# Dissonance and pleasure



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From The Atlantic: "Researchers at the University of Melbourne attribute to the amount of pleasure we take in music to how much dissonance we hear -- the degree of 'perceived roughness, harshness, unpleasantness, or difficulty in listening to the sound.' "

Actually, there's a bit more to it than that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/p...music-as-beautiful-is-a-learned-trait/273185/


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The study is perhaps interesting, but we don't listen to music for chords, as still points. We hear music in time, so we listen for resolutions. If we hear an unfamiliar chord, it strikes us as particularly dissonant (regardless of the acoustics involved) because we don't know how it could or would resolve.

To state that people prefer consonance over dissonance as a matter of principle is so obviously wrong as to merit derision. If that were true, everyone would prefer drones, the only perfect consonance.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ah the good old University of Melbourne, my old home town. I guess when they a not dreaming Aussie Rules they do have some time to think about music............

Interesting discussion, harmony and tone combinations- colour and texture all nice stuff


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I almost wonder if apprecation of dissonance as opposed to consonance is linked to the variations different people have in their dopamine and serotonin levels, amongst other neurotransmitters. At this point, I am appreciating early music much more than any, because I get pleasure from picking out the sparring and unpredictable dissonances and irreguarities that happen. Later music seems like "a wash" and lacking in clarity when I have this early music lense on, so I prefer to take the more modern as a contrast. In between is less satisfying right now.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ You mean being intoxicated with various substances................... alcohol for one.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It sounds like an interesting study. Unfortunately, as Mahlerian pointed out, because it isolated chords from context, I'm not sure how much we can apply it to our experience of chords in context. But it certainly shows that individual preferences can change very quickly, at least for harmony. 

Another limitation I'd really like to see acknowledged is that "pleasure" in any activity could derive from a lot of different sources: so we might enjoy some music because we just like the sound of it, some other music because it reminds us of a hot ex-girlfriend, some other music because it expresses our patriotic or religious values, some other music because it is exactly how we feel when we're furious, and some other music because we feel so rebellious listening to it. This list could be expanded indefinitely.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"Dissonance" is a vague and relative term . In traditional harmony, it tends to mean tones which do not actually belong to a chord but which are generally the result of suspensions, and which need to be resolved to 
purely triadic chords . These dissonances are not considered ugly, but little bits of harmonic spice which
resolve . 
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring completely disregards traditional triadic harmony even though it does contain some triadic chords , often bitonal combinations of them . When it was new, many listeners found it appallingly harsh and ugly , because it was a shock to their musical sensibilities . 
Snce then, we have become used to highly chromatic music with highly complex harmonies .(Not everyone ,though).


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I was much more interested in the linked study which showed that cute animals cause people to abuse bubble wrap http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ponse-to-puppies-is-completely-normal/267408/


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> To state that people prefer consonance over dissonance as a matter of principle is so obviously wrong as to merit derision. If that were true, everyone would prefer drones, the only perfect consonance.


Agreed! Zarlino pointed out that consonants, especially the imperfect consonants of thirds and sixths, must not be overused, lest the ears be drowned in too much mellifluous sound.

Dissonances are essential components of music. They propel the forward momentum of the melodic and harmonic flow of the music. Roman School composers treated dissonances in a very particular and formulaic way, but not only did they not avoid them, but they forthrightly declared by their music that they are absolutely necessary.

Besides, counterpoint would be impossible without dissonances. The reason being that navigating the voice leading by consonants alone would result in prescribed intervals [I refer mostly to the rules of polyphony] and extremely limited harmonic possibilities. But more essentially, avoiding dissonance altogether would utterly destroy the independence of the voices by making their next steps dependent upon the movement of the other, and as counterpoint necessarily connotes the independence of at least two voices, that procedure would contradict the defining characteristic of counterpoint.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I think you mean "consonance". not consonants . Excuse me for being so "vocal" for pointing this out !


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Novelette said:


> Agreed! Zarlino pointed out that consonants, especially the imperfect consonants of thirds and sixths, must not be overused, lest the ears be drowned in too much mellifluous sound.
> 
> Dissonances are essential components of music. They propel the forward momentum of the melodic and harmonic flow of the music. Roman School composers treated dissonances in a very particular and formulaic way, but not only did they not avoid them, but they forthrightly declared by their music that they are absolutely necessary.


Dissonance is necessary for contrast, and thus for form. There has to be a motion of some kind, whether, as traditionally, from less to more to less dissonance or from less to more, as seen in some 20th century music. Either way, not varying either the kind or the density of dissonance tends to make something sound monotonous.



> Besides, counterpoint would be impossible without dissonances. The reason being that navigating the voice leading by consonants alone would result in prescribed intervals [I refer mostly to the rules of polyphony] and extremely limited harmonic possibilities. But more essentially, avoiding dissonance altogether would utterly destroy the independence of the voices by making their next steps dependent upon the movement of the other, and as counterpoint necessarily connotes the independence of at least two voices, that procedure would contradict the defining characteristic of counterpoint.


A dissonant voice sticks out more in a texture than a consonant one. And here we should remember that dissonance is not merely a function of the notes sounding at a given time, but also of their relation to the notes around them and the tonal "background" of the piece. It's the reason why something entirely consonant, like the repeated G-B diad (a major third!) of Schoenberg's Op. 18 No. 2 ends up sounding dissonant by the end.



superhorn said:


> I think you mean "consonance". not consonants . Excuse me for being so "vocal" for pointing this out !


Well, if you really want to be pedantic about it, the plural is consonances.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

As a person who works in science, I can tell you that the scientific method only provides thorough answers to thoroughly posed questions. Experimental science is not the crude study of empirical data, instead, it is an interaction between the empirical data and the study of these data in light of the hypothesis formulated previously by judicious scientists.
As pointed out by Mahlerian, in this case, the hypotheses are so naive and ambiguous that this simple fact is sufficient as to invalidate that study from the beginning. That's simply _bad science_.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

superhorn said:


> I think you mean "consonance". not consonants . Excuse me for being so "vocal" for pointing this out !


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consonant

#2

Language evolves, but I've become accustomed to using the language of the copies of the musical treatises that I have. An old copy of Zarlino's treatise refers to certain intervals as "consonants" and others as "dissonants". Although an American, I'm also just breaking the habit of saying "crotchet" rather than "quarter note".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Quotes from the article:
_"The more ambitious implication of the findings, according to lead author Neil McLachlan, is that it "overturns centuries of *theories* that physical properties of the ear determine what we find appealing."_

The position that physical properties of the ear determine what we find appealing is based on physics, so it's misleading to say that it's a "theory" because of all the "circumstantial physical evidence." Simpler intervals vibrate more simply. 1:1 is unison, 2:1 is octave. These facts are so basic that it's a "given."

_"...But it's still jarring to think that much of what we find to be appealing -- or what strikes us as sublime -- in music is based in our brains being trained to hear it that way."_

That's misleading. I reject the entire article.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I read the brief Atlantic article, which barely describes much of the work, and then I read the actual paper (McLachlan, N., Marco, D., Light, M., & Wilson, S. (2013, January 7). Consonance and Pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0030830). I have access to that journal because I work at a university, but most people here will not be able to read it.

The simple description in the Atlantic leaves much detail out and might be misleading at times. The study is about the cognitive perception of tones played concurrently and less directly about music in general. They say, "Experiment 1 in this article is concerned with developing and testing a neurocognitive model of sensory dissonance experienced for music chords in the absence of a musical context." There are many theories about what we perceive as dissonant chords (not music), and the paper describes research that tests those theories. Dissonance is described as, "an experience that may be related to perceived roughness, harshness, unpleasantness, or difficulty in listening to the sound."

A major hypothesis is that dissonant chords are _perceived_ as dissonant due to beating of different frequencies. Here dissonance is related to presence of beats with overtones adding additional sources of beating. Experiments showed that participants did not find chords made of pure tones less dissonant than chords made from tones with the full harmonic complement of frequencies. The additional beating did _not_ increase perceived dissonance. Also apparently monkeys fail to discriminate between dissonant and consonant chords. Furthermore, there exists some research looking at cognitive center activity that suggests that dissonance is not primarily a function of auditory center response. So the authors doubt that perceived dissonance is primarily due to the physics of the auditory centers.

They tested dissonance as a function of chord recognition. People with more musical experience were better able to match tone frequencies within chords they heard (chord recognition). People generally rated chords they "recognized" as less dissonant than those they did not. So people with more musical experience generally rated chords as less dissonant. The interesting result came from "unusual" chords that even people with more musical experience did not "recognize". Those chords were rated just as dissonant by people with more musical experience as by people with little or no musical experience.

Finally the researchers "trained" some of the less experiences people to better "recognize" chords. Those people rated chords as less dissonant as they became more familiar with them. Overall, the researchers felt that people could "learn" to become more familiar with chords and decrease the sense of dissonance. They believe that "learning" involves matching pitch information from the auditory center with expectations from other brain processes.

One overall conclusion was, "these data are consistent with the theory that dissonance is a negative affect related to a mismatch between pitch information arriving at the auditory cortex from recognition mechanisms and periodicity processing in the brainstem and mid brain. This mismatch would lead to disruption of perceptual and cognitive processing of pitch and increased stimulus ambiguity causing negative affect."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

As per science, any science, the scientists, and music.

The scientists, clearly, need to get out a lot more often.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The dummies have it backwards, of course: it is the (relative) dissonance in anything which keeps the listener listening, the tension, and its expected release, being the 'suspense' element.

Even 'Hot tub and Scented Candle' flavored ambient / new-age music has a bit of dissonance, without which almost no one would find it interesting.

I hope no one paid for this "Study"


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The dummies have it backwards, of course: it is the (relative) dissonance in anything which keeps the listener listening, the tension, and its expected release, being the 'suspense' element.
> 
> Even 'Hot tub and Scented Candle' flavored ambient / new-age music has a bit of dissonance, without which almost no one would find it interesting.
> 
> I hope no one paid for this "Study"


Did you read the paper? There is no discussion in the paper on whether dissonance is good or bad or on whether dissonance is interesting or not interesting. The authors don't discuss anything related to what keeps people listening to music. The authors are specifically interested in cognitive perceptions of dissonant and consonant chords.

The headline to the Atlantic article reads: "Hearing Music as Beautiful Is a Learned Trait." The word "beautiful" (or "beauty", etc.) never appears in the paper. I suspect that few people here at TC would actually be interested in the paper since it really isn't about music. It's about sounds that are generated in music and how people process them.

The authors gave no formal thanks to any funding agency so it's probably safe to assume that no outside group paid for the study.



PetrB said:


> The scientists, clearly, need to get out a lot more often.


If they got "out a lot more often", what do you think they would learn that would have any relevance to their paper?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Thanks for the review, mmsbls. I too have access, I should have read it. . Certainly it has more sense as a scientific investigation in light of this. Basically they have found that the perceived "dissonance", according to their definition, is heavily relative to the familiarity the subjects may have with the chords in question. Well, makes sense in my experience. But I think that preconceptions and prejudices can also influence the perception. There are a lot of chords, for example chromatic cluster chords, that were initially used in avant garde classical music but later they become ubiquitous in the soundtracks of horror movies, etc. If you play that music to average people, they will say "oh, that's awful and terrorific, turn it off". You can't say that these chords are un-familiar for these people, since they were exposed to them in repeated occasions. Indeed, the fact that they are making the association with negative emotions (because of the horror movies) is evidence that they are actually recognizing the chords. This is just a basic phenomenon in psychology.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> There are a lot of chords, for example chromatic cluster chords, that were initially used in avant garde classical music but later they become ubiquitous in the soundtracks of horror movies, etc. If you play that music to average people, they will say "oh, that's awful and terrorific, turn it off". You can't say that these chords are un-familiar for these people, since they were exposed to them in repeated occasions. Indeed, the fact that they are making the association with negative emotions (because of the horror movies) is evidence that they are actually recognizing the chords. This is just a basic phenomenon in psychology.


I wouldn't say I fully understand the details of the paper, but I think the concept of chord recognition is more than being somewhat familiar with the chord. The authors explicitly tested whether subjects could hear a chord and then match a tone to one of the chord's notes. So if a C major tonic triad is played and the experimenters ask for the middle note, can the subjects select a tone close to E? If the subjects can select the proper tones, they are said to recognize the chord. If they were played a chromatic cluster chord, they might say they've heard chords like that, but could they actually select the proper tones in the chord. I suspect the vast majority could not.

I think the issue then is that the subject hears the chromatic cluster chord and their auditory centers pass the various tones and harmonics along to higher cognitive centers. Those cognitive centers do not "expect" or recognize the chord in the sense that the tones do not match what the cognitive centers have "stored" as understood chords (sets of tones) . That mismatch of perceptual and cognitive processes causes the sense of dissonance or dislike of the sounds. Just because we hear such chords many times does not mean we are truly "familiar" with them.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> Dissonance is described as, "an experience that may be related to perceived roughness, harshness, unpleasantness, or difficulty in listening to the sound."
> 
> A major hypothesis is that dissonant chords are _perceived_ as dissonant due to beating of different frequencies. Here dissonance is related to presence of beats with overtones adding additional sources of beating. Experiments showed that participants did not find chords made of pure tones less dissonant than chords made from tones with the full harmonic complement of frequencies. The additional beating did _not_ increase perceived dissonance.


LaMont Young knows as much about dissonance and pure intervals as anyone. He did lots of experiments and art works using sine wave generators. When 2 sine tones are closely tuned, a spatial effect occurs, where the sound appears to move from one side of the head to another. This is called "phasing," and is the principle that stereo is based on. The faster the "beating," the more out-of-phase the sound is. These are basic physical and electrical engineering "givens."

The article seems to say that "beating is irrelevant," yet this is what piano tuners use. I suppose a monkey would not be able to tell an out-of-tune piano, but humans can.

Also, people in our culture are much more visually oriented. There are still arguments in this forum as to whether higher bit-rate files sound better. They can see that Blu-Ray stuff on a TV, but can't hear it. If anything, this study points to this fact.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> The article seems to say that "beating is irrelevant," yet this is what piano tuners use. I suppose a monkey would not be able to tell an out-of-tune piano, but humans can.


The paper discusses beating as an important physical feature that can be clearly heard. Specifically, the authors found that chords comprised of tones with a harmonic complement of overtones did not rate higher in dissonance than "identical" chords comprised of pure tones. The harmonic chords definitely generated more beating which the subjects presumably could hear. The authors then concluded that theories which explained dissonance primarily on the magnitude of beating were unlikely to be true.

I believe a monkey's ear is similar to a human's so the monkey can detect beating in their auditory cortex. Unlike humans, the monkey's cognitive centers have no idea what the beating means; therefore, they would not recognize that the beating indicated that the piano was out of tune.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't say I fully understand the details of the paper, but I think the concept of chord recognition is more than being somewhat familiar with the chord. The authors explicitly tested whether subjects could hear a chord and then match a tone to one of the chord's notes. So if a C major tonic triad is played and the experimenters ask for the middle note, can the subjects select a tone close to E? If the subjects can select the proper tones, they are said to recognize the chord. If they were played a chromatic cluster chord, they might say they've heard chords like that, but could they actually select the proper tones in the chord. I suspect the vast majority could not.
> 
> I think the issue then is that the subject hears the chromatic cluster chord and their auditory centers pass the various tones and harmonics along to higher cognitive centers. Those cognitive centers do not "expect" or recognize the chord in the sense that the tones do not match what the cognitive centers have "stored" as understood chords (sets of tones) . That mismatch of perceptual and cognitive processes causes the sense of dissonance or dislike of the sounds. Just because we hear such chords many times does not mean we are truly "familiar" with them.


Makes some sense, but I don't think you can rule out the phenomenon of association that easily. Take for example the first notes of Bach's famous "Toccata and Fugue in D minor". It's not a chord, but I think the situation is similar. Confronted with this music, average people will react in the sense I described before ("oh, that's awful and terrorific, turn it off", etc.). But this is not a dense chromatic cluster chord, it's just a very basic musical phrase composed of two notes!. Even a child will guess the notes by ear if you give him a keyboard. Indeed, it's the association, by hearing the timbre of the organ, what causes the reaction.
Also, for example, there are a lot chords, for example extended chords, maybe with a couple of extra notes, which are heavily used by Debussy and Ravel, and that I find beautiful and "harmonious", but I don't think I could easily identify the notes which compose those chords.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Makes some sense, but I don't think you can rule out the phenomenon of association that easily. Take for example the first notes of Bach's famous "Toccata and Fugue in D minor". It's not a chord, but I think the situation is similar. Confronted with this music, average people will react in the sense I described before ("oh, that's awful and terrorific, turn it off", etc.). But this is not a dense chromatic cluster chord, it's just a very basic musical phrase composed of two notes!. Even a child will guess the notes by ear if you give him a keyboard. Indeed, it's the association, by hearing the timbre of the organ, what causes the reaction.
> Also, for example, there are a lot chords, for example extended chords, maybe with a couple of extra notes, which are heavily used by Debussy and Ravel, and that I find beautiful and "harmonious", but I don't think I could easily identify the notes which compose those chords.


I clearly don't fully understand dissonance or how music can sound less dissonant with extended listening. Based on the paper, I think it's clear that cognitive researchers would say they do not fully understand it as well.

I do know that after listening to a very wide variety of music over a period of 5 years or so works by many composers (Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen, and others) have "miraculously" been transformed from neutral or unpleasant to pleasant sounding. I only wish that I knew a more efficient technique to quicken the process and extend it to more music. Perhaps millionrainbows is correct, and I'm just wishing for physical ability that is simply beyond my reach.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I clearly don't fully understand dissonance or how music can sound less dissonant with extended listening. Based on the paper, I think it's clear that cognitive researchers would say they do not fully understand it as well.
> 
> I do know that after listening to a very wide variety of music over a period of 5 years or so works by many composers (Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, Ravel, Messiaen, and others) have "miraculously" been transformed from neutral or unpleasant to pleasant sounding. I only wish that I knew a more efficient technique to quicken the process and extend it to more music. Perhaps millionrainbows is correct, and I'm just wishing for physical ability that is simply beyond my reach.


It's simply being able to recognize how something works, at the very least on a moment-to-moment level, that makes it sound "pleasant". You have to be able to recognize how one musical event leads to another or comes out of the preceding (we actually tend to understand music retroactively, finding something coherent _because_ of its following resolution). It baffles me that anyone can hear Schoenberg as "random notes", because to my ears it's anything but, but if you don't hear the coherence behind it, no amount of verbal explanation can help.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I wouldn't say I fully understand the details of the paper, but I think the concept of chord recognition is more than being somewhat familiar with the chord. The authors explicitly tested whether subjects could hear a chord and then match a tone to one of the chord's notes. So if a C major tonic triad is played and the experimenters ask for the middle note, can the subjects select a tone close to E? If the subjects can select the proper tones, they are said to recognize the chord. If they were played a chromatic cluster chord, they might say they've heard chords like that, but could they actually select the proper tones in the chord. I suspect the vast majority could not.
> 
> I think the issue then is that the subject hears the chromatic cluster chord and their auditory centers pass the various tones and harmonics along to higher cognitive centers. Those cognitive centers do not "expect" or recognize the chord in the sense that the tones do not match what the cognitive centers have "stored" as understood chords (sets of tones) . That mismatch of perceptual and cognitive processes causes the sense of dissonance or dislike of the sounds. Just because we hear such chords many times does not mean we are truly "familiar" with them.


Yes, as I said, it makes some sense. But I have a great respect for the scientific method, and I think it's my duty as a physicist to tell people when something (related to science) is not totally clear. I think these psychologists are being too ambitious. As I said, the scientific method only provides thorough answers to thoroughly posed questions. Given all the ambiguities I have mentioned, I don't think this subject is, yet, susceptible of this kind of scientific inquiry. The relation between neurology, psychology and other sciences is still new, there's a lot to learn, we know very little. I think we are not in position today as to investigate such a subtle thing like it is our perception of chords. We don't even know the cause of depression, a psychic _pathology_!. So we are light years away of seriously investigating such volatile and elusive thing as perception of chords and their relation with pleasure. Maybe I'm being too conservative, time will say.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Yes, as I said, it makes some sense. But I have a great respect for the scientific method, and I think it's my duty as a physicist to tell people when something (related to science) is not totally clear. I think these psychologists are being too ambitious. As I said, the scientific method only provides thorough answers to thoroughly posed questions. Given all the ambiguities I have mentioned, I don't think this subject is, yet, susceptible of this kind of scientific inquiry. The relation between neurology, psychology and other sciences is still new, there's a lot to learn, we know very little. I think we are not in position today as to investigate such a subtle thing like it is our perception of chords. We don't even know the cause of depression, a psychic _pathology_!. So we are light years away of seriously investigating such volatile and elusive thing as perception of chords and their relation with pleasure. Maybe I'm being too conservative, time will say.


I would tentatively agree. We know so very little about cognitive processing in the brain that it seems extremely difficult to make definitive progress for awhile. Having said that, I am quite ignorant of experimental cognitive psychology. Scientists tend to be rather ingenious and find ways to test things that seem remarkable to those not in the field. Maybe they have good reasons to be more optimistic than we are.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

_I will admit that I did not read the entirety of the two pages of replies so far. However, I would like to reply to the general idea of Dissonance providing pleasure in the musical experience. These ideas may have already been covered so please excuse me if they have. From a quick scan, however, it seems some good points were made, especially that dissonance is a large reason tonal music works. That is the key observation I caught in my glance-through._

I will talk about something a little different perhaps. I want to address the idea of finding intense attraction (because of the emotions brought about in the listener by the music) to music which has a significant portion of its dissonances left completely unresolved. There are plenty of examples, from the Baroque to the Contemporary. The person I think of the most in *MY* experience is Bartok's works from 1920-1928 (in his maturity but before his "east-west synthesis"). Things like the "Piano Sonata" and the second movement (heck the whole thing really) of his "Piano Concerto No. I" are chock full of extreme dissonance which is not resolved in a tonal manner (which makes sense as he worked in a system of interval manipulation (at its simplest) - it was not a direct extension of Post-Romanticism nor a direct analogue to 12-tone method).

I read a _GREAT_ dissertation by* Michael Brandon Konoval* (I don't know who he is but I have great respect for him after reading the paper) which outlined a set theory and interval cycle analysis to the Piano Sonata. After reading this, it really struck me why Bartok's music sounds so harsh and "crazy" to people who don't know about the subject matter discussed in the article (_which would have included myself_). I didn't understand all of it, but it certainly opened my eyes in a positive manner.

Besides the point (other than that I recommend reading this paper!), I have always, since the day I heard Bartok's music (it was first his Piano Concerto No. 1), had a visceral, hard-to-describe, intense emotional response to these dissonances left unresolved through tonal means. Emotions cannot be described but_ this emotion is somewhere between fear, awe, and some sort of psychedelia_ (not related to LSD, but in the fact that the music sounds incredible foreign and taps into mental states usually not experienced in daily life). I feel like I enter another type of existence upon hearing these discords. And it is the same with other composers who have works which involve high numbers of unresolved dissonances (Scriabin, Berg, etc.).

In part, this emotional response, because it is simply *SO strong*, is the reason I keep coming back for more in repeated listening to these pieces. It isn't "atonality" that I like, as can be seen by the numerous bland, half dissonant, half ambiguous 12-tone compositions out there. It is these sharp, angular interval clashes.

Psychologically, I can't hypothesize why I like this (as do many people I am sure). Perhaps it has to do with the alien nature of the emotions felt. It is like a drug in a way - experiencing something not of the normal every-day state of consciousness by elicitation from an external stimulus.

I can't draw conclusions, unfortunately, but I just wanted to put my experience out there to see if it makes sense to others who like these unresolved dissonances.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2013)

"Unresolved dissonance" is a phrase that only makes sense if the context is one in which one can expect resolution.

In musics that do not use resolution, there can logically be no unresolved dissonance. None.

Otherwise, the only thing I have to say about this study is that if it's chords we're talking about, I tend to prefer the ones with smaller intervals. If it's wave forms we're talking about, I tend to prefer sawtooth waves. Though, like everyone else, I enjoy changes from one state to another as well. If any of the researchers into music and "the" brain ever got ahold of someone like myself, they'd be in for a big surprise. Which is itself rather surprising. It should really surprise no one that different people like different things. No way I could name all the different notes in a Lachenmann chord or all the different wave forms in a Karkowski noise. But there's not question that I enjoy both of those things thoroughly.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> ....The authors are specifically interested in cognitive perceptions of dissonant and consonant chords.
> If they got "out a lot more often", what do you think they would learn that would have any relevance to their paper?


I think they brought 'out' 'in' and this sort of study reminds me of the U.S. government fiasco / study: when meat rocketed in price, an interest in soy beans as an alternate protein became strong. The study? "How to cook soy beans to make them edible." Unlike the people who ran the consonance / dissonance study, the government did spend a fair chunk of change. When the stunning results were released -- soak them for a while and boil'em -- thousands of housewives wrote in, "Why didn't you look in a cookbook, or just ask me?"

In this case the Consonance study did 'just ask' many mes -- my reaction, though, is did it need to be asked at all, because it seems the answer / result is a Blinding Flash of the Obvious (B.F.O.)... and when blinding flashes of the obvious must be revealed by a study, those who run that study, I believe, needed instead to 'get out more.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I think they brought 'out' 'in' and this sort of study reminds me of the U.S. government fiasco / study:


I wonder if anybody remembers Senator Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" awards? He used to present these from time to time for studies that seemed a a questionable use of taxpayers' money...from Wiki:

"The first was awarded in 1975 to the National Science Foundation, for funding an $84,000 study on why people fall in love. Other Golden Fleece awards over the years were "awarded" to the Justice Department for conducting a study on why prisoners wanted to get out of jail, the National Institute of Mental Health to study a Peruvian brothel ("The researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy," reported the New York Times), and the Federal Aviation Administration, for studying "the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardesses, paying special attention to the 'length of the buttocks.' "


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I wonder if anybody remembers Senator Proxmire's "Golden Fleece" awards? He used to present these from time to time for studies that seemed a a questionable use of taxpayers' money...


*You bet your sweet bippy* I do... along with the weekly aired television show, _Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in_, which had two regular 'features.' which I loved:

*The fickle finger of fate award* (a statuette of a pointing finger) *awarded for the most dubious achievements*, was their version of Proxmire's "Golden Fleece," and / or something similar to _The Raspberry Awards_ for the film industry 

The other regular 'article' I loved on _Laugh-in _was their...

"Surreality in everyday life."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the whole premise of "perceived dissonance" is flawed, since dissonance in its most essential form is a relation between two notes (an interval). These intervals can be "scaled" from most consonant towards most dissonant. These intervals are expressed as ratios. It's a no-brainer that 1:1 (unison) is the simplest, most consonant. 2:1 is the octave, 3:2 is a perfect fifth, 3:4 is the fourth, 4:5 is the major third, and so on.


----------



## Guest (Mar 1, 2013)

I've never understood your position on this matter, mill. Of course intervals can be expressed as ratios and ratios can be scaled, but so what?

There's an anecdote that's told in _Tristram Shandy,_ I think, about a Persian monarch with 365 wives. A measurable amount. And coinciding with the number of days in a year. It's grotesquely sexist, but it makes the point. To be "fair" to all his wives, the monarch spends one day per year with each. But a day with one of the old, ugly wives seems like it takes forever, while a day with one of the young, beautiful wives seems like it's over in a flash. This seems like a no-brainer, too, to me.

I live about three miles from the Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall in Portland. That three miles doesn't change. It's always the same measurement. (In fact, the distance is pretty much the same no matter which route one takes.) But my perception of that distance changes dramatically according to whether I'm walking, riding my bike, driving a car, or riding in the bus. And other factors (also measurable, I'm sure) affect my perceptions--weather, whether I have to pee halfway there or not, whether I'm carrying my camera or not, whether I meet my son on the way walking home from his work. Each time I ride in with my colleague, it's exactly the same route. But if we have something interesting to talk about, the trip seems much shorter than when we don't. The three miles part is probably the least important factor.

So too with the ratios. And since all these measurable intervals are most usually experienced within a musical piece, and since each piece does different things with these intervals, puts them in different contexts with each other, it's no wonder that one's perceptions of them will differ from piece to piece. Will differ from one audition of a piece to another, from one measure to the next. You listen to music. Surely you already know this. A fourth in Sibelius' sixth symphony will be quite remarkably different than a fourth in Mozart's 37th. And a fourth in bar 132 will be quite different from one in bar 278. Because the contexts are different.

And the perceptions will of course differ from one auditor to the next, depending on that person's familiarity with various intervals and with that person's experiences with other pieces that use those intervals. And taste. Some people prefer smaller intervals, some larger. So the pleasure will differ, not according to the size of the interval but according to the tastes of the auditors.

Not sure why all this is stuff you want to discount.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the whole premise of "perceived dissonance" is flawed, since dissonance in its most essential form is a relation between two notes (an interval).


I tend to agree with "some guy". Perceived dissonance exists. I'm an empiricist. If an experimenter can define dissonance, ask a large number of subjects to rank their perceived dissonance for various chords, and acquire a coherent set of data, then there really is such a thing as perceived dissonance.

The data in the paper strongly supports the view that perceived dissonance is _not just_ a relation between two notes.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> In this case the Consonance study did 'just ask' many mes -- my reaction, though, is did it need to be asked at all, because it seems the answer / result is a Blinding Flash of the Obvious (B.F.O.)... and when blinding flashes of the obvious must be revealed by a study, those who run that study, I believe, needed instead to 'get out more.'


Did you actually read the McLachlan paper? When you say, "did it need to be asked at all", what is the "it" you're referring to? They performed 5 distinct experiments each with distinct "questions".

I struggled when reading through the various results sections trying to follow the details. The idea that those results were obvious is hard for me to imagine. For example, did you honestly believe that there would be so little variation in the mean dissonance ratings between chords with the full harmonics compared with pure tones (Figure 4)? If so, why would that be obvious (not just true, but obviously true)? Apparently the dominant model of Helmholtz predicts the opposite effect.

The paper is _not_ really about music - it concerns the cognitive processing of sounds. The authors are trying to gather data that might help people understand a bit better the workings of the most complex thing in the known universe - the brain. We know exceedingly little about the coupling of auditory center outputs and cognitive center activity, but scientists are always curious about the real world so they ask lots of interesting questions.

The bottom line is that the Atlantic article about the paper gave most people here a rather distorted view of the intent and content of the paper.


----------



## etkearne (Sep 28, 2012)

Yes. Exactly. That is why I am _especially_ attracted to those works which teeter on the edge of tonality but use quite a bit of dissonance. Works that are _not concerned_ with the dominant-tonic relationship (even in an implied and somewhat abstract form), while often containing much dissonance through their use of closely packed sets that would not be found in tonal music (like {0,1,2} or {0,1,4} which can't be derived from Diatonic Scale modes), don't impact me with the same *type* of emotion as the pieces I alluded to briefly in my post.

However, I thoroughly enjoy quite a bit of music that doesn't deal with dominant harmony. I just enjoy it for _different_ reasons, especially with regards to the often beautiful contrapuntal nature of such works (not as if the two are actually related, it just seems that quite a few non-tonal composers _seem to have a knack_ for using fascinating counterpoint). It doesn't hit me in that guttural "fear, awe, and euphoria" emotion that I attempted to describe.

One specific example that I forgot to mention in its own right is Berg's pre-atonal Piano Sonata Opus I. The work uses dominant-tonic relationships, but the cadences are not always Perfect and the pre-dominant "line up" usually involves extremely distant chromatic relationships such as quartal harmony and the Wedge/Omnibus. _Why_ is this important to me? Because in those "distant" relationships, extreme dissonance in regards to the implied tonal center is often established.

Again, this emotion I describe is hard to pin down. However, I would imagine most people also feel this way upon hearing such works, so I am not going to attempt to go on-and-on about something subjective.

But, yes, dissonance when used with regards to a tonal center, even if just implied, can be very pleasurable!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

etkearne said:


> However, I thoroughly enjoy quite a bit of music that doesn't deal with dominant harmony. I just enjoy it for _different_ reasons, especially with regards to the often beautiful contrapuntal nature of such works (not as if the two are actually related, it just seems that quite a few non-tonal composers _seem to have a knack_ for using fascinating counterpoint). It doesn't hit me in that guttural "fear, awe, and euphoria" emotion that I attempted to describe.


Actually there is a distinct relationship between the two. Dissonant notes stick out, so if most or all of the notes are dissonant to each other, one will be able to emphasize the motion of individual lines very easily.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2013)

OK. I waited for 24 hours.

Nothing.

No one noticed a reference in my previous (and otherwise serious) post to a piece that doesn't exist.*

Just checking.

Not to be a total jerk or anything about this, but it's been a concern of mine ever since I started participating in online forums that no one seems able to read. This is the first time I've ever tested it like this. And perhaps it's just that no one's paying any attention to this thread. That could be.

But really. How is it possible to carry on a written conversation if most of the participants cannot (or at least do not) read? Of course it is not possible. Hence....

I already knew that none of the mods could read. Even the intelligent one. That was clear from my last infraction, in which a remark of mine was so outlandishly misread I still can't quite believe that it happened.

Wow. 

And now this. 

Well, I know I'll be happy when I go back to lurk mode, or less. And I'm sure you will be also.:tiphat:

*This may be putting it too strongly. There's something that exists. It's just that it's not what it used to be thought of as being.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

some guy said:


> OK. I waited for 24 hours.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> ...


Sorry, Ive been drinking too much Soya sauce to notice.........


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

"some guy", I think your assumption may not be true. I can't say how many noticed the reference to Mozart's 37, but I did. Others clearly may have as well. I wasn't sure why you chose that piece, but I assumed your point was more important than the actual designation of the work. Like myself, I assume others did not choose to contest your statement because it would have seemed a bit picky and off-point.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

So what's the big deal about Mozart's 37th? It's my favorite of his last three symphonies! :tiphat:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> So what's the big deal about Mozart's 37th? It's my favorite of his last three symphonies! :tiphat:


Are the 2nd and 3rd your favorites among the earlier works?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Are the 2nd and 3rd your favorites among the earlier works?


Well, I kind of like the one that goes "da-da-da dum!!!" I think that's a little later though...

Anyway, everybody knows that #2 and #3 are spurious, simple orchestrations by the infant Mozart of piano sonatas by Bruckner.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2013)

Setting up a situation where you know the outcome and then being pissed off by the outcome (even if the outcome is largely in your own head) is a zero sum game.

I apologize.

But there was a seriously intellligent response and a couple of seriously hilarious responses to my crapulence, so it wasn't all bad.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, I kind of like the one that goes "da-da-da dum!!!" I think that's a little later though...
> 
> Anyway, everybody knows that #2 and #3 are spurious, simple orchestrations by the infant Mozart of piano sonatas by Bruckner.


You know that Bruckner actually _did_ write a piano sonata movement, right?

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Piano-Works-Anton/dp/B000001RXW/ref=pd_sim_sbs_m_1


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> The study is perhaps interesting, but we don't listen to music for chords, as still points. We hear music in time, so we listen for resolutions. If we hear an unfamiliar chord, it strikes us as particularly dissonant (regardless of the acoustics involved) because we don't know how it could or would resolve.
> 
> To state that people prefer consonance over dissonance as a matter of principle is so obviously wrong as to merit derision. If that were true, everyone would prefer drones, the only perfect consonance.


I don't follow. If our ear/brain is (presumably sub/unconsciously) seeking out a resolution, then this is because our ear/brain prefers consonance over dissonance. Yes?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I don't follow. If our ear/brain is (presumably sub/unconsciously) seeking out a resolution, then this is because our ear/brain prefers consonance over dissonance. Yes?


I think there may be two issues here. The first is that the brain may seek our resolution because it _expects_ to find resolution. That's slightly different than preferring resolution. The second issue is that a particular brain may in fact prefer resolution, but the question then is whether that preference was learned. If learned, perhaps others could have a preference for things that don't resolve or no preference at all.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think there may be two issues here. The first is that the brain may seek our resolution because it _expects_ to find resolution. That's slightly different than preferring resolution. The second issue is that a particular brain may in fact prefer resolution, but the question then is whether that preference was learned. If learned, perhaps others could have a preference for things that don't resolve or no preference at all.


You can also look at it as the brain finding pleasure in the resolution itself rather than the consonance itself. Thus, the dissonance and the consonance are both necessary for the resolution (which the brain enjoys) to occur.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Ultimate consonance is 1:1, or unison. There is ultimate unity there, but no variety. Any other relation begins to "deviate" from the unity of 1, such as 2:1 (octave), 2:3 (fifth), and so on, into endless variety.

The human mind seeks unity, as well as variety. This is the cosmic dance of Maya, as La Monte Young might say.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I think there may be two issues here. The first is that the brain may seek our resolution because it _expects_ to find resolution. That's slightly different than preferring resolution.


Seeking or expecting resolution must occur over time, in relation to other events. It is therefore cerebral and involves cognition, to whatever degree is necessary. This process is not as instantaneous, relatively speaking, as the "instantaneous" visceral recognition of intervals or pitch is.

See my blog "Harmonic Function."

The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. *This is where all "linear function" originated, *and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena.

So, resolution has no real essential relevance to the issue of consonance/dissonance, as these are qualities which are recognized almost instantaneously by a good ear, just as we "instantly" recognize the colors red or green.



mmsbls said:


> The second issue is that a particular brain may in fact prefer resolution, but the question then is whether that preference was learned. If learned, perhaps others could have a preference for things that don't resolve or no preference at all.


The question of "preference" is after the fact, and becomes irrelevant, besides being inessential to the perception of sounds. As I said in other threads, the ability to "hear with acuity" is what separates good musicians from average listeners. This ability to hear may well lie in the realm of the brain and genetic givens, but is the only real primary concern. "Preferences" are purely subjective.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I don't follow. If our ear/brain is (presumably sub/unconsciously) seeking out a resolution, then this is because our ear/brain prefers consonance over dissonance. Yes?


The resolution doesn't have to be to a consonance. It just has to feel like it's going somewhere.

A 5-note quartal chord (C-F-Bf-Ef-Af) is considered extremely dissonant by a good number of people. It has an amorphous quality, and can be used as a dominant of several different chords. But if you resolve it to a common chord, even a dissonant one, it is retroactively understood as leading to that specific chord.


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> perhaps others could have a preference for things that don't resolve or no preference at all.


True word.

And there's that thing that keeps getting swept under the carpet. Here, let me pull that out again. Wait a second. Oh, that's a fur ball. (Stupid cat.) Hey, is that... ...that's a quarter! (Cool.)

OK, OK. Here it is. There is music that is designed to move away from and back to consonance. There is music that is not. If you listen to music that is not but you're still expecting resolution, then you're outta luck, bucko!

Let the music tell you how it wants to be listened to is the best way. You will then have a better chance of achieving pleasure with whatever you're listening to. I mean, if pleasure is your goal. I think it's overrated, myself, but who am I? (No, really, who _am_ I?) I think of pleasure myself as a necessary side-effect. You know, like making an emotional response to a piece of music. I'm a human. Humans are emotional. I make emotional responses to music. To all pieces of music. It ain't no thing. It just happens because of the kind of creature I am. Nothing to do with the music at all. Anything can trigger emotions. Why, finding that quarter was a trigger. As was that fur ball....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> OK, OK. Here it is. There is music that is designed to move away from and back to consonance. There is music that is not. If you listen to music that is not but you're still expecting resolution, then you're outta luck, bucko!
> 
> Let the music tell you how it wants to be listened to is the best way. You know, like making an emotional response to a piece of music....Humans are emotional. I make emotional responses to music. To all pieces of music. It ain't no thing. It just happens because of the kind of creature I am. Nothing to do with the music at all...


True, so true & succinct.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

When I wake up to a warm sunny day after a good night's sleep and therefore my listening capacities are at the peak of its power, I get a craving for polyphony and dense orchestral sounds, Bach and Wagner mostly, and my conductor preferences shifts to those that are leaner and swifter in tempo. I hunger for music I haven't heard before. 

Atonal music is much more tolerable, the rich sororities are much more present. I still don't know if I'm hearing what I'm supposed to be hearing, apropos of millions comment on whether people who say they like serialist music know what they're suppose to notice. More dissonant and non-repetitive music (Berg's VC and Missa Solemnis ATM) generally sound better.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

I agree that music is more about the motion from dissonance to consonance and back rather than either dissonance or consonance as isolated points.
I feel that this musical "motion" is perpetuated not by a preference or desire for either consonance or dissonance, but by the desires for those desires. In other words, we "like" consonance because we like the feeling of desiring it more than we like consonance itself. Other times we "like" dissonance because it amplifies our desire for consonance. We can enjoy some music even if the dissonance is not resolved "properly", because what we desire is not the resolution/consonance, but the desire itself.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> To state that people prefer consonance over dissonance as a matter of principle is so obviously wrong as to merit derision. If that were true, everyone would prefer drones, the only perfect consonance.


Rereading the article, I see nowhere where preference, or anything resembling it, actually appears. The conclusion of the research (as presented) is that appreciation of music can be learned (recognise pitches within chords and the chords will seem less dissonant, irrespective of whether, technically, they are).

The problem is that one study does not a comprehensive understanding of human appreciation of music make!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> ...Atonal music is much more tolerable, the rich sororities are much more present. I still don't know if I'm hearing what I'm supposed to be hearing, apropos of millions comment on whether people who say they like serialist music know what they're suppose to notice.


Gosh, that's a possibility I hadn't considered: whether or not the people who _*like *_atonal music are really hearing it!

I already took care of the critics, by banishing them to The Land of Tin Ears.

Still, I think that chances are, if you like it, you're hearing something in it that the critics don't hear. And if you listen to it like other music, and derive pleasure from it, then that is a good sign you are not "over-thinking" this thing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I tend to agree with "some guy". Perceived dissonance exists. I'm an empiricist. If an experimenter can define dissonance, ask a large number of subjects to rank their perceived dissonance for various chords, and acquire a coherent set of data, then there really is such a thing as perceived dissonance.
> 
> The data in the paper strongly supports the view that perceived dissonance is _not just_ a relation between two notes.


I disagree, as this undermines the very definition of dissonance. Consonance/dissonance is always a relation between 2 things, expressed as a ratio. Some of you here are being sucked-in to the false premise that "dissonance" (without its counterpart consonance?) is a "quantitative" thing.

WIK:

Although there are physical and neurological facts important to understanding the idea of dissonance, the precise definition of dissonance is culturally conditioned - definitions of and conventions of usage related to dissonance vary greatly among different musical styles, traditions, and cultures. *Nevertheless, the basic ideas of dissonance, consonance, and resolution exist in some form in all musical traditions that have a concept of melody, harmony, or tonality. Dissonance being the complement of consonance it may be defined, as above, as non-coincidence of partials, lack of fusion or pattern matching, or as complexity.*


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree, as this undermines the very definition of dissonance. Consonance/dissonance is always a relation between 2 things, expressed as a ratio. Some of you here are being sucked-in to the false premise that "dissonance" (without its counterpart consonance?) is a "quantitative" thing.


I'm not sure we disagree. Dissonance is relative. One can rank dissonance only relative to more or less dissonant chords or intervals. The experimenters asked for people to rank the relative dissonance, and people had little trouble giving those relative rankings. Obviously each ranking is subjective and can vary with time. In fact, the experiment explicitly demonstrated that the rankings can vary with practice.

The quantitative result is simply an answer to, "How dissonant is this chord/interval relative to chords/intervals that are not dissonant?"


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

Such fascination with pitch.

Oh, it's fun. But there are other fun things about music, too.

But anyway. Pitch. So you can play pitches by themselves. You can arrange them in nice patterns. You can play them simultaneously. Sometimes the simultaneous pitches are close together. Sometimes they are far apart.

Now as to how different people respond, well, that seems to be quite another matter. And different people respond differently to all sorts of things. That's how you can get a bunch of people into a room where Justin Bieber is performing and another group into a room where a Wagner opera is going on. That's how you get some people whistling Britten tunes and some people calling Britten's music cacophony.

All the quantities of each are always the same. So it can't be the quantities that are causing the differences. In any case, in no experiment of any kind anywhere has there ever been an experimenter asking "people" to do anything. It's not people, it's those particular people at that particular time. (And to mention that "rankings can vary with practice" is to perform something that looks and smells and sounds very much like a bait and switch. Well? Is it "people" or is it "these particular people at this particular time"? Or does one really and truly get to just flip back and forth between them?)


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree, as this undermines the very definition of dissonance. Consonance/dissonance is always a relation between 2 things, expressed as a ratio. Some of you here are being sucked-in to the false premise that "dissonance" (without its counterpart consonance?) is a "quantitative" thing.
> 
> WIK:
> 
> Although there are physical and neurological facts important to understanding the idea of dissonance, the precise definition of dissonance is culturally conditioned - definitions of and conventions of usage related to dissonance vary greatly among different musical styles, traditions, and cultures. *Nevertheless, the basic ideas of dissonance, consonance, and resolution exist in some form in all musical traditions that have a concept of melody, harmony, or tonality. Dissonance being the complement of consonance it may be defined, as above, as non-coincidence of partials, lack of fusion or pattern matching, or as complexity.*


So, you quote Wiki to support your 'very definition of dissonance' when Wiki makes clear that there is no 'very definition' and certainly that it's not all and only about ratios. But then, we all know about the shortcomings of Wiki. I'm sure it's just muddled twaddle when it says...



> Additional confusion about the idea of dissonance is created by the fact that musicians and writers sometimes use the word dissonance and related terms in a precise and carefully defined way, more often in an informal way, and very often in a metaphorical sense ("rhythmic dissonance").


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> So, you quote Wiki to support your 'very definition of dissonance' when Wiki makes clear that there is no 'very definition' and certainly that it's not all and only about ratios. But then, we all know about the shortcomings of Wiki. I'm sure it's just muddled twaddle when it says...


It does say


> Although there are physical and neurological facts important to understanding the idea of dissonance...


 and that's what I wish to point out; consonance/dissonance is firstly a ratio, representing a physical fact of vibration, which varies by degree (by its very nature not definite).
It sounds like you are torn between using WIK to invalidate my point, while at the same time using it to bolster this argument of yours. Make up your mind. I love Wik, never had a problem with it, never attacked it instead of making a good counter-argument as you have done here (yawn)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Such fascination with pitch...Oh, it's fun. But there are other fun things about music, too....But anyway. Pitch. So you can play pitches by themselves. You can arrange them in nice patterns. You can play them simultaneously. Sometimes the simultaneous pitches are close together. Sometimes they are far apart...Now as to how different people respond, well, that seems to be quite another matter. And different people respond differently to all sorts of things.


Consonance/dissonance is a physical fact, because we all have eardrums which register these vibration ratios. A 9:8 interval is going to sound more dissonant than a simple octave (2:1) or unison (1:1). That's a universal given.

If the "response" you speak of is a value judgement of good/bad, I agree with you on that. Otherwise, we should recognize that consonance/dissonance is a physical fact before we try to proceed to any conclusion. Frankly, I'm not convinced that everyone here is capable of that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> It sounds like you are torn between using WIK to invalidate my point, while at the same time using it to bolster this argument of yours. Make up your mind. I love Wik, never had a problem with it, never attacked it instead of making a good counter-argument as you have done here (yawn)


Torn? Not at all. Anyone who _relies _on Wiki runs the risk that they are recycling poor research and biased views. That doesn't mean it's valueless of course, but since anyone can contribute, it can lack coherence and accuracy, whatever its usefulness as a starting point. What is helpful is that it can provide an instant resource to support online discussions - as I've previously indicated, if I had to go away and read a book to be able to make a comment, I'd not be here at all.

It's clearly a troubling thing for you that there are some members here who are so amateur that they can't make substantive arguments, but can only nibble at the hems of the arguments of others greater than they...but then, it takes all sorts to make a forum.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Torn? Not at all. Anyone who _relies _on Wiki runs the risk that they are recycling poor research and biased views. That doesn't mean it's valueless of course, but since anyone can contribute, it can lack coherence and accuracy, whatever its usefulness as a starting point. What is helpful is that it can provide an instant resource to support online discussions - as I've previously indicated, if I had to go away and read a book to be able to make a comment, I'd not be here at all. blah blah blah...
> 
> It's clearly a troubling thing for you that there are some members here who are so amateur that they can't make substantive arguments, but can only nibble at the hems of the arguments of others greater than they...but then, blah, blah, blah...


And you seem to take pleasure in nibbling at my heels. Talk music, stop nibbling.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Consonance/dissonance is a physical fact, because we all have eardrums which register these vibration ratios. A 9:8 interval is going to sound more dissonant than a simple octave (2:1) or unison (1:1). That's a universal given.
> 
> If the "response" you speak of is a value judgement of good/bad, I agree with you on that. Otherwise, we should recognize that consonance/dissonance is a physical fact before we try to proceed to any conclusion. Frankly, I'm not convinced that everyone here is capable of that.


Intervals can be expressed as ratios, yes. And the interval identified by 2:1 is going to sound different from the interval identified by 9:8.

And perhaps if you gather together a number of people with similar backgrounds and tastes, you will get a universal-looking agreement that one of those sounds pretty and the other one doesn't.

Beyond that, however....

Consonance and dissonance are not facts. They are words that attempt to capture a reality about responses. Reponses to the physical facts. The terms that attempt to describe how people respond to physical facts are not the facts themselves.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> And you seem to take pleasure in nibbling at my heels. Talk music, stop nibbling.


I've stopped nibbling. Doubtless, I'll get an infraction for taking a big bite out of your ankle in the other thread.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

An isolated chord is a dead or yet not planted seed. 

Without some harmony, shift from before, or after it, it is, eh, "Nothing" or "Just a chord," i.e. you could not slap a roman numeral to it, though you could name its inversion 

"Scientific method," Yeah, right.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

Or it's LaMonte Young's _Dream House._

(Which, if you've ever been there, is neither dead nor unplanted. Just sayin'!)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Intervals can be expressed as ratios, yes. And the interval identified by 2:1 is going to sound different from the interval identified by 9:8.


Not only are intervals _expressed_ as ratios, they _are_ these ratios. If you could see your eardrum, you could actually _see_ the ripples in a 1:2 relationship as they cancel or reinforce each other. The degree to which your eardrum surface is disturbed _corresponds exactly_ to the degree of consonance or dissonance. This happens _before_ the brain processes it.



some guy said:


> And perhaps if you gather together a number of people with similar backgrounds and tastes, you will get a universal-looking agreement that one of those sounds pretty and the other one doesn't.


That doesn't interest me in the least, because background, taste, and agreement are irrelevant. Either a vibration relationship is more consonant, or less consonant than another, period.



some guy said:


> Beyond that, however....Consonance and dissonance are not facts.


Yes, they are comparative facts. If I slap your butt twice a second, you will feel this as an actual sensation, different than if it were three times every fifteen seconds. Whether or not you enjoy it is irrelevant. One is a higher frequency.



some guy said:


> They are words that attempt to capture a reality about responses. Reponses to the physical facts. The terms that attempt to describe how people respond to physical facts are not the facts themselves.


The terms describe a reality, not about responses, but about physical phenomena of vibration in the real world. Ratios describe a real-world relationship of two frequencies.

"Consonance and dissonance" are simply descriptors, which describe whether a ratio is closer (more consonant) or further from (more dissonant) from "unity" or "1" (1:1), as all fractions do. Example: 256:345 is _more_ _dissonant_ than 5:8.

5:8 is _more consonant_ than 256:345.

Everybody here, pro or con, is using these terms "consonance and dissonance" as if they were absolute qualities. They are not; they are describing differences in relationships, not absolute quantities.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I've stopped nibbling. Doubtless, I'll get an infraction for taking a big bite out of your ankle in the other thread.


I don't do reports unless it's really overt. In your & Mahlerian's case, the ad hominems are not bad enough yet to warrant a report.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> If you could see your eardrum, you could actually _see_ the ripples in a 1:2 relationship as they cancel or reinforce each other. The degree to which your eardrum surface is disturbed _corresponds exactly_ to the degree of consonance or dissonance.


The degree to which your eardrum is disturbed corresponds to the vibrations. Degree of consonance or dissonance is a matter of your brain processing. This processing is instantaneous, but it's still processing. (There is no hearing without a brain. No brain, no hearing.)



millionrainbows said:


> The terms describe a reality, not about responses, but about physical phenomena of vibration in the real world. Ratios describe a real-world relationship of two frequencies.


Ratios describe the physical relationship between two frequencies. Everything else is that "background, taste, and agreement" stuff that you say you're not interested in.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> Degree of consonance or dissonance is a matter of your brain processing. This processing is instantaneous, but it's still processing.


I disagree, and that's precisely the opposite point I'm making.

Dissonance occurs when two opposing frequencies are out-of-synch with each other, and create opposing forces. When beats or waves coincide, they reinforce each other. This is called "resonance" and is best seen when that suspension bridge fell down.



some guy said:


> Ratios describe the physical relationship between two frequencies. Everything else is that "background, taste, and agreement" stuff that you say you're not interested in.


Not according to the above example. It's an actual physical phenomenon which bridge-building engineers must deal with.
*
Resonance:* • Physics: the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object.

• Mechanics: the condition in which an object or system is subjected to an oscillating force having a frequency close to its own natural frequency.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

Well, I think we should lay this particular disagreement to rest. But you may disagree!

I'll only note that you've suddenly substituted resonance for consonance--and it's resonance that makes bridges fall down. Dissonance is perfectly safe!! Plus, the physical make up of a bridge is not quite the same thing as the whole reality of a human ear. The materials of a bridge are not hooked up to a brain like the human ear often is. (Not always, as online music discussions often make clear! You and I have both noticed that, eh?)

Anyway, our whole disagreement seems to center on what we want to include in the discussion. And I think we're both clear about where we disagree. Also, we have, I think, successfully shown the world of forums how it's possible for people to disagree without getting personal. Kudos to us for that! Million and I can actually converse! Incroyable.

So good job, eh?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, I think we should lay this particular disagreement to rest. But you may disagree!
> 
> I'll only note that you've suddenly substituted resonance for consonance--and it's resonance that makes bridges fall down. Dissonance is perfectly safe!!


but you were saying that and "Consonance and dissonance are not facts.", while this is a perfect demonstration of the fact that they are.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> but you were saying that and "Consonance and dissonance are not facts.", while this is a perfect demonstration of the fact that they are.


Consonance and dissonance are acoustic realities in the way Millionrainbows is describing them. But this is not the way the terms are used in common parlance. People say that this or that piece is more or less consonant or dissonant, presumably because of the way it _feels_ to them, and it feels different to different people. If all that mattered were the ratios of vibration, then people would react more or less the same way to the same thing.

The fact is that people respond to consonance and dissonance through time rather than at a particular moment. If a particularly nasty dissonance is resolved quickly and clearly, then it automatically seems less dissonant in the listener's mind than a less sharp dissonance that remains unresolved.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Consonance and dissonance are acoustic realities in the way Millionrainbows is describing them. But this is not the way the terms are used in common parlance. People say that this or that piece is more or less consonant or dissonant, presumably because of the way it _feels_ to them, and it feels different to different people. If all that mattered were the ratios of vibration, then people would react more or less the same way to the same thing.


no, it's not like that. We all perceive consonance and dissonance the same way, as we perceive the same way colors (there's is daltonism, but that's is not a normal condition). The different opinions of a piece are a matter of taste and experience, not of different perception.



Mahlerian said:


> The fact is that people respond to consonance and dissonance through time rather than at a particular moment. If a particularly nasty dissonance is resolved quickly and clearly, then it automatically seems less dissonant in the listener's mind than a less sharp dissonance that remains unresolved.


true, but this doesn't mean that different people hear the same progression in different ways.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> no, it's not like that. We all perceive consonance and dissonance the same way, as we perceive the same way colors (there's is daltonism, but that's is not a normal condition). The different opinions of a piece are a matter of taste and experience, not of different perception.


The information coming in is identical, but the way the brain processes it is completely different, based on, as you said, taste and experience. It might just as well be different information, the differences are so wide.

How else could something that strikes one person as nothing but noise and cacophony strike another as the most beautiful kind of euphony?



norman bates said:


> true, but this doesn't mean that different people hear the same progression in different ways.


They do, though. If one, for example, fails to perceive some of the voices in a four-voice chorale, then the music will quite literally sound different to that person than to one who perceives the motions of all of the voices.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

These discussions often come down to arguing definitions. Some will say, "Most people use the word _this _way, but it actually means _that_." In fact, the way "most people" use a word *is *what it means. The revision of dictionaries is largely a process of catching up with this reality. The old definition ultimately appears, if at all, in italics as "archaic."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian, are you basically saying that there are persons who find a minor second a consonant interval while they consider a perfect fifth terribly dissonant to their ears?


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

KenOC said:


> These discussions often come down to arguing definitions. Some will say, "Most people use the word _this _way, but it actually means _that_."


It's true that these kinds of discussion often come down to arguing definitions. But you can't have been following this one very carefully if that's what you think this discussion has "come down to."

In any case, words is what we use to communicate. So getting some agreement about how words are being used is quite naturally and logically a legitimate goal, n'est pas?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> So getting some agreement about how words are being used is quite naturally and logically a legitimate goal, n'est pas?


A nice thought, though experience seems to say that such agreement is vanishingly rare.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> Mahlerian, are you basically saying that there are persons who find a minor second a consonant interval while they consider a perfect fifth terribly dissonant to their ears?


No. Once again you are speaking without context. We don't hear music except in context.

For that exact comparison, though, there are plenty of minor seconds in Bach, and plenty of perfect fifths in Schoenberg (as a matter of fact, Bartok used minor seconds far more often and more prominently than Schoenberg usually did). The context makes more of a difference than anything else.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> No. Once again you are speaking without context. We don't hear music except in context.
> 
> For that exact comparison, though, there are plenty of minor seconds in Bach, and plenty of perfect fifths in Schoenberg (as a matter of fact, Bartok used minor seconds far more often and more prominently than Schoenberg usually did). The context makes more of a difference than anything else.


I agree that context is important and that dissonance can be resolved or not, but an interval is already a context, because you have two notes. So if your idea (that different persons describe the same harmonic passage in different terms because they perceive it in different ways ) is valid for complex harmony it should be valid also for a simple interval, I think.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

I'm reminded of a cool little passage about the word "existence" in an essay about language and meaning by Dorothy Sayers.

If a biologist, using it as a technical term in biology, says "God does not exist," the biologist is correct.

If, however, a theologian, using it as a technical term in theology, says "Only God exists," the theologian is correct. (In theology, it's us humans who don't exist.)

And neither of the two technical terms, needless to say, is quite what we mean when we use the word conversationally.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I agree that context is important and that dissonance can be resolved or not, but an interval is already a context, because you have two notes. So if your idea (that different persons describe the same harmonic passage in different terms because they perceive it in different ways ) is valid for complex harmony it should be valid also for a simple interval, I think.


Which it is, but that doesn't mean a perfect fifth, devoid of context, will ever sound dissonant, or that a minor second, devoid of context, will sound consonant.

In context, though, a perfect fifth or major triad can sound dissonant, and a minor second consonant.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Which it is, but that doesn't mean a perfect fifth, devoid of context, will ever sound dissonant, or that a minor second, devoid of context, will sound consonant.
> 
> In context, though, a perfect fifth or major triad can sound dissonant, and a minor second consonant.


It seems that we are not understanding each other... my bad, my english is what it is. What I'm trying to say is that if everybody perceive a minor second always as a dissonant interval and a perfect fifth as a consonant one, I can't understand why more complex harmonic contexts should be perceived differently by different persons. I mean, a dissonant chord in the right harmonic progression could not seem particularly dissonant, that's right: but this is valid for everybody I suppose, exactly as for the simple intervals (that are a musical context, if you have a note and then another you are relating the second to the first one, so it's just simpler than a complex harmonic progression but we're talking of similar things). If not, it would be interesting to know what is the degree of complexity where two listeners start to perceive the same things in different ways.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

norman bates said:


> It seems that we are not understanding each other... my bad, my english is what it is. What I'm trying to say is that if everybody perceive a minor second always as a dissonant interval and a perfect fifth as a consonant one, I can't understand why more complex harmonic contexts should be perceived differently by different persons. I mean, a dissonant chord in the right harmonic progression could not seem particularly dissonant, that's right: but this is valid for everybody I suppose, exactly as for the simple intervals (that are a musical context, if you have a note and then another you are relating the second to the first one, so it's just simpler than a complex harmonic progression but we're talking of similar things). If not, it would be interesting to know what is the degree of complexity where two listeners start to perceive the same things in different ways.


It can be as simple as an interval. There was once a time in the history of Western music when a third, as an imperfect consonance, was not seen as "resolved". Different experiences have acclimated us to the sounds of the major and minor triads. Later, seventh chords and diminished chords, then augmented chords, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths. Popular music uses lots of melodic "blue notes" which can be approximated by sticking a flatted third over a major chord, and without the kinds of controlled resolutions that were required by common practice tonality.

And of course, we haven't even touched on other cultures' musical traditions, which often use different relations that don't exist on the Western scale. Take Gamelan for example, some varieties of which use detuned octaves and unisons that are used specifically for the ringing sound the clashing causes.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> It can be as simple as an interval. There was once a time in the history of Western music when a third, as an imperfect consonance, was not seen as "resolved".


it doesn't seems a good example, even because a third in equal temperament is not the same interval that was used before Bach.



Mahlerian said:


> Different *experiences *have acclimated us to the sounds of the major and minor triads. Later, seventh chords and diminished chords, then augmented chords, ninths, elevenths, and thirteenths. Popular music uses lots of melodic "blue notes" which can be approximated by sticking a flatted third over a major chord, and without the kinds of controlled resolutions that were required by common practice tonality.
> 
> And of course, we haven't even touched on other cultures' musical traditions, which often use different relations that don't exist on the Western scale. Take Gamelan for example, some varieties of which use detuned octaves and unisons that are used specifically for the ringing sound the clashing causes.


"experience" it's the key word, and it's what I was trying to say: I think it's not different perception, it's just different experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Which it is, but that doesn't mean a perfect fifth, devoid of context, will ever sound dissonant, or that a minor second, devoid of context, will sound consonant.
> 
> In context, though, a perfect fifth or major triad can sound dissonant, and a minor second consonant.


No interval is literally "consonant" by itself. Everybody needs to remember that consonance and dissonance are terms which are always (or should be) comparative. A 9:8 interval is *comparatively* more dissonant than a 3:2, but not _*by its very nature *_"dissonant."

Of course, it's hard to escape the fact that 1:1* is the ultimate consonance.* And we hear 2:1 as the same pitch, an octave higher. "In the beginning was "1"..."

A fifth, 3:2, is more dissonant than a 1:1, but I don't think anyone would describe a fifth as "sounding dissonant" by itself, _*by its very nature .*_

This is actually a problem, using "dissonance" as a stand-alone descriptor. I think this misuse is where all the confusion is coming from. Putting isolated intervals in "context" is just trying to justify this misuse, the proverbial "horse-in-a-suitcase" justification, unless some discretion is used.

*Minor seconds actually cause "beating" to occur,* so this is a justified case of *dissonance in itself.* Consonant intervals sound "smooth" with no beating. Octaves and unisons are smooth, so they are _*by their very nature *_consonances.

Nobody should need a more precise definition than that. Piano tuners certainly don't.


----------

