Is dissonance bad?

[MadBrain]

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.

That's my point here, "C-D#-G" in this so-called "DAW compromise notation" really means "pick the one of C-D#-G or C-Eb-G which makes sense" - in this case obviously C-Eb-G. So it really means C-Eb-G and not C-D#-G, there are no augmented seconds implied at all here, and there is no poo-poohing of people who write sheet music and actually do have to differentiate between D# and Eb so that musicians can read it easily. Nobody is celebrating ignorance over knowledge here - people with experience will pick a D#/Eb differentiating notation over a non-differentiating one, but that's no reason to attack people like this.

[Taron]

I think, this is worthy of its own thread, alone for the curiosity of it. ...however, I will do some research on this.
I'm so used to talking to electronic musicians, people, who often know very little about music theory and simply want to start composing with the first tool that works for them. I have been working with DAWs since they weren't called that, hahaha, and in all this time I never bothered to look for some advanced feature that would allow me to tweak intervals for specific notations. That's because I'm an electronic musician, besides playing a number of analogue instruments. I know about notation and I know about the circle of quints, which clearly and neatly illustrates the difference between flats and sharps, but I have also learned to be practical when talking to people, who do not plan on composing scores for orchestra, but who simply like to work with sequencers.

However, learning the fine differences is a beautiful privilege I greatly appreciate! ...I will investigate.

[ozmuso67]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with you, as by the sounds of it, you know a lot more than me, but I would consider dissonance to include such things as scala tunings, or, if there is such a chord where you have the root note, a note a semi-tone up from the root, a major third, and a major fifth for example.

In the case of scala tunings, for some cultures they may be heard as consonant, whereas to me, much of the scala tunings are dissonant to my ear only because I have grown up accustomed to our standard tunings.

Anyway, if I digress, apologies. Please continue

[MadBrain]

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

Hmm, if you edit stuff in piano roll notation, then song key doesn't really matter so you'll rarely need to set it. In the case of Reaper (the DAW I use), it only got key signature support recently - when they added Notation view last year (which is a pretty good reason to add song key support I admit). For Tracker-style programs, they generally display everything in sharps and you just learn to read it that way (though they have all sorts of other kinda insane display choices anyways, like showing numbers in hexadecimal).

[Taron]

For Tracker-style programs, they generally display everything in sharps and you just learn to read it that way (though they have all sorts of other kinda insane display choices anyways, like showing numbers in hexadecimal).

HAha, yeah, I started out making music on the C64 directly in memory, purely with hexadecimal numbers and code for parameters and pattern queues and such. Tracker came much later and were supposed to be luxurious, but to me they felt limiting, hahaha.
On the Amiga with OctaMed things became a bit different and it started to be fun.

I'm using MuLab for a long time now and there I don't even know if it supports this kind of notation features?! ...luckily I don't care either!

[sjm]

I think, this is worthy of its own thread, alone for the curiosity of it. ...however, I will do some research on this.

The single most useful thing for me was that it makes naming chords and figuring out what notes are in a chord a doddle. That's an actual real practical application, not theorectical humbug. It means not needing to use chord charts to figure out how to play a chord, and being able to name your chords allows you to write them down or communicate them with fellow musicians.

You will have a hard time figuring out the notes in a Gbm11 chord if you don't know what the intervals actually are.

Just because things sound the same, doesn't mean they are the same thing. "Write", "right" and "rite" all sound the same two, but ewe just sew confusion if you interchange the different spelling for the words. It jest isn't rite to right them wrong, end also confusing, write?

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

[Taron]

E...my goodness, we are derailing this thread, aren't we?!
Anyway... Every now and then I did get to teach some of my friends (damned, now I want to misspell everything after that youtube clip... ) music theory. I always did that by actually teaching them intervals only, simply because numbers are beautifully generic and reveal systems one can work with and even explore more easily than by using complicated terms that just clutter the mind. Later on they can do their own research with glossaries and the likes, should the need ever arise to communicate to educated musicians. But that is hardly ever to be expected, really.
I do, however, also present them with the circle of fifth, because it provides a very easy orientation for the basics and it illustrates some beautiful, mathematical relationships right away.

Though I really am not a fan of Wiki, some information transcends bias and is worth looking at to get started, especially on subjects like dissonance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance

I just quickly went over it and saw some beautiful observations there, considering the combined behavior of dissonant frequencies as they create a movement, become active. Something that can easily be observed, looking at an oscilloscope, for example. That makes me wonder about creating a kind of "dance" of waveform, like choreographing the movement speeds as visual approach to composition.

I find that very inspiring!

[jancivil]

Anyway... Every now and then I did get to teach some of my friends music theory. I always did that by actually teaching them intervals only, simply because numbers are beautifully generic and reveal systems one can work with and even explore more easily than by using complicated terms that just clutter the mind. Later on they can do their own research with glossaries and the likes, should the need ever arise to communicate to educated musicians. But that is hardly ever to be expected, really.

To be expected of whom?

The only area of music where "intervals" are this abstract - one supposes you mean teaching people '0 to 2' semitones rather than make a distinction as to quality - is dodecaphonic serialism of the atonal persuasion (even here one will employ reasoning as to quality of intervals). It doesn't seem all that likely that this is who you're talking to. In the context of most music, a minor third vs an augmented second is_meaningful. It is not clutter. Later on, maybe research with glossaries? What? Contact with educated musicians is going to be highly rare, so one supposes that you're talking to people that shall not become musically educated. This is a weird emphasis on the music theory board, I gotta say. If you're going to explore _musical_ systems use the language which applies (but you're already talking semitones). Minor third and augmented second are intervals contextually; 0 to 2 may be missing something essential regarding its use. What are you telling them musically by sticking with the abstraction?

[Taron]

To be expected by some of my friends, buddy! Obviously not you! (Was I THAT unclear about it? )

Yep, I'm a rebel in every discipline and love to converse with laymen like myself. All those academics tend to give me a headache, especially when their primary objective appears to be a celebration of their dogmatism rather than simply making sincere music from the heart and care to be understood by people outside of their inner circle.
I can easily see how this may provoke some, but the good news for me are that it won't bother me to have them condemn me or my rather relaxed attitude. Pfff.
I'd say you should carefully climb down from that dangerously high horse that you've borrowed and see how sweet the world is on your own two feet!

That being said, feel free to judge me by my music before you judge me by my desire to remain approachable.
...I'm not claiming that it would impress you, but rather that I'd be curious, whether you could respect any of it, you know!?

(I'm listening to your "As Alien As" right now... very, very fascinating! )

[jancivil]

Well, that is not dogmatic nor very high-handed. I think it's a reasonable line of question. I'm not an academic at all, either. 'Borrowed high horse' is pretty insulting, which I clearly wasn't.

All those academics tend to give me a headache, especially when their primary objective appears to be a celebration of their dogmatism rather than simply making sincere music from the heart and care to be understood by people outside of their inner circle.

Is that for me? So, knowing wtf a minor third is, and I feel confident in my guess that any chord such a person as you have taught is tertial if not triadic, makes one inaccessible and even insincere?

So take it personally and be argumentative with unreasonable terms, I'm not shamed by any of it. This is Music Theory sub-forum and it strikes me as strange to "rebel" against normative language in context.

[jancivil]

I'm listening to your "As Alien As" right now... very, very fascinating!

Yeah, that's the view from the dangerously high horse I'm on. & which isn't borrowed.

[sonicstrav]

Clusters...lots of ffff notes.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw9ni9zXc7A

[jancivil]

To be expected by some of my friends, buddy! (Was I THAT unclear about it?)

Ok, now I'm clear, my assumption that they "shall not become educated musicians" has been verified.
Doesn't seem to me hanging out with them would sweeten my world all that much. Buddy.

[sonicstrav]

Massive crushing dissonance whole orchestra...massive clusters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjsN2ndqGgg

[jancivil]

Clusters...

Yeah, it wouldn't matter what you called the notes there.