Blue notes

[fluffy_little_something]

Maybe what sounds right and what doesn't is a kind of culture-specific consensus that develops during childhood. Some Asian music for instance sounds off to me, but obviously it sounds totally normal to Asians.

[aciddose]

That's definitely true. My argument has only been to separate your question into two parts as you did in your posts early in the thread. So his argument that my statement of universality is incorrect is flawed in that he doesn't take into account the fact my statement was only with regard to the first question, not the second.

The second part is very questionable indeed however. His argument is essentially just repeating over and over and attempting various fallacious arguments like argument from authority the statement that "some cultures might define things differently."

Yet he hasn't presented any evidence showing any culture that does define things differently in the objective sense. So in other words to my knowledge there is no human who has ever defined a chord of an octave as dissonant in comparison to a fifth (which fifth doesn't matter) for example, since the context in this case is simply the relative consonance or dissonance between the two chords.

You might argue that a western fifth (such as +7 semitones on 12TET, ~3:2) does "not belong" or "sounds wrong" in specific subjective contexts (genre) like some obscure middle eastern scale lacking any approximation of a western fifth. In this case I'm not well enough aware to say whether that is true, but I won't disagree with the argument that it "could be" because that statement is definite and can not be argued.

[aciddose]

Also, you said:

..., but obviously it sounds totally normal to Asians.

I believe it would be a mistake to assume anything about "Asians" has any influence on this. I interpreted your meaning in terms of "people familiar with that musical context" but this is because I'm a native English speaker and we're transmitting information which is incredibly complex and difficult for non-native speakers to decode.

In other words your statement makes sense so long as "Asians" doesn't reference a particular culture, race, ethnicity or otherwise but rather simply individuals familiar with the particular context in which such is indeed "totally normal".

This is another example of a definite statement which can not be argued as the statement was simply "when taken in the context in which it is considered totally normal, it is considered totally normal."

AKA "begging the question" or axiomatic "stating the conclusion itself". Since you aren't making an argument however it isn't a fallacy to state the obvious. It's just stating the obvious

[BertKoor]

I think the original question boils down to this.

Compare this chord:

Code: Select all

 G3 F4 A4

with:

Code: Select all

 F4 G4 A4

Only difference is the G is a whole octave higher, but yet it sounds totally different. Dissonant even!

Explain that plz...

[fluffy_little_something]

I actually do mean specific cultures.

For instance, I remember sitting in an ice rink in Kuwait, they played Arab music that sounded wrong to my ears, especially the string chords.
But it sure was an absurd experience

Of course it has nothing to do with race. If I had been adopted and grown up in China or Kuwait or India, I would also find the local music normal and pleasant.

[aciddose]

Of course, I only meant that there is nothing inherent about a person that defines a culture. They don't even need to be raised as a part of that culture, it's an entirely learned trait and not limited to childhood.

So in other words long before anyone argues any of what jancivil was disgusted by as a part of "ethnic musicology", we'll just toss that opportunity (eugenics, race, etc) right out the window.

In other words I would encourage you if you're fascinated by the idea to learn what actually constitutes that sort of music and you'll find it isn't the music you find "pleasant", it's the normalcy!

Obviously attachment to familiarity isn't a uniquely human phenomena. It's a basic trait included in the simplest bacteria.

[aciddose]

I think the original question boils down to this.
...

Yes see on this page of this thread where I explained it. I agree with you, I said the same thing on a post here:
viewtopic.php?f=99&t=478186&start=30

[fluffy_little_something]

Would be interesting to do tests on animals to see if they also prefer and reject certain chords.

[aciddose]

I believe according to my memory that we have tested but haven't been able to objectively measure such things in a reliable way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

We haven't yet identified a practical "P-hormone" in humans, so pain remains a somewhat subjectively understood phenomenon. Evidence is pointing to the fact that physiological and emotional pain trigger the same effects. Nonetheless "pain" (stress) is highly correlated with stress hormones for obvious reasons (1), although none of these are solid, hard evidence that a subject is experiencing "sounds bad".

(1): Stress != Pain

Although unpleasantness is an essential part of the IASP definition of pain,[1] it is possible to induce a state described as intense pain devoid of unpleasantness in some patients, with morphine injection or psychosurgery.[26] Such patients report that they have pain but are not bothered by it; they recognize the sensation of pain but suffer little, or not at all.

jancivil might know more on the topic?

In cases such as birdsong or whalesong things do sometimes get a bit more interesting but that's a very esoteric subject.

[vurt]

Would be interesting to do tests on animals to see if they also prefer and reject certain chords.

i remember a test done on of all things, spiders.
was more in terms of genre than specific notes or chords.
they found they would build their webs further away from say a speaker playing heavy metal than a bach fugue at the same volume.

not sure if different species had different preference based on natural surroundings, i have no idea if house spiders liked any edm let alone house.

[fluffy_little_something]

I read years ago that plants die when exposed to Heavy Metal

[Hink]

^^^^^they be flat...sorry, I'll get my coat

[jancivil]

Compare this chord:

Code: Select all

 G3 F4 A4

with:

Code: Select all

 F4 G4 A4

Only difference is the G is a whole octave higher, but yet it sounds totally different. Dissonant even!

Explain that plz...

Well, that 'only' difference in fact produces other differences, such as now the intervals 'minor seventh' and 'major ninth' or more abstractly '[0], 10, and 14' are two major seconds or '[0], 2, and 4'. And it's supposed that the closer intervals present a sort of crowding in physical terms. It is statistically denser, there is more action, the extent of which depends on the timbre, ie., the harmonic action coming off these as fundamentals.

Now, to me this is not "totally different" and is possibly the same object revoiced. So we make notes as to such differences and perhaps one day arrive at a vocabulary.

What the thing is as an object or let's use your word 'chord' depends on context. It may turn out in a use case to be, in either case something known such as a 'G9' [obviously not a full one], if say the given context is tertial. In/of themselves the sonorities are not reducible to convention such as that. But there may be a certain connotation if one sounds them on say a Rhodes, where one is conditioned towards such a conclusion. And both these objects may work as that 'chord'. The secondal cluster may otoh be free-floating and part of the whole tone scale, or who knows.

In itself that cluster (or the 'dyad' of a whole tone) is not that densely packed for me. It can just sit there, fully static.

So I don't really agree that this 'boils down' or reduces to this difference as though there is an essential difference resulting in a truism. What were we talking about, again?