be much more strict in their distinction between dissonant and consonant. I quote Johannes Tinctorus (1477): "The works of the older composers, where more dissonants then consonants occur, disappoint me. All music that's composed more then 40 years ago isn't worth listening to".

And so on and so on....

Just to say that dissonance isn't really something objective or absolute.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Razumovskymas said:


> Also in some 11th century organums, only the prime, forth, fifth and octave were regarded consonant. All the other intervals where barely used and considered dissonants that had to dissolve.
> 
> Thirds were not yet considered consonant in 13th century polyphony. From the 14th century, forths got more and more considered dissonants and the third got more and more considered consonant.
> 
> ...


That's very interesting and I understand from what you're saying that the concept of dissonance may change over time. However, also from what you're saying it seems to change over periods of one or more centuries. For the most part, my guess is that dissonance in the 19th and 20th century was recognized as such in a consistent way and composers used it knowing what it was/is. I suppose it is being accepted now more than it was in the past, but I'm doubtful whether that includes the majority of classical music listeners, other than in subtle amounts.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

DaveM said:


> That's very interesting and I understand from what you're saying that the concept of dissonance may change over time. However, also from what you're saying it seems to change over periods of one or more centuries. For the most part, *my guess is that dissonance in the 19th and 20th century was recognized as such in a consistent way and composers used it knowing what it was/is.* I suppose it is being accepted now more than it was in the past, but I'm doubtful whether that includes the majority of classical music listeners, other than in subtle amounts.


So you think that listeners in Beethovens' time, when they would be able to hear a Prokofiev piece, they would say: "hmmm nice piece of music, interesting use of dissonance vs consonance" ?  Of course you can never know but I think chances are that most people in that time wouldn't even consider it music.

For that matter I think the evolution of harmony from the 19th to the 20th century is much greater than the (very very slow) evolution of gregorian chant to late polyphony.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Razumovskymas said:


> So you think that listeners in Beethovens' time, when they would be able to hear a Prokofiev piece, they would say: "hmmm nice piece of music, interesting use of dissonance vs consonance" ?  Of course you can never know but I think chances are that most people in that time wouldn't even consider it music.


Well, you've got me there!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Razumovskymas said:


> So you think that listeners in Beethovens' time, when they would be able to hear a Prokofiev piece, they would say: "hmmm nice piece of music, interesting use of dissonance vs consonance" ?  Of course you can never know but I think chances are that most people in that time wouldn't even consider it music.
> 
> For that matter I think the evolution of harmony from the 19th to the 20th century is much greater than the (very very slow) evolution of gregorian chant to late polyphony.


I think someone from Beethoven's time would have a MUCH easier time with Prokofiev than someone from Josquin's time would have with Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dissonance is inharmonious only in the perception and judgment of the hearer. All dissonance is, in an objective sense, harmony.

Consonance and dissonance are always relative, either to each other or to the musical context in which they occur.

_Acoustically,_ relative consonance and dissonance exists along a continuum marked by simple to complex frequency ratios between tones sounding together. This is a more accurate way of identifying dissonance than "close harmony," although close harmonies do tend to have complex ratios between their tones.

_Artistically,_ a dissonance is any harmony which, in a given style of music, creates a sense of tension or dissatisfaction unless it resolves, or suggests resolution, to another harmony.

Harmonies which are relatively dissonant acoustically may function and be perceived as consonant or dissonant artistically, depending on how they are used in music and what listeners are led to expect should happen. Music may be perceived as "dissonant" either if it contains an unusual amount of acoustically dissonant harmony, or if its harmony is structured in such a way as to frustrate the listener's expectations.

I've just now thought this through, and I welcome corrections and additions.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> I think someone from Beethoven's time would have a MUCH easier time with Prokofiev than someone from Josquin's time would have with Beethoven.


I agree with that. (although we can never be sure)

I wasn't talking about the evolution from polyphony to Beethoven, which indeed would be quite a shock.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Razumovskymas said:


> Also in some 11th century organums, only the prime, forth, fifth and octave were regarded consonant. All the other intervals where barely used and considered dissonants that had to dissolve.
> 
> Thirds were not yet considered consonant in 13th century polyphony. From the 14th century, forths got more and more considered dissonants and the third got more and more considered consonant.
> 
> ...


you forgot to say that the tuning was different, so that makes those intervals different.
So it does not have a lot of sense to make a comparison without considering this important detail.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

norman bates said:


> you forgot to say that the tuning was different, so that makes those intervals different.
> So it does not have a lot of sense to make a comparison without considering this important detail.


I don't think that really matters. The tunings just evolved along with the needs at the given time. The goal being always to have the "purest" intervals relative to a workable range. At this point with equal temperament the tunings being fit for the best tunings along all the octaves, without having to make "corrections" when modulating a lot. The difference between equal temperament and for example tuning in fifths probably is only audible when you start modulating a lot in a system with tuning in fifths?
So I thinks it's indeed an interesting side thought but I still think it does make sense to point out the evolving different appreciation of dissonant and consonant in history.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Razumovskymas said:


> I don't think that really matters. The tunings just evolved along with the needs at the given time. The goal being always to have the "purest" intervals relative to a workable range. At this point with equal temperament the tunings being fit for the best tunings along all the octaves, without having to make "corrections" when modulating a lot. The difference between equal temperament and for example tuning in fifths probably is only audible when you start modulating a lot in a system with tuning in fifths?
> So I thinks it's indeed an interesting side thought but I still think it does make sense to point out the evolving different appreciation of dissonant and consonant in history.


oh, it matters a lot. A third in a different system could be very consonant or not very much. For instance, in rock music Eddie Van Halen used to detune a string in order to have more consonants major thirds, because especially with a distortion the normal third of the equal temperament makes a not very great sound.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

norman bates said:


> oh, it matters a lot. A third in a different system could be very consonant or not very much. For instance, in rock music Eddie Van Halen used to detune a string in order to have more consonants major thirds, because especially with a distortion the normal third of the equal temperament makes a not very great sound.


As if it's not complicated enough you bring Eddy Van Halen into the discussion???

As a former crappy would be rock gitarist I know the third in a distorted major chord always sounded awful in standard tuning, hence the power chord, where you just leave out the third, but I guess you're aware of that.

But apart from Eddy Van Halen's problem I still think that's not really the issue in this discussion.

I still think that IF equal temperament was used during the whole history of western music (would be nearly impossible for the gregorian chanters and the Renaissance, I know) , there would be the same evolution in appreciation of the different intervals.

But that's just my opinion, based on my limited knowledge on the matter!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

You people need to understand some math. Dissonance and consonance are not 'quantities,' or constant qualities; they are relationships between at least two notes. Relationships and ratios are not quantities. 'One half' could be 'half a million' or 'half of twenty.' The whole spectrum could be called 'sonance.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The Bulgarian style of singing uses the major second, and I hear it as a consonance.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The Bulgarian style of singing uses the major second, and I hear it as a consonance.


If this performance had been presented without the introduction, the last place I would have guessed it was on would have been the Johnny Carson Tonight Show.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The Bulgarian style of singing uses the major second, and I hear it as a consonance.


I'm not sure it is a consonance though? I don't think you would be allowed to end a phrase with it, in this tradition.

Now in American popular music, second and tritones (as part of seventh and ninth chords) absolutely can be consonant.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> I'm not sure it is a consonance though? I don't think you would be allowed to end a phrase with it, in this tradition.
> 
> Now in American popular music, second and tritones (as part of seventh and ninth chords) absolutely can be consonant.


I don't know, but like I said, I hear it as a consonance. When would it be dissonant?

This raises the question of what is meant by dissonant. I will always hear the interval itself as harmonically consonant, even if it is on the fourth degree (C-*F-G*), the sixth degree (C-*G-A*) or even the seventh degree (C-*A-B*). By dissonant, do you mean it 'needs resolving'?

I *hear* dissonances, I don't 'think' them.

Especially with ET tuning, the major second whole-tone scale has a consonant 'shimmer' which Debussy exploited. This shimmer would not be possible with Pythagoran seconds.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> This raises the question of what is meant by dissonant. I will always hear the interval itself as harmonically consonant, even if it is on the fourth degree (C-*F-G*), the sixth degree (C-*G-A*) or even the seventh degree (C-*A-B*). By dissonant, do you mean it 'needs resolving'?.


It can mean either "needs resolving" or "subjectively discordant." The two concepts are related but should be distinguished.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

To address the OP directly: If we are going to talk in general truisms about common practice music, then dissonance = harmony is wrong. In fact, it is far more correct to say dissonance* = counterpoint. All of the standard dissonances used in music from the Renaissance to ~1900 (and way beyond in much mainstream music), passing tones, neighbor tones, appoggiaturas, suspensions, anticipations, and so on, arise from the rules of counterpoint as codified in treatises from the 16thc on. The reason this is only a truism, however, is because over time there was some drift by which certain dissonances, which began as unstable non-harmonic tones, came to be regarded as chord tones. The most obvious case is that of the seventh, which arose as a common kind of passing tone and eventually began to be regarded as a chord tone as the concept of extended tertian harmony gained credibility in the 19thc. 

An aside: In general, most of the interesting tonal composers used as much dissonance as the laws of counterpoint of their time would bear. One might even argue that that's what the rules of harmony and counterpoint are for: to provide as much chance for spicy discord as possible without overthrowing musical order.

*One must distinguish, as a number of posters have, between acoustic dissonance and functional musical dissonance (meaning tones that in common practice music require resolution according to the laws of harmony and counterpoint). I am addressing the latter.


----------

