Is dissonance bad?

[aciddose]

What are you telling them musically by sticking with the abstraction?

You are one to talk. Really. Of all people you should be familiar with the fact that any additional meaning carried by the terms "minor third" and "augmented second" is entirely subjective and depends upon the context of western dogma. Are you actually creative? Or do you just rehash the same drivel, never changing, never stepping outside those bounds to create anything original?

Would it be difficult for you to consider the interval of +3 semitones without any of the added baggage? It all just seems like you are incapable of abstract thought or intuitively drawing the connection between concrete, objective statements like "+3" and all the other concepts associated.

This really seems to be disordered/tangential thinking that has lead to the loss of the ability to organize concepts in a logical hierarchy. To be honest this is a well known issue and it very often affects those who have invested much of their lives toward creative pursuits. In terms of creativity the organization of concepts into a loose "web" without solid unidirectional connections is actually an advantage.

Eventually though you will find that the web catches and ties up any other capability to the point it is in fact detrimental. You'll only be able to think in these concrete terms by navigating along the fixed branches and pathways of your existing "web". Adding new concepts or trimming those which are defunct will have intractable complexity associated thereby making your existing thought pathways completely incorrigible.

In that sense you may already be a lost cause.

[nonnaci]

If by con(dis)sonance, we mean the cognitive load to extract patterns of various guises (e.g. pitch, intervals, rhythm, etc), then the good/bad judgment reduces to a spectrum along easy v.s. challenging. Whether one prefers easy v.s. challenging music is a matter of taste as it relates more with intrinsic qualities such as a exploratory / novel seeking tendencies and compensatory mechanisms with say neuroticism/mood regulation.

[goldenhelix]

I've said this before in other places (some on this board) but I think people can only benefit from abandoning the notions of "consonance" and "dissonance", or at least distancing themselves from thinking in that way. As others have pointed out, what is considered "dissonant" has changed over time through cultural evolution. These are relative terms that are subjective. I prefer the concept of "tension" because, while it is still relative, it is not as subjective. To explain, consonance and dissonance are ways of describing how aurally pleasing something is and will vary from person to person. Tension is a response to what the sounds in their natural context actually do to the brain no matter who you are. You can learn to like all sorts of complex harmonies, frequency ratios, but you cannot learn to hear a tone cluster as containing less tension than a major triad. The reaction of some people might be "sure I can!" This is just what people do when they're told they can't do anything. The fact is no, you really can't.

[Musicologo]

Then please someone explain this. Why the dyads to these women are pleasant, happy, fulfilling?
I would advise people to read "Thirty-three issues" by Bruno Nettl on some of these (and other) issues already debunked 50 years ago by ethnomusicologists.

[jancivil]

I'd concur with this:

I've said this before in other places (some on this board) but I think people can only benefit from abandoning the notions of "consonance" and "dissonance", or at least distancing themselves from thinking in that way. As others have pointed out, what is considered "dissonant" has changed over time through cultural evolution.

But this:

You can learn to like all sorts of complex harmonies, frequency ratios, but you cannot learn to hear a tone cluster as containing less tension than a major triad. The reaction of some people might be "sure I can!" This is just what people do when they're told they can't do anything. The fact is no, you really can't.

Is rather an absolutist disposition which is supposed as true per se. No, a cluster of, eg., a few major seconds is not in itself more tense than a major triad. By 'in itself' and 'per se', I am indicating <outside of all musical context>. Not to mention you don't know another person's mind. That's not me being reactive, it's just not true for me, and I don't think it works very well as physics. Now we can get into more density and probably in itself a cluster of say semitones gets to be tenser than the major triad. Physically speaking. But confer the criticism I refer to in another thread here, of the reductive thrust of the Helmholtz premises and precept; ie., it isn't as simple as all that. I would tend to grant it for enough density as a physical phenomenon, but subjectively, I really cannot accept C D E as more tense than C E G, for instance.

Additionally, and without being as esoteric as Musicologo (who has an apt point) was just now, how is that the Major Seventh chord is such a satisfying ending in the context where it is prevalent? It's done as a gesture of prettiness, loveliness. Zappa: "Major seventh means you're in love.". And C D E can be a perfectly cromulent final I chord.

[goldenhelix]

I'd concur with this:

I've said this before in other places (some on this board) but I think people can only benefit from abandoning the notions of "consonance" and "dissonance", or at least distancing themselves from thinking in that way. As others have pointed out, what is considered "dissonant" has changed over time through cultural evolution.

But this:

You can learn to like all sorts of complex harmonies, frequency ratios, but you cannot learn to hear a tone cluster as containing less tension than a major triad. The reaction of some people might be "sure I can!" This is just what people do when they're told they can't do anything. The fact is no, you really can't.

Is rather an absolutist disposition which is supposed as true per se. No, a cluster of, eg., a few major seconds is not in itself more tense than a major triad. By 'in itself' and 'per se', I am indicating <outside of all musical context>. Not to mention you don't know another person's mind. That's not me being reactive, it's just not true for me, and I don't think it works very well as physics. Now we can get into more density and probably in itself a cluster of say semitones gets to be tenser than the major triad. Physically speaking. But confer the criticism I refer to in another thread here, of the reductive thrust of the Helmholtz premises and precept; ie., it isn't as simple as all that. I would tend to grant it for enough density as a physical phenomenon, but subjectively, I really cannot accept C D E as more tense than C E G, for instance.

Additionally, and without being as esoteric as Musicologo (who has an apt point) was just now, how is that the Major Seventh chord is such a satisfying ending in the context where it is prevalent? It's done as a gesture of prettiness, loveliness. Zappa: "Major seventh means you're in love.". And C D E can be a perfectly cromulent final I chord.

As I discuss in another thread here, my use of the word "tense" is perhaps not what you imagine. My use of the word, which coincides with some other music theorists (so it's not my arbitrary invention) is more aptly described as an elevation of sorts and is a largely subconscious phenomenon. You could say I'm making an absolutist statement, and maybe I am, but discounting it because I "can't know another person's mind" is a relativistic way of thinking I can't get behind. It's tied to the (in my opinion, droll) question of "how do we all know we see red the same?" or things of that ilk. I believe we're pretty safe in making such judgments based on evidence. I think everyone processes intervals the same even if it makes another surface judgment about how much it likes them. There's more evidence for this than there is to the contrary.


Now, I can see part of your point in that, maybe for practical purposes it isn't even worth discussing the deeper "tension" effect of intervals if the conscious mind doesn't give a shit, but from a structural and compositional standpoint, I think it's absolutely worth caring about, because I contend that it absolutely exists. The fact that CDE can be a final chord does not mean it contains no tension. Likewise for maj7 which absolutely contains a certain amount of tension, as pleasing as it is to a lot of people (I personally adore the interval and it's all over the place in my music, and use it at the beginning and probably ends of progressions). Again, there is evidence to support this, the simplest being: why would you even use it in place of a regular major triad if not for what it does? "Because you're in love" is funny and maybe that's the way it makes you feel but if we're talking more scientifically about it (which isn't a bad thing), we have to acknowledge that it's because it does something different, certainly something more profound on some level, than its harmonically simpler comrade. Why is this? "Tension".

[Musicologo]

«I think everyone processes intervals the same even if it makes another surface judgment about how much it likes them. There's more evidence for this than there is to the contrary.» - Where is this evidence? What are the implications of this? What does it mean to "process the same" but make diverse "surface judgements"? Why would that happen, where are we losing the causality nexus then? Aren't those diverse "surface judgements" what really matters in the practice of people?

If someone thinks they "like it" or "are in love with it" clearly their behaviour and resulting sounds will result different from someone "processing the same" but feeling they "hate it"...

This would all boils down to "why suya sing?". The eternal question all ethnomusicologists seek to answer. In this case we can even make a simple one like you did: why in a certain moment do I use a maj7 instead of a triad? And answering "tension" (which is an ill-defined concept) is meaningless, it really doesn't explain anything, specially if one "loves it" and feel "relaxed". I mean, just listen to Gymnopedies by Satie. I don't feel "tension" at all. All so peaceful and quiet, even I composed my delicatesse using closed voicings G-B-C-E and just feel so magically pleased by it...

[goldenhelix]

Aren't those diverse "surface judgements" what really matters in the practice of people?

I am not claiming to know what matters to anyone. That's up for you to decide. That's completely outside the scope of what I was talking about.

If someone thinks they "like it" or "are in love with it" clearly their behaviour and resulting sounds will result different from someone "processing the same" but feeling they "hate it"...

.... What? Yes? I don't even understand the question.

This would all boils down to "why suya sing?". The eternal question all ethnomusicologists seek to answer. In this case we can even make a simple one like you did: why in a certain moment do I use a maj7 instead of a triad? And answering "tension" (which is an ill-defined concept) is meaningless, it really doesn't explain anything, specially if one "loves it" and feel "relaxed". I mean, just listen to Gymnopedies by Satie. I don't feel "tension" at all. All so peaceful and quiet, even I composed my delicatesse using closed voicings G-B-C-E and just feel so magically pleased by it...

You really are completely hung up on your preconceptions of the concept of tension as it is used to talk about harmonic information. Until you get over that, which I can't do for you, nothing I say to answer your questions will be anything but "meaningless" to you. Sorry, not trying to be an asshole here. I appreciate that you're probably trying to have a conversation with me but I'm not sure what else I can say. You're still hung up on the word and show no willingness to break through to the concept. I could make up a previously non-existent word to describe the phenomenon which I have already defined if that would help you divorce yourself from the other meanings of the word "tense" but this is becoming utterly boring for me. I feel like I'm in a cave arguing about what different grunts mean, forgetting that there's an actual reality that they symbolize. If you want to talk about the symbols, there are probably other people who are going to be more receptive to that. I'm operating on the inevitable conclusion that, lacking telepathy, we've got words and we have to make the best of the situation and get on with talking about the things they stand for.

[jancivil]

But this:

You can learn to like all sorts of complex harmonies, frequency ratios, but you cannot learn to hear a tone cluster as containing less tension than a major triad. The reaction of some people might be "sure I can!" This is just what people do when they're told they can't do anything. The fact is no, you really can't.

Is rather an absolutist disposition which is supposed as true per se. No, a cluster of, eg., a few major seconds is not in itself more tense than a major triad. By 'in itself' and 'per se', I am indicating <outside of all musical context>. Not to mention you don't know another person's mind. That's not me being reactive, it's just not true for me, and I don't think it works very well as physics. Now we can get into more density and probably in itself a cluster of say semitones gets to be tenser than the major triad. Physically speaking. But confer the criticism I refer to in another thread here, of the reductive thrust of the Helmholtz premises and precept; ie., it isn't as simple as all that. I would tend to grant it for enough density as a physical phenomenon, but subjectively, I really cannot accept C D E as more tense than C E G, for instance.

As I discuss in another thread here, my use of the word "tense" is perhaps not what you imagine. My use of the word, which coincides with some other music theorists (so it's not my arbitrary invention) is more aptly described as an elevation of sorts and is a largely subconscious phenomenon. You could say I'm making an absolutist statement, and maybe I am, but discounting it because I "can't know another person's mind" is a relativistic way of thinking I can't get behind. It's tied to the (in my opinion, droll) question of "how do we all know we see red the same?" or things of that ilk. I believe we're pretty safe in making such judgments based on evidence. I think everyone processes intervals the same even if it makes another surface judgment about how much it likes them. There's more evidence for this than there is to the contrary.

No, because you actually asserted you know everyone's mind - "The fact is you can't" - and you double down on it right here. "You cannot learn to hear it as...". It is absolutist and it's presumptive. Tense at a certain level - only dealing with physics, not music - is knowable. Once we're in the fabric of some music it has meaning which you choose to ignore in favor of claiming to know all of our capabilities as suits a reductive disposition.

As to presenting evidence, the ball is still in your court as to why a "cluster" (undefined, alright) is, in itself, all that tense. C D E is more tense than C E G, in itself? That's your disposition, but what is the fact? Physically. Your problem is 'major second' or the whole tone rather than a tone plus a tone or plus a semitone, one supposes. Well, D there is an inverted 3:2 from G. Really. If it's C G D, 3:2 over 3:2. So how useful will talking about 5:4 as a simpler ratio than 9:4 be really. Is that where our definition of "more tense than" derives? But wait, you may be talking about 12tET major triad. So we could get into facts such as the fact of a major third which is distorted by 12th root of 2 temperament. It's no problem of "tension" to have the business end of your triad 13.9¢ sharp? If there isn't, your argument is now inconsistent on the factual basis. But wait, as to the ball from your court, define that, "tension", as I realized I'm working with my supposition of it.

To place the remark about a glib assessment of qualia after replying to what I said constructs a strawman. It has nothing to do with my point. And I didn't "imagine" meaning, I replied to an actual statement. I don't agree with it on a factual basis. It's not relativistic. You're ignoring a pretty high percentage of my statements to come down with that assessment of it.

Now, I can see part of your point in that, maybe for practical purposes it isn't even worth discussing the deeper "tension" effect of intervals if the conscious mind doesn't give a shit, but from a structural and compositional standpoint, I think it's absolutely worth caring about, because I contend that it absolutely exists. The fact that CDE can be a final chord does not mean it contains no tension. Likewise for maj7 which absolutely contains a certain amount of tension, as pleasing as it is to a lot of people (I personally adore the interval and it's all over the place in my music, and use it at the beginning and probably ends of progressions).

Again, tension in terms of vibration and reduced to a physical examination is one thing, tension in musical context or as you like 'practical purposes' are actually not exactly the same term.

First, there is nowhere I said the thing 'has no tension'. I would not say that about your preferred point of repose, the 'major triad' either, though.*

I think the former is absolutely worth caring about because I use that knowledge in creating music. It is not worth thinking about in absolutist terms such as your concluding statements. A major seventh chord contains exactly what problems making it more problematic than a major triad in terms of a stable sound, physically? * I mean our next step from here is to tell people that they can't learn to hear a major triad except as more tense than a unison. But I'm sticking with my account of C D E as not more tense in factual terms than C E G. First of all, are we dealing in sound, really, AT ALL? Sine tones? Instruments with certain properties, spacing, what. No.

[jancivil]

And so I think the seemingly subjective impression of that Gymnopedies as not at all tense tends to agree with the facts, physically, of acoustical phenomena pertaining to this word 'tension'.
Hence my reductio ad absurdum to comparing the major third and perfect fifth over a root with a unison. What science proves that an approximation of this limit: 1st, 3rd and 5th partial is less tense than approximation of the limit: 1st, 3rd partials and 3rd partial of the 3rd partial (my actual example given)? Where does this argument run into a wall? Never? My position is it already did.

The notion of the second there as particularly tense appears to be a hangover from very old convention.