Atonal and tonal music

[Monsieur Croche]

^^^  Lennon is looking like a very near relative of Rasputin in that pic.  Hmmmm.

[Karl Henning]

Coincidence?

[Monsieur Croche]

Coincidence?

Y knot?

[Ken B]

Actually, I have not missed the thread and the point (nor has SomeGuy)... I do think you have become near to obsessively side-tracked via a pedant and sophomoric argument via a willful misreading of the pronoun 'us.'
us
pronoun
1. the objective case of we, used as a direct or indirect object:
They took us to the circus. She asked us the way.
2. Informal. (used in place of the pronoun we in the predicate after the verb to be):
It's us!
3. Informal. (used instead of the pronoun our before a gerund):
She graciously forgave us spilling the gravy on the tablecloth.
(thinking on it now, I've never used that pronoun in any other way.)

N.B. I wrote, "Some sounds," i.e. none were named specifically, no particular attributes were concretely assigned.  (You then went all concrete and specific, where I deliberately and assiduously avoided anything concrete or specific, because if you run that hard with it as per the subject, well, splat!)  I then parsed out three different reactions to a 'dissonance,' not naming any specific interval or harmony as dissonant while more than implicitly stating that listeners' perceptions of dissonance are subjective and vary, including my example of the third individual hearing the dissonance as consonance.
~ Paraphrased for your benefit:  "Listeners can perceive the same sound, the same piece of music, in a myriad of ways."

I then said that whatever the sound, there is no general accuracy in predicting its effect, exactly since the effect is subjective; the reaction to a sound is relative to and dependent upon the individual who hears it.

Your contextual usage of 'us' -- highly qualified and not the prime definition as generally understood to boot -- is nothing I said, nor could it at all reasonably be found implicit in what I said. 

Indeed, you had to go out of your way to assert the pronoun in an entirely different context than the one I used in my post.  That assertion, and misreading of my post, is entirely your own.  It appears as a personal projection and a total and willful misread of what I said, hinging on your particular assertion as to the meaning of the pronoun 'us.'  It makes absolutely no argument at all.  Side by side, contrasted with my usage it only further demonstrates that context is everything, in language used by a writer, in music by a composer, and in the perceptions of the audiences.


Best regards

Hilarious. I post one comment and I am "obsessively sidetracked"! Then you reply in 300 squirrely words?

[PotashPie]

The only sound waves that can become physically uncomfortable would be when the decibel level is too extreme; otherwise, if you rethink what you've said, I think you would agree what you really meant to say was 'psychologically uncomfortable.' ...

No, I mean physically "incompatible" with the eardrum surface, just like a pond of water. If waves are simple ratios, such as 2:1, they will reinforce each other and synch-up on every other ripple.

If the ratio is complex, like 12:25, then the waves coincide much less frequently, and the pond's surface gets more and more cluttered with waves, creating a "noisy" and roiling surface. It's physically harder on the eardrum. It gets fatigued.

Plus, if I wanted to simply "blow your ears out," I would use loud dissonance, not loud consonance.

[Parsifal]

There is SOME natural law involved. After all, our eardrums are like ponds, and "waves" appear on them.
Remember the film footage of that suspension bridge which was destroyed by getting into a "resonance wave" created by strong winds? It destroyed itself.
The simpler a wave (1:1), the stronger the consonance and resonance. Dissonance is a gradient which involves ever-increasing complexity of waves.
It could be said that the more complex "dissonant" waves of sound which hit our eardrums can become physically uncomfortable, no matter which tribe you're from.

No, I mean physically "incompatible" with the eardrum surface, just like a pond of water. If waves are simple ratios, such as 2:1, they will reinforce each other and synch-up on every other ripple.

If the ratio is complex, like 12:25, then the waves coincide much less frequently, and the pond's surface gets more and more cluttered with waves, creating a "noisy" and roiling surface. It's physically harder on the eardrum. It gets fatigued.

Plus, if I wanted to simply "blow your ears out," I would use loud dissonance, not loud consonance.

I agree with part of the argument, the level of dissonance is related to the ratio of frequencies. A tone and its octave sounds natural because the fundamental tone of the higher note and the first harmonic of the lower note line up, and reinforce each other. Other harmonics of the lower and higher tone also line up.

I don't find the second part convincing. The eardrum will experience the same amount of audio energy no matter relative frequencies of the tones it is exposed to. The most delicate part of the ear is the cochlear, a tapered resonator in which waves of different frequency resonate at different positions along the structure, exciting the corresponding hair cells. Combinations of notes which are not dissonant and have simple frequency ratios have a lot of overlap in their overtone series, creating a simple pattern of excitation in the ear. Combinations of notes which are dissonant and do not have simple frequency ratios do not have much overlap in their overtone series and will produces a complex pattern of excitation. The brain will find these combinations of notes harder to interpret. In the ear itself consonant intervals will focus excitation on a more limited set of hair cells, compared with dissonant intervals. It seems to me that dissonant intervals may be easier on the hair cells because the audio power is distributed over a larger number of hair cells, reducing the energy hitting any given hair cell.

[Monsieur Croche]

Hilarious. I post one comment and I am "obsessively sidetracked"! Then you reply in 300 squirrely words?

I do earnestly apologize in not being so deft in the brevity and pithiness of my squirrely-ness.  I lack the innate disposition, talent, and practice in the technique.


Best regards

[Monsieur Croche]

The eardrum will experience the same amount of audio energy no matter relative frequencies of the tones it is exposed to. The most delicate part of the ear is the cochlear, a tapered resonator in which waves of different frequency resonate at different positions along the structure, exciting the corresponding hair cells. Combinations of notes which are not dissonant and have simple frequency ratios have a lot of overlap in their overtone series, creating a simple pattern of excitation in the ear. Combinations of notes which are dissonant and do not have simple frequency ratios do not have much overlap in their overtone series and will produces a complex pattern of excitation. The brain will find these combinations of notes harder to interpret. In the ear itself consonant intervals will focus excitation on a more limited set of hair cells, compared with dissonant intervals. It seems to me that dissonant intervals may be easier on the hair cells because the audio power is distributed over a larger number of hair cells, reducing the energy hitting any given hair cell.

Bravo, and thank you.

The organ(s) don't care; an individual might care -- ergo psychological, not physiological.


Best regards

[Gaspard de la nuit]

Hilarious. I post one comment and I am "obsessively sidetracked"! Then you reply in 300 squirrely words?

Oh Kenny Boy, is no place safe from your charm?

[Overtones]

Bravo, and thank you.

The organ(s) don't care; an individual might care -- ergo psychological, not physiological.


Best regards

Didn't he say that "the brain will find these [dissonant] combination of notes harder to intepret", though?

[Monsieur Croche]

Didn't he say that "the brain will find these [dissonant] combination of notes harder to intepret", though?

Yes, that is indeed what the man said.

Unless he was speaking of and for all mankind...
Whose brain, pray tell?

[Karl Henning]

Abby Normal?

[Overtones]

Yes, that is indeed what the man said.

Unless he was speaking of and for all mankind...
Whose brain, pray tell?

I am guessing that he was referring to the brain of the same people whose organs you were referring to...?

[Ken B]

I am guessing that he was referring to the brain of the same people whose organs you were referring to...?

Scarpia, I think it was, made an interesting point. "The brain will find these combinations of notes harder to interpret. In the ear itself consonant intervals will focus excitation on a more limited set of hair cells, compared with dissonant intervals."  This is an objectively meaningful and probably measurable thing. Hearing is a complex computational process in the information processing machinery that is the brain. Some computations just take more time and neuronal activity than others. So Scarpia's claim, if it is true at all, will be true in pretty nearly every brain that can hear.

[some guy]

"Harder to interpret" needs not only a who to go with it but a when.

At the beginning of a process--learning a language or algebra or medical jurisprudence, certain things will be harder to interpret than others. Harder to interpret than other things one has already learned. (Same with learning to swim or ride a bicycle or drive a car, just by the way.)

But once you've learned these things, they're not hard to interpret at all. Indeed, what's going on is not even interpreting any more, just knowledge. Or understanding.

My own particular brain has no difficulty with lots of things it used to struggle mightily with. My own particular brain had no difficulty at all with things that other people found impossible. My own particular brain has tremendous difficulty with things that other people find ridiculously easy.

I think the real point here is difficult to talk about without doing things that look like evasions. And that is another point against the utility of "atonal" for purposes of discussion. As has been pointed out before, it's quite useful for expressing a general dislike but for little else. And if it's put forward in a conversation as a valid descriptor of a particular type of music, which it's not, then those who think it's not are doomed to perpetually struggle. The conversation has been framed and so you either accept the framing or you have to try to reframe. And we've seen how easy that one is, haha.

A simple example: if someone asks me if I like atonal music, I cannot say either "yes" or "no," because I don't know what they mean by that word. If I try to find out what they mean, I'm likely to be accused of obscurantism or obstruction. And that's the core irony of this whole situation, that the people attempting to discover or even to promote some clarity are inevitably seen as being equivocators. But using words with multiple (and conflicting) meanings, such as atonal, without identifying which meaning they mean is the original act of equivocation, which has to be dealt with to break out of the inevitable "'yes it is', 'no it isn't'" cycle.

Without a firm context, you cannot respond to even such a simple statement as "I love the spring" until you know which spring is being referred to--could be the season, could be a creek, could be a coiled up piece of metal, could be that bit in a ballet where swan #7 makes that cute little leap off to the side.*

There are other, more precise, words that already describe all the various types of music that can be made to fit--however uncomfortably--into the box called "atonal." Why, even "tonal" is not all that useful, though it does at least have a certain fundamental meaning involving keys that "atonal" does not. So why not use those other words? They're not as useful for dissing, it's true, but perhaps dissing is not the best way to talk about music, even music you don't happen to like.

*Full disclosure: I know of no ballet in which swan #7 makes a cute little leap off to the side.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

A simple example: if someone asks me if I like atonal music, I cannot say either "yes" or "no," because I don't know what they mean by that word. If I try to find out what they mean, I'm likely to be accused of obscurantism or obstruction. And that's the core irony of this whole situation, that the people attempting to discover or even to promote some clarity are inevitably seen as being equivocators. But using words with multiple (and conflicting) meanings, such as atonal, without identifying which meaning they mean is the original act of equivocation, which has to be dealt with to break out of the inevitable "'yes it is', 'no it isn't'" cycle.

I have had the same experience, and it's truly a baffling one! Often I ask people to explain what they mean by giving me examples of pieces. It is only really once they ask me about particular pieces and composers then I can start to talk about to what extent I like certain types of music.

[Overtones]

"Harder to interpret" needs not only a who to go with it but a when.

At the beginning of a process--learning a language or algebra or medical jurisprudence, certain things will be harder to interpret than others. Harder to interpret than other things one has already learned. (Same with learning to swim or ride a bicycle or drive a car, just by the way.)

But once you've learned these things, they're not hard to interpret at all. Indeed, what's going on is not even interpreting any more, just knowledge. Or understanding.

My own particular brain has no difficulty with lots of things it used to struggle mightily with. My own particular brain had no difficulty at all with things that other people found impossible. My own particular brain has tremendous difficulty with things that other people find ridiculously easy.

I think the real point here is difficult to talk about without doing things that look like evasions. And that is another point against the utility of "atonal" for purposes of discussion. As has been pointed out before, it's quite useful for expressing a general dislike but for little else. And if it's put forward in a conversation as a valid descriptor of a particular type of music, which it's not, then those who think it's not are doomed to perpetually struggle. The conversation has been framed and so you either accept the framing or you have to try to reframe. And we've seen how easy that one is, haha.

A simple example: if someone asks me if I like atonal music, I cannot say either "yes" or "no," because I don't know what they mean by that word. If I try to find out what they mean, I'm likely to be accused of obscurantism or obstruction. And that's the core irony of this whole situation, that the people attempting to discover or even to promote some clarity are inevitably seen as being equivocators. But using words with multiple (and conflicting) meanings, such as atonal, without identifying which meaning they mean is the original act of equivocation, which has to be dealt with to break out of the inevitable "'yes it is', 'no it isn't'" cycle.

Without a firm context, you cannot respond to even such a simple statement as "I love the spring" until you know which spring is being referred to--could be the season, could be a creek, could be a coiled up piece of metal, could be that bit in a ballet where swan #7 makes that cute little leap off to the side.*

There are other, more precise, words that already describe all the various types of music that can be made to fit--however uncomfortably--into the box called "atonal." Why, even "tonal" is not all that useful, though it does at least have a certain fundamental meaning involving keys that "atonal" does not. So why not use those other words? They're not as useful for dissing, it's true, but perhaps dissing is not the best way to talk about music, even music you don't happen to like.

*Full disclosure: I know of no ballet in which swan #7 makes a cute little leap off to the side.

Not sure how this got back to being about the "atonal" term.

All I know is that Mr.Croche quoted a post which said "certain sounds are harder to compute for the human brain" and replied "you're right, organs don't care about sounds. Only individuals do. Psychology , not physiology", which  seems to me more like a negation of the quoted bit.
I'm not even sure the former sentence it is true; I just struggled to understand Mr.Croche's reply and asked for a clarification.

[some guy]

Not sure how this got back to being about the "atonal" term.

Well that's easy enough. Once I'd finished up with the comment about time (and experience), I suggested that that had been a diversion from which I was now turning. Back to the original topic.

[Monsieur Croche]

Abby Normal?

I think I recall briefly dating her in high school... but quickly realized she was too consonant for my taste, and that I should look further for someone more sensually adventurous and exciting.

[Monsieur Croche]

Not sure how this got back to being about the "atonal" term.

People who have 'a hard time' with 'atonal' music seem to near instantly lay down the dissonant card as if it is a rational argument for their dislike of 'atonal' music.... and atonal music is the topic of the OP.

Mr.Croche quoted a post which said "certain sounds are harder to compute for the human brain" and replied "you're right, organs don't care about sounds. Only individuals do. Psychology , not physiology", which  seems to me more like a negation of the quoted bit.
I'm not even sure the former sentence is true; I just struggled to understand Mr.Croche's reply and asked for a clarification.

"...certain sounds are harder to compute for the human brain" was what elicited my saying only that to some listeners perception, some sounds could be found disturbing or unsettling. I added that for three different listeners, the hearing of a dissonance (none specifically named) could give three different and near opposite reactions from one listener to the next.

I intended not to refute the actual science of acoustics and the physiology of the ear, but to negate those as arguments making out that dissonance 'is more difficult to hear or interpret.'

If that argument held water, the notoriously riotous dissonance of all the fundamentals and overtones of church bells would have any and all running for the hills to get away from such a cacophony of dissonance that was so difficult 'for the brain to interpret' it would give geniuses a headache :-)

All those swell elucidations on acoustics and the actions of consonance and dissonance on the organ of the ear are just that... gee golly swell, and accurate, while they were offered up directly or implicitly in an argument that dissonance is harder on the ear and 'more difficult for the brain to interpret.'

They were offered up as a kind of platform, and as a basis of argument... and it is all a bundle of one big fat canard/red herring/rationale to cover up the fact that some folks prefer to reason away their more negative reactions to 'dissonant' music.  [Never mind the fact that just about every composer from the Renaissance on whose music we still admire was at the vanguard of dissonance relative to their era, lol.]

However more 'asymmetrically disturbed' by a dissonance those little hairs in our ears are, that does not in any way grant the effect of physical pain, or even confusion in the brain due to what was heard; a dissonance can not make for physical pain in the ears or the brain.  Pain from sound comes only with too great a volume, decibel level.  A set of habituated listening habits and the cumulative sets of expectations then set in the thinking patterns of the brain -- not met -- are all that can possibly 'upset' the listener when they hear anything much outside the parameters their conditioning and expectations have set up.

When people have 'difficulty interpreting' the relative dissonance in atonal (or in earlier unbuttoned 'tonal' music like Wagner, Debussy, Mahler, etc.) that difficulty hinges entirely upon their listening habits and expectations -- ergo, 'their perceptions'. 

All the rest here lately presented in this thread on acoustics, the physiology of the ear as receptor, and how dissonance is 'extra work for the brain,' are seriously pretentious BS rationales of avoidance.  No brain needs much activity to simply listen, after all.  Thoughts of what is perceived will be strained if you are listening to something less familiar than that from the world of your habits, and it will be a mighty struggle if while listening you are instead listening for the likes of what you have already habitually experienced instead of listening to a piece for what it is without any preset expectations.

These presented rationales set up around 'atonal' or 'dissonant music' are like a defense of a kind of laziness, imo, or more kindly put, a rationale justification of the limitations of mere habit.  Without them as crutches, their proponents may as well more honestly say, "I am not curious or adventurous about other experiences because...."


Best regards