Is dissonance bad?

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

the point is, that some sounds give you headaches, when combined with eachother. i dont want to mince words or musical terms. lets just leave it at that. some sounds when combined with eachother, will cause headaches, and definite ear tiredness. this is all irrespective of loudness. however when you listen to just one of the sounds individually it will not sound "bad", it's only when you combine it, with a specific other sound that it will create this "bad dissonance"....but i think also, the more accurate term would be, "bad consonance"

because it is two tones that when they are similar enough to sound "consonant" with eachothe like on the macro scale, like a root and major 3rd...but detuned enough in releation to eachother, that it will create actual listener discomfort. as someone who works alot on sound design, and works with "continuous range" intervals in techno, and dialing sounds "by ear" as opposed to relying on some prescribed ratio system...i can only detail my own experiences. most probably have not ventured far enough down the rabbit hole of sound design to exeperience the type of dissonance, bad consonance i have
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

"One man's" dissonance "is another man's" Debussy :hihi:

As for the headaches, how does that quote go? ... "make it hurt so good"? ;)

Post

duped
Last edited by jancivil on Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

cron wrote:
zethus909 wrote:only those who can detect the most minute differences in tone will have this problem...a few cents off, two tones, for a prolonged period of time, will drive you crazy....depending on the tone, and exact relationship....it's not a rule, but it is a real effect.
... Most intervals in equal temperament (i.e. the vast majority of music we hear) are way more than a few cents off their just equivalents. Most are over 10. Some approach 20.
a difference in intonation {term: a few cents off} is not the same as differences in tone {terms: bright, brittle, warm, fizzy, harsh}. "Out-of-tune" is not a matter of tone. Be good if you getcher basic terms together before going off.

So, I can be bugged a lot by a bad note on a piano, but a super-flat note in Arabic music is an acquired taste and subjective. Someone may like the bum note, even. (I'm just recalling one note in my Gnossiennes 3 that drove me nuts. It's more than one string to the piano note so it was a f**ker. I found that ~20 steps in pitchbend was totally a difference. 20/8192, what is that. So STFU about it! :)) There are, OTOH, tones that will hurt a person if they're not careful, no one was arguing that with you.

Post

What is dissonance? It is sounds that you and many others PERCEIVE as uncomfortable. That's why it is always bad, except the case that you want to make someone feed uncomfortable.That is why dissonances are use in the film tracks of horror movies

Post

Dissonance is what it is, neither good nor bad.

We may as well be arguing if 'blue' is bad over 5 pages next time.

Post

dark water wrote:Dissonance is what it is, neither good nor bad.

We may as well be arguing if 'blue' is bad over 5 pages next time.
Well, at least with blue you would have something real to talk about. Dissonance is a concept, a convention that's been changing over time, and is changing constantly.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

Yeah, it is. It's a real world killer. It's gonna haunt you in your dreams and eventually swallow you whole. That's dissonance for you.

What disturbs me here personally though is the lack of context. Yeah, dissonance isn't necessarily a lot of good (unless for an effect) if it happens on low enough registers. But then again, the lower you go, the less pleasing will be also the sound of consonance. So yes, I'd imagine that in the lower registers, you might have more problems with dissonance than with consonance. But again, is this bad? No, I can't agree to that, because maybe someone just wants to use that for an effect. However, I think in this case it matters less about what kind of chord you want to play, at least I personally have hard time recognizing chords from a piano in the lowest register.

But for example, I personally enjoy 7th chords a lot more in any of its inversions rather than the basic root position. They are bit more dissonant then the root position and I like that. The root position still sounds nice, but not as nice as the inversions to me. But on the other hand, I don't like diminished triad chords in their root position at all. But the inversions instead sound really nice.

Another example of trouble with lack of context: what kind of dissonance were talking about here anyway? For example, diminished scale gives me very dissonant feeling, apparently because there are two diatonic scales within the octatonic scale and we (...the people who have listened for the most part music composed with diatonic scale, mebbe some modulation too) aren't used to that (the actual explanation I got was far better than this, I just can't remember it entirely). So having four minor chords will sound dissonant (to me), even though none of these chords are dissonant by themselves.

As for the people who say that out of tune is necessarily a bad and unpleasant thing, I think Tom Waits has something to say to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPPtrqvHGEg

Post

Functional wrote:
diminished scale gives me very dissonant feeling, apparently because there are two diatonic scales within the octatonic scale and we [...] aren't used to that.
So having four minor chords will sound dissonant (to me), even though none of these chords are dissonant by themselves.
D Eb F Gb Ab A B C

Eb Fb Gb Abb A Bb C Db

E F G Ab Bb B C# D

F Gb Ab... wait. We're done transposing, it all totally repeats from here.

So it is your expectation, it is symmetrical, with 3 trans-positions rather than 12. It's just very different than any diatonicisms, in construction. There's no regular 4. The harmonies availed to you by diatonic major or minor are thrown out of whack. Ain't no V-I.

(It's called 'diminished' scale as here are diminished triads on every degree.)

But this is its appeal, people got tired of that diatonic jive a long time ago. It'll take you outside right quick (and show you what it's like!).

In and of itself.
Also, too, it'll take V, and just by doing it implicates 'V7b9 #9 #11 13'
"In A": E F G G# A# B C# D.

SO it can float around with no aim of its own, or when you apply it to a norm of functional music it ratchets up the tension.

I write lines with it just like it's normal vocabulary though.

https://youtu.be/CAXvDGXND0M?t=57s
dig what the saxomaphonist done with it, hey

Post

Functional wrote: I don't like diminished triad chords in their root position at all. But the inversions instead sound really nice.
You may want to re-examine this one. They're still diminished triads.
Are you saying D F Ab bugs you but you go for F Ab D? They both contain a minor third and a tritone. The 1st inversion inverts one of the m3s to a M6. As a voicing concern (context) yes, but in itself I don't see a heckuva lotta difference.

Post

jancivil wrote:
Functional wrote: I don't like diminished triad chords in their root position at all. But the inversions instead sound really nice.
You may want to re-examine this one. They're still diminished triads.
Are you saying D F Ab bugs you but you go for F Ab D? They both contain a minor third and a tritone. The 1st inversion inverts one of the m3s to a M6. As a voicing concern (context) yes, but in itself I don't see a heckuva lotta difference.
Yeah I know, it's still the very same diminished chord, the relation between the notes isn't lost anywhere. And yup, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Maybe bit caricatured, I can stand it, but I'd be very much avoiding that root position for voicing. Seems to hold true even as I right now try it out. It just sounds less... dissonant? I dunno. However, I'm quite certain that most of it is just in my head for some reason. And obviously, the root position might very well be the choice I like the most in a given context (since now there is none).
jancivil wrote:But this is its appeal, people got tired of that diatonic jive a long time ago. It'll take you outside right quick (and show you what it's like!).
Yup, that's exactly how I've felt about it. I'm far from confident in using it, but after playing around with it for the first time like a year ago, I absolutely the qualities in it and thought that it's certainly something I should be using. But I think I better stick with the basics for now in terms of composition — there's plenty in there to learn. I remember that the scale also gave me a headache when it came to melodies especially (again, this makes no sense as to why it would do that). It would probably have done the same for chords but if I understood them any better, but because I didn't, I just liked what I heard, especially because it takes so little effort to just "float around" in it without relying to suspended chords, for example.

Have played around with it every now and then with pretty much similar feelings as far as I can recall. Perhaps I should dedicate a day in a week just to play with it and learn its magic?

jancivil wrote:I write lines with it just like it's normal vocabulary though.

https://youtu.be/CAXvDGXND0M?t=57s
dig what the saxomaphonist done with it, hey
Damn, that's actually very interesting :ud:

Post

I heard the lead guitarist for Leningrad Cowboys throw symm. octatonic in right after the last chorus in their (metal) cover of RING OF FIRE. Just do it!

Post

jancivil wrote:I heard the lead guitarist for Leningrad Cowboys throw symm. octatonic in right after the last chorus in their (metal) cover of RING OF FIRE. Just do it!
Maybe I will! By the way — my mentor (for FOH mixing stuff) actually has been on the road with them :D

Post


Thank you, I now know what it's like to be ear raped! :cry:

Post

My dog hates Penderecki, Ligeti and so on... I guess the animals don't like modern music :D

Post Reply

Return to “Music Theory”