# Dissonance: concept and object.



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

In this thread, I hope that we can finally collect the different meanings and interpretations that the word _dissonance_ has.
It's not my intention to reach a consensus about a unique definition. Instead, I'm interested in analyzing the different contexts in which the word can operate and the different interpretations which can be made.
So, it would be nice if each contribution is not stated in absolute terms, but instead, making clear first the context to which you are referring.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Well, I think this is a pretty good starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance

(I know I haven't elaborated at all, but the article does explains a lot about the topic)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

niv said:


> Well, I think this is a pretty good starting point:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance
> 
> (I know I haven't elaborated at all, but the article does explains a lot about the topic)


Ok, let's see:



Wikipedia said:


> In more general usage, a consonance is a combination of notes that sound pleasant to most people when played at the same time; dissonance is a combination of notes that sound harsh or unpleasant to most people.


The first thing is that dissonance is defined in a vertical way (combination of notes), there's no mention of dissonant/consonant sequences of combination of notes.
Also dissonance would be an objective concept, which depends only on the way the brain understand given chords (combination of notes).
But, there's a problem. The definition claims to be objective, but makes use of a highly volatile concept: "pleasant/unpleasant to most people".
For example, most people will find a d minor chord played on a church organ to be unpleasant, because of associations of the organ's timbre with horror movies and things like that.
On the other hand, the chromatic cluster chords of Ligeti's Lux Aeterna probably will not be seen as unpleasant, because of the soft and warm timbre of the chorus, and the dream like mood of the piece.
But, play those chords on the piano, and the answer will be that the d minor is less unpleasant than the chromatic cluster chord.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

In the following I'm thinking of dissonance as "a combination of notes that sound harsh or unpleasant" _to a particular person_.

I think most of us agree that dissonance is subjective in that chords that appear dissonant to one person may not appear dissonant to another person. Further chords that appear dissonant to one person may not appear dissonant to that same person later. It still seems possible to experimentally measure an "average dissonance" among a group of people so one could speak about a chord as having high dissonance on average to that group of people. I'm not sure how useful that concept would be.

Some people have stressed that things must be dissonant compared to things that are more consonant. I agree, but the consonant chord or music does not have to be heard closely before or after the dissonant chord or music. One can hear a single chord in isolation and find it dissonant because everyone has a memory of musical sounds and can compare the dissonant chord to those sounds (some of which are consonant).

Two interesting questions: "Are there sounds (chords, clusters, combinations of sounds, etc.) that _all people_ would consider dissonant?" and "Can _all people_ learn over time to find sounds that they once considered as dissonant no longer dissonant?" I don't know.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> In the following I'm thinking of dissonance as "a combination of notes that sound harsh or unpleasant" _to a particular person_.
> 
> I think most of us agree that dissonance is subjective in that chords that appear dissonant to one person may not appear dissonant to another person. Further chords that appear dissonant to one person may not appear dissonant to that same person later. It still seems possible to experimentally measure an "average dissonance" among a group of people so one could speak about a chord as having high dissonance on average to that group of people. I'm not sure how useful that concept would be.
> 
> ...


Reading through the comments of this (



), some people seem to suggest that they recognize that the chords are dissonant, but they find them pleasurable anyway.
This reinforces my view that dissonance can be measured and has an objective meaning (related mainly to the complexity of the vibration), but this pleasure approach is not adequate.
I think that the brain can recognize the increasing complexity of the vibrations it perceives, but the pleasure value assigned to that complex vibration depends on many other things, like register, induced prejudices by the media/culture, the actual intention of the composer, the listener's experience, etc.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> This reinforces my view that dissonance can be measured and has an objective meaning (related mainly to the complexity of the vibration), but this pleasure approach is not adequate.
> I think that the brain can recognize the increasing complexity of the vibrations it perceives, but the pleasure value assigned to that complex vibration depends on many other things, like register, induced prejudices by the media/culture, the actual intention of the composer, the listener's experience, etc.


I think it's true that dissonance _can_ be defined in an objective manner by reference to the sound frequencies, amount of beating, amplitude fluctuations, wave interference, etc. And I also think that listeners can perceive the wave interference in varying ways. I think you're right in saying that tones that create significant beating and sound dissonant to someone might sound enjoyable to another.

I suppose if I use the term to mean "harsh or unpleasant" I may convey an incorrect meaning to someone else since they might find it pleasant. They would only know that I mean harsh or unpleasant _to me_. That could be useful to them if they could hear the sound as well, but otherwise, they would still not know much about the sound unless they knew me. If I used the term in an objective sense, other people _could possibly_ have a better sense of what I am referring to.

I think an objective definition would only be useful if most people repeatedly heard sounds along with a value of dissonance. They would then learn the common language as we do for temperature.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

aleazk said:


> But, there's a problem. The definition claims to be objective, but makes use of a highly volatile concept: "pleasant/unpleasant to most people".
> For example, most people will find a d minor chord played on a church organ to be unpleasant, because of associations of the organ's timbre with horror movies and things like that.
> On the other hand, the chromatic cluster chords of Ligeti's Lux Aeterna probably will not be seen as unpleasant, because of the soft and warm timbre of the chorus, and the dream like mood of the piece.
> But, play those chords on the piano, and the answer will be that the d minor is less unpleasant than the chromatic cluster chord.


I made an experiment with my flatmate as experimental subject. He knows very little of classical music.
I let him hear first the final d minor chord in this: 



His response was "horrible and violent". He also said that he could not precisely say if the chord was dissonant or not (according to his own personal sense of it, I didn't mention any definition)
Then we heard the first minute of this: 



He said it was "quiet and very relaxing". He found it not dissonant also.
Then I played on my piano a d minor chord and later the chromatic cluster chord E-F-Fsharp-G (which can be heard at the six bar of Ligeti's Lux Aeterna).
The d minor chord was classified as "not dissonant at all" and the chromatic cluster chord as "horrible and extremely dissonant".
He was shocked when I told him that just a minute earlier he classified this last chord as "quiet and very relaxing". 
Of course, we will not be shocked with next year's Nobel prize in psychology for me. :lol::tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In our MANY discussions on this topic, I have never seen any mention of existing knowledge concerning a predisposition to the liking of dissonance. For instance, from BBC news:

"Scientists discover dissonance gene

A group of researchers at the London School of Genetic Medicine have discovered a gene, named R23B, that apparently governs tolerance for dissonant music. People whose R23B gene is folded in a certain way have been shown statistically to prefer modernist and highly dissonant music, while those whose gene is expressed in the more usual manner normally do not.

The researchers have already identified several other peculiarities and disabilities associated with the abnormally-folded gene, but say that more funding is required to complete their studies."

Just a note on the above: :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

aleazk said:


> In this thread, I hope that we can finally collect the different meanings and interpretations that the word _dissonance_ has.


I'm scared off by that immediately. How can we get anywhere if one word has "different meanings and interpretations."



aleazk said:


> It's not my intention to reach a consensus about a unique definition.


...then your quest is subjective, based on "belief."



aleazk said:


> Instead, I'm interested in analyzing the different contexts in which the word can operate and the different interpretations which can be made.


Oh, I see, kinda like religion and metaphysics.



aleazk said:


> So, it would be nice if each contribution is not stated in absolute terms, but instead, making clear first the context to which you are referring.


I guess I'll just "wait for the contexts" to arrive.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm scared off by that immediately. How can we get anywhere if one word has "different meanings and interpretations."


As usual, you are misreading things... (intentionally, of course)
I didn't say that a word in a specific context has different meanings and interpretations. I said that when the context is changed, the meaning can change too.
This responds to the rest of your comment too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

Well, it's clear to me anyway that it all comes down to desire. People who want objective definitions of subjective things desire stability and clarity in a world they find frightening and mercurial. People who want subjective things to be seen as such and objective things to be seen as objective desire accuracy and logic from irrational people. That is, in itself, an irrational desire.

The truth? The only truth is that different people have different desires.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm scared off by that immediately. How can we get anywhere if one word has "different meanings and interpretations."


Like all words . You need to read Wittgenstein, Korzybski, or some derived literature.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

From anther thread I have explained dissonance as something relative to consonance in an objective explanation. Sounds that are harsh to the ear (this subjective however) and are not resolved are described as _discordant._



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Jobis said:
> 
> 
> > Can dissonant harmonies ever express something truly beautiful, joyful or tender? That is; can they make us feel anything other than foreboding, fear, unease, melancholy, alienation etc.
> ...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

aleazk said:


> As usual, you are misreading things... (intentionally, of course)
> I didn't say that a word in a specific context has different meanings and interpretations. I said that when the context is changed, the meaning can change too.
> This responds to the rest of your comment too.


WELL, the net result is the same...the meaning changes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Well, it's clear to me anyway that it all comes down to desire. People who want objective definitions of subjective things desire stability and clarity in a world they find frightening and mercurial. People who want subjective things to be seen as such and objective things to be seen as objective desire accuracy and logic from irrational people. That is, in itself, an irrational desire.
> 
> The truth? The only truth is that different people have different desires.


No, my son...desire is illusory.

Huh? I "desire stability and clarity in a world they find frightening and mercurial?" No, man, that's ridiculous. Dissonance/consonance are ratios, and always were. If anything, I'm striving for clarity. I have a job to do.

Do I want subjective things to be seen as such, and objective things to be seen as objective, because I desire accuracy and logic from irrational people? No, it has little to do with "irrational people," although they are. It has to do with the *ideas, and the task at hand.

T*he problem is, you people are not "task oriented." You've never had to put these ideas into action, as physical entities. I have.


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

My thinking is that a dissonance is any note or interval which is resolved to a consonance. Whether or not an interval is dissonant is a question of style, and can be inferred by how the composer treats the interval. In a roundabout way, a dissonance is whatever is treated as a dissonance. Of course, this means that in strictly 'atonal' music there is actually no such thing as dissonance, the idea of harmonic and melodic resolution, the movement from dissonance to consonance, is strictly a feature of tonal and modal music.

Harmonic ratios have nothing to do with dissonance. Otherwise everyone would complain about how dissonant recordings of equally tempered piano music were.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Yardrax said:


> My thinking is that a dissonance is any note or interval which is resolved to a consonance. Whether or not an interval is dissonant is a question of style, and can be inferred by how the composer treats the interval. In a roundabout way, a dissonance is whatever is treated as a dissonance. Of course, this means that in strictly 'atonal' music there is actually no such thing as dissonance, the idea of harmonic and melodic resolution, the movement from dissonance to consonance, is strictly a feature of tonal and modal music.
> 
> Harmonic ratios have nothing to do with dissonance. Otherwise everyone would complain about how dissonant recordings of equally tempered piano music were.


Harmonic ratios have a different association with dissonance in the sense that the ratios signify and help understand a listener's perception of the varying levels of dissonant intervals.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> The problem is, you people are not "task oriented."


Unless, of course, the "task" is listening to music, in which case we put our ideas about dissonance into action all the time and we don't find it a problem. It's only a problem if you think a concept can't mean more than one thing. And *some guy* is exactly right: the only people who think this is problematic are theorizers, people who seek models of models of perfection in an imperfect world.



millionrainbows said:


> You've never had to put these ideas into action, as physical entities. I have.


Your context determines the meaning of dissonance you use, then. You've just proven *aleazk*'s point.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> Unless, of course, the "task" is listening to music, in which case we put our ideas about dissonance into action all the time and we don't find it a problem. It's only a problem if you think a concept can't mean more than one thing. And *some guy* is exactly right: the only people who think this is problematic are theorizers, people who seek models of models of perfection in an imperfect world.


This is a music theory thread. Music theory is an actual *thing* you know. Listener's perceptions are merely subjective reactions to a set of rules and creative realisations of those rules as a composition. It's like the difference between someone's opinion on the appearance of a mandelbrot set (perception) versus the mathematical formula behind it (theory). The "task" is defining aspects of *music theory* here as Aleazk is asking for something which is objective.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Huh? I "desire stability and clarity in a world they find frightening and mercurial?" No, man, that's ridiculous. *Dissonance/consonance are ratios, and always were.*


So would you be okay with talking about these things strictly in terms of mathematics? (Would that be useful or enlightening?)


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Ideas of consonance and dissonance only get interesting when they enter the realm of _psychology_. And naturally that's where things start to get muddy.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> So would you be okay with talking about these things strictly in terms of mathematics? (Would that be useful or enlightening?)


Harmonic ratios have a different association with dissonance in the sense that the ratios signify and help understand a listener's perception of the varying levels of dissonant intervals. Millionrainbows has posted a chart on this several times explaining how it all works, how the listener perceives it is something different.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Dissonance/consonance are ratios, and always were.


That ain't so clear. If it was something as simple as mathematical ratios, then explain why equal temperament sounds fine to most people when it actually destroys the exact matematical ratios.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> Ideas of consonance and dissonance only get interesting when they enter the realm of _psychology_. And naturally that's where things start to get muddy.


The relationship between dissonance and consonance and how to use them is something that much emphasis is put upon in texts on music theory, counterpoint and voice leading. The psychology behind listener's perceptions of the rules are interesting, that is true, but it I'm not sure if that is what we are looking for in terms of definition.......all music uses dissonance, even Bach's solo string music where the dissonances and consonances are *implied.* The varying levels of how abundant these are and how they are resolved is heading towards how the listener perceives it and the psychology behind it.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Music theory is an actual *thing* you know. Listener's perceptions are merely subjective reactions to a set of rules and creative realisations of those rules as a composition.


Of course. I don't know anyone who denies that. My point is that theory, "the actual thing," is often used as a way to repel listener perception, that much murkier thing, as if the two were somehow incompatible. But they're not. Which one you choose to focus on depends on what you're hoping to get out of the exercise in the first place--either the clean comfort of objectivity or the messy uncertainty of subjectivity. Thus it is a matter of context. (And there's no reason why you can't do both at the same time.) So a definition of consonance and dissonance that takes into account only one or the other is a definition that is knowingly telling only half the story. To speak as if one negates the other, as the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have tended to do in the aftermath of romanticism, is to create a false dichotomy.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Eschbeg said:


> Of course. I don't know anyone who denies that. My point is that the theory is often used as a way to repel the subjective reactions, as if the two were somehow incompatible. But they're not.


Without the theory and the practice (the rule and the composition) there can be no reaction from the listener. A subjective reaction to an objective rule and realisation of the rule is a totally different thing though.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Without the theory and the practice (the rule and the composition) there can be no reaction from the listener. A subjective reaction to an objective rule and realisation of the rule is a totally different thing though.


Two things: first, historically speaking, there was no need to theorize the rules of composition before there was a need to condition listeners' reactions to it. In Western music, the rules of consonance and dissonance--that is, conventions for which intervals were allowed to stand on their own and which ones needed to resolve--were first formulated in treatises that were attempting to get a handle on the introduction of harmony into medieval sacred music, and trying to establish a hierarchy of harmonies ranked according to degree of desireability. There's no reason our current understanding of dissonance has to stay faithful to the medieval understanding, of course, but whether theory precedes reaction or reaction precedes theory is going to depend entirely on what historical vantage point you're speaking from, or which period's vantage point you want to privilege.

Second, it is undeniable that a subjective reaction to a rule is literally a different thing from the rule. No one could dispute that. The question is whether musicians experience the two separately or not. So if the goal here is to arrive at a definition of dissonance, then we've got two choices: we can either include the subjective reaction (i.e. expectations of resolution and/or notions of pleasantness and unpleasantness), or we can not. If we do, then we get a definition that, in addition to the other things it does, also tries to account for the way music is experienced by a listener. If we don't, then we get a definition that doesn't. Reducing dissonance to numerical ratios is an excellent way of achieving the latter. Consequently, it is an excellent way of accounting for music as a modernist perceives it--i.e. minus the messiness of human beings. Problems arise only when this definition of dissonance is applied to music that isn't modernist or to music as a non-modernist perceives it. Or, to put it the way it was put above, when the context is changed. And that, I imagine, is why many people would not find this strictly objective definition of dissonance satisfactory or able to account for the way they experience music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

My comp teacher gave me the best definition of "tonal" I could ever think of, and if you substitute "Consonant" for "tonal" in the definition below, that's all I think anyone should need to think of "about the issue." LOL.

"If a piece works, it is tonal."

~ Ergo ~

If a piece works, it is consonant.

... beyond that, unless you're writing it, there is little to need to know.

For the listeners -- well, perhaps it is time, as Charles Ives phrased it (probably near one hundred years ago), for people to _"stop being such musical sissies."_


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> How can we get anywhere if one word has "different meanings and interpretations."


We travel quite well under such circumstances actually, provided one has a decent dictionary, a copy of Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity, a Fowler's or Partridge's...and a Very Big Bag to put them in.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2013)

MacLeod is correct.

The word "set," for instance, has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Here's a url: http://puzzles.about.com/library/weekly/blmosdef.htm

And here's a capture from that page, if your finger's broken or something:

RUN - 396 
GO - 368
TAKE - 343
STAND - 334
GET - 289
TURN - 288
PUT - 268
FALL - 264
STRIKE - 250

That's a lot of pretty ordinary and widely used words. With hundreds of different meanings and interpretations, each. And still, we seem to muddle on somehow.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I wonder if certain frequencies bother the ear in a purely physiological way. Like the combination of certain colours or certain visual patterns/effects are a strain on the eyes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Andreas said:


> I wonder if certain frequencies bother the ear in a purely physiological way. Like the combination of certain colours or certain visual patterns/effects are a strain on the eyes.


Yes, especially the "beating" that occurs when two notes are very close together, but not on pitch. This is what piano tuners listen for. And let's not forget that sound is "pressure-waves" of air.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> Ideas of consonance and dissonance only get interesting when they enter the realm of _psychology_. And naturally that's where things start to get muddy.


All you have to do to scare the fish away is to disturb the surface of the water to a degree that it bothers them. The same thing applies to the surface of your eardrum.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> All you have to do to scare the fish away is to disturb the surface of the water to a degree that it bothers them. The same thing applies to the surface of your eardrum.


But then....does everyone get bothered by exactly the same thing???? What is _botherance_?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> But then....does everyone get bothered by exactly the same thing???? What is _botherance_?


We know different people do not become bothered (find specific combinations of notes unpleasant) to the same degree. A wonderful example here on TC is that aleazk finds the part of Ligeti's _Atmospheres_ where there is very high dissonance followed by a very low, almost ethereal boom to be wonderful while I find the dissonance physically unpleasant.

Studies have shown that people do find specific chords or intervals "bother" them to varying degrees. Furthermore, repeated exposure to those chords or intervals can reduce the level of perceived dissonance.


----------

