# My brother and I have a long-standing argument about dissonance



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Once again, my older brother and I got into a heated argument over dissonance tonight. He and I share a love for a LOT of music...rock bands, classical composers, world music, etc....

But on one thing, we are opposed. I do not like a lot of dissonance. I can deal with a bit of it..but just a pinch. There are many 20th Century composers I cannot stand to listen to, as their music is like torture to me.

But my brother keeps telling me "you just don't get it." I tell him, "I get it, but I hate it."

So he likes Schoenberg, Szymanowski, Feldman, etc...whereas I cannot stand those composers.

On the other hand, I love the minimalists like Glass, Reich and Riley, while my brother doesn't like them.

It aggravates me that he takes this condescending position that I don't like dissonance because I don't "get it".

It seems to me I could just turn his logic around on him and say the he doesn't like Philip Glass because he doesn't "get" it.

What say you?


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

cybernaut said:


> Once again, my older brother and I got into a heated argument over dissonance tonight. He and I share a love for a LOT of music...rock bands, classical composers, world music, etc....
> 
> But on one thing, we are opposed. I do not like a lot of dissonance. I can deal with a bit of it..but just a pinch. There are many 20th Century composers I cannot stand to listen to, as their music is like torture to me.
> 
> ...


What does your mum think?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

..popcorn anyone?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Your brother and many others might say that because they enjoy listening to music that many other people "don't get". It was especially "hip" in the 1950's to 1970's not just with avant-garde music at the time but also with other music such as metal music.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Is that all he says "you don't get it", or is there more to the argument, does he explain what your not getting?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

What say we? It depends on if you are a subjectivist or an objectivist


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Obviously, your brother has better taste.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Feldman. Dissonance?

I'm with your brother. Composers since Mozart at least have used dissonance to great effect. And as for modern music I love new chords and relationships between notes when they are shown to have meaning (I mean meaning for me, of course). I find your tastes as you describe them lacking in the grit that makes the pearl. But carry on listening to what you enjoy. The only point in your family discussions are to help each other open up to something which is new to them. 

I wonder, sometimes when I find a piece of music a challenge (which, for me, also equates with "potentially interesting") I listen a couple of times and then put it down. Often I return a long time after (years, even) and it all makes perfect beautiful sense. I feel like the music has been cooking in the back of my mind for all the time I was not listening to it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Personally I love dissonances, when I feel it's used in a good way. I'm surprised you don't like Szymanowski. His harmonies are lush, dark and mysterious. So when you're saying " "I get it, but I hate it" I wonder if you don't like a dark and mysterious atmosphere or it's something else.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> Once again, my older brother and I got into a heated argument over dissonance tonight. He and I share a love for a LOT of music...rock bands, classical composers, world music, etc....


So have you tried something that's sort of in-between - dissonant but also very melodic - like Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_?


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

first of all, what does the dissonance mean: a discord, that is disagreement, as opposed to consonance, which portrays a consent, be it single or multiple voice's that represent unity or plurality in opinions, respectively... so when there is a lot of dissonance in a music piece - it depicts a situation gone terribly wrong.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

What if you had to do an assignment on Bartok f.ex. and had to focus on different aspects of the music? I'm sure the dissonances would sound normal to your ears after a while


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Depends how much older and bigger your bro is to you. Seriously, I think I know where both of you are coming from (both from your mom). I believe dissonance can serve different purposes. I know how it felt when I was listening before. It's like hitting a bump on the road during a drive. Some music is like hitting bumps all the time, like going off-road. You have to wonder what it is getting at and look or hear past the bumps.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> first of all, what does the dissonance mean: a discord, that is disagreement, as opposed to consonance, which portrays a consent, be it single or multiple voice's that represent unity or plurality in opinions, respectively... so when there is a lot of dissonance in a music piece - it depicts a situation gone terribly wrong.


situation gone terribly wrong... do you mean like in a huge amount of masterpieces of literature, opera, paintings, cinema and art in general? That's an absolutely normal thing it seems.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Given the topic of the argument, does your brother enjoy the argument itself more than you do?


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

You're brother's right.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Is your brother a father, and you not? Babies crying is a very dissonant sound. You only learn to appreciate it after having one.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

NoCoPilot said:


> Is your brother a father, and you not? Babies crying is a very dissonant sound. You only learn to appreciate it after having one.


Or you *really* learn to appreciate consonance.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

norman bates said:


> like in a huge amount of masterpieces of literature, opera, paintings, cinema and art in general?


sure, for such is the world we live in, since the middle ages if not earlier.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

amfortas said:


> Or you *really* learn to appreciate consonance.


Sometimes you pray for 4'33.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Is this important? Should you tie your shoes in single or double knots? Should you hang toilet paper rolls with the loose end hanging down in back or hanging over in front? Is margarine really healthier for you than butter? Is the greatest basketball player Michael Jordan or Bill Russell? You hear things differently . . .so what?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

HenryPenfold said:


> What does your mum think?


My mother did not like dissonance at all. Then again, I'm not sure what she would have thought about the minimalists. She grew up on Elvis, Buddy Holly, Little Richard...and then became a fan of the Beatles...and she always loved Mexican music...and country music...

In classical, she seemed to prefer the pretty stuff.

My father is an opera fanatic...but no 20th Century compositions. He's old-school. His favorite composers are Beethoven, Mozart, and then all the Italian opera composers.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> ..popcorn anyone?


I just received a popcorn maker yesterday!!


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Is that all he says "you don't get it", or is there more to the argument, does he explain what your not getting?


His basic argument seems to be that dissonance is not unpleasant to the ear. And he tries to make an argument that dissonance doesn't really exist, as our conception of harmony is merely a convention.

Well, if it doesn't exist, how do I notice it? lol


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

janxharris said:


> So have you tried something that's sort of in-between - dissonant but also very melodic - like Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_?


Stravinsky, for me, is right on that cusp. I can listen to his music, and appreciate it...but I don't always find it pleasing to my ears. I always say that horror movie soundtracks seem to be heavily influenced by Stravinsky. And it's fun to try to imagine those movies if Stravinsky had never composed.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Jacck said:


> What say we? It depends on if you are a subjectivist or an objectivist


I'm right in the middle.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

norman bates said:


> Personally I love dissonances, when I feel it's used in a good way. I'm surprised you don't like Szymanowski. His harmonies are lush, dark and mysterious. So when you're saying " "I get it, but I hate it" I wonder if you don't like a dark and mysterious atmosphere or it's something else.


Is there any music that you don't like?

As for Szymanoski, I do like his Stabat Mater. But I don't hear much dissonance in it.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

NoCoPilot said:


> Is your brother a father, and you not? Babies crying is a very dissonant sound. You only learn to appreciate it after having one.


lol

neither of us have children.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

MarkW said:


> Is this important? Should you tie your shoes in single or double knots? Should you hang toilet paper rolls with the loose end hanging down in back or hanging over in front? Is margarine really healthier for you than butter? Is the greatest basketball player Michael Jordan or Bill Russell? You hear things differently . . .so what?


oh excuse me for discussing classical music on a classical music forum! LMAO

what was I thinking? :lol:


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

gregorx said:


> You're brother's right.


In disliking minimalism?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

amfortas said:


> Or you *really* learn to appreciate consonance.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

amfortas said:


> Given the topic of the argument, does your brother enjoy the argument itself more than you do?


He just can't understand why I don't like dissonance, and I can't understand why he does. He's also a Yoko Ono fan.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Zhdanov said:


> first of all, what does the dissonance mean: a discord, that is disagreement, as opposed to consonance, which portrays a consent, be it single or multiple voice's that represent unity or plurality in opinions, respectively... so when there is a lot of dissonance in a music piece - *it depicts a situation gone terribly wrong*.


to my ears, yes.

But I am not so egotistical to think that nobody should enjoy dissonance just because I don't.

I don't like mushrooms or cilantro, but I don't have a problem with other people enjoying them. We have different taste buds.


----------



## Algonquin (Apr 10, 2021)

The only Opera I ever walked out of was Britten's Midsummer Night's Dream, the noise of it drove me out. I like dissonance when it leads to something beautiful, making that "something" even more beautiful by comparison. The Sextet for piano and wind instruments by Poulenc is case in point.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> Is there any music that you don't like?
> 
> As for Szymanoski, I do like his Stabat Mater. But I don't hear much dissonance in it.


If you don't hear much dissonance in his Stabat Mater, where? I mean, there's his usual harmonic language.
In any case of course there's a lot of music I don't particularly like or I don't like at all. A lot of conservative and very consonant music, a lot of music that is a bit more dissonant and a lot of stuff that is extremely dissonant. Exactly like I appreciate a lot of very consonant music and a lot of very dissonant music. 
While I love modernism, I'm certainly not someone who think that all modernism is great (I'm quite far from that actually).

I've read a theory years ago, and actually more than once. It basically said that introverted people (like myself) tend to like more a kind of adventurous kind of music, while extroverted people tend to like more consonant music. I don't know if it's true (altough I think it's quite possible) but I wonder how this theory sounds to you.

by the way, Feldman is considered a minimalist composer.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm with you, I'm not big on the use of lots of dissonance. Don't let your brother try to belittle you and make you feel like your tastes are lesser than his, they aren't.

In fact, I've had the recent idea that consonance may be what we really desire, and these hipsters are just trying to be different.

But, I could never prove that, and I'd never put someone down for liking more dissonant music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm with you, I'm not big on the use of lots of dissonance. Don't let your brother try to belittle you and make you feel like your tastes are lesser than his, they aren't.
> 
> In fact, I've had the recent idea that consonance may be what we really desire, and these hipsters are just trying to be different.
> 
> But, I could never prove that, and I'd never put someone down for liking more dissonant music.


"I'd never put someone down for liking more dissonant music" is quite _dissonant_ with "these hipsters are just trying to be different"


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

norman bates said:


> "I'd never put someone down for liking more dissonant music" is quite _dissonant_ with "these hipsters are just trying to be different"


I'm revealing an inner thought on a message board, I'd never say that IRL conversation with a stranger.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've been there though, trying to be different and hip. My taste in film could be viewed as hipster though, I love Lynch's Eraserhead for example.

It's all about intention.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm revealing an inner thought on a message board, I'd never say that IRL conversation with a stranger.


so you're putting down us here, but you would just not say it in real life. It doesn't really make a difference


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

norman bates said:


> so you're putting down us here, but you would just not say it in real life. It doesn't really make a difference


Alright, I'm sorry if I offended you. But I do feel there is often a lot of truth in my statement!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've been there though, trying to be different and hip. My taste in film could be viewed as hipster though, I love Lynch's Eraserhead for example.
> 
> It's all about intention.


Do you think Schoenberg and guys like Babbitt were trying to be hip?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Do you think Schoenberg and guys like Babbitt were trying to be hip?


Quite possibly. I've never heard them speak before, so I have no idea. Oh boy, I've really dug myself in a hole now! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Quite possibly. I've never heard them speak before, so I have no idea. Oh boy, I've really dug myself in a hole now! :lol:


I'll let you off the hook. But I've heard them, they are very sincere in their pursuit to expand musical language.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Alright, I'm sorry if I offended you. But I do feel there is often a lot of truth in my statement!


I'm not offended, but as someone who loves a lot of dissonant music (and I dislike a lot of it) I know also that (at least in my case) you can't be more distant from the truth. I absolutely love a lot of it, and I know it's true for a lot of other people. There could be some poser, but that doesn't exclude that for a lot of us the love for the music is completely genuine. And I know that there's music that can convey things that music that is very consonant can't.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Algonquin said:


> The only Opera I ever walked out of was Britten's Midsummer Night's Dream, the noise of it drove me out. *I like dissonance when it leads to something beautiful, making that "something" even more beautiful by comparison.* The Sextet for piano and wind instruments by Poulenc is case in point.


precisely. My opinion exactly. A little dissonance is great when it resolves to consonance. It is an exquisite thing.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm with you, I'm not big on the use of lots of dissonance. Don't let your brother try to belittle you and make you feel like your tastes are lesser than his, they aren't.
> 
> In fact, *I've had the recent idea that consonance may be what we really desire*, and these hipsters are just trying to be different.
> 
> But, I could never prove that, and I'd never put someone down for liking more dissonant music.


well, I think it's more complicated than that. But if you think about popular music and folk music around the world...it's really only in the highbrow classical crowd that you find this reverence for dissonance. You won't find it in pop music, rock music (other than some metal), country music, bluegrass music, blues, Mexican music, Cuban music, reggae, South American music, European folk musics, Indian classical music, Middle-Eastern music, etc etc etc etc etc.

Now, that doesnt mean people who love extremely dissonant music are wrong to enjoy it. But I do think they are wrong to say that everyone else has bad taste.

But what's interesting i that I grew up on punk music and still love it. I don't listen to it as much as I used to, but I still love it. And many people thought punk was noise. Which is kind of funny...because if you listen to Merzbow and then the Ramones...the Ramones sound like bubblegum pop in comparison.










Ironically, there is very little actual dissonance in punk music. The chords are almost always just major fifths, the scales used are almost always major scales. Maybe some minor chords every once in a while. Yes, the guitars are distorted and the singing is raw, but I have to wrack my brain to think of any actual dissonance in the punk bands I grew up on (Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash, Stranglers, Wire,etc).

It wasn't until Sonic Youth that a post-punk band started incorporating dissonance.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

At least one scientific study explored this topic:

"Zatorre and Blood (1999) at McGill University created original melodies containing dissonant and consonant patterns of notes, and played them for ten volunteers who were scanned at the same time. Rejecting the null hypothesis, dissonance made areas of the limbic system linked to unpleasant emotions light up in the PET scans, whereas the consonant melodies stimulated limbic structures associated with pleasure."

https://mramusicplace.net/2019/02/12/what-is-musical-dissonance/

here's a link to the sudy:
http://www.brainmusic.org/MBB91 Webpage/Harmony_II_Blood.pdf


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> Ironically, there is very little actual dissonance in punk music. The chords are almost always just major fifths, the scales used are almost always major scales. Maybe some minor chords every once in a while. Yes, the guitars are distorted and the singing is raw, but I have to wrack my brain to think of any actual dissonance in the punk bands I grew up on (Ramones, Sex Pistols, Clash, Stranglers, Wire,etc).
> 
> It wasn't until Sonic Youth that a post-punk band started incorporating dissonance.


I was a huge punk rock fan, and was a big Sonic Youth fan for a while. I find the dissonance in Sonic Youth kind of corny now (and as the Capt'n put it: trying to be hip). The dissonance goes kind of nowhere, it's for the sake of noise or just alternative to normal melodies. Compare Daydream Nation with Schoenberg's Der Klavierstucke. The Schoenberg is way more imaginative.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

cybernaut said:


> if you listen to Merzbow and then the Ramones...the Ramones sound like bubblegum pop in comparison.


And if you listen to Jean-Baptiste Barrière or Metal Machine Music, Merzbow sounds like bubblegum pop in comparison.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

cybernaut said:


> precisely. My opinion exactly. A little dissonance is great when it resolves to consonance. It is an exquisite thing.


Ask your brother if he likes this:


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

To heck with his brother. *I* like it!!!!

Pretty expensive recording studio(s) though. One would _*think*_ they could've held a mic outside at least ONE of the copters....


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> well, I think it's more complicated than that. But if you think about popular music and folk music around the world...it's really only in the highbrow classical crowd that you find this reverence for dissonance. You won't find it in pop music, rock music (other than some metal), country music, bluegrass music, blues, Mexican music, Cuban music, reggae, South American music, European folk musics, Indian classical music, Middle-Eastern music, etc etc etc etc etc.


you're wrong about this.
In pop music there's a lot of dissonant stuff, like in rock, in jazz, in folk music.
Have you ever heard sutartines or gagaku?


__
https://soundcloud.com/gavezdois%2Fp23-amor-bom
 (1.44)












 (28.00 in the video)

even Beyonce used bitonality for all the single ladies

Now, that doesnt mean people who love extremely dissonant music are wrong to enjoy it. But I do think they are wrong to say that everyone else has bad taste.
[/video]

there are actually a lot of people here (like me) who love dissonant music and love also very consonant music.



cybernaut said:


> It wasn't until Sonic Youth that a post-punk band started incorporating dissonance.


that's not exactly true, actually a band like The velvet undergound were making very dissonant stuff in the sixties (and they are very often considered as protopunk), and Sonic Youth were deeply influenced by guys like Glenn Branca, Destroy all monsters, Michael Yonkers and similar earlier artists.






Not to mention a lot of other rock artists that made very dissonant music in other subgenres


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> At least one scientific study explored this topic:
> 
> "Zatorre and Blood (1999) at McGill University created original melodies containing dissonant and consonant patterns of notes, and played them for ten volunteers who were scanned at the same time. Rejecting the null hypothesis, dissonance made areas of the limbic system linked to unpleasant emotions light up in the PET scans, whereas the consonant melodies stimulated limbic structures associated with pleasure."
> 
> ...


a lot of art is about unpleasant emotions. You will see that in paintings of many centuries ago, like in literature, poetry, movies (and there's not even need to mention horror movies, I mean movies in general), classical music way before the twentieth century. Have you ever heard Gesualdo's music? Punk music, that you seem to like wasn't certainly just about fun, actually it was sometimes pretty dark.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I was a huge punk rock fan, and was a big Sonic Youth fan for a while. I find the dissonance in Sonic Youth kind of corny now (and as the Capt'n put it: trying to be hip). The dissonance goes kind of nowhere, it's for the sake of noise or just alternative to normal melodies. Compare Daydream Nation with Schoenberg's Der Klavierstucke. The Schoenberg is way more imaginative.


"the dissonance goes kind of nowhere" with Schoenberg too, he didn't wanted to resolve the dissonances, exactly as Sonic Youth. Also, Sonic Youth's music has a lot of elements that are not present in Schoenberg's music, being very enthralling music, unlike the much more static music of Schoenberg (and I'm not saying static like it's a bad thing, I'm saying that it's different music).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

norman bates said:


> "the dissonance goes kind of nowhere" with Schoenberg too, he didn't wanted to resolve the dissonances, exactly as Sonic Youth. Also, Sonic Youth's music has a lot of elements that are not present in Schoenberg's music, being very enthralling music, unlike the much more static music of Schoenberg (and I'm not saying static like it's a bad thing, I'm saying that it's different music). *It's a stupid comparison onestly.*


I don't think it ever works to compare classical music with rock/popular (and all the variants of these broad genres). They are for different purposes. For one thing good classical composers tend to get better with age while "rock" musicians never do. Also, when "rock" musicians try to do something vaguely classical I always (and I mean always) find the result embarrassing. It is the same when a classical composer tries to do "rock".


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> "the dissonance goes kind of nowhere" with Schoenberg too, he didn't wanted to resolve the dissonances, exactly as Sonic Youth. Also, Sonic Youth's music has a lot of elements that are not present in Schoenberg's music, being very enthralling music, unlike the *much more static music *of Schoenberg (and I'm not saying static like it's a bad thing, I'm saying that it's different music). It's a stupid comparison onestly.


I'm just talking use of dissonance. I find the Sonic Youth a lot more shallow with the effects of dissonance. Schoenberg goes way deeper. The dissonance does lead somewhere, and not just repeating the same dissonant note or two, or throwing in an off-tune note in the melody for a grungey effect. I think that comparison can easily be made. There are in fact a lot of subtle tonal implications in that Schoenberg, that there are 3 theories of which key that is in.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm with you, I'm not big on the use of lots of dissonance. Don't let your brother try to belittle you and make you feel like your tastes are lesser than his, they aren't.
> 
> In fact, I've had the recent idea that consonance may be what we really desire, and these hipsters are just trying to be different.
> 
> But, I could never prove that, and I'd never put someone down for liking more dissonant music.


Where does this idea come from that people listen to music that they really don't like just to be different? or to use your word, hip? That's just wrong.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ I've known the Capt'n online for.. wow 4 years now. My impression is he's quite impressionable, and tries to analyze things a posteriori. He can make wild pronouncements due to the latest perspective he's acquired, and take it back afterwards.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Dissonance is a relative term: what is dissonant in one passage may sound consonant in another - it all depends on the overall makeup of the piece. Also the concept of what is dissonant has changed over time. In the pre-15th century certain intervals were considered dissonant which in later periods were considered consonant.

Throughout the history of music the treatment of dissonance has been an important factor, and how composers created expressivity. Major styles are defined by how dissonances are resolved or handled, and the progress of music from monody to modal polyphony and finally to tonality is the history of how dissonance was defined and treated.

It is a mistake to view dissonance as a negative attribute - actually it is one of the most important aspects in music and composers have spent most of their time working creating, moderating, and resolving dissonance.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

gregorx said:


> Where does this idea come from that people listen to music that they really don't like just to be different? or to use your word, hip? That's just wrong.


Or that you like the music that you do because "The Rich" are telling you to like it. The only place where I see something like that happen is pop.

Anyway, dissonance is great as a tool but not as an end in itself.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I've known the Capt'n online for.. wow 4 years now. My impression is he's quite impressionable, and tries to analyze things a posteriori. He can make wild pronouncements due to the latest perspective he's acquired, and take it back afterwards.


Shall we start a thread of reviews about each other?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

consuono said:


> Anyway, dissonance is great as a tool but not as an end in itself.


A composer might view and hear things differently.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mikeh375 said:


> A composer might view and hear things differently.


And I might not like it or want to hear it. It's fine for them.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Well, I mean, the west went with a diatonic scale, you may as well use it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Dissonance is a relative term: what is dissonant in one passage may sound consonant in another - it all depends on the overall makeup of the piece. Also the concept of what is dissonant has changed over time. In the pre-15th century certain intervals were considered dissonant which in later periods were considered consonant.
> 
> Throughout the history of music the treatment of dissonance has been an important factor, and how composers created expressivity. Major styles are defined by how dissonances are resolved or handled, and the progress of music from monody to modal polyphony and finally to tonality is the history of how dissonance was defined and treated.
> 
> It is a mistake to view dissonance as a negative attribute - actually it is one of the most important aspects in music and composers have spent most of their time working creating, moderating, and resolving dissonance.


Just placing this here, since it ended up at the bottom of the previous page and may have been overlooked.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm just talking use of dissonance. I find the Sonic Youth a lot more shallow with the effects of dissonance. Schoenberg goes way deeper. The dissonance does lead somewhere, and not just repeating the same dissonant note or two, or throwing in an off-tune note in the melody for a grungey effect.


lead somewhere... where? I mean, Schoenberg used dissonance without resolving it. That's the meaning of emancipation of dissonance. So no, dissonances with Schoenberg wasn't used to lead to a home key or to a consonance. Actually Sonic Youth are much more tied to normal tonality than him. They were closer to free atonality than serialism, which is totally fine. Also, the "not just repeating the same dissonant note or two" is not something necessarily better than repeating notes. It depends what one have to do. Repetion of notes has its rhytmic effect, which is something used to achieve the driving effect of a lot of popular music, or an hypnotic effect.
So you have two kind of music that are trying to achieve different kind of things, and you are comparing like they are doing the same thing. If I have to judge Schoenberg for his ability to make groove and make music that is enthralling (like for instance Cross' the breeze, which is my favorite song on that album, he sucks totally. But that's not what he wanted to do. Unlike Sonic Youth.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Sounds like sonic youth inspired wolf alice.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

cybernaut said:


> Once again, my older brother and I got into a heated argument over dissonance tonight. He and I share a love for a LOT of music...rock bands, classical composers, world music, etc....
> 
> But on one thing, we are opposed. I do not like a lot of dissonance. I can deal with a bit of it..but just a pinch. There are many 20th Century composers I cannot stand to listen to, as their music is like torture to me.
> 
> ...


First, I say there never can be a right answer to this question. I am a firm believer in science, but art is not science. Art fulfills our need for fantasies, myths and illusions. So pick whatever fantasy pleases you most. For me, Stravinsky's Petrushka made a strong early impression. Is the puppet merely a collection of sticks, cloth and string, entirely controlled from above, or does it have life, and a soul, of its own? How about the rest of us? It's a powerful metaphor, with great dramatic tension that Stravinsky skillfully enhances with the help of dissonance.

But none of that answers your question. If you don't like dissonance in the context of Petrushka, you might like it in another context, or not at all. It's up to you.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> lead somewhere... where? I mean, Schoenberg used dissonance without resolving it. That's the meaning of emancipation of dissonance. So no, dissonances with Schoenberg wasn't used to lead to a home key or to a consonance. Actually Sonic Youth are much more tied to normal tonality than him. They were closer to free atonality than serialism, which is totally fine. Also, the "not just repeating the same dissonant note or two" is not something necessarily better than repeating notes. It depends what one have to do. Repetion of notes has its rhytmic effect, which is something used to achieve the driving effect of a lot of popular music, or an hypnotic effect.
> So you have two kind of music that are trying to achieve different kind of things, and you are comparing like they are doing the same thing. If I have to judge Schoenberg for his ability to make groove and make music that is enthralling (like for instance Cross' the breeze, which is my favorite song on that album, he sucks totally. But that's not what he wanted to do. Unlike Sonic Youth.


Sonic Youth is not atonal at all. The emancipation of dissonance means freeing from an association with a previous context, not necessarily not leading to another tonality. As I said, there are 3 theories of which key the Schoenberg is in. The main purpose I compared the two is referring to the dissonance in Schoenberg as the OP's bro advocates is much more rich, deep and meaningful than in the Sonic Youth, mentioned by the previous poster, which only scratches the surface dissonance, without mention of Sonic Youth's other intents, or the unenthrallment of Schoenberg's music (which can be heard as enthralling, which we don't need to get into).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Sonic Youth is not atonal at all.


in a sense, even Debussy is considered atonal because his music doesn't follow common practice harmony.
But yes, most of the time I would not call Sonic Youth atonal. But their use of dissonance goes more in the direction of free atonality than twelve tone music.



Phil loves classical said:


> The emancipation of dissonance means freeing from an association with a previous context, not necessarily not leading to another tonality. As I said, there are 3 theories of which key the Schoenberg is in. The main purpose I compared the two is referring to the dissonance in Schoenberg as the OP's bro advocates is much more rich, deep and meaningful than in the Sonic Youth, mentioned by the previous poster, which only scratches the surface dissonance, without mention of Sonic Youth's other intents, or the unenthrallment of Schoenberg's music (which can be heard as enthralling, which we don't need to get into).


well, we don't need to get into that, but than I should just believe you on your words? I think that it's like comparing apples and oranges exactly because they were aiming at different things, and the repetion is fully justified in the music of Sonic Youth, and in both cases there's no resolution so the "more meaningful, deep, surface dissonance" is just an impression without a justification.
Unless you just want to prove than serialism is necessarily better than chromaticism or free unresolved atonality, which to me is completely absurd.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ I've known the Capt'n online for.. wow 4 years now. My impression is he's quite impressionable, and tries to analyze things a posteriori. He can make wild pronouncements due to the latest perspective he's acquired, and take it back afterwards.


I'm working on solidifying my opinions. I just always question my ideas and change my mind on my thoughts on a musical concept which explains the wild statements.

I need to just allow myself to enjoy what I enjoy without trying to find a deeper truth which surrounds the idea of "good music", which I don't think there is one.

It's all just taste!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm working on solidifying my opinions. I just always question my ideas and change my mind on my thoughts on a musical concept which explains the wild statements.
> 
> I need to just allow myself to enjoy what I enjoy without trying to find a deeper truth which surrounds the idea of "good music", which I don't think there is one.
> 
> It's all just taste!


Yup. I admire your search, and agree there probably isn't one idea of how music should be, each perspective justifies its own existence. I just like to make fun of you sometimes at your expense.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

cybernaut said:


> Once again, my older brother and I got into a heated argument over dissonance tonight. He and I share a love for a LOT of music...rock bands, classical composers, world music, etc....


Sounds like you've got a lot in common. Best focus on what you have, rather than what you have not. In any family, there will be divisions which can be hard to breach. Music doesn't have to be one of them. I'm sure you and your brother can set some practical boundaries (like what music you can listen to together on speakers, and what music is best listened to on headphones).


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

fluteman said:


> First, I say there never can be a right answer to this question. I am a firm believer in science, but art is not science. Art fulfills our need for fantasies, myths and illusions. So pick whatever fantasy pleases you most. For me, Stravinsky's Petrushka made a strong early impression. Is the puppet merely a collection of sticks, cloth and string, entirely controlled from above, or does it have life, and a soul, of its own? How about the rest of us? It's a powerful metaphor, with great dramatic tension that Stravinsky skillfully enhances with the help of dissonance.
> 
> But none of that answers your question. If you don't like dissonance in the context of Petrushka, you might like it in another context, or not at all. It's up to you.


My question is not whether dissonance is better than consonance...or vice versa.

It is whether "you just don't get it" is a valid argument for someone telling me why I don't like pieces that are heavily dissonant.

It seems as intellectually vapid as if someone told me I don't like really incredibly spicy food (which I don't), because I just don't "get it".

As someone who is half-Mexican, and who loves to cook a lot of Indian food with curry...I can deal with spices. But I do not like food that is so spicy it makes my mouth burn.

I'm the same way with dissonance. A bit of it is nice, but just as a seasoning...not as the main course.

If someone else prefers to eat dissonance as their main course, I'm not going to say they're wrong. They just have different taste buds than me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

cybernaut said:


> My question is not whether dissonance is better than consonance...or vice versa.
> 
> It is whether "you just don't get it" is a valid argument for some telling me why I don't like pieces that are heavily dissonant.
> 
> It seems as intellectually vapid as if someone told me I don't like really incredibly spicy food (which I don't), because I just don't "get it".


What kind of response would you prefer?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm working on solidifying my opinions. I just always question my ideas and change my mind on my thoughts on a musical concept which explains the wild statements.
> 
> I need to just allow myself to enjoy what I enjoy without trying to find a deeper truth which surrounds the idea of "good music", which I don't think there is one.
> 
> It's all just taste!


I don't think there's anything wrong with changing your opinion.

For example, there are bands I really disliked when I first heard them (Joy Division, the Smiths)...that I grew to love.

With classical composers, that hasn't happened as much. But when I was younger, I didn't like opera. But now I do.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Sid James said:


> Sounds like you've got a lot in common. Best focus on what you have, rather than what you have not. In any family, there will be divisions which can be hard to breach. Music doesn't have to be one of them.* I'm sure you and your brother can set some practical boundaries (like what music you can listen to together on speakers, and what music is best listened to on headphones).*


Lol.

We do agree on a vast amount of music, and spend a lot of our time together listening. This past Friday night, he came to visit, and we stayed up til 4am watching music videos from Youtube...some great piano players like Alfred Brendel and Andras Schiff and Samson Francois.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> What kind of response would you prefer?


Ones that are unlike yours.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> My question is not whether dissonance is better than consonance...or vice versa.
> 
> It is whether "you just don't get it" is a valid argument for someone telling me why I don't like pieces that are heavily dissonant.


Don't know about your case, but it is possible in my view that someone may not 'get' a certain use of dissonance. As a few have said, there are different kinds/purposes of dissonance. To get all that and still not like it, that's just someone's taste. You may just like certain kinds, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

Speaking from my own experience, there were times I thought I got something (like Schoenberg for example, and I just thought I didn't like it), but it turned out I didn't actually get it. I remember this one psychedelic rock fan back in College who was the real artsy, progressive type. When I asked, he said he 'appreciated' Classical, but just doesn't like it. I have my doubts whether he actually got it, and not just want to appear like he did. There can be a tendency to pass judgement on something that one doesn't really understand, like I did. But I think it's wrong to say that everyone who doesn't like dissonance or atonal music, doesn't understand or get it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

cybernaut said:


> Ones that are unlike yours.


What are you talking about? I offered a description of how dissonance has been treated throughout music history, thinking it might open up an avenue for you to discover a new way of listening to music you find dissonant.

Pardon me.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

cybernaut said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with changing your opinion.
> 
> For example, there are bands I really disliked when I first heard them (Joy Division, the Smiths)...that I grew to love.
> 
> With classical composers, that hasn't happened as much. But when I was younger, I didn't like opera. But now I do.


I am glad you like opera. It is the highest form of classical music.

Did you show your brother Stockhausen's Helicopter _String Quartet_? They players sit in a flying helicopter and play dissonance. I have my objective points about the work but would be interested to know what your bro thinks.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

ArtMusic said:


> I am glad you like opera. It is the highest form of classical music.
> 
> Did you show your brother Stockhausen's Helicopter _String Quartet_? They players sit in a flying helicopter and play dissonance. I have my objective points about the work but would be interested to know what your bro thinks.


Unfortunately, he left town. I drove him away by playing some Philip Glass. 

But next time he comes back, I'll try to remember to treat him to the helicopter piece. I have it bookmarked.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

This is an interesting study. It seems to have found that subjects who were "amusics" had no preference for consonance over dissonance, while those with normal hearing preferred consonance:

"Amusics are individuals with congenital amusia, a neurogenetic disorder characterized by abnormal pitch perception.'

"In contrast to control subjects, amusic listeners showed no preference for consonance, rating the pleasantness of consonant chords no higher than that of dissonant chords. Amusics also failed to exhibit the normally observed preference for harmonic over inharmonic tones, nor could they discriminate such tones from each other."

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/48/19858


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Dissonance is a relative term: what is dissonant in one passage may sound consonant in another - it all depends on the overall makeup of the piece. Also the concept of what is dissonant has changed over time. In the pre-15th century certain intervals were considered dissonant which in later periods were considered consonant.
> 
> Throughout the history of music the treatment of dissonance has been an important factor, and how composers created expressivity. Major styles are defined by how dissonances are resolved or handled, and the progress of music from monody to modal polyphony and finally to tonality is the history of how dissonance was defined and treated.
> 
> It is a mistake to view dissonance as a negative attribute - actually it is one of the most important aspects in music and composers have spent most of their time working creating, moderating, and resolving dissonance.


^^^ this, and I don't read any condescension into this post the way OP did.

A lot of which can be perceived as 'dissonant' are really just expansions of harmonic language. "Consonance" and "dissonance"are relative terms and start to no longer apply when the language is different. Like SanAntone said, the foundation of tonality is partly based on the resolution of dissonances (think of the tension of a V7 chord brought about by the 7th and the tritone to resolve to the tonic or wherever else)

If you listen to music from non-Western traditions, like Turkish or Arabic music for instance, you'll hear microtones that sound "wrong" to our western ears, or like the instruments themselves or out of tune. I wouldn't apply the word "dissonant" to it at all.

Even in common practice you'll hear lot more dissonances than you may even realize. Bach, for example, is abundant rich expressive dissonances that give his music a lot of depth. I think that's what Consuono sort of meant when he said he prefers dissonances as a tool but not pure dissonance just in and for itself


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> This is an interesting study. It seems to have found that subjects who were "amusics" had no preference for consonance over dissonance, while those with normal hearing preferred consonance:
> 
> "Amusics are individuals with congenital amusia, a neurogenetic disorder characterized by abnormal pitch perception.'
> 
> ...


I've not even read the article but if you want to imply that people who like dissonant music have amusia it's obviously not like that (I suspect that John Cage suffered from it, but many musicians who wrote dissonant music have amazing ears). Also, it must be said that dissonant is a very vague term. Bach can be very dissonant, like Mozart or Beethoven too. 
And the "they know what to do with dissonance" is also a very vague argument. The point is. what is that makes a dissonance tolerable to you and what doesn't?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ^^^ this, and I don't read any condescension into this post the way OP did.


Please refer to his first post in this thread. It is post #7.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

norman bates said:


> I've not even read the article but if you want to imply that people who like dissonant music have amusia it's obviously not like that (I suspect that John Cage suffered from it, but many musicians who wrote dissonant music have amazing ears). Also, it must be said that dissonant is a very vague term. Bach can be very dissonant, like Mozart or Beethoven too.
> And the "they know what to do with dissonance" is also a very vague argument. The point is. what is that makes a dissonance tolerable to you and what doesn't?


You didn't read the article but feel you can respond to it. :lol:

And I didn't imply anything. I just provided interesting scientific information on the topic of consonance and dissonance...and how humans react to them.

As someone with a great respect for science, these kinds of studies interest me, and can be enlightening.

An analogy: I am one of those people who can't stand the taste of cilantro. It tastes like soap to me. Well, scientists now believe that people like me have are genetically different from people who do like cilantro. It's not a matter of right and wrong. Cilantro does not taste "good" objectively, nor does it taste "bad". The fact is, it tastes good to a lot of people, but bad to people like me.

I'm not saying this is the case with the dissonance topic...but maybe, just maybe, there's something similar going on. Maybe people who are fine with lots of dissonance are genetically different than people who prefer consonance. It's just a thought....


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

the spicy food analogy is interesting. But taken in the world of art, I see it like the inability to appreciate any painting, sculpture, novel, poetry, movie where there's something bad, harsh, disturbing, negative happening. It's like seeing art like something that has just to lull and consoling and pretty. 
Which to me is a limiting perspective. There's nothing wrong with disliking spicy food and spicy art, but you're missing a lot in my opinion. 
(I'm missing a lot too with the things I don't understand obviously, my point is that yes, you could be fine even without that, but if you're curious, and you think that art should be something that help expanding your knowledge and experience of the world, it's not a bad idea to not completely shut the door to the idea of listening dissonant stuff)


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

^^Following on from what Norman says, it's fair to say that a composer will explore and use dissonance as a way of venturing forward into newer fields of expression. Dissonance in all its varying degrees is surely a vital part of the art and is certainly worth acclimatising the ears to, if only for the masterpieces that lie just beyond the overtly tonal.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> You didn't read the article but feel you can respond to it. :lol:
> 
> And I didn't imply anything. I just provided interesting scientific information on the topic of consonance and dissonance...and how humans react to them.


I didn't read it not because I don't think it could be an interesting reading (I could actually read it when I can, I've seen it's quite long) but because I've read a lot about amusia in the past , and I'm sure that it doesn't say anything about your thread, unless you want to imply what I've said, that people who like dissonant music are necessarily or for a big part affected by amusia, which is definitely not the case.
And if you don't want to imply that... the more you know?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

norman bates said:


> the spicy food analogy is interesting. But taken in the world of art, I see it like the inability to appreciate any painting, sculpture, novel, poetry, movie where there's something bad, harsh, disturbing, negative happening. It's like seeing art like something that has just to lull and consoling and pretty.
> Which to me is a limiting perspective. There's nothing wrong with disliking spicy food and spicy art, but you're missing a lot in my opinion.
> (I'm missing a lot too with the things I don't understand obviously, my point is that yes, you could be fine even without that, but if you're curious, and you think that art should be something that help expanding your knowledge and experience of the world, it's not a bad idea to not completely shut the door to the idea of listening dissonant stuff)


I just completely disagree with your entire premise. And no amount of debating is going to get me to enjoy eating super spicy food, just as no amount of argument from a dung beetle would get you to enjoy the taste of feces.

The dung beetle would tell you "it's sad that you're missing out on the great taste of fecal matter...just because you don't get it, and have a constricted understanding of the world. You're limiting your food enjoyment and missing a lot. Sad. You're limiting your perspective."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> I just completely disagree with your entire premise. And no amount of debating is going to get me to enjoy eating super spicy food, just as no amount of argument from a dung beetle would get you to enjoy the taste of feces.
> 
> The dung beetle would tell you "it's sad that you're missing out on the great taste of fecal matter...just because you don't get it, and have a constricted understanding of the world. You're limiting your food enjoyment and missing a lot. Sad. You're limiting your perspective."


well, the difference maybe is that those who like dissonant music are usually other persons and not beetle and many times persons who had a strong dislike for dissonance as well for a long time and then something clicked and they realized what they were missing. Then sure, you could happily live without dissonant music (like many people happily live without classical music, or basically without music), I'm not saying it's sad. But from my perspective (the perspective of someone who sees the act of learning new things as extremely important to the point of thinking that is one of the most important parts of life) someone who already loves art should have at least consider the possibility that there's something good in there, and believe it or not, there's a lot of great dissonant music - even if dissonant is still such a a vague term that I'm not entirely sure what we're talking about.
I mean, if you don't like a particular piece of music... fine. If you don't like many particular pieces of music, fine too. I don't like a lot of dissonant music myself. But maybe you could find a piece that clicks for you, and that will help to appreciate other things.

A personal experience: I have a great passion for architecture and and for a very long time I completely hated brutalism. I thought it was cold, and dark, and unhuman and oppressive and basically any kind of criticism of the style one can read about it. And then I discovered things that I loved, and that gave me a new perspective until I started to love a lot of things I truly disliked in the past. Today I think it's one of the most brilliant and exciting styles in the history of the architecture (and I still think there's crap, don't get me wrong). Complete change of mind, which is a bit embarassing to say because we don't like to think that we can't be very wrong about things, but still. But that's what it's called acquired taste.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

one thing that I suspect though is that the appreciation for art that is not necessarily pleasant (or it's even very harsh or dramatic, or dark) is the fact to have experienced harsh or dark or dramatic things in life. So maybe it's easier to resonate with that art when one sees that it says something about the human experience.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I still think that an assignment about dissonant music, where you would have to listen many times to a piece and focus on different aspects, would make your ears used to the dissonances. Lets hear a thorough analysis of Bartok 4th string quartet!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> A personal experience: I have a great passion for architecture and and for a very long time I completely hated brutalism. I thought it was cold, and dark, and unhuman and oppressive and basically any kind of criticism of the style one can read about it. And then I discovered things that I loved, and that gave me a new perspective until I started to love a lot of things I truly disliked in the past. Today I think it's one of the most brilliant and exciting styles in the history of the architecture (and I still think there's crap, don't get me wrong). Complete change of mind, which is a bit embarassing to say because we don't like to think that we can't be very wrong about things, but still. But that's what it's called acquired taste.


But I don't think you should consider yourself to have been _wrong_ to hate brutalism. As you said, you changed your perspective.



cybernaut said:


> I just completely disagree with your entire premise. And no amount of debating is going to get me to enjoy eating super spicy food, just as no amount of argument from a dung beetle would get you to enjoy the taste of feces.
> 
> The dung beetle would tell you "it's sad that you're missing out on the great taste of fecal matter...just because you don't get it, and have a constricted understanding of the world. You're limiting your food enjoyment and missing a lot. Sad. You're limiting your perspective."


I agree with this point, but still, people can over time change their perspective. It's not so much that you could go from "not enjoying eating super spicy food" to "enjoying eating super spicy food": you would simply be changing your perspective as to what counts as "super spicy". Just as (presumably) Norman doesn't now think "I love cold, dark, unhuman and oppressive architecture!" - he's just changed in what he considers to be cold, dark, unhuman and oppressive.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

cybernaut said:


> Lol.
> 
> We do agree on a vast amount of music, and spend a lot of our time together listening. This past Friday night, he came to visit, and we stayed up til 4am watching music videos from Youtube...some great piano players like Alfred Brendel and Andras Schiff and Samson Francois.


Sounds good to me. That sort of experience together cuts through differences in taste, or understanding for that matter. I don't think it makes a huge difference how either of you understand those pianists, but you both feel some sort of connection to their playing.

To relate this to my own experience, overall I dislike opera. I think that I understand it at some basic level, but even if I don't it doesn't matter. Since I didn't feel a connection to the music in the first place, the effort's not worth it. Forcing appreciation of something in this way is counterproductive, its most likely to lead you back to where you started.


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I still think that an assignment about dissonant music, where you would have to listen many times to a piece and focus on different aspects, would make your ears used to the dissonances. Lets hear a thorough analysis of Bartok 4th string quartet!


I have loved Bartok's string quartets for a long, long time now. The composers I struggled with and needed to listen to a bit to get to love were (in particular) Haydn and Mendelssohn - not notoriously dissonant composers. It was perhaps the lack of what seemed to me at a young age to be "spice" that put me off, whereas Bartok offered that in abundance.

Now I guess it seems to me to be more about the appropriateness of dissonance within a structure that matters. (Why did it take decades to achieve this hardly earth-shattering insight? Probably the arrogance of youth.)

Anyway, the music I don't really get now is probably music where you I don't apprehend the structure, so I can't really tell what is consonance and what is dissonance. Perhaps that's the marker for my ventures into modernism: I can only go as far as a place where I can still make sense of the distinction between consonance and dissonance.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> You didn't read the article but feel you can respond to it. :lol:
> 
> And I didn't imply anything. I just provided interesting scientific information on the topic of consonance and dissonance...and how humans react to them.
> 
> ...


I've seen a similar study posted on an older thread on this topic before. It's true that without context, certain intervals sound dissonant and more people react to it in a negative way. But it's not quite like the spicy food analogy all the time. Some music puts together these otherwise dissonant intervals together into something, and then where a normally consonant interval or chord can actually sound dissonant, after the ear has adjusted to the dissonance. I wish I can think of a hard example off-hand, but I believe Debussy's music sometimes contains that. The spicy analogy of the dissonance is for a certain application only in common practice music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> But I don't think you should consider yourself to have been _wrong_ to hate brutalism. As you said, you changed your perspective.


my perspective changed in the sense that it's more complete, that I'm able to see things in a way that I was unable before. That's why I consider my previous view wrong. I was basically in a place where I thought that brutalism was just horrible, dark, oppressive and ugly and in a sense I still those things are sometimes true, but I'm able to see the value, I'm able to make more precise judgments about single buildings, to see its value and its flaws while before it was more a sweeping generalization black/white: brutalism sucked. And in a sense brutalism is a good equivalent of dissonant music for architecture.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I still think that an assignment about dissonant music, where you would have to listen many times to a piece and focus on different aspects, would make your ears used to the dissonances. Lets hear a thorough analysis of Bartok 4th string quartet!


ughh no thank you.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

norman bates said:


> my perspective changed in the sense that it's more complete, that I'm able to see things in a way that I was unable before. That's why I consider my previous view wrong. I was basically in a place where I thought that brutalism was just horrible, dark, oppressive and ugly and in a sense I still those things are sometimes true, but I'm able to see the value, I'm able to make more precise judgments about single buildings, to see its value and its flaws while before it was more a sweeping generalization black/white: brutalism sucked. And in a sense brutalism is a good equivalent of dissonant music for architecture.


To me, brutalism is the kind of architecture that's fun to look at when it's in some far-away country, but which I really don't want in my neighborhood.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

cybernaut said:


> To me, brutalism is the kind of architecture that's fun to look at when it's in some far-away country, but which I really don't want in my neighborhood.


yep, that's exactly what I was saying about sweeping generalizations


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

cybernaut said:


> My question is not whether dissonance is better than consonance...or vice versa.
> 
> It is whether "you just don't get it" is a valid argument for someone telling me why I don't like pieces that are heavily dissonant.
> 
> ...


Isn't that what I said? I gave you an example where, for me, dissonance is use effectively. One could go back to Mozart, or earlier, for other examples. But there was a time when all intervals except the unison or octave generally were considered dissonant and undesirable. It's all up to you.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> is whether "you just don't get it" is a valid argument


Sometimes it is. You like Glass and other minimalists; I don't; I don't get it. I also don't worry about it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

fluteman said:


> Isn't that what I said? I gave you an example where, for me, dissonance is use effectively. One could go back to Mozart, or earlier, for other examples. But there was a time when all intervals except the unison or octave generally were considered dissonant and undesirable. It's all up to you.


about this, it must be said that the fact that certain intervals were considered dissonant while in more modern (even in the baroque, classical or romantic period) were accepted depends also on the different tuning system. So when we talk about the tritone today, is not the tritone that was known centuries ago, it's a different interval (at least for what I know).


----------

