Atonal and tonal music

[Mahlerian]

This doesn't follow.  A person from non-Western culture might not find what we find dissonant more less pleasurable than what we find consonant for a large number of intervals, yet still find within the scales prevalent in their own culture a link between consonant and pleasant. It might be that in their culture there is a clear link between unpleasant and dissonant, for their ranking of consonance. That they would not have the same reaction to different sets of intervals categorized differently does not justify the conclusion.

You can read about the study and its results for yourself.  They are as I said: members of the tribe in question, who were not familiar with harmony as such, were able to distinguish the intervals in question, but did not rank dissonant ones as less pleasant.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/music-to-our-western-ears/491081/

There needs to be a distinction between dissonance and unpleasantness simply for the sake of mutual understanding, as while the former can be quantified rather precisely, the latter is dependent on contextual and cultural factors (there are few who consider a dominant seventh chord ending in jazz music as sounding unresolved or unpleasant, I would imagine, while in a Mozart piece this would sound positively bizarre).

[Ken B]

You can read about the study and its results for yourself.  They are as I said: members of the tribe in question, who were not familiar with harmony as such, were able to distinguish the intervals in question, but did not rank dissonant ones as less pleasant.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/07/music-to-our-western-ears/491081/

There needs to be a distinction between dissonance and unpleasantness simply for the sake of mutual understanding, as while the former can be quantified rather precisely, the latter is dependent on contextual and cultural factors (there are few who consider a dominant seventh chord ending in jazz music as sounding unresolved or unpleasant, I would imagine, while in a Mozart piece this would sound positively bizarre).

I don't need to read the study to know the conclusion YOU drew from it is wrong. The study is about whether persons from system A find intervals from system B more pleasant when more consonant according to system B, and finds they do not. It's about people listening to systems not their own. Your conclusion is that this also applies to persons from system B in their own system ( and persons from system A in their own system). That's what doesn't follow. You can cite all the studies you want proving women do not care about penis size, and they would not prove men don't.

[Mahlerian]

I don't need to read the study to know the conclusion YOU drew from it is wrong. The study is about whether persons from system A find intervals from system B more pleasant when more consonant according to system B, and finds they do not. It's about people listening to systems not their own. Your conclusion is that this also applies to persons from system B in their own system ( and persons from system A in their own system). That's what doesn't follow. You can cite all the studies you want proving women do not care about penis size, and they would not prove men don't.

I was simply concurring with the authors of the study, so it is not my conclusion, but also that of the authors, that you are rejecting out of hand.

A common and persistent idea is that there is an innate biological preference for certain intervals over others, and while this was backed up to a very limited extent by the study (the perfect fifth is mentioned as being a slightly preferred interval), the main conclusion of such papers as these:

http://www.brainmusic.org/MBB91%20Webpage/Evolution_Zentner.pdf

...has in the past been that the distinction between consonance and dissonance and the preference for the former are innate and universal (barring some perceptual difficulty such as tone deafness).  The recent study put this to the test by focusing specifically on those same intervals tested before in other studies with subjects who grew up in a world permeated by Western music, and it showed that our ideas about innateness are in need of some degree of revision.

I agree with you that it was always a flaw in these methods that they dealt almost exclusively with subjects who grew up with Western music, as clearly different traditions have different ideas about what constitutes pleasant or unpleasant.  This much is clear to any listener who comes to traditions like gagaku or gamelan which are so distant from our own.

The conclusions of the study, for this reason, are not about the Amazonian tribe or people who grew up with Western music specifically, but rather about human perception in general.

[Madiel]

Mahlerian, I don't think you're reading Ken's comment properly. His entire point is that "dissonant" is being described from a Western association.

He is in fact agreeing with you while you're trying to "correct" him.

[Mahlerian]

Mahlerian, I don't think you're reading Ken's comment properly. His entire point is that "dissonant" is being described from a Western association.

Yes, and if you read my comment properly, you would have seen the part where I said I agreed with him about that.  I was clarifying what the study was about.

The issue seems to be equivocation over a number of different senses of dissonance here.  There is dissonance in the objective sense as being any interval other than the consonances (which are limited to perfect intervals, thirds, and sixths), and then there is dissonance in the contextual sense as being something that needs resolution (which is determined by culture and tradition as well as musical context).  The paper concerns only the former sense, and that was the one I was discussing, as was Karl above, so I was sticking with that definition.  I apologize for any confusion that that may have caused.

[Madiel]

But you're using confusing terminology again. That's not what "objective" means.

In any case, such a study is of limited utility when Western composers are writing music that will be heard by Western audiences. The study doesn't enable anyone to say "you see? This music isn't really dissonant" unless they are going to fund some kind of reeducation program whereby, before attending a concert, the audience is taken into the Amazon rainforest and amnesia is induced.

[PotashPie]

Does this "strength" have to do with the distance of the corresponding overtone from the fundamental in the harmonic series?
The fifth is the closest (2nd overtone), then the major third (4th overtone), then the minor seventh (6th overtone) etc.

EDIT - forgive me if this is a very banal question, I am a layman

Yes, I base my entire notion of consonance/dissonance on this, and you will see that it corresponds to the CP functions (I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii).

[Madiel]

What Ken is trying to point out is that it's incorrect to assert that this tribe would not have concepts of consonant and dissonant. You can only go so far as to say that they would apply those labels to different things.

And that's why it's entirely confusing to apply the word "objective" to, say, a third being consonant. The whole point of that study is to say that's NOT an objective, universal label. Being a third is objective, but a third being consonant is not.

Don't call thirds and sixths consonant, just call them thirds and sixths. 

[PotashPie]

Pointing out the obvious contradiction: The leading tone which is a minor second below the tonic has been a very important element in defining the tonic in common practice.

If you look at "leading tone" as a chord built on vii, then it is not a contradiction, because vii in C (dim B-D-F) is treated as an incomplete V (G7) G-B-D-F, and is resolved to I as if it were a V. This is backed up by Schoenberg (Harmonielehre) and Piston (Harmony).

[PotashPie]

Consonance and dissonance are not "qualities" which are good or bad; if you know your math, they are not "quantities" but are best expressed as ratios. They are relationships, not absolutes.

Everybody here is talking about consonant and dissonant as if they were "things." This is too simple-minded for me.

[Ken B]

What Ken is trying to point out is that it's incorrect to assert that this tribe would not have concepts of consonant and dissonant. You can only go so far as to say that they would apply those labels to different things.

And that's why it's entirely confusing to apply the word "objective" to, say, a third being consonant. The whole point of that study is to say that's NOT an objective, universal label. Being a third is objective, but a third being consonant is not.

Don't call thirds and sixths consonant, just call them thirds and sixths.

Yes. Thank you. A conclusion true of that tribe confronting Western scales does not apply to either that tribe confronting their own scales or to westerners confronting western scales.

There is no universal agreement on what is consonant. There is some universal on what is more consonant, but that only applies to a subset of possible intervals or chords. Neither fact implies cultures do not have their sense of more or less consonant, or that within that framework consonant is not generally more "pleasant".

[some guy]

But you're using confusing terminology again. That's not what "objective" means.

In any case, such a study is of limited utility when Western composers are writing music that will be heard by Western audiences. The study doesn't enable anyone to say "you see? This music isn't really dissonant" unless they are going to fund some kind of reeducation program whereby, before attending a concert, the audience is taken into the Amazon rainforest and amnesia is induced.

There is nothing in the study addressing what kinds of choices Western composers should or should not be making.

Nor does the study attempt to enable anyone to make the conclusion ørfeo has proposed that people will be wanting to make.

There is nothing in the study about whether or not something is or is not dissonant. Or can be or cannot be so labelled. It is entirely about perception. The people in a particular place did not attach value judgments of pleasant or unpleasant to anything the researchers played them, things that many Western listeners would label as pleasant or unpleasant. That's it.

The conclusion that the responses to dissonance and consonance are innate is what is called into question by this study.

Otherwise, I was personally amused by this assertion in the report: "Although aesthetic tastes vary around the world, they operate under constraints—there are no musical traditions based on high-pitched screeching sounds, for example, because we're all strongly attracted towards tones." There are indeed musical traditions based on high-pitched screeching sounds. Or, if you prefer, there are musical activities which rely heavily if not exclusively on high-pitched screeching sounds. Well, some of the people who make up "we" are indeed strongly attracted to sounds of all kinds, including high-pitched screeching ones, hence quite a respectable (as in large enough to notice) amount of electroacoustic music which uses high-pitched screeching sounds. Bernard Fort and Sachiko M would be a couple of good examples. And Randy Yau, yeah. That's the good stuff!

[Mahlerian]

What Ken is trying to point out is that it's incorrect to assert that this tribe would not have concepts of consonant and dissonant. You can only go so far as to say that they would apply those labels to different things.

Okay, I never did that, though.  The study shows that we cannot equate Western ideas of consonance and dissonance with any kind of universal measurement of pleasantness and unpleasantness.  That was my original point, but both you and Ken seem to believe I'm arguing for something else, and I have no clue what.

And that's why it's entirely confusing to apply the word "objective" to, say, a third being consonant. The whole point of that study is to say that's NOT an objective, universal label. Being a third is objective, but a third being consonant is not.

I'm saying it's objective because we can look at various harmonies and say "this fits with what is called dissonance (or consonance) in theory" and have it not depend on the individual observer's subjective perception of how it sounds.

Again, I never made any claims for universality, and universality and objectivity are separate.  A meter is objective, but certainly not universal.   So is a base-10 number system.  The system of tempered intervals and their theoretical division into consonances and dissonances is objective, and also not universal.

[Madiel]

Again, I never made any claims for universality, and universality and objectivity are separate.  A meter is objective, but certainly not universal.   So is a base-10 number system.  The system of tempered intervals and their theoretical division into consonances and dissonances is objective, and also not universal.

Well, your use of language has led both Ken and I down a quite different path. Not least because the "theoretical division into consonances and dissonances" rather begs the question I had thought we were trying to address.

Really, "objective" is not a very good term to use in that context, because what was the point of those labels when they were historically applied? The point was to make to a claim about which intervals were more pleasant. It's highly confusing for you to simultaneously treat those labels as "objective", while denying exactly the subjective quality that those labels were intending to convey.

It's a bit like firmly declaring that "sour plum" is the correct name for a fruit at exactly the same time as trying to prove to us that some tribe somewhere regards the fruit as sweet. It might be strictly true, but it confuses your point greatly.

[Madiel]

ADDENDUM: And in fact, it's very very puzzling for you to be describing the labels of consonance and dissonance as "objective" despite the fact that you're showing they don't work properly. Isn't your entire complaint about the term "atonal" that it isn't an accurate label?

With the best will in the world, Mahlerian, I'm beginning to feel that large chunks of this conversation are being driven by your specific approach to language, and other people having to discover just what you mean by words and how it differs to what they mean by the same words. Which is part and parcel of communication, but you don't make it all easy to discuss whether the understanding of a word is mutual.

Personally I would never use the word "objective" to mean "defined that way", which is how you're appearing to use it.

[Overtones]

There is nothing in the study addressing what kinds of choices Western composers should or should not be making.

Nor does the study attempt to enable anyone to make the conclusion ørfeo has proposed that people will be wanting to make.

There is nothing in the study about whether or not something is or is not dissonant. Or can be or cannot be so labelled. It is entirely about perception. The people in a particular place did not attach value judgments of pleasant or unpleasant to anything the researchers played them, things that many Western listeners would label as pleasant or unpleasant. That's it.

The conclusion that the responses to dissonance and consonance are innate is what is called into question by this study.

Otherwise, I was personally amused by this assertion in the report: "Although aesthetic tastes vary around the world, they operate under constraints—there are no musical traditions based on high-pitched screeching sounds, for example, because we're all strongly attracted towards tones." There are indeed musical traditions based on high-pitched screeching sounds. Or, if you prefer, there are musical activities which rely heavily if not exclusively on high-pitched screeching sounds. Well, some of the people who make up "we" are indeed strongly attracted to sounds of all kinds, including high-pitched screeching ones, hence quite a respectable (as in large enough to notice) amount of electroacoustic music which uses high-pitched screeching sounds. Bernard Fort and Sachiko M would be a couple of good examples. And Randy Yau, yeah. That's the good stuff!

"Musical activities" is very different from "musical traditions", though.
The musical activities you refer to are a very recent product of a much larger musical tradition that (like all others - at least that is what that sentence suggests) was originally built on tones, has been and will be funded on tones; and at some point in its history, because of very specific socio-cultural conditions, one of the streams of this tradition has focused on "sound" rather than tones.
I am not trying to diminish this stream nor to deny that it attracts a respectable amount of people; I am only offering a (imo) more correct way to read that study's assertion.

[Cato]

ADDENDUM: And in fact, it's very very puzzling for you to be describing the labels of consonance and dissonance as "objective" despite the fact that you're showing they don't work properly. Isn't your entire complaint about the term "atonal" that it isn't an accurate label?

With the best will in the world, Mahlerian, I'm beginning to feel that large chunks of this conversation are being driven by your idiosyncratic approach to language, and other people having to discover just what you mean by words and how it differs to what they mean by the same words.

To quote Strother Martin:

https://www.youtube.com/v/452XjnaHr1A

[Ken B]

Okay. Somebody needs to explain to me how, if "consonant" and "dissonant" are objective how "atonal" can be meaningless.

[Mahlerian]

ADDENDUM: And in fact, it's very very puzzling for you to be describing the labels of consonance and dissonance as "objective" despite the fact that you're showing they don't work properly. Isn't your entire complaint about the term "atonal" that it isn't an accurate label?

I suppose that, if consonance and dissonance are equated with pleasantness and unpleasantness, then you could say there is a problem, but I was trying to show that they should not be equated.  Only in the popular conception does dissonance mean "something that sounds unpleasant," as every composer recognizes the absolute necessity of dissonance in music as an animating factor (exceptions, like some early minimalist pieces or Wagner's Rheingold prelude, are notable in large part because of how distinct their effect is).

Obviously those labels matter, and they are furthermore necessary to understanding how music in the Western tradition from the Renaissance on has been constructed.  Even the distinction between, say, a fourth from the bass (a dissonance in common practice) and a fourth between upper notes (a consonance in common practice), is important, and to jettison all of that would be to ignore the way that notes have been traditionally employed.

My complaint about the term atonal is that it is understood in one way (not tonal) and used in another, completely separate way (specific kinds of non-common practice tonality), and this lack of coherence is at the root of misconceptions about the music called atonal (like that it completely lacks tonal centers).  On the other hand, in academic circles, as in the books mentioned above, this problem does not exist, because the understanding of the term matches with the usage (ie atonal is not understood as meaning "not tonal").

With the best will in the world, Mahlerian, I'm beginning to feel that large chunks of this conversation are being driven by your specific approach to language, and other people having to discover just what you mean by words and how it differs to what they mean by the same words. Which is part and parcel of communication, but you don't make it all easy to discuss whether the understanding of a word is mutual.

I'm being absolutely as clear as I possibly can, but these are technical terms, and the explanations are not always going to be simple.  I'm not going to make a claim that is incorrect just because it is close enough and more easily understandable.

Personally I would never use the word "objective" to mean "defined that way", which is how you're appearing to use it.

That's not how I'm using it.  I'm saying that, in the tradition in which consonances and dissonances are related to the intervals under discussion, we can identify that "this is a consonance" or "this is a dissonance" within that tradition, and by extension compare that tradition and that usage to other traditions and other usages.

From this, it becomes an objective matter to identify whether or not something is dissonant.

You seem to be under the impression that I think the term atonal is inherently bad.  I don't.  It's a word like any other.  It is bad entirely because of its application.  If the concept were to definitively shift so that it actually was used to mean "not tonal" and thus included pre-tonal music and most world musics and all post-common practice music, then that would be fine.  If the concept were to shift in the popular conception to more or less the way it is used in the academic conception, as being a way of writing music apart from common practice, completely independent of any ideas about "tonal centers," then that would be fine too.

[Mahlerian]

Okay. Somebody needs to explain to me how, if "consonant" and "dissonant" are objective how "atonal" can be meaningless.

I don't understand the connection.  You and others are agreeing that resolution of dissonances is not necessary for tonality (ie Debussy or Stravinsky, the entire effect of which depends on unresolved dissonances).