Is dissonance bad?

[NerdMcBoon]

Music often is about conveyng an idea or an emotion, dissonance is just another tool to reach that goal.
So, no, dissonance isn't bad, but dissonance for the sake of dissonance is, just like it is with any other tool in the toolbox of a musician.

There are many great examples in this thread how carefully used dissonance can be exactly the right "tool".

Intent is key.

[StudioDave]

Intent is key.

+1

[zethus909]

yea CAREFUL is the word. there's also examples here of OVERT BLATENT use of dissonance . this is like serving someone a nice meal but with an entire box of salt heaped on top of it . and trying to make the person eating it feel bad for saying it tastes awful and is ripping a hole in their stomach

[ozmuso67]

I know this has been answered, but..

Dissonance can be good. A little dissonance can be very good in the context of a song. You write a song, and it is all musically consonant (ie all sounds sweet), but then you listen to it, and sweet from start to finish makes your ears a bit "bored". What you might need is a bit of dissonance, to break up the "sweet-ness". The bit of dissonance creates some interest for the song.

Sometimes it is just adding something harmonically that doesn't quite fit the rules - eg playing some notes out of scale, or a slightly dissonant chord layering, for a few bars.. sometimes it can be just adding a slightly grungy distortion effect to something, that isn't entirely harmonic..

It is all about balance. Too much dissonance can be as bad as too much consonance, but then that might be the intention. How much of each is personal taste, like a good recipe, some like a lot of chilli, some not so much.

[Unaspected]

I agree, ozmuso67. I like to think about the textural qualities of sound and this extends to composition; where the play between dissonance and harmony can be entertained for greater depth and interest.

The dissonance at the end of this track is sublime:

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

[Taron]

Ah, on the OSC threads we've just been talking about music theory again and I immediately stumbled across this wonderful set of threads.
I just thought about dissonance, and I think people often are simply unaware of the different scale systems that seem to produce dissonance, but simply skip into a different math of notes. Most notably it's the alternating intervals of the octatonic scales.

Once you are fully aware of them, you can make out relationships between harmonies that are traditionally not mentioned. For example:
c minor - root triad would be C-D#-G
If you look at it from an octatonic point of view, the notes up to it are C-C#-D#-E-F#-G-A-A# -c....
With this scale in mind, you could connect it to A Major, having a root triad of A-C#-E

As long as you establish the scale in time, you could then play with such harmony changes and even hit notes that are seemingly dissonant, but actually fall right onto the established system.

The real problem only comes, when you're unaware of it and stray from it, which then only feels accidental or even ignorant. As a musician, especially a composer, you really want to establish that you're in charge and you are able to take a listener onto a journey. If you fail to take proper charge, your music can quickly become weak or even unpleasant to listen to. I don't know how far one can maintain a sense of authority, when going totally nuts, hahaha, but that could be interesting, too.

The biggest misconception is, that taking charge would go against vulnerability or other sensitivity, but it really does not. The most heart-felt ballads have a composer that knows exactly how to lead a listener. Just as the most frantic illustrator of madness likely knows quite well what he/she's doing.

Clarity on the mathematical and philosophical aspects of music can give you a nearly unlimited vocabulary to express your musical ideas.
It's exciting to think about how much there is to explore.

[fmr]

c minor - root triad would be C-D#-G
If you look at it from an octatonic point of view, the notes up to it are C-C#-D#-E-F#-G-A-A# -c....
With this scale in mind, you could connect it to A Major, having a root triad of A-C#-E

C minor i degree triad is not C-D#-G, but C-Eb-G. Technically a C-D#-G isn't even a triad, since the interval from C to D# is an augmented second, not a minor third. It may seem indifferent to you, but it is not.

The C minor tonality has C, D, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb (which can exchange with B to have the leading tone) and C.

Through enharmony, you can modulate from this tonality to a far tonality, but for that, you better use the diminished seventh over the B (not Bb). Being a symmetrical chord, the diminished seventh can resolve in any of four tonalities: C minor, Eb minor (or Major), Gb minor/F# minor (or F# Major), and finally A minor (or A Major).

But nothing of this relates particularly with dissonance (at least in the way we have been talking about, like in the works of Ligeti). This is more about sound, sound aggregates and sound clusters, and not anymore about chords and functional harmony. That was basically over with the second phase of the work of Schoenberg and his disciples (atonalism).

Debussy followed a different path, more related with modes and modality, and uses chords, although not functional harmony.

[Taron]

I was a little bit afraid somebody impractically "smart" would fire against the DAW notation compromise that often doesn't go down to 'b' but only up to '#'. I suppose, if you wanted to be extra smart, you'd write a minor chord c-eb-g, I suppose, hehe. It's just not practical.

Anyway, I'm off again. I thought it could be approachable people here, but didn't know I was interfering with geniuses! I apologize and I'm off...Cya!

[fmr]

I was a little bit afraid somebody impractically "smart" would fire against the DAW notation compromise that often doesn't go down to 'b' but only up to '#'. I suppose, if you wanted to be extra smart, you'd write a minor chord c-eb-g, I suppose, hehe. It's just not practical.

There is NO such thing as DAW compromise. If you define C minor as the tonality, you will get Eb and not D#. The problem is that people who ignore what tonality is don't do that, and "think" that the DAWs are limited to sharps. They aren't.

[Taron]

I guess, I should've painted a picture for you to avoid your academical wrath.
...thanks for clarifying. But, seriously, just out of curiosity, no sarcasm or provocation, are you saying there's a difference in the frequencies between D#5 and Eb5? And dare I mention the octave or must I mention what instrument is meant to play these notes?
Let's say we're talking about a piano here, just for having some fun together, just between you and me. Your Eb5 has different tonality than my D#5? Maybe I don't understand the term "tonality" either. I apologize for that, too.

Anyway, I didn't want to leave you, thinking I'd ignore you.

[MadBrain]

I was a little bit afraid somebody impractically "smart" would fire against the DAW notation compromise that often doesn't go down to 'b' but only up to '#'. I suppose, if you wanted to be extra smart, you'd write a minor chord c-eb-g, I suppose, hehe. It's just not practical.

There is NO such thing as DAW compromise. If you define C minor as the tonality, you will get Eb and not D#. The problem is that people who ignore what tonality is don't do that, and "think" that the DAWs are limited to sharps. They aren't.

Well, the DAW knows that it has MIDI note 63, but it has no idea whether that corresponds to a D#5 or Eb5. So it's "limited to sharps" in the sense that it only stores this combined "either D#5 or Eb5" value, and not "D#5" or "Eb5" proper. In the absence of more precise info, most DAWs simply display "D#5", with the understanding that you should read that as "Eb5" if that's appropriate (you get used to it after a while).

This "DAW compromise" "forced enharmony " notation with exists whether you like it or not, and, to be honest, I'm not sure what's so wrong with using it in an informal discussion on a forum. Sure, the notation with split Eb/D# is prettier, but this doesn't justify derailing threads over and over every single time someone says "C-D#-G". Life is too short for this.

[Taron]

[sjm]

This "DAW compromise" "forced enharmony " notation with exists whether you like it or not, and, to be honest, I'm not sure what's so wrong with using it in an informal discussion on a forum. Sure, the notation with split Eb/D# is prettier, but this doesn't justify derailing threads over and over every single time someone says "C-D#-G". Life is too short for this.

I think the answer here is because this is a music theory forum, so saying "meh I don't care about thirds, I just use augemented seconds" is strange. While Taron may have no idea what a second or third are - and may not care at all - to poo poo it as the domain of the smart alec elite is disrespectful and also strangely ignorant for someone professing an interest in the subject.

Instead, this would be a better opportunity to understand why it's important to distinguish between a second and a third when talking about music theory and understand why those concepts exist.

[fmr]

But, seriously, just out of curiosity, no sarcasm or provocation, are you saying there's a difference in the frequencies between D#5 and Eb5? And dare I mention the octave or must I mention what instrument is meant to play these notes?

There MIGHT be, is we are talking of an orchestra.

Let's say we're talking about a piano here, just for having some fun together, just between you and me. Your Eb5 has different tonality than my D#5?

NO

Maybe I don't understand the term "tonality" either. I apologize for that, too.

No need to apologize, and forgive me if I offended you - it wasn't my intention, honestly. But tonally, there IS a difference between D# and Eb,and yes, it has to do with tonality. It would take a quite long text to try to explain that to you, but in you are REALLY interested, I may try to do that, but by Private message. Is that OK?

[fmr]

Well, the DAW knows that it has MIDI note 63, but it has no idea whether that corresponds to a D#5 or Eb5.

EXACTLY

So it's "limited to sharps" in the sense that it only stores this combined "either D#5 or Eb5" value, and not "D#5" or "Eb5" proper. In the absence of more precise info, most DAWs simply display "D#5", with the understanding that you should read that as "Eb5" if that's appropriate (you get used to it after a while).

All DAWs I know allow you to define the tonality, if you want/know. If you do that, you give the DAW that "more precise info", and from then on, it will display the proper note. The absence of that "more precise info" is not a DAW fault, it's a user fault. Therefore, sorry, but I disagree with you - DAWs are NOT limited, either I like it or not. They may have been limited in the very beginning, but not anymore, since a very long time. Users, OTOH, are often limited