The Challenges of Horror and Dissonance
- This topic has 57 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always veered more towards the tonal. Dissonance and atonal music is interesting, but mostly on an academic level. For horror scores, I prefer those that are in a socalled “delicious darkness” style, meaning darkly romantic. Like certain Chris Young efforts, some synth horror scores etc.
I’ve also found that there are certain kinds of dissonance I can take, and some that I cannot. I can love Ligeti, Penderecki, Goldenthal, Goldsmith etc. in atonal mode, but can’t get into Morricone’s variation of the same, for example.
What’s your take on this? I know that we have some members here, like Graham Watt (where did he run off to after his initial posts here?), who seem to thrive on 60s and 70s dissonant music. Is there emotional pleasure to be derived from it, or is it just academic?
I feel similar. Morricone seems rather hard to listen to. Much more edgy that the others. Maybe partly because it seems more chamber music like and often maybe also rather improvised?
I have to admit, I don’t have a “problem” with dissonance or atonal music per se, I don’t see it just “interesting on an academic level”, but enjoy much of it on a very visceral, deeply engrossing — sometimes even soothing — level. I know most people probably just enjoy “tonal” or “melodic” music and don’t listen to any more abstract music at all, but I was always drawn to these type of compositions. Now if I were to view (or perhaps better “hear”) them as mere “paper music”, music with an “interesting” concept on paper or in (music) theory but just awful to listen to, I would not find much pleasure in listening to it.
One of my favorite works is Pierre Boulez “Sur Incices”. Now this is a composition by one of the most radical and uncompromising composers of “paper music” there is, and I understand why Boulez was a very important but also highly divisive composer. Still, when I hear “Sur Incices”, it’s like bathing in a soothing kaleidoscope of musical shimmers, colors, rhythms, and sounds. I find that music very spiritual, actually, and my mind can deeply relax to these sounds. Why? I don’t know. Then again, I don’t know why I like any piece of music, really. Because I don’t like music for rational reasons, but because some music somehow resonates with me. All the “talk” and “writing” about music is just an attempt to get a grasp on how and what a certain score does and why it speaks to some, and perhaps not to others.
By no means does that mean I like all dissonant (though I don’t find Sur Incises dissonant in any way) or atonal (Sur Incises is certainly not classical “tonal” music though) music, no more than I like all tonal or melodic music. Obviously not.
But perhaps because I already grew up with a lot of “classical” classical music (Brahms, Beethoven, Wagner, Schubert, etc.), I found it very interesting when I came across radically different works by composers such as Stravinsky, Schönberg, Webern, Ligeti (this one indeed via 2001), Stockhausen as a teenager. Again, I didn’t like all their music right away, but I found it quite interesting.
Oh yes, definitely interesting. And RATIONAL value can be just as valid as an IRRATIONAL one when it comes to musical enjoyment. I’m often fascinated by complex, avantgardistic music — a desire to analyze them, deconstruct them, finding patterns within the complexities. I saw Stockhausen’s “Sternklang” performed in a park during the Oslo-based music festival Ultima a few years ago, and it was mesmerizing. But give me a broad melody, and I’m swept off my feet. Sometimes, there are scores that can do both at the same time — Goldsmith’s ALIEN, for example. But if I were to choose, I’d take the latter type of music any day of the week.
In my twenties I was much more tolerant when it came to dissonant music. Much later to my surprise I realized how dissonant some music pieces actually were that I used to enjoy a lot in my youth.
Still I find dissonance ok for certain effects in film music. But it also can be too much. Talking about Chris Young, that is what I thought, when I checked out his score of “Pranks”. If I have a delicious tonal horror score with some sprinkles of dissonance like JNH’s The Village, that is the degree that I can still enjoy.
Apart from that it always depends if there is something actually interesting happening in the music, tonal or dissonant or not.
For those interested in 20th century orchestral music avoiding dissonance I strongly recommend to listen to the works of Ruth Gipps. But that’s not film music.
By no means does that mean I like all dissonant (though I don’t find Sur Incises dissonant in any way) or atonal (Sur Incises is certainly not classical “tonal” music though) music, no more than I like all tonal or melodic music. Obviously not.
By the way, I often mix up dissonant with atonal. Atonal means for my understanding noise that cannot be associated with certain frequencies. While dissonant means, a chord of clear tones in a non-harmonic composition. Right?
I believe atonal means the music doesn’t adhere to any particular key; all notes have equal importance, while dissonant music has an abundance of dissonant intervals.
The terms are used interchangeably (and I’m guilty of that sometimes too, like in my first post here), but Sigbjørn is right, they have different meanings. Atonal is mostly associated with the new Viennese school, I think – 12-tone, Schönberg, Berg, Webern, that kind of stuff. While dissonant is a more general term for discordant phrasings. So you can have dissonant scores that are not atonal, for example.
There is a lot of dissonance in tonal music… in fact, one could argue that actual “dissonance” can be found only in tonal music, because dissonance usually refers to harmonic tension, whereas atonal music lacks a harmonic tonal center to begin with, so there is neither “dissonance” nor “consonance” (its opposite) in atonal music.
There is a lot of dissonance in the music of Richard Wagner, Gustav Mahler, Richard Strauss, or Hector Berlioz, yet their music remains (mostly) tonal. On the other hand, Olivier Messiaen’s music often ventures deep into atonal territory (though it’s never strict about it, and it’s not “12-tone”… just not always within a certain harmonic tonal center), but I don’t find it particularly dissonant.One more thing on this. Dissonance stresses me usually more in golden age scores than in good modern horror or thriller scores.
I actually like Ennio Morricone’s dissonant/atonal scores because of their cinematic and listening qualities.
I also like dissonant/atonal classical music because of their innovative and artistic qualities. Clearly I like “art” in films and scores, which is one reason I like this kind of music equally to lyrical and melodic scores.
I like Morricone’s as well but it is just more challanging as Goldsmith’s to me. I have a some special connection to Stockhausen’s KONTAKTE as I proof-read a doctoral thesis of a friend some years ago (for typos, not really the content ;-)).
Also I can even find noises interesting as overlaying noise e.g. from machines (put your ear on your fridge while it is working) can create dissantant rhythmic sounds.
I definitely think it’s a question of ‘subverted expectations’, wherein expectations to certain forms of music or musical structures are undermined. For example, denying us the return to a tonal centre. Bernard Herrmann was very aware of this, as he favoured tone clusters, or choppy building blocks (repetitive motifs) over the long melodies – melodies being the most “rational” element in music, and by chopping it up into bits, allowed him greater access to the ‘irrational’, and thereby creating suspense.
Herrmann was never really ‘atonal’ as such. But he subverted expectations in different ways.
I see Graham Watt is posting again — not here, but on FSM, sadly. A discussion on Alex North’s THE BAD SEED, for example, which would fit in here. So I’m curious to hear what he thinks about this issue. And – I try again to lure in ZardozSpeaks, who hasn’t posted here yet for some reason.
In another thread, Graham spoke about when music is not music, or the delineations we make thereof.
For many people, the line goes at dissonant music. But most of us are reasonably comfortable with that.
It only gets problematic for me when the line moves towards sound design, like Brad Fiedel’s TERMINATOR scores (beyond the very melodic theme), or some of Mica Levi’s stuff. I can totally appreciate it in-context, but can’t listen to it on its own.
I think I have my own subjective feeling of where the line goes between dissonant music I can stomach, and then sheer noise music or sound design that I can’t stomach. I suppose we all have.
Like in modern pop music there is a fashion today to use sounds that do not sound like actual instruments. The drums do not sound like drums, the rest of the playback sounds rather like a ring tone from a smartphone than like something arranged for actual instrument players. Even the voices often sound like a sound effect.
This trend might also spill over into modern soundtracks. Or maybe it did already years ago the other way around. I don’t know because that is a type of music that I don’t care about and ignore if possible.
I have no actual problem with dissonance or even more noise like music. As mentioned on some other topc I had a related course on University that open my ears how interesting sounds can be with all overlaying rhythms and such.
It all can be done interesting or not interesting. But if you ask me if I can listen to that every day, certainly not. As with any music I need to be in the mood for it. And you still get me with a good melody/theme, so a mixture between both like Young, Goldsmith or Goldenthal often do/did so well it is the best way.
I have no actual problem with dissonance or even more noise like music.
Mostly dissonance is not the issue as long as it gets resolved somehow. That is the issue with actual twelve tone music. It never gets resolved according to the rules of pure or chromatic eight note scales and harmonies. It is really painful to listen to after some time. I heard of a guy who practiced Schönberg on his piano until all his plant died.
Luckily there are no actual twelve tone scores in my world.
Dissonance is fine, but I cannot stand or enjoy it at every time. The times where I can enjoy dissonant music are becoming rarer. But I said that before.
I don’t think dissonance has to be resolved harmonically although that can make it easier. I am by no means a expert on 12tone music or Schönberg & co but not all I heard is really that dissonant. There is atonal/free tonal music that I find much more challenging (and also really free jazz).
I think you get some automatic “hard skin” for dissonant music when you’ve listened to music for so many years as we have, especially complex music. I have a pretty decent tolerance level myself. But it’s not the type of music that engages me the most, especially not on an emotional level (other than to freak me out, I guess). I feel like I have to sit up straight, sharpen all my senses and turn on every brain cell. I can’t use it for laidback listening.
There’s a difference between that, though, and the type of noise music or sound design I was talking about. This moves beyond mere dissonance and into something else altogether. Even beyond something like ‘musique concrete’. It’s still organized sound, but based more on a collage of natural and unnatural sounds. I don’t really know how to formulate it, but I’m hesitant to call it music.
I can get positively lost in something like Williams’ IMAGES (the atonal parts), deciphering and searching for details, but I can’t do the same with Fiedel’s TERMINATOR. It all comes off as a lot of ‘swish, boom, crash’ – a collage of industrial sounds. Perfect for the film, impossible on album.
I get what you mean. Well or properly constructed atonal music is not bland, this “sounddesign” music – I always want to call it “ambient” – mostly is. It’s been a while I listened to T2 but I think I would prefer IMAGES as well (guess which I have on CD actually ;-))
Talking about dissonant music and sound design, any thoughts on Chris Young’s new score for PASSENGER?
Four tracks of what Thor described in this paragraph:
There’s a difference between that, though, and the type of noise music or sound design I was talking about. This moves beyond mere dissonance and into something else altogether. Even beyond something like ‘musique concrete’. It’s still organized sound, but based more on a collage of natural and unnatural sounds. I don’t really know how to formulate it, but I’m hesitant to call it music.
And four tracks of kind of religioso choir chants.
I saw the film on Wednesday, and – as mentioned in the ‘film’ thread – had a Q&A chat with the director on Thursday, at a pre-premiere in one of the Oslo cinemas. So I feel like I’ve been kinda immersed in the world of PASSENGER this last week.
The film was rather mediocre, but with some standout moments. The score, meanwhile, was rather buried in the mix. There are some guitar noodlings for the more “idyllic moments”, the wonderful choral music that alludes to the mythological backdrop (but again mixed too low!) and a whole lotta heavy dissonance. To be honest, the dissonance competed with gruelling sound effects for much of it, so I was not able to glean many details. I’ll have to listen to the album to see if the sound effects aspect of the dissonance was part of the music, or indeed the sound effects.
I don’t have any problems with dissonant or atonal music; in fact I enjoy it quite a bit, be it full-fledged compositions in these styles, or dissonant elements in otherwise tonal compositions. John Williams snuck in some dissonance here and there even in his crowd-pleasing fanfares, for instance, just to spice things up and make sure we pay attention 😉 . And I like that – it tickles the ear and makes an otherwise tonal composition more interesting.
But for fully atonal compositions, there has to be some structure and organization to it for it to be enjoyable, as others have mentioned. It can’t just be a collection of seemingly random effects (although in such cases, the composer will probably argue that they are not random).
And I’m intrigued by exactly what it is that makes dissonance sound unpleasant (to many people). Why is it that a C major chord (C-E-G-C) sounds just fine, but three tones, each a half-tone apart, played together – C, C# and D, for instance – make many people cover their ears? To be even more specific, what is it in the ear-brain connection that make the frequencies of the C major chord (262 Hz + 330 Hz + 392 Hz + 523 Hz in the middle octave) sound nice together, but 262 Hz + 277 Hz + 294 Hz will make people grimace?
Could it be some evolutionary, genetic trait? Is it because tonal music reminds people of nice natural sounds like birdsong, while dissonance is more akin to the sounds of natural dangers, unconsciously conjuring up things like a landslide or a lion’s roar?
Interesting thoughts, Nils.
Could it be some evolutionary, genetic trait? Is it because tonal music reminds people of nice natural sounds like birdsong, while dissonance is more akin to the sounds of natural dangers, unconsciously conjuring up things like a landslide or a lion’s roar?
There are numerous theories as to why we find certain types of music pleasing and certain types not. I touched on some of it in my own thesis, in fact. Here’s an introductory quote from that, Google translated:
In relation to the pleasure of music more generally, philosophers since Plato have speculated whether it is a result of our intellectual capacity to recognize structures. In this respect, the composer can play on the repetition and prolongation of musical fragments and, as is the case in Western, tonal music, satisfy the listener’s desire for stability by returning to a tonal center. A physiological theory has located pleasure in our sensory apparatus; in our nervous system. The rhythms, harmonies and melodies of music have their resonant base in an unconscious recognition of sounds from a pre-oedipal period (cf. Freud) in what Anzieu calls a “sound envelope” (‘envelope sonore’) (1976).
Expectations are definitely part of it, an innate need for things to resolve, as I touched on earlier in the thread (re: Herrmann).
But I think there’s something even more fundamental about it as well, in relation to specific sounds. Maybe a ‘fight or flight’ thing that arises when there are threatening sounds, as you suggest. And so this can be transcribed to music.
I always thought it like Nils that nice vs dissonance has its core evolutionary roots in the natural environment where dissonance almost always means “danger”. A bit similar to sweet tasting fruits means eatable and bitter rather not.
But surely it is at least in Western Europe also learned via a few hundred years of our classic major-minor system. If you look at indegenious music or Arabian, Indian or Asian music they use originally quite different scales with quarter tones and what not that sound “dissonant” to our ears, too.
Btw. I always found interessting that so many Asian are so hooked on Western music. So many Chinsese or Japanse films – to stay in our niche – have rather Western music. Of course it might be a market decision – in Japan in the aftermath of WWII and US dominance – but nevertheless interesting. I am sure there are scientific studies about this who elaborated this in more depth.
A thought on this.
Of course I know less about those things than you guys. But intuitively I believe that there are certain natural principles of aestetics like the golden ratio, which also apply to sound harmony and music. And if you look at different musical cultures with different sounds, rhythms and scales you still find certain aestetic principles fulfilled.And of course experimenting with deviation from those principles leads to challenging sounds or images, depending on the art form. And maybe even to measurable discomfort.
Anyway, as Thor described, depending on the general openness of people they can just stand a certain degree of deviation from what they are used to.
That by the way probably applies to all aspects of life. People who in general have a lot of prejudices against people or things they don’t know are likely not very open to experience experimental ways of music.
By I have no evidence for that. Just my own “prejudice”.
But surely it is at least in Western Europe also learned via a few hundred years of our classic major-minor system. If you look at indegenious music or Arabian, Indian or Asian music they use originally quite different scales with quarter tones and what not that sound “dissonant” to our ears, too.
One more thought on this. Looking at other musical cultures like oriental, chinese or indian with their specific scales and rhythms I find it interesting that in these folkloristic musical traditions chords don’t play a big role. It’s all more or less just melody based. You find elements like counter point or canon in these traditions. But harmonic patterns like dominant, subdominant, tonica, you don’t find there. That seems to be an element that only came from western music. But again. No expert here. Just my view from my experience.
There is certainly a general pattern with openess or the lack thereof. In may aspect and it repeats in every generation it seems.
I had to work hard on my appreciation of dissonance and classical music in general. Neither music in school nor my parents I really got me into that. But growing older I notice a tendency to music from the formative years (as Thor always calls them). Of course this is what drives various kinds of “nostalgia”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.