# What did Brahms mean by "true dissonance"?



## Schoenberg

We all have heard this following quote:
"What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven." --Brahms

However, what is meant by that? What is true dissonance?


----------



## millionrainbows

I shudder to think.


----------



## flamencosketches

There was a HUGE debate about this in a recent thread. And we're about to see it play out all over again


----------



## drmdjones

I'm staying on the sidelines for this one


----------



## tdc

It may relate to the point recently touched on in another thread regarding Mozart's use of more 'surface' chromaticism, perhaps Beethoven (like Haydn) tended to use chromaticism in a more structural way.

But this explanation is limited because 'chromaticism' is a vague term, it doesn't communicate what specific note(s) was used and to what effect, also diatonic notes can be used to create dissonance. The _Grosse Fugue_ and _Hammerklavier_ sonata, have a lot of dissonance and chromaticism, but in my opinion lack the 'color' and expressivity we often find in Mozart's use of vertical harmony.


----------



## Schoenberg

flamencosketches said:


> There was a HUGE debate about this in a recent thread. And we're about to see it play out all over again


Do you have a link for that thread?


----------



## KenOC

Starts with post #33 in *this thread*.


----------



## EdwardBast

Schoenberg said:


> We all have heard this following quote:
> "What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven." --Brahms
> 
> However, what is meant by that? What is true dissonance?


Haven't a clue. Ken, ever helpful , cited a thread in which I kept asking that question of someone who thought it was an important point but couldn't explain what it meant either. Any ideas? Your guess is as good as anyone's.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> Haven't a clue. Ken, ever helpful , cited a thread in which I kept asking that question of someone who thought it was an important point but couldn't explain what it meant either. Any ideas? Your guess is as good as anyone's.


I have an idea what it means but can't really justify my point of view. Beethoven, like Haydn, was pretty much a straight-ahead guy. He used dissonance for effect, quite purposeful, and always in a way that overtly looked for resolution (as in the development of the first movement of the Eroica). But his everyday mode of expression was foursquare.

Mozart was more subtle; his dissonance is part and parcel of his harmonic thought. It can appear as striking harmonies in even the expositions of his sonata form movements, or in the elaborations of his slow movements, as in the Andante of his 40th Symphony. These piercing moments seem to come about naturally, unavoidably, in a way that Beethoven could never match. I suspect that Beethoven was quite aware of this; thus his deep admiration for Mozart's music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Dissonance is something we hear more than it is an idea. So why not listen?

"What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, *and especially compared to Sebastian Bach,* is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven." --Brahms

I tend to agree with this, especially after listening to Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue.







For a Mozart equivalent, listen to his Fantasy in D minor, big dissonance at 3:58.


----------



## Bwv 1080

And this continued with Chopin (Mozart) vs Schumann (Beethoven) ?

The florid chromaticism of Mozart has its roots in Italian opera, which also heavily influenced Chopin


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> I have an idea what it means but can't really justify my point of view. Beethoven, like Haydn, was pretty much a straight-ahead guy. He used dissonance for effect, quite purposeful, and always in a way that overtly looked for resolution (as in the development of the first movement of the Eroica). But his everyday mode of expression was foursquare.
> 
> Mozart was more subtle; his dissonance is part and parcel of his harmonic thought. It can appear as striking harmonies in even the expositions of his sonata form movements, or in the elaborations of his slow movements, as in the Andante of his 40th Symphony. These piercing moments seem to come about naturally, unavoidably, in a way that Beethoven could never match. I suspect that Beethoven was quite aware of this; thus his deep admiration for Mozart's music.


I'd imagine Brahms had something more specific in mind, but I have no more basis for my opinion than you do. I doubt it had anything to do with "striking harmonies."


----------



## tdc

Clearly people perceive the use of dissonance in different ways, this is why to some Haydn seems often dark and expressive, and to others he seems generally jolly and rather tame. I came across this quote by Charles Rosen today:

"The Classical style immeasurably increased the power of dissonance, raising it from an unresolved interval to an unresolved chord and then to an unresolved key."

This quote seems to my ears completely wrong. What I hear in the Classical style is rather a dispersion of dissonance, which generally weakens its effects on a local level. I hear much more powerful use of dissonance in Bach, (and also in the Romantic era) the only Classical composer that approaches this kind of expressive dissonance on occasion is Mozart, but at present I lack the technical jargon to explain why.

One example Rosen cites is this Haydn piece, _String Quartet Op. 33 no. 1_ which features recurring clashing minor seconds (A, A#). After listening to it, I noticed the dissonances, but they would not have stuck out to me very much had Rosen not pointed it out. On reflection it seems partially hidden behind the phrasing of the melodic material. The over all feel of the Classical style tends to the comical much more than the Baroque and this is perhaps why. Even with the dissonances the music does not seem to be expressing anything really serious or truly heart wrenching (to me).


----------



## Guest

Funny, I don't really hear dissonance in any of these composers (Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn) - except one ugly instance (to my ears) in Mozart's 41st. I'm not saying it's not there, just that I am so used to it that it is unremarkable.

I have nothing to offer on Brahms quote, sorry.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Funny, I don't really hear dissonance in any of these composers (Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn) - except one ugly instance (to my ears) in Mozart's 41st. I'm not saying it's not there, just that I am so used to it that it is unremarkable.


You mean you don't hear the accented dissonance at 2:17-2:20 in the above-posted Mozart Fantasia? It resolves, of course.

I thought CP Western music was in part based on dissonances and their resolutions.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You mean you don't hear the accented dissonance at 2:17-2:20 in the above-posted Mozart Fantasia? It resolves, of course.
> 
> I thought CP Western music was in part based on dissonances and their resolutions.


Well, no, I don't. I suppose the one at 3:58 is more noticeable, but perhaps my point is that whilst dissonance might be something technically there, hearing it as such is another matter.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Well, no, I don't. I suppose the one at 3:58 is more noticeable, but perhaps my point is that whilst dissonance might be something technically there, hearing it as such is another matter.


Hmm...I consider dissonance to be a matter of hearing, not as an idea or "technical." But if you can't hear it, you can't hear it.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Hmm...I consider dissonance to be a matter of hearing, not as an idea or "technical." But if you can't hear it, you can't hear it.


I said I don't hear it. Not I can't hear it.

As for "technically" I think there has been a thread before exploring whether something can be dissonant if you can't hear it.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I said I don't hear it. Not I can't hear it.


I thought of that difference right before I posted, but decided to leave it, so the implication would remain.



> As for "technically" I think there has been a thread before exploring whether something can be dissonant *if you can't hear it.*


"If you _don't _hear it" would be better than "if you can't hear it," right?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> "If you _don't _hear it" would be better than "if you can't hear it," right?


Touché !


----------



## millionrainbows

_(leans over to pick up ear off floor)_ 
Well, if your ears can hear it, you should not let your mind dissuade them.


----------



## Guest

Is this dissonance... or just ugly? 4th movement at 27:20ish onwards


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Is this dissonance... or just ugly? 4th movement at 27:20ish onwards


No, that's not what I consider dissonance. It's not ugly to me; it's just rhythmic delay of a moving voice. He's "playing" with the counterpoint.
I guess to some, any creativity which goes outside strict norms is ugly. I feel lucky.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Well, no, I don't. I suppose the one at 3:58 is more noticeable, *but perhaps my point is that whilst dissonance might be something technically there, hearing it as such is another matter*.


I think I understand now what you mean: a dissonance can be viewed as a "technical" aspect or as a subjective reaction (a sort of an "ouch" to one's ears).
If you navigate to the thread "*Is there a name for this Medieval/Renaissance cadence?*" / Post #4, you can see/hear that, in technical terms, the *syncopated suspensions* that EdwardBast kindly transcribed for us are, in the grammar of that period, considered to be *dissonances* that require resolving.
Clearly, to our ears today, there is nothing remotely "dissonant" (ugly?) in that cadential passage, in the sense that there is no "ouch" factor.


----------



## Guest

I would also like to say that I don't really understand what Brahms was driving at.


----------



## tdc

Whatever Brahms was referring to, the answer can be found in the score Of _Idomeneo_, as that is a work he referenced as an example of Mozart's use of dissonance.


----------



## haydnguy

Brahms was probably referring to the dissonance that he put in his own music.


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> I think I understand now what you mean: a dissonance can be viewed as a "technical" aspect or as a subjective reaction (a sort of an "ouch" to one's ears).
> If you navigate to the thread "*Is there a name for this Medieval/Renaissance cadence?*" / Post #4, you can see/hear that, in technical terms, the *syncopated suspensions* that EdwardBast kindly transcribed for us are, in the grammar of that period, considered to be *dissonances* that require resolving.
> Clearly, to our ears today, there is nothing remotely "dissonant" (ugly?) in that cadential passage, in the sense that there is no "ouch" factor.


I think that the intent of this OP, and Brahms' usage of the term, is referring to actual sounds we perceive as being dissonant, not CP stylistic dissonances.

WIK: _The perfect fourth is a perfect interval like the unison, octave, and perfect fifth, and it is a sensory consonance.

In common practice harmony, however, it is considered a stylistic dissonance in certain contexts, namely in two-voice textures and whenever it appears above the bass. If the bass note also happens to be the chord's root, the interval's upper note almost always temporarily displaces the third of any chord, and, in the terminology used in popular music, is then called a suspended fourth.
_
Dissonance is dissonance, and that doesn't change. Dissonance in sound is presented as waves of sound, in certain ratios. The more the waves coincide, the more consonant.

P4 = 4:3; this is actually more consonant, as a sound, than M3 = 5:4.

One of the reasons the fourth must be treated as a dissonance is because in the key of C, an F above C in the bass is a perfect fourth, which by overtone/hearing reasons we hear as "root on top," which makes "F" threaten to take over from the key of C.

So, the reason that in common practice harmony C-F is considered a stylistic dissonance in certain contexts, is because the "F" reveals that the C major scale (if a scale is supposed to reinforce the tonic key it is in) is inherently unstable (unnatural, incomplete) harmonically, and is always threatening to reinforce the key of F.

And now, let the flies descend. :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

If one listens to Mozart's _Idomeneo_ that Brahms refers to, the drama and emotional tension and sense of "true dissonance" fills the air in a very broad sense and is more than just a technical and harmonic dissonances in a few passages of the score. It's the overall emotional tension, the broad sense of dissonance that Mozart captures so brilliantly that Brahms is commenting on and is escaping the attention of those who are looking for only a series of technical harmonic dissonances. Brahms is using the word in a much larger sense that can be heard throughout this incredible opera... I agree with Brahms: I doubt if Beethoven ever wrote dissonances like this. And yet some still question whether Mozart was a genius.


----------



## Phil loves classical

On Brahms reference to "true dissonance" in Idomeneo, this book suggests the quartet as what spurred him to refer to the dissonance. It is in the footnote of this page 8. Plus he only suggested there is "much less" in Beethoven than in Mozart, not that there wasn't any.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=A_...2ahUKEwi60828ur_iAhXpm-AK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here is the quartet. Around the 0:43 mark, there is some clear dissonance.






Maybe what Brahms meant was the dissonance creeps in to Bach and Mozart's music in the counterpoint. Example in Bach.






Some consider this to be the most dissonant of Beethoven's: the opening of the last movement of his 9th. How it is not "true dissonance" is a matter of opinion (and bias).


----------



## Larkenfield

Phil loves classical said:


> On Brahms reference to "true dissonance" in Idomeneo, this book suggests the quartet as what spurred him to refer to the dissonance. It is in the footnote of this page 8. Plus he only suggested there is "much less" in Beethoven than in Mozart, not that there wasn't any.
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=A_...2ahUKEwi60828ur_iAhXpm-AK#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> Here is the quartet. Around the 0:43 mark, there is some clear dissonance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what Brahms meant was the dissonance creeps in to Bach and Mozart's music in the counterpoint. Example in Bach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some consider this to be the most dissonant of Beethoven's: the opening of the last movement of his 9th. How it is not "true dissonance" is a matter of opinion (and bias).


Interesting about the examples! But I don't hear any outstanding dissonances in either the Mozart quartet or the Bach. To me, they seem typical for each composer and I was expecting some type of a revelation. So I'm puzzled, and perhaps the question is still not answered by what Brahms meant by "true dissonance," and maybe there's no clear answer because what people consider dissonance has changed. That's certainly a heck of a discordant chord in the last movement of the B's 9th to jar the audience and get their attention for what's to come, and perhaps he deserves the grand prize after all. Thanks for posting the examples.


----------



## EdwardBast

TalkingHead said:


> I would also like to say that I don't really understand what Brahms was driving at.


I don't understand either. But Brahms was first and foremost a professional composer. If he used the term dissonance, even qualified by the word "true," I'm pretty sure he was using it as a technical term, not in some vague or metaphorical sense like this:



Larkenfield said:


> If one listens to Mozart's _Idomeneo_ that Brahms refers to, the drama and emotional tension and sense of "true dissonance" fills the air in a very broad sense and is more than just a technical and harmonic dissonances in a few passages of the score. It's the overall emotional tension, the broad sense of dissonance that Mozart captures so brilliantly that Brahms is commenting on and is escaping the attention of those who are looking for only a series of technical harmonic dissonances. Brahms is using the word in a much larger sense that can be heard throughout this incredible opera... I agree with Brahms: I doubt if Beethoven ever wrote dissonances like this. And yet some still question whether Mozart was a genius.





Phil loves classical said:


> On Brahms reference to "true dissonance" in Idomeneo, this book suggests the quartet as what spurred him to refer to the dissonance. It is in the footnote of this page 8. Plus he only suggested there is "much less" in Beethoven than in Mozart, not that there wasn't any.
> 
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=A_...2ahUKEwi60828ur_iAhXpm-AK#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> Here is the quartet. Around the 0:43 mark, there is some clear dissonance.


If Phil is right about the specific music Brahms was citing, then what he meant was chain suspensions and simultaneous dissonant appoggiaturas among several voices. If I had a score I could be more specific. Guess truth is pretty mundane.  And Beethoven did these things too. 



Larkenfield said:


> Interesting about the examples! But I don't hear any outstanding dissonances in either the Mozart quartet or the Bach. To me, they seem typical for each composer and I was expecting some type of a revelation. So I'm puzzled, and perhaps the question is still not answered by what Brahms meant by "true dissonance," and maybe there's no clear answer because what people consider dissonance has changed.


The dissonance in the quartet is pretty striking. What Brahms probably meant was that he really liked it and in that moment he didn't have any similarly striking examples from Beethoven on his mind.


----------



## Larkenfield

EdwardBast said:


> I don't understand either. But Brahms was first and foremost a professional composer. If he used the term dissonance, even qualified by the word "true," I'm pretty sure he was using it as a technical term, not in some vague or metaphorical sense like this:
> 
> If Phil is right about the specific music Brahms was citing, then what he meant was chain suspensions and simultaneous dissonant appoggiaturas among several voices. If I had a score I could be more specific. Guess truth is pretty mundane.  And Beethoven did these things too.
> 
> The dissonance in the quartet is pretty striking. What Brahms probably meant was that he really liked it and in that moment he didn't have any similarly striking examples from Beethoven on his mind.


 Well, you may be right. It's obvious that Brahms certainly liked the quartet but I still hear nothing striking or remarkable in it other than Mozart is up to his usual high standards as a composer. I must be jaded! But if Brahms is referring to something technically, there has to be an example - and I don't hear any. I would consider the use of suspensions as quite lovely but conventional. Consequently, I can only interpret Brahms' idea of dissonance along broader lines of emotional tension and discord. The key for me is to see what the words are in that quartet and whether they represent any dissonance or tension of ideas because they would have to match. Maybe someone can post the words. I was hoping for much more from Mozart and Brahms.


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Well, you may be right. It's obvious that Brahms certainly liked the quartet but I still hear nothing striking or remarkable in it other than Mozart is up to his usual high standards as a composer. I must be jaded! But if Brahms is referring to something technically, there has to be an example - and I don't hear any. *I would consider the use of suspensions as quite lovely but conventional.* Consequently, I can only interpret Brahms' idea of dissonance along broader lines of emotional tension and discord. The key for me is to see what the words are in that quartet and whether they represent any dissonance or tension of ideas because they would have to match. Maybe someone can post the words. I was hoping for much more from Mozart and Brahms.


I don't know, Lark. I think it might be worth a close look at the score. If it didn't involve scrolling through a pdf in the Petrucci Archive, I'd be all over it. There were suspensions resolving up and down interestingly interwoven. Problem is, with wobbly, booming vibrato laden warbling and the low strings sort of spreading, the lines are not well-etched. Definitely worth a look I'd expect. I trust Brahms knew whereof he spoke.


----------



## Larkenfield

EdwardBast said:


> I don't know, Lark. I think it might be worth a close look at the score. If it didn't involve scrolling through a pdf in the Petrucci Archive, I'd be all over it. There were suspensions resolving up and down interestingly interwoven. Problem is, with wobbly, booming vibrato laden warbling and the low strings sort of spreading, the lines are not well-etched. Definitely worth a look I'd expect. I trust Brahms new whereof he spoke.


I found the Idomineo libretto and it's full of discord. Just look at the first recitative and I hear the tone of that emotional dissonance in some of Mozart's music as an overriding sense of tension. I'll have to hear more of the opera and see how the discords in the text play out in sound. It's a very interesting situation. There are certainly great dramatic reasons for "true dissonance" in the score of the libretto that mention misfortunes, great unhappiness, and blood... It looks like a rocky road ahead for the main characters in this intense, highly emotionally charged opera:

http://www.impresario.ch/libretto/libmozido_e.htm

1st Recitative

ILIA
When will my bitter misfortunes
be ended? Unhappy Ilia,
wretched survivor of a dreadful tempest,
bereft of father and brothers,
the victims' blood
spilt and mingled
with the blood of their savage foes,
for what harsher fate
have the gods preserved you? ...
Are the loss and shame
of Priam and Troy avenged?
The Greek fleet is destroyed, and Idomeneo
perhaps will be a meal for hungry fish ...
But what comfort is that to me, ye heavens,
if at the first sight of that valiant Idamante
who snatched me from the waves I forgot my hatred,
and my heart was enslaved before I realised
I was a prisoner.
O God, what a conflict of warring emotions
you rouse in my breast, hate and love!
I owe vengeance to him who gave me life,
gratitude to him who restored it …
O Ilia! o father, o prince, o destiny!
Ill‑fated life, o sweet death!
But yet does Idamante love me? …
Ah no; ungratefully
he sighs for Electra; and that Electra,
unhappy princess, an exile from Argos
and the torments of Orestes,
who fled, a wanderer, to these shores, is my rival.
Ruthless butchers,
how many of you surround me?… Then up and
shatter vengeance, jealousy, hate and love;
yes, shatter my unhappy heart!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Larkenfield said:


> I found the Idomineo libretto and it's full of discord. Just look at the first recitative and I hear the tone of that emotional dissonance in some of Mozart's music as an overriding sense of tension. I'll have to hear more of the opera and see how the discords in the text play out in sound. It's a very interesting situation. There are certainly great dramatic reasons for "true dissonance" in the score of the libretto that mention misfortunes, great unhappiness, and blood... It looks like a rocky road ahead for the main characters in this intense, highly emotionally charged opera:
> 
> http://www.impresario.ch/libretto/libmozido_e.htm
> 
> 1st Recitative
> 
> ILIA
> When will my bitter misfortunes
> be ended? Unhappy Ilia,
> wretched survivor of a dreadful tempest,
> bereft of father and brothers,
> the victims' blood
> spilt and mingled
> with the blood of their savage foes,
> for what harsher fate
> have the gods preserved you? ...
> Are the loss and shame
> of Priam and Troy avenged?
> The Greek fleet is destroyed, and Idomeneo
> perhaps will be a meal for hungry fish ...
> But what comfort is that to me, ye heavens,
> if at the first sight of that valiant Idamante
> who snatched me from the waves I forgot my hatred,
> and my heart was enslaved before I realised
> I was a prisoner.
> O God, what a conflict of warring emotions
> you rouse in my breast, hate and love!
> I owe vengeance to him who gave me life,
> gratitude to him who restored it …
> O Ilia! o father, o prince, o destiny!
> Ill‑fated life, o sweet death!
> But yet does Idamante love me? …
> Ah no; ungratefully
> he sighs for Electra; and that Electra,
> unhappy princess, an exile from Argos
> and the torments of Orestes,
> who fled, a wanderer, to these shores, is my rival.
> Ruthless butchers,
> how many of you surround me?… Then up and
> shatter vengeance, jealousy, hate and love;
> yes, shatter my unhappy heart!


Maybe the music was intended to fit the lyrics, or vice versa. Either way, I felt that passage was very beautifully dissonant, and yet not chaotic. Here is another example by Bach, which is more dissonant than the other example.






I must admit I'm not that familiar with any of Beethoven's works that have this sort of extended dissonance, either with chromaticism or suspensions. His suspensions are usually quickly resolved, or else they are outright dissonant chord clashes from the little I'm aware of.


----------



## Merl

Schoenberg said:


> We all have heard this following quote:
> "What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven." --Brahms
> 
> However, what is meant by that? What is true dissonance?


Do you think he's driving at a subtler use of dissonance in larger passages? Theres lots of dissonance in the examples many have quoted but listening to Beethoven's use of dissonance and its mainly 'on your face'. Otherwise, i dunno what hes getting at.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> Maybe the music was intended to fit the lyrics, or vice versa. Either way, I felt that passage was very beautifully dissonant, and yet not chaotic. Here is another example by Bach, which is more dissonant than the other example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit *I'm not that familiar with any of Beethoven's works that have this sort of extended dissonance, either with chromaticism or suspensions.* His suspensions are usually quickly resolved, or else they are outright dissonant chord clashes from the little I'm aware of.


You could always try listening! Listen to the Largo e mesto from the Sonata Op. 10#3. There are dissonant appoggiaturas and suspensions everywhere, just as in the Mozart. They last just as long. Listen to the whole Sonata in A Op. 101. It is a compendium of every kind of dissonance possible within the style. Seriously folks, put those ears to work.



Merl said:


> Do you think he's driving at a subtler use of dissonance in larger passages? Theres lots of dissonance in the examples many have quoted but listening to Beethoven's use of dissonance and its mainly 'on your face'. Otherwise, i dunno what hes getting at.


Yes. In addition to the traditional sorts of dissonance Mozart used (see above), Beethoven also had strings of dissonant 7th chords and other kinds of dissonance Mozart didn't much use. Also bold disjunctions not seen elsewhere in the Classical style. Bolder than Brahms as well, which might help to explain Brahms's remarks.


----------



## tdc

Phil loves classical said:


> Maybe the music was intended to fit the lyrics, or vice versa. Either way, I felt that passage was very beautifully dissonant, and yet not chaotic. Here is another example by Bach, which is more dissonant than the other example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must admit I'm not that familiar with any of Beethoven's works that have this sort of extended dissonance, either with chromaticism or suspensions. His suspensions are usually quickly resolved, or else they are outright dissonant chord clashes from the little I'm aware of.


Over all Phil's observations in this thread align with what I hear, and I suspect (as he pointed out) it is related to use of counterpoint. I just listened to Beethoven's Op. 101 and the second movement of Sonata 7. I _do_ hear dissonances, and a wide variety of them but the aural effect is similar to what I described earlier in the thread in the Haydn piece I posted. In these types of works the thematic material is the foreground and the use of harmony is subordinate to that material. The music is not about creating sustained moods through use of textures or dissonance, the feel is dominated by the thematic relations. Beethoven does show an interest and competence in terms of spicing up those themes through use of dissonance, he is creative and good at this but does not show interest in creating these sustained eerie moods through harmonic textures, as I hear in Bach, Brahms and occasionally Mozart. As Phil pointed out Beethoven tends to resolve dissonance quickly. (And even when he does not resolve dissonance quickly the aural effect is that he does, because the melodic/thematic material in the foreground tends to be very consonant.)

The end of the 3rd movement of Op. 101 has a sustained and prolonged quirky dissonance, but the aural effect is one of instability, more so than something really haunting as I hear in the music of the previously mentioned composers. The movement of Piano Sonata 7 comes closer to creating a haunting mood through use of texture, (and to a certain extent does achieve this) but on close inspection I think it shows the same kind of thematic treatment and resolution that has been discussed already, just at a slower pace, and using denser harmonies, or perhaps just more of the sustain pedal on chords.

I love that Bach performance by Hewitt Phil posted by the way, thanks for that.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> Over all Phil's observations in this thread align with what I hear, and I suspect (as he pointed out) it is related to use of counterpoint. I just listened to Beethoven's Op. 101 and the second movement of Sonata 7. I _do_ hear dissonances, and a wide variety of them but the aural effect is similar to what I described earlier in the thread in the Haydn piece I posted. In these types of works the thematic material is the foreground and the use of harmony is subordinate to that material. The music is not about creating sustained moods through use of textures or dissonance, the feel is dominated by the thematic relations. Beethoven does show an interest and competence in terms of spicing up those themes through use of dissonance, he is creative and good at this but does not show interest in creating these sustained eerie moods through harmonic textures, as I hear in Bach, Brahms and occasionally Mozart. As Phil pointed out Beethoven tends to resolve dissonance quickly. (And even when he does not resolve dissonance quickly the aural effect is that he does, because the melodic/thematic material in the foreground tends to be very consonant.)
> 
> The end of the 3rd movement of Op. 101 has a sustained and prolonged quirky dissonance, but the aural effect is one of instability, more so than something really haunting as I hear in the music of the previously mentioned composers. The movement of Piano Sonata 7 comes closer to creating a haunting mood through use of texture, (and to a certain extent does achieve this) but on close inspection I think it shows the same kind of thematic treatment and resolution that has been discussed already, just at a slower pace, and using denser harmonies, or perhaps just more of the sustain pedal on chords.
> 
> I love that Bach performance by Hewitt Phil posted by the way, thanks for that.


Agree. I don't feel it is in Beethoven's harmonic plan to revel in that sort of striking dissonance, but more for dramatic tension. I listened to Op. 101 and Op 10 No. 3, and he uses a lot of intermediary chords that provide stability, even if partially, and never strays out far to my ears. Op. 101 did have some obvious dissonant chord clashes at one point, and the Op. 10 did have an extended section of dissonance in that Largo.


----------



## millionrainbows

The question was answered to my satisfaction back on page one.


----------



## hammeredklavier

.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree with many people here that there's no such thing as 'objectively' true dissonance. For example, can we say Schoenberg and Bartok were more objectively proficient at using dissonance than Beethoven?


'Objectively true dissonance' and 'objectively proficient at using dissonance' are not the same thing.

However, I agree that dissonance is a matter of what the hearer perceives.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree with many people here that there's no such thing as 'objectively' true dissonance.


Well, yes, because dissonance is not an absolute quality; it's comparative, always used with "consonance".

I can say, objectively, that 49/23 is a greater dissonance than 3/2. That's a fact, jack.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Stylistically Spohr's and Beethoven's development as composers took them in diametrically opposite directions. The op.18 quartets are the point which they were closest, but from there their paths diverged. Beethoven moved away from the chromaticism of late Mozart towards a broader harmonic style; it is significant that his only preserved comment about Spohr's music should have been 'He is too rich in dissonances; pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody.'"
Louis Spohr


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> No, that's not what I consider dissonance. It's not ugly to me; it's just rhythmic delay of a moving voice. He's "playing" with the counterpoint.
> I guess to some, any creativity which goes outside strict norms is ugly. I feel lucky.


this tricky/sticky passage is not an easy one to traverse , even for the most experienced of conductors and the orchestra,,,,The Conductor is hoping for the orchestra to make it work out successfully , the orchestra is praying the conductor has the right cues to provide foe safe passage over these *rough waters*.

Mozart usually triumphs at this section and a few other difficult to navigate passages scattered throughout his late works./

maybe Mozart was so busy, he just slouched some notes together,,,or he was exhausted and just let it be as it was scored, Who is to know what that passage is as it is.

The one record you can count on is, well no other than Bruno Walter's masterful record with the Columbia.

Somehow he and his forces have looked carefully at that critical, problematic section and found the safest route, the ideal route.

But agree with everyone's opinion, that Mozart has not intended this section as purposive dissonance. 
It can be a *ugly* section, as most records have shown.
Takes some magic to make a successful harmonic voice at that section.


----------



## Larkenfield

Dissonance is tension and instability that generally seeks some type of a resolution into a consonance because there’s a momentum behind it, but it’s not necessarily ugly though it can be, and some composers delight in not resolving them and think that’s a great advance. I don’t. I like the balance. Music is a metaphor for life. Who wants to live a life of total dissonance? There’s a parallel to life. There has to be some respite from it or it can be exhausting, stressful and destructive to one’s balance, peace of mind, and sense of well-being. But every composer has his or her preference for dissonance and consonance and it says a lot about them, not always favorable, in my opinion, because sometimes a dissonance can be viewed as a problem to be solved, and some composers are neither good at it nor interested in it. Speaking broadly, dissonance is a stimulant and consonance is a relaxant. It’s the tension between the two that makes life and music interesting and everyone requires a different mix of both. Harmonic dissonance is only one form. There can be rhythmic dissonance. There can be emotional dissonance. There can be dramatic dissonance... and Brahms evidently felt that Mozart managed it well because there’s a tension in Idomeneo, which evidently Brahms was referring to as an example of Mozart’s use of dissonance, but it’s handled so well that all the elements of consonance and dissonance seem to be in perfect balance.


----------



## paulbest

Nice post,,,,things I never tend to think about, but sure seems like the styles of music I like, strong dissonance with nice resolutions, , I prefer dissonance,,,, unless the music is established in the realm sof Beauty such as Ravel and Debussy, I guess there is a dissonance there as well. 
But more consonance I would imagine?
Yes?


----------



## tdc

paulbest said:


> Nice post,,,,things I never tend to think about, but sure seems like the styles of music I like, strong dissonance with nice resolutions, , I prefer dissonance,,,, unless the music is established in the realm sof Beauty such as Ravel and Debussy, I guess there is a dissonance there as well.
> But more consonance I would imagine?
> Yes?


Ravel and Debussy used more dissonance than any Classical era composer (I think the same can be said for essentially all Modernists). But both were good at making dissonances sound 'nice', so they may sound relatively consonant, but they used a lot of dissonance.

It is often a different kind of dissonance than what Larkenfield describes as 'tension wanting to resolve'. Sometimes it is more of a dissonance for color and has a different effect than how dissonance was used in the music of the Classical era.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Ravel and Debussy used more dissonance than any Classical era composer (I think the same can be said for essentially all Modernists). But both were good at making dissonances sound 'nice', so they may sound relatively consonant, but they used a lot of dissonance.
> 
> It is often a different kind of dissonance than what Larkenfield describes as 'tension wanting to resolve'. Sometimes it is more of a dissonance for color and has a different effect than how dissonance was used in the music of the Classical era.


These distinctions are important. Calling music "dissonant" isn't a straightforward matter. Dissonance has several meanings, and so we should always try to specify what we're talking about.

We have dissonance as an acoustical phenomenon resulting from the clash of pitches that lack overtones in common; e.g., a minor second is more dissonant than a major third. We can identify degrees of dissonance in this sense regardless of the way intervals and chords are used in music.

Then we have dissonance in terms of its musical function: an interval or chord is called dissonant to the degree that it seems to need resolution, and this need depends on its context or on the style of the music. A major seventh or ninth would always feel as if it needed to be resolved in 18th-century music, but might stand on its own in 20th-century music, with no suggestion that resolution is necessary. Although acoustically more dissonant than a simple tonic triad, a seventh chord might not be felt to be dissonant as actually heard in a jazz piece or a work of Ravel.

With those two definitions in mind, we can distinguish between "sharp" dissonance created by the clash of close intervals and the "softer" dissonance created by chromaticism, in which chords such as augmented sixths, which are not particularly dissonant acoustically, are functionally dissonant because of their need for resolution. Highly chromatic music may be almost continuously dissonant in the functional sense, yet never exhibit the sharp clashes people tend to be referring to when they call music dissonant. Someone quite comfortable with the chromatic harmonic idiom of, say, _Tristan und Isolde_, might consider Boulez's _Repons_ much more dissonant, which it is in the acoustic sense. But in the functional sense it is much less dissonant, on account of the powerful urge toward resolution which pervades Wagner's harmony but is absent in that of Boulez.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Highly chromatic music may be almost continuously dissonant in the functional sense, yet never exhibit the sharp clashes people tend to be referring to when they call music dissonant. Someone quite comfortable with the chromatic harmonic idiom of, say, _Tristan und Isolde_, might consider Boulez's _Repons_ much more dissonant, which it is in the acoustic sense. But in the functional sense it is much less dissonant, on account of the powerful urge toward resolution which pervades Wagner's harmony but is absent in that of Boulez.


This is a ridiculous assertion, very pedantic and specialized, ostentatious, pedagogical, pretentious, and ultimately misleading. "Function" in the Wagnerian sense does not even apply to Boulez.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This is a ridiculous assertion, very pedantic and specialized, ostentatious, pedagogical, pretentious, and ultimately misleading. *"Function" in the Wagnerian sense does not even apply to Boulez.*


That's exactly what I said, Pookie. "The powerful urge toward resolution which pervades Wagner's harmony but is _absent_ in that of Boulez."[Emphasis added] _Absent._ Not present. Not relevant. Inapplicable. No dissonance _in the functional sense_ - as one would expect when there is no tonal function - despite much dissonance in the _acoustical_ sense.

The distinction between the two meanings of "dissonance" is the whole point of my post, which is clearly expressed. No one who reads it with ordinary care should be misled. Whether they find it "very pedantic and specialized" is not my concern. (Of course we _all_ know that_ you_ are _never_ pedantic and specialized, much less ostentatious, pedagogical, pretentious, and ultimately misleading.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> That's exactly what I said, Pookie. "The powerful urge toward resolution which pervades Wagner's harmony but is _absent_ in that of Boulez."[Emphasis added] _Absent._ Not present. Not relevant. Inapplicable. No dissonance _in the functional sense_ - as one would expect when there is no tonal function - despite much dissonance in the _acoustical_ sense.
> 
> The distinction between the two meanings of "dissonance" is the whole point of my post, which is clearly expressed. No one who reads it with ordinary care should be misled. Whether they find it "very pedantic and specialized" is not my concern. (Of course we _all_ know that_ you_ are _never_ pedantic and specialized, much less ostentatious, pedagogical, pretentious, and ultimately misleading.)


To say "Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez" is misleading, and exposes the meaning of the term in this sense as being absurd, because it has been posited in an absurd context. A clear misuse of the term, perfect for obfuscation tactics, which are a favored form of amusement by pedants on this theory forum.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> To say "Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez" is misleading, and exposes the meaning of the term in this sense as being absurd, because it has been posited in an absurd context. A clear misuse of the term, perfect for obfuscation tactics, which are a favored form of amusement by pedants on this theory forum.


Oh for Chrissakes. Lighten up, Pookie Pie. I didn't say "Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez." You just made that up. What I said is that Wagner and Boulez are dissonant in different senses of the word. If you don't like my concept of "functional" versus "acoustical" dissonance, just ignore it.

Maybe you should go back to bed and get up on the other side.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Oh for Chrissakes. Lighten up, Pookie Pie. I didn't say "Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez." You just made that up. What I said is that Wagner and Boulez are dissonant in different senses of the word. If you don't like my concept of "functional" versus "acoustical" dissonance, just ignore it.
> 
> Maybe you should go back to bed and get up on the other side.


Okay, I concede. Do you mind if I call you "Snooky-Poo?"


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, I concede. Do you mind if I call you "Snooky-Poo?"


No, if you'll stop doing it as soon as I stop.

I've stopped.


----------



## millionrainbows

"What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven." --Brahms

Now surely, Woodduck, Brahms did not mean this in some pedantic sense. He was talking about how the music sounded. Surely.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "What is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven." --Brahms
> 
> Now surely, Woodduck, Brahms did not mean this in some pedantic sense. He was talking about how the music sounded. Surely.


Surely. ..............


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Surely. ..............


Finally, we agree. And stop calling me Shirley.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

We have clearance, Clarence.


----------



## Zhdanov

does every dissonance, true or not, convey a negative connotation to portray things alien or impure?


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> does every dissonance, true or not, convey a negative connotation to portray things alien or impure?


Why do you conflate the terms "alien" and "impure?" Are you xenophobic?


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> Why do you conflate the terms "alien" and "impure?"


i did not say 'and' - it was 'or' i said.


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> i did not say 'and' - it was 'or' i said.


Error. That was MY 'and', not yours. I used it in MY sentence.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Toxic" or "Divine" Dissonances in Brahms' Music:
https://books.google.com/books?id=jfhUIP4P_l0C&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=brahms+on+true+dissonance&source=bl&ots=IuDtj1Q-hE&sig=ACfU3U0FpscmlYFJmX4r_xuDQBInfpDJSg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio77fbncLjAhXICjQIHa3NDuIQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=brahms%20on%20true%20dissonance&f=false
Good chapter.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> "Now surely, Woodduck, Brahms did not mean this in some pedantic sense. He was talking about how the music sounded. Surely.


Not sure about this at all. I think it's more likely he was talking about something structural (which doesn't mean pedantic).


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> Not sure about this at all. I think it's more likely he was talking about something structural (which doesn't mean pedantic).


From the millionrainbows lexicon of musical criticism: "Pedantic," _adj._ 1. characteristic of, or pertaining to, a theory opposed to my own; 2. logical and precisely expressed, as opposed to off-the-wall, touchy-feely, or, sometimes, over the cuckoo's nest.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> From the millionrainbows lexicon of musical criticism: "Pedantic," _adj._ 1. characteristic of, or pertaining to, a theory opposed to my own; 2. logical and precisely expressed, as opposed to off-the-wall, touchy-feely, or, sometimes, over the cuckoo's nest.


"Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez." Woodduck must be talking on a deep, deep structural level.


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> "Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez." Woodduck must be talking on a deep, deep structural level.


He didn't say that though.

I missed the first thread discussing this subject, but I like what KenOC said - I think that's what Brahms meant. I don't know any of these composers' music thoroughly enough to say whether I agree with Brahms or not.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez." Woodduck must be talking on a deep, deep structural level.


I have already pointed out that those are _your_ words, not mine. Please refer back to posts #50 through #54.

Let's go over it once more: I did NOT say that Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez.

I'm willing to credit you with not being stupid or having Alzheimer's, so I'll assume that you know that you're engaging in intentional distortion and misattribution. In short: YOU'RE LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Woodduck said:


> I have already pointed out that those are _your_ words, not mine. Please refer back to posts #50 through #54.
> 
> Let's go over it once more: I did NOT say that Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez.


Hell, let it fly then, your original point was spot on. I don't really think of Boulez as dissonant - parts of Schnittke or Carter perhaps, but not Boulez.


----------



## Woodduck

Glad somebody knows what I was talking about. (I'll bet MR knows too.)


----------



## Guest

Zhdanov said:


> i did not say 'and' - it was 'or' i said.


Did your 'or' mean the the reader should choose one of the two words on offer as if they are synonyms, or in apposition?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I have already pointed out that those are _your_ words, not mine. Please refer back to posts #50 through #54.
> 
> Let's go over it once more: I did NOT say that Wagner is more dissonant than Boulez.
> 
> I'm willing to credit you with not being stupid or having Alzheimer's, so I'll assume that you know that you're engaging in intentional distortion and misattribution. In short: YOU'RE LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID.


Then don't make contradicting assertions about "two concepts of dissonance" in the same post, and suggest we apply them indiscriminately to either Brahms or Boulez.
Readers may be confused, and end up distorting what you were trying to say. Then again, one good distortion deserves another. If obfuscation is the only game in town, I am forced to play.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Glad somebody knows what I was talking about. (I'll bet MR knows too.)


You see, Woodduck? In the end it doesn't matter anyway; some good citizen will always find a way to contradict your point.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You see, Woodduck? In the end it doesn't matter anyway; some good citizen will always find a way to contradict your point.


What I see is that you need to comment even when what you say is meaningless and offensive, as here.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Then don't make contradicting assertions about "two concepts of dissonance" in the same post, and suggest we apply them indiscriminately to either Brahms or Boulez.
> Readers may be confused, and end up distorting what you were trying to say. Then again, one good distortion deserves another. If obfuscation is the only game in town, I am forced to play.


My distinction between different senses of the term "dissonance" is one that you either don't understand or don't care for. Well, as kids in my generation used to say: tough! My statement on this subject was carefully thought-out, it stands as written, and "readers" will make of it what they're able to. You appear to be alone in your inability to understand it, you seem unable to stop displaying your lack of understanding, and you're now devolving into pure meaningless snark.

I've made no contradictory assertions, but you have definitely made dishonest ones. I will not have words assigned to me that I did not say, and I will not put up with your continuing to do it even after I've taken you to task for it.


----------



## Larkenfield

If Boulez isn't dissonant in this particular example, it kinda robs the meaning of the word, doesn't it? Of course, he is! How hard is it to hear the sharp and dissonant clashing of the tones and intervals? He's even doing it in strident clusters within the entire orchestra at once. Evidently, some can't recognize it when he is shoving it right in one's face. It's obviously dissonant. It couldn't be more clear that it's dissonant. He's making a point that it's dissonant. But supposedly there's no dissonance in Boulez' music. Geez. He could be extremely dissonant. One's _tolerance_ for dissonance is a different matter than whether there's actual dissonance in the music. And instead of listening to the example that Brahms cites of Mozart's use of dissonance in Idomeneo and understanding its subtleties, the subject goes in the opposite direction of what Brahms was trying to point out. Why not listen to the opera Idomeneo? All of it. It's brilliant.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> *If Boulez isn't dissonant in this particular example, it kinda robs the meaning of the word, doesn't it?* Of course, he is! How hard is it to hear the sharp and dissonant clashing of the tones and intervals? He's even doing it in strident clusters within the entire orchestra at once. Evidently, some can't recognize it when he is shoving it right in one's face. It's obviously dissonant. It couldn't be more clear that it's dissonant. *He's making a point that it's dissonant.* But supposedly there's no dissonance in Boulez' music. Geez. He could be extremely dissonant. One's _tolerance_ for dissonance is a different matter then whether there's actual dissonance in the music. And instead of listening to the example that Brahms cites of Mozart's use of dissonance in Idomeneo and understanding its subtleties, the subject goes in the opposite direction of *what Brahms was trying to point out.* Why not listen to the opera Idomeneo? All of it. It's brilliant.


The "meaning of the word" is really the question, isn't it? How are you defining "dissonance"? In post #47 you said: "Dissonance is tension and instability that generally seeks some type of a resolution into a consonance because there's a momentum behind it...sometimes a dissonance can be viewed as a problem to be solved...Speaking broadly, dissonance is a stimulant and consonance is a relaxant. It's the tension between the two that makes life and music interesting and everyone requires a different mix of both."

Do you hear this music of Boulez as exhibiting a "tension and instability that seeks some type of resolution"? If so, which of its "clashing tones and clusters" suggest that resolution is even a possibility? To what would they resolve?

I hear this, like much other music of Boulez, as having nothing to do with a system of harmonic relationships embodying principles of tension and relaxation, and everything to do with sonority - with color and sensory impact. If I understand him correctly, this is what Bwv 1080 is talking about when he says, "I don't really think of Boulez as dissonant - parts of Schnittke or Carter perhaps, but not Boulez." If you're listening to this music with expectations of harmonic resolution - as if it were at some far pole from a state of consonance toward which it's forbidden to move - you're going to end up with a splitting headache.

I'd say that this music fulfills the comparison made by Brahms - that it has no true dissonance compared with Mozart - much better than, say, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, which is genuinely and powerfully dissonant.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Notations II is a reworking of an early piece and not representative of his mature style, it is more dissonant along the lines of my point about Carter or Schnittke, but would not call this particularly dissonant:


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The "meaning of the word" is really the question, isn't it? How are you defining "dissonance"? In post #47 you said: "Dissonance is tension and instability that generally seeks some type of a resolution into a consonance because there's a momentum behind it...sometimes a dissonance can be viewed as a problem to be solved...Speaking broadly, dissonance is a stimulant and consonance is a relaxant. It's the tension between the two that makes life and music interesting and everyone requires a different mix of both."
> 
> Do you hear this music of Boulez as exhibiting a "tension and instability that seeks some type of resolution"? If so, which of its "clashing tones and clusters" suggest that resolution is even a possibility? To what would they resolve?
> 
> I hear this, like much other music of Boulez, as having nothing to do with a system of harmonic relationships embodying principles of tension and relaxation, and everything to do with sonority - with color and sensory impact. If I understand him correctly, this is what Bwv 1080 is talking about when he says, "I don't really think of Boulez as dissonant - parts of Schnittke or Carter perhaps, but not Boulez." If you're listening to this music with expectations of harmonic resolution - as if it were at some far pole from a state of consonance toward which it's forbidden to move - you're going to end up with a splitting headache.
> 
> I'd say that this music fulfills the comparison made by Brahms - that it has no true dissonance compared with Mozart - much better than, say, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, which is genuinely and powerfully dissonant.


Then "dissonance" in Boulez does not have anything to do with "resolution" (the academic definition, always with a horizontal, narrative aspect), so it has to do with (vertical) sound and sonority.

The difference is that dissonance in the academic sense is a concept not based solely on sound, but on circumstances and context.

I think Brahms was talking about _actual sound & sonority _in Mozart, especially the Fantasias. Of course, there is real dissonant sound in Beethoven as well.

Woodduck, I think that your obstinate clinging to this academic definition of "dissonance" serves only to confuse things, and alienates you from the "common sense" perception of Larkenfield and the meaning of "true dissonance" (using our ears, not our ideas).




> Of course, Boulez is dissonant! How hard is it to hear the sharp and dissonant clashing of the tones and intervals? He's even doing it in strident clusters within the entire orchestra at once. Evidently, some can't recognize it when he is shoving it right in one's face. It's obviously dissonant. It couldn't be more clear that it's dissonant. He's making a point that it's dissonant.


I can't disagree with that. _True _dissonance is sound & sonority; _academic_ dissonance is a concept involving common-practice procedures.


----------



## millionrainbows

WIK: _The perfect fourth is a perfect interval like the unison, octave, and perfect fifth, and it is a sensory consonance.

In common practice harmony, however, it is considered a stylistic dissonance in certain contexts, namely in two-voice textures and whenever it appears above the bass. If the bass note also happens to be the chord's root, the interval's upper note almost always temporarily displaces the third of any chord, and, in the terminology used in popular music, is then called a suspended fourth.

_Dissonance is dissonance, and that doesn't change. Dissonance in sound is presented as waves of sound, in certain ratios. The more the waves coincide, the more consonant.

P4 = 4:3; this is actually more consonant, as a sound, than M3 = 5:4.

One of the reasons the fourth must be treated as a dissonance (in certain instances, like reinforcing the key of C) is because in the key of C, an F above C in the bass is a perfect fourth, which by overtone/hearing reasons we hear as "root on top," which makes "F" threaten to take over from the key of C.

So, the reason that in common practice harmony C-F is considered a stylistic dissonance in certain contexts, is because the "F" reveals that the C major scale (if a scale is supposed to reinforce the tonic key it is in) is inherently unstable (unnatural, incomplete) harmonically, and is always threatening to reinforce the key of F. It must therefore resolve to E, the third. Because I said so.

And now, let the flies descend. _:lol:_


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Then "dissonance" in Boulez does not have anything to do with "resolution" (the academic definition, always with a horizontal, narrative aspect), so it has to do with (vertical) sound and sonority.
> 
> The difference is that dissonance in the academic sense is a concept not based solely on sound, but on circumstances and context.
> 
> I think Brahms was talking about _actual sound & sonority _in Mozart, especially the Fantasias. Of course, there is real dissonant sound in Beethoven as well.
> 
> Woodduck, I think that your obstinate clinging to this academic definition of "dissonance" serves only to confuse things, and alienates you from the "common sense" perception of Larkenfield and the meaning of "true dissonance" (using our ears, not our ideas).
> 
> _True _dissonance is sound & sonority; _academic_ dissonance is a concept involving common-practice procedures.


It isn't either-or, and I'm not "clinging" to anything. You are rejecting out of hand the fact that there are several legitimate definitions of dissonance, and that perception is as important to a complete understanding of the subject as acoustics.

What we hear as dissonant is contextual - related to the style and construction of the music in question - and what we perceive is more fundamental to what music means to us than is some theoretical explanation of the physics of sound. Perception, in the experience of music, involves both the ears and the mind. It should be obvious that a sound which is highly dissonant in the terms of one style will not be perceived as such in terms of another. Music must be heard on its own terms. The terms on which music of the sort represented by these Boulez pieces needs to be heard are not the terms on which we hear Beethoven. That applies to the entire aesthetic of the music, and specifically to harmony; harmony in Beethoven's sense doesn't exist in the Boulez, and if we can perceive this we will no longer perceive acoustically dissonant textures in the same way.

Any idiot knows that Boulez is more acoustically dissonant than Beethoven. But so what? I listen to music, not acoustics. The perception of music involves more than the physics of hearing. "Are you blinded by your ears?"  If anyone is "clinging" to anything, it's you who are clinging to your acoustics textbooks (which you also do in your approach to tonality). And you call _me_ academic!


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> I think Brahms was talking about _actual sound & sonority _in Mozart, especially the Fantasias. Of course, there is real dissonant sound in Beethoven as well.


Right, which is why I don't think this is what Brahms meant - he said that the kind of dissonance he's talking about is _not_ found in Beethoven.



millionrainbows said:


> _True _dissonance is sound & sonority; _academic_ dissonance is a concept involving common-practice procedures.


No, these are both "true," since they're both crucial to listeners' actual experience of music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...perception is as important to a complete understanding of the subject as acoustics....What we hear as dissonant is contextual - related to the style and construction of the music in question - and what we perceive is more fundamental to what music means to us than is some theoretical explanation of the physics of sound.


I disagree completely, and the acoustic theory works with CP harmony as well, as is demonstrated by Schoenberg's ideas about root movement, and how "fourths are heard as root on top" is based on how we hear the harmonic series. The rest of your "perception" conjecture ia nice, but is all after the fact. I've always said this, from my earliest days on the forum.



> Perception, in the experience of music, involves both the ears and the mind. It should be obvious that a sound which is highly dissonant in the terms of one style will not be perceived as such in terms of another.


That's kind of a self-serving definition of it. Of course if you use the term "dissonant" in this way, it's true.



> Music must be heard on its own terms. The terms on which music of the sort represented by these Boulez pieces needs to be heard are not the terms on which we hear Beethoven. That applies to the entire aesthetic of the music, and specifically to harmony; harmony in Beethoven's sense doesn't exist in the Boulez, and if we can perceive this we will no longer perceive acoustically dissonant textures in the same way.


Well of course you will hear things in those terms if you are using if you keep these two definitions separated. I think what we're after here, using the Brahms quote, is if there is an "absolute" answer which covers all music, and doesn't neatly categorize the term at our convenience.



> Any idiot knows that Boulez is more acoustically dissonant than Beethoven. But so what? I listen to music, not acoustics. The perception of music involves more than the physics of hearing.


I disagree, and assert that the "perception of music" is intimately tied to acoustics. This is evident from looking at any scale which covers an octave:

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:

1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1

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.

*A fourth is a consonance, 3:4, and always will be. The "academic logic" which says it is a dissonance is self-serving and ultimately a rarified truth, i.e. a convenient falsehood.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree completely, and the acoustic theory works with CP harmony as well, as is demonstrated by Schoenberg's ideas about root movement, and how "fourths are heard as root on top" is based on how we hear the harmonic series. The rest of your "perception" conjecture ia nice, but is all after the fact. I've always said this, from my earliest days on the forum.
> 
> That's kind of a self-serving definition of it. Of course if you use the term "dissonant" in this way, it's true.
> 
> Well of course you will hear things in those terms if you are using if you keep these two definitions separated. I think what we're after here, using the Brahms quote, is if there is an "absolute" answer which covers all music, and doesn't neatly categorize the term at our convenience.
> 
> I disagree, and assert that the "perception of music" is intimately tied to acoustics. This is evident from looking at any scale which covers an octave:
> 
> Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
> 
> 1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
> 2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
> 3. major second (C-D) 8:9
> 4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
> 5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
> 6. major third (C-E) 4:5
> 7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
> 8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
> 9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
> 10. octave (C-C') 1:2
> 11. unison (C-C) 1:1
> 
> 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.


Fine. You go ahead and cling to your narrow definitions as revealed in the holy writ of your textbooks and Schoenberg's (or whoever's) theories. I find theory interesting, but peripheral to my perception of music, and always questionable in the light of it.

My perception is not a "conjecture," is not "self-serving," and is not "after the fact." What fact? We're talking definitions here - specifically, the possible definitions of "dissonance," based on the variability and contextuality of perception. However, if it's a fact that you are compelled by your theories to experience the "harmony" of Boulez as if it were occurring in Palestrina, I don't know what more to say to you.

(I'm generally loath to psychoanalyze people, but since you do it constantly I'll return the favor and remark that your inability to acknowledge the importance of aesthetic context in the perception of sound seems to be yet another manifestation of a dogmatic and authoritarian personality that must see its ideas not only prevail but obliterate all other views.)


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> A fourth is a consonance, 3:4, and always will be. The "academic logic" which says it is a dissonance is self-serving and ultimately a rarified truth, i.e. a convenient falsehood.


You're the one being pedantic here, million. You're ignoring how people actually hear music. A jazz piece that ends on a seventh, ninth or added sixth chord won't sound dissonant at all to most listeners, whereas a classical-style piece that ends with a fourth above the root will sound very wrong to those listeners - regardless of whatever musical or academic training they might have.


----------



## Woodduck

My father once said that he didn't like Chopin's music because of the "discords" in it. He liked country & western, where you can go through a whole tragic tale of love and loss without ever leaving the tonic. 

Perception, perception.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Dissonance is something we hear more than it is an idea.


Or, it seems, something we don't.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> I think Brahms was talking about _actual sound & sonority _in Mozart, especially the Fantasias. Of course, there is real dissonant sound in Beethoven as well.


So you don't accept the evidence offered earlier in the thread that Brahms's example of true dissonance was a specific quartet from Idomeneo? If so, on what basis do you dispute this?

If, on the other hand, one accepts this, then all one need do to understand what Brahms meant is to analyze the quartet. Brahms has provided an open door to his meaning. To quote Confuscious: "The way [in] is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> So you don't accept the evidence offered earlier in the thread that Brahms's example of true dissonance was a specific quartet from Idomeneo? If so, on what basis do you dispute this?
> 
> If, on the other hand, one accepts this, then all one need do to understand what Brahms meant is to analyze the quartet. Brahms has provided an open door to his meaning. To quote Confuscious: "The way [in] is through the door. Why is it that no one will use this method?"


Okay, if that's what Brahms meant, I'll accept it. I always figured he was an academic anyway. :lol:


_MR: Dissonance is something we hear more than it is an idea._

McLeod: Or, it seems, something we don't.

Well, in that case, look at the numbers. If you consider 3:4 as a dissonance, then it's not a matter of hearing, or of numbers, but of the desperate need to reinforce C major; because F threatens to weaken it; and because the C major scale is harmonically imperfect, especially in this regard.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> I agree with Brahms: I doubt if Beethoven ever wrote dissonances like this. And yet some still question whether Mozart was a genius.


I'll take the bait. Are you saying that the use of dissonance is a mark of genius?



Phil loves classical said:


> Some consider this to be the most dissonant of Beethoven's: the opening of the last movement of his 9th. How it is not "true dissonance" is a matter of opinion (and bias).


Well, yes, that seems "dissonant" to me, now you point it out. Whether it's 'true' or not is another matter.



TalkingHead said:


> I think I understand now what you mean: a dissonance can be viewed as a "technical" aspect or as a subjective reaction (a sort of an "ouch" to one's ears).


Exactly so.



TalkingHead said:


> If you navigate to the thread "*Is there a name for this Medieval/Renaissance cadence?*" / Post #4, you can see/hear that, in technical terms, the *syncopated suspensions* that EdwardBast kindly transcribed for us are, in the grammar of that period, considered to be *dissonances* that require resolving.
> Clearly, to our ears today, there is nothing remotely "dissonant" (ugly?) in that cadential passage, in the sense that there is no "ouch" factor.


Sorry not to have checked this link out before TH - certainly no ouch factor. If this is dissonance, give me excess of it.


----------



## millionrainbows

McLeod, as evidenced by his above reply, is not interested in ideas, but in argumentation. He's good at it, if rather tedious.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Brahms had a striking predilection for dissonance and often spoke about that. Thus on July 17, 1876, he remarked to Georg Henschel "And don't forget: no heavy dissonances on unstressed parts of the measure, that is weak-kneed! I greatly love dissonances, but on the heavy portions of the measure, and then resolve them lightly and gently!" And twenty years later, he made some fundamental observations about the use of dissonances in Mozart, in Beethoven and in Johan Sebastian Bach, in a conversation with Richard Heuberger, in the course of which he remarked that "true dissonaces" were not nearly as much used by Beethoven as they had been by Mozart."
Johannes Brahms, Free But Alone


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> McLeod, as evidenced by his above reply, is not interested in ideas, but in argumentation. He's good at it, if rather tedious.


Oh, I overlooked this while I was away.

Guess I can continue to overlook it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Telemann didn't have as much dissonance in his music as Bach did, which explains why people of the day considered him better. But Bach was way more progressive.


----------



## millionrainbows

What did Brahms mean by "true dissonance"?
If there is no single definition of "dissonance," then the question can never be answered, unless Brahms explicitly said what he meant, and if his explanation was clear and undisputed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

(I had an argument in another thread with another member, I'll use this thread to argue against his points):
I think, to a considerable extent, these two styles reflect the difference between Mozart (whose roots have a lot to do with the "backwater Classical contrapuntists", the likes of Pasterwitz, Aumann, Adlgasser, Sweitzer, etc) and Beethoven (who started his career in Vienna, under Haydn's tutelage). I think there's no such thing as objectively "true dissonance"; there were only regional styles with varying degrees of harshness in voice-leading.
The former style (1) consists of simple suspensions. eg. The "Bb" in the "V43 - I" in the section in F.
The latter style (2) consists of colorful "chords" arising from non-chord tones (marked in red) and "inner lines" contributing to their occurrence. ([see example 2] the harmony in the strong beat (bar 258) is spelled "D, F, Ab, C", like a "half-diminished 7th chord", which resolves to the dominant 6/5 in Eb, in the next beat. And due to the movement of the alto voice line, the next beat contains the non-chord tone, 'Eb', which clashes against the dominant 6/5 in Eb, resulting in a momentary sonority, "D, Eb, F, Ab, Bb", and so on...)
I think Brahms was saying that he simply favored the "general" chromatic style of the latter more.
Ex 1.













Ex 2.


----------

