The Challenges of Horror and Dissonance
- This topic has 57 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
One of my favorite works is Pierre Boulez “Sur Incices”.
Awesome! Sur incises is my favourite piece ever.
I have a some special connection to Stockhausen’s KONTAKTE
Me too; it’s another top 20 (possibly top 10) piece for me.
One of my favorite works is Pierre Boulez “Sur Incices”.
Awesome! Sur incises is my favourite piece ever.
Now that’s the kind of dialog you don’t come across every day.
But intuitively I believe that there are certain natural principles of aestetics like the golden ratio, which also apply to sound harmony and music.
This comment from GerateWohl made me think that yes, while probably not specifically related to the golden ratio, the reason a C major chord sounds pleasing must have something to do with the relationships between the frequencies involved, and how the ear/brain perceives the combined sounds.
And indeed, a quick Google search of “Why does a major chord sound pleasing?” gives this AI overview (the source is Reddit):
“Major chords sound pleasing primarily due to physics and acoustics, specifically because of simple, harmonious frequency ratios (4, 5, 6) between the root, major third, and perfect fifth. These ratios create strong, aligned sound waves that resonate smoothly, minimizing harsh dissonance in the inner ear, which is often interpreted by our brains as a stable, “happy” sound.”
In other words, the frequency of the E (330 Hz) is in a 5:4 relationship with the low C (262 Hz), and the G is in a 6:5 relationship with the E and in a 6:4 (or 3:2) relationship with the C, and the upper C (523 Hz) is in a 2:1 relationship with the low C.
So that settles that aspect of it, then. 🙂
Now that’s the kind of dialog you don’t come across every day.
Not even every decade, in my experience!
Major chords sound pleasing primarily due to physics and acoustics
I’m sceptical about the idea that notions of consonance or “pleasing” harmonies are primarily due to these physical properties, or the simple mathematical ratios which give rise to them, even though these clearly play a key role (no pun intended).
For one thing, there have been (or so I’ve read) examples of musical cultures in which these intervals – even the octave – are not regarded as being as natural, consonant or pleasing as we generally think of them, even though the mathematics and the physics are identical in these cultures.
For another, there are intervals that we hear as consonant but which do not correspond to particularly simple ratios. The most striking example is the (12 tone equally tempered) minor third – indeed, one of the component intervals of the major triad – where the ratio of the two pitches is the fourth root of 2: a number which is not close to any rational number as simple as 6/5 or 7/6, and yet which produces an interval which is more familiar and natural to us (or at least to me!) than the just minor third (ratio 6:5) and certainly than the septimal minor third (7:6).
My default assumption is that our notions of consonance come from certain culturally constructed expectations and habits, and are not intrinsically determined by mathematical or physical properties, but that the mathematical properties of certain intervals can give rise to physiological features which make them more easily recognisable to our perceptual faculties, and that this in turn gives them a much greater chance of becoming important players in any culturally constructed musical language, and hence of sounding “pleasant” to the people steeped in that culture.
Thus the perfect fifth (3:2), though it has a high chance of becoming a harmonious interval, is not guaranteed to, just as the minor third is not prohibited.
My default assumption is that our notions of consonance come from certain culturally constructed expectations and habits, and are not intrinsically determined by mathematical or physical properties, but that the mathematical properties of certain intervals can give rise to physiological features which make them more easily recognisable to our perceptual faculties, and that this in turn gives them a much greater chance of becoming important players in any culturally constructed musical language, and hence of sounding “pleasant” to the people steeped in that culture.
That seems to be in any case at least part of it; as I noted higher up, one could argue that actual “dissonance” can be found only in tonal music, because dissonance usually refers to harmonic tension. A single “note” or “chord” is neither consonant nor dissonant, it can become dissonant within context. Any chord, any frequency sound can become “dissonant” in the “right” context.
There is definitely a “learned” component when it comes to listening to music, as you said “culturally constructed expectations and habits”. I just have to look at myself, I remember my “listening history” quite well, from my first encounter with music, to the many composers and types of music I branched out to over the years (and decades). There was music that I could not penetrate when I was younger, like Beethoven’s String Quartets or Bach’s Keyboard works, and now I think they are among the greatest compositions ever, so I have definitely “learned” how to listen to them.
On the other hand, there is also a visceral component, and immediate “gut reaction” to music, that seems to be more “universal”. In fact, it is onto that “visceral” component that over centuries, Western Classical music has built the “learned” architecture for complex compositions, but it is practically impossible to draw the line between a “learned” and an “instinctive” reaction to music, even though no doubt both exist.
It is quite interesting when you look at some studies as to why people listen to music in the first place, and why and how some music affects some people deeply and leaves others cold. In the end, while there are some theories, we don’t even really know. And perhaps that “mystery” is something that can never be fully and truly be “solved”, because what and if music affects us is at least partly highly personal.
There is definitely a “learned” component when it comes to listening to music,
Certainly. You only need to look at the example of the tritone or “devil interval” which was considered “forbidden” and dissonant for a long time.
Again, classic original Indian or Asia music does not always sound pleasant to European ears
And perhaps that “mystery” is something that can never be fully and truly be “solved”, because what and if music affects us is at least partly highly personal.
That would be good. Because already now the mathematics of music make it easy for AI to “calculate”. There needs to be a little Human mystery and extra within… It’s interesting that “hit songs” are investigated and there are rules that work but still there is no real formula that totally reliably works.
I just have to look at myself, I remember my “listening history” quite well…
Same here. Most of my landmark memories seem to involve learning to respond to some type of music in a way that I previously hadn’t.
from my first encounter with music
Oh… well, that’s certainly better than I can do. I’m told that I was a fan of Top of the Pops in my first few months, but I can’t say I have any memory of that.
On the other hand, there is also a visceral component, and immediate “gut reaction” to music, that seems to be more “universal”.
My first impulse was to reply to this with disagreement (or, at least, scepticism) but, on reflection, I may have been over-interpreting what you wrote. I certainly agree that there seems to be a (more or less) universal disposition in humans to try to process musical sounds, and to develop an ability to get gratification from them. And there are surely certain basic qualities to sounds (e.g., being loud or quiet) whose visceral effect is quite universal in nature; a sudden orchestral fortissimo tutti will probably have a startling effect that is independent of any learned musical syntax.
My scepticism kicks in when it comes to more specific components of music (intervals, chords, cadences, melodies, keys/modes…) and higher level structures built out of them. I don’t see any reason to postulate innate (rather than learned) aesthetic responses to these.
That would be good. Because already now the mathematics of music make it easy for AI to “calculate”. There needs to be a little Human mystery and extra within…
That should work out okay, then, because if there truly needs to be human involvement, A.I. won’t be able to replace it; and if A.I. can do it, that will mean that the human component wasn’t essential after all!
My scepticism kicks in when it comes to more specific components of music (intervals, chords, cadences, melodies, keys/modes…) and higher level structures built out of them. I don’t see any reason to postulate innate (rather than learned) aesthetic responses to these.
Well, I definitely do. In fact, I would venture out there and say that without an innate pre-disposition to music, mankind probably wouldn’t have bothered with it in the first place. There is both a learned and an instinctive appreciation of music, but it’s difficult to draw the line, may not even be the same for everyone. Some people with practically zero musical education may be seized by the emotional impact of a piece of music, while others may have had even formal musical education but don’t actually appreciate music much at all.
That should work out okay, then, because if there truly needs to be human involvement, A.I. won’t be able to replace it; and if A.I. can do it, that will mean that the human component wasn’t essential after all!
So far genAI is primary basically replicating what has been created by humans before (I won’t start of the usage without asking issue). It is not “creative” or has anything to say (yet…). For many “plain consumers” it may in the end be a more philosphical issue or not…
Some people with practically zero musical education may be seized by the emotional impact of a piece of music, while others may have had even formal musical education but don’t actually appreciate music much at all.
I think you pretty much see it by the “types of listeners” we had on another(?) topic: We are a nerdy beast of “archivers” with a even wide appreciation of a wide array of genres while other just listen what the radio/playlist gives them without bothering too much.
…without an innate pre-disposition to music, mankind probably wouldn’t have bothered with it in the first place.
I’d make a distinction between:
- an innate predisposition to engage cognitively with music, and
- an innate predisposition to like specific musical elements or artefacts.
As I said in my previous post, I think it’s obvious that we have the former, and, because of it, we (or most of us, anyway) come to find pleasure in certain aspects of music. But which things we come to like are contingent upon our personal musical experiences (I’d guess mainly those from when we are very young and our neuroplasticity is high, but also to some degree – perhaps requiring a more deliberate effort – when we’re older), and hence upon the culture that we’ve grown up in.
What I don’t see is any reason to think that we have a “hardwired” predisposition to like a specific musical feature, like a plagal cadence, or the tune to “Danny Boy”.
Some people with practically zero musical education may be seized by the emotional impact of a piece of music, while others may have had even formal musical education but don’t actually appreciate music much at all.
Oh, sure. Like, in school I was taught various things about English vocabulary and grammar, but the essential part of my learning the language was something that took place, informally, long before that; mostly before I’d even started school. The essential part of musical “learning” is similarly distinct from formal education.
What I don’t see is any reason to think that we have a “hardwired” predisposition to like a specific musical feature, like a plagal cadence, or the tune to “Danny Boy”.
Who knows… we sure don’t.
Of course, we’re not all hardwired to like anything. Yet nevertheless we all don’t learn to like something either. It’s not evident or clear why some people react deeply to music, while others don’t. There are some hypotheses, but none are remotely conclusive.Yet nevertheless we all don’t learn to like something either.
Indeed – my argument is against assumptions of inevitability in any of these matters!
Who knows… we sure don’t.
Hence my scepticism about the “innate response” hypothesis.
One of the reasons I find the issue significant is that I sometimes see the opposite position brandished as though it were an established fact by people seeking to denigrate modern atonal or avant garde styles of music. I know from direct (and recent) personal experience that it’s possible to go from perceiving a given work as an incomprehensible jumble of random notes to hearing in it the sort of spine-tingling poignancy one might expect from Beethoven, or Mahler, or John Williams (or whoever the big popular musicians are nowadays – The Beatles, is it?).
I’m pretty certain I wasn’t born with an innate (but somehow latent) liking for the music of Milton Babbitt or Brian Ferneyhough; the responsiveness is something which developed over time through exposure to their works, because musical faculties (like linguistic ones) are flexible and adaptable. And, given that, I would conjecture that it’s quite possible something similar happened in my development of responsiveness to the elements of standard Western tonality, as an infant staring at Top of the Pops…
(Oh, wait – except for “Danny Boy”. I think I might have an innate hatred of that.)
my argument is against assumptions of inevitability in any of these matters!
As is mine obviously. So we’re on the same page.
Surely, there must be some ‘innate’ qualities in play, when it comes to taste and preference?
I’ve always been obsessed with potato chips, for example, since I was a wee lad. My whole family is, really, but I’m the only one struggling to keep it in check (I’ve gained 30-35 kilos in a decade, they’ve not). I’m not a brain expert, but there must surely be some genetic thing going on there, some centre in my brain that attracts me to all things crispy, salty and fatty?
I’m sure the same is true for music as well. Some biological wiring that attracts me to certain types of music over others.
But like all nature/nurture debates, there is a lot of influence from learning as well. As usual, it’s a combination of both. The tolerance for dissonant music is mostly a learned aspect, acquired gradually. When I first heard Supertramp, I hated them. All those weird chord changes and rhythmical changes and slight dissonances. But not only did I learn to tolerate it, I learned to love it. They became my favourite band.
And then you go from slightly dissonant to a little more to a little more, until you end up appreciating Stockhausen and Webern and Penderecki. Not necessarily loving it like you do tonal music, but appreciating it for what it is.
By the way, these two books were important for me when I wrote my thesis all those years ago. I recommend both of them, as they frequently touch on the aspect of dissonance, and our reaction patterns to that. Just something “ad hoc” in this discussion:
I find a very important aspect of music reception is the question, am I listening to it from my Hifi or am I listening to people creating the music live or am I actually playing the music myself with an instrument. The tolerance for dissonance rises along these options.
Sometimes the intended effect of dissonance might get lost when you just listen to a recording.It’s funny that Thor mentioned his craving for potato chips, for example, because I was just thinking about the food analogy as well: no doubt there are certain predispositions of food that we particularly long or crave, on the other hand, there are a lot of what is usually called acquired tastes, such as Roquefort cheese, which is not something I would have even tried as a kid and now love.
There are, or better there used to be, as no biologist really believes that anymore, the theory, that when human beings are born, they are basically “blank” beings, and then only their nurturing, parents, society, etc. shapes them into who they are, but we know today that’s not really true. Quite the contrary, when human beings are born, they are totally “individual”, babies have very different personalities and predispositions to things totally independent of any outside influences. However, when they grow up, nurturing, parents, family, society, school etc. has a tremendous influence on how their personalities develop. So there is a part of our personality that is “ingrained”, and a part of our personality that is “learned”, but since we are complex biological beings, we cannot just cut clear lines to determine what is what.
For example, while I was always having music around and found music enjoyable, it was when I was 14 that I seriously started to collect records and had a more than passing (obviously) interest in music. It’s also funny Thor mentioned Stockhausen and Webern and Penderecki, as those were composers I had no issues with. Those interested me early on. I found certain types of music appealing early on, including Beethoven, Stravinsky, Schönberg, Bartók, etc, while I needed much longer to warm up to Brahms or Bach, both of whom are now among my all time favorite composers. So Brahms and Bach were more of an acquired taste for me than Schönberg or Stravinsky or Bartók… I’m sure there are those for whom it is the other way around.
One thing I considered a musical insult to my taste was just about anything with the label “easy listening”. I despised the kind of albums Henry Mancini produced out of his film scores, that was just bland, boring, meaningless drivel to me. It wasn’t until I had some exchanges with the late Guy McKone that I reconsidered and at least partially revised my abhorrence. It took me a long time to really get into Ralph Vaughan-Williams… I bought my first album of his music in 1999, and it took me until 2014 to really branch out… but then I was hooked. Now I have several symphony cycles of his work and other stuff, he’s a fascinating and great composer, but back when I was a teenager or in my 20s, I wondered why anyone would listen to this old-fashioned British guy when there was so much exciting “new” music by the likes of Stockhausen, Boulez, Ligeti, etc… that sparked my interest more.
Funny you should mention Vaughan Williams. I was instantly attracted to his music from an early age, but only those pastoral works, like Greensleeves, Thomas Tallis, The Lark Ascending etc. Because my dad had some of this stuff, and especially when he got the Classikon series (all 100 CDs), I delved into those. But then later, I discovered RVW also wrote a lot of difficult, dissonant music. That took me by complete surprise. I had to completely “re-wire” my relationship to RVW. I’m still not thrilled with that side of his work, but I might learn to appreciate it. As I mentioned earlier on in this thread, there are different kinds of dissonances, some I can stomach, some I cannot. It’s not all just one big pile called “dissonance” or even atonal music.
I’m not a brain expert, but there must surely be some genetic thing going on there, some centre in my brain that attracts me to all things crispy, salty and fatty?
And sweety! I think this is widely researched already and is evolutionary in us from the old times when food was not easily available. The bodys likes to save these things for bad times which backlashes on us now. Back then peoele didn’t get as much of these ingredients so the issue never happened (and they died earlier to even encounter it ;-)).
So Brahms and Bach were more of an acquired taste for me than Schönberg or Stravinsky or Bartók… I’m sure there are those for whom it is the other way around.
That’s indeed weird. I discovered them later and actually via film music since I always read about primarily Goldsmith’s Bartok and Stravinsky influences.
Funny is when I heard Stockhausen’s KONTAKTE the first time I directly assiaciated it with 60s/70s synth music and science fiction. (Stockhausen probably would not be happy ;-))
Music in school never reached these composers at all (but Beatles did happen). However I was able to avoid music in school in later years as it was not mandatory so probably I just missed it.
For some reason I have sometimes a problem with Barock music. I like Vivaldi for example but it can more easily get on my nerves than other generes.
Funny you should mention Vaughan Williams. I was instantly attracted to his music from an early age, but only those pastoral works, like Greensleeves
Greensleeves was the favorite melody of my father! At one time I made him compilations with all versions I could find of it.
Kudos to your father! Yes, “Greensleeves” is a gorgeous, ancient melody, even if it’s been overplayed over the years. But it’s a far cry from Vaughan Williams’ gruelling Symphony No. 4, for example. If anything fits into this thread, that piece does.
Yes, “Greensleeves” is a gorgeous, ancient melody, even if it’s been overplayed over the years.
As with many famous “hits”. I like the Vaughn Williams symphonies a lot as well. Haven’t listened to them in a while though (well, as usual applies to 95+% of all my music ;))
Btw, totally weird that Greensleeves is also used as a christmas song. Didn’t know the before I dived into all of its versions.
I’ve always been obsessed with potato chips, for example, since I was a wee lad. My whole family is…there must surely be some genetic thing going on there…
Maybe, but the commonality could also be explained by the shared environment. For instance, you all (I assume) understood Norwegian without any genetic involvement in the explanation, or any innate predisposition.
I find the idea of an innate attraction to the likes of sweet or salty tastes (whether we’re talking individually, familially or collectively as a species) much easier to buy, though, because these are perceived directly by our taste buds. There could be something vaguely similar in the perception of primitive musical phenomena such as the special intervals (octave, perfect fifth, etc.).
It took me a long time to really get into Ralph Vaughan-Williams…
Funny, that’s almost the polar opposite of my experience. As a teenager I found myself dissatisfied with nearly all music I heard, until a chance encounter with Vaughan Williams led me to an intense preoccupation with his work, and, in turn, to the standard orchestral repertoire in general. I still count his Symphony No. 6 among my three favourite pieces.
Regarding the difference between dissonance and atonality, one of the best examples I know is Webern’s Symphony.
This is purely atonal – it’s an example of 12-tone serialism – but, to me, its sound could hardly be further from dissonance, let alone horror.
There could be something vaguely similar in the perception of primitive musical phenomena such as the special intervals (octave, perfect fifth, etc.).
There could be. Or not. Fact is: we really do not know. By that I mean: there is no conclusive evidence that can even proof why we like music or why it effects us so much. A few years ago I looked into some studies and found it quite interesting. Bottom line is: there is currently no conclusive proof that fully explains why humans like music, why it can affect us so deeply, or why one person is profoundly moved by Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata while another feels little or nothing. Most current theories circle around what seems to be a growing body of evidence pointing toward a combination of innate biological mechanisms and learned cultural influences. One of the strongest findings I remember is that pleasurable musical experiences are associated with dopamine release in reward-related brain regions, in much the same general reward circuits that involved food, social bonding, and other pleasurable experiences become active during music listening. And some people react more to music like that than others. That’s also an obvious fact. Some people are just profoundly moved by certain pieces of music, while others — even with more or less the same cultural and educational background — are indifferent to it. I mean, while you can learn about music, it’s functions, and with that knowledge may come an admiration from a technical point of view, you may appreciate and grant it’s worth, in short, you may learn to “admire” a piece of music, but it’s much harder to learn to “like” a piece of music, especially if you don’t just enjoy listening to it to begin with.
This is purely atonal – it’s an example of 12-tone serialism – but, to me, its sound could hardly be further from dissonance, let alone horror.
I never found Webern’s music particularly dissonant or “horrific” either. Webern was an extremely economic composer, whose music has an ethereal, beautifully mysterious quality to it.
For another, there are intervals that we hear as consonant but which do not correspond to particularly simple ratios. The most striking example is the (12 tone equally tempered) minor third – indeed, one of the component intervals of the major triad – where the ratio of the two pitches is the fourth root of 2: a number which is not close to any rational number as simple as 6/5 or 7/6, and yet which produces an interval which is more familiar and natural to us (or at least to me!) than the just minor third (ratio 6:5) and certainly than the septimal minor third (7:6).
Good point! I didn’t really investigate other intervals than those in a major chord 😊.
Any chord, anyfrequency sound can become “dissonant” in the “right” context.
Thus the perfect fifth (3:2), though it has a high chance of becoming a harmonious interval, is not guaranteed to, just as the minor third is not prohibited.
Can you mention any specific context that you’re thinking of here? Where, for instance, a perfect fifth would sound dissonant? Sure, if you play a C + G and then add a G# (minor second) on top, then you’ll get dissonance, obviously. But then it’s not a perfect fifth anymore. Or rather, it’s more than a perfect fifth. Or are you thinking of less straightforward, more subtle combinations with other chords or intervals?
And I still believe that there is always some purely physical/physiological/neurological factors at play when people perceive certain frequency combinations, like a minor second, as grating. Even in cultures where, because of musical traditions and conditioning, that interval may not be regarded as unpleasant, I would think they still can perceive its, um… gratiness.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.