Why is disonnance 'bad'? Argh

There was already lots of "atonal" music by the time Debussy died!

I'm always amazed that people seem to have no problem whatsoever with atonal and highly dissonant music in film and TV scores. I was watching Torchwood (fairly mainstream) last week and could hear Spectralist music as well as other modern electronic styles. The use of 'Penderecki strings' has become a clich

Perhaps the only thing I can say is... read my signature. :)

I particulary love dissonance, I love to compose atonal pieces of music, just some people have an ear for it and some don't

[stanley Kubrick] stole Ligeti...etc etc in his movies.

Corrected. :D

Why do people THINK dissonance is bad? Because they don't hear it in "the masters."

Why do people THINK it's not in "the masters?" Because they don't study hard enough, with enough cultural understanding.

Of course, non-contextual knowledge isn't necessarily a bad thing (it's about all I got), but if one holds to a historicist mentality without knowing the history, I see an issue.

I think there is a misunderstanding on this thread. Personally I was saying that if had a song completely made of minor seconds, I wouldn't like the dissonance (my opinion.) But if you say not to use dissonance or any sort of dissonance in a song is rather silly. Theoretically, ( I may be wrong) isn't there a level of dissonance in anything that is secundal and beyond (unless it's unison/prime) ?

Half of this thread is talking about people disliking dissonant filled songs (minor 2nds and such) and the other half is talking about whether it's important to have dissonance in a composition. Or at least that's how I portray it.

It's all subjective.

I don't understand why people refuse to let other people not like dissonance and call them non musical, it's rather rude.

I think (after reading about a third of the thread, mind you) that this thread is about why a majority of the GENERAL PUBLIC appears to not enjoy too much dissonance. It seems that most non-musical people don't listen to any music with a lot of dissonance in it. If you look at a non-musical person's iPod, they're going to have a lot of main-stream, consonant music (by Taylor Swift, Coldplay, Green Day, etc.) and not Shostakovich. I believe this thread is about why many people don't like dissonant music and why main-stream music doesn't employ dissonance often.

In my opinion, many people today are passive listeners when they listen to their iPods (unless they are singing along with the music, in which case the odds are that they are listening to primarily consonant music); they just let the music wash over them. Dissonant music refuses to "wash over" the listener, insisting instead on attacking the listener. I think that musically-trained people think about the music while they listen to it (active listening) and are better able to cope with extreme dissonance.

I think there is a misunderstanding on this thread. Personally I was saying that if had a song completely made of minor seconds, I wouldn't like the dissonance (my opinion.) But if you say not to use dissonance or any sort of dissonance in a song is rather silly. Theoretically, ( I may be wrong) isn't there a level of dissonance in anything that is secundal and beyond (unless it's unison/prime) ?

Hard to answer since there's no one universally accepted definition of dissonance, but by all such definitions that at least make some amount of sense, dissonance is certainly not just an either-or question, but something gradual. So yes, depending on the circumstances (timbre of the tones, their register etc.) and where exactly one draws the line, any interval can be considered dissonant to some degree. Even primes! (Considering that no actual instrument has a perfectly harmonic spectrum, so two different instruments playing the same note can indeed be dissonant to each other.)

And even in traditional harmony not every interval is clearly defined as consonant or dissonant. Depending on where in a chord it appears, a perfect forth can be either, according to "common practice" rules. Likewise, certain chords that consist merely out of consonant intervals (again according to CP harmony) can still be considered dissonant as a whole: An augmented triad only consists of a combination of major thirds and minor sixths, which are all considered "consonant" - but as a whole, the rules of functional tonal harmony still consider it a dissonant chord that requires resolution.

This all shows that what we perceive as "consonance" and "dissonance" is often merely an internalisation of certain artificial rules and while it may have been derived from acoustical properties at some point, it has moved from these principles for quite some time. (Otherwise we certainly wouldn't hear a perfect fifth played on a piano tuned in 12TET as "consonant".)

And of course there's also no strict border to which intervals that are smaller than a minor second are considered "dissonant", and when they begin to sound like a "lively unison". That may occur naturally, since no human is ever perfectly in tune when playing, or artificially through conscious use of vibrato, or through especially built instruments (such as accordeons) with deliberately "mistuned" registers. Some people will hear an eighth tone as a distinct interval, while others will just hear it as a "slightly off unison" - and yet others might not even realize they are two different pitches.

So really, I think it rarely has anything to do with actual acoustical phenomenons when certain people complain about "too much dissonance" - generally it's just an easy term that is used to avoid having to pinpoint what ones actual issue with a certain music is. And sadly, this usage only reinforces some preconceptions about "modern music" (i.e. that it is "hard to listen to" or "academic"), which I sometimes find very far-fetched.

Dissonant music refuses to "wash over" the listener, insisting instead on attacking the listener.

Yeah. Ligeti's Atmospheres is brutal... :huh:

Anyway, this is quickly becoming a very unintentionally hilarious thread. I can't really give an honest post since I don't know enough about music to really speak on what is dissonance other than people should really get out of the mentality that dissonance is anything that sounds bad. If I had to define dissonance, I'd call it a musical disagreement with the internal logic that has thus far been established in the piece. A C major chord in a Mozart sonata would be perfectly consonant but the same chord would be extremely dissonant in a strictly serial piece (provided the row didn't outline any kind of triadic major chord). Chromatically descending fourths would generally be regarded as dissonant but I don't see too many people complaining when they're used in The Rite of Spring. Regular, triadic minor chords sound bad to me almost always but they're hardly dissonance in most contexts. Dissonance isn't set in stone and interpreting everything through a biased, common-practice perspective when that system is relevant to a very SMALL amount of music in the first place is certainly a problem.

And also, what's with all the "dissonance brings bad emotions!" comments? It blows my mind that people can think this way. Dissonance can be just as beautiful as consonance (sometimes more so). -_-

Hur, if I hear a c major chord ... I hear a c major chord. Not much feeling going on. Likewise, if I hear a Cdim chord, I hear a Cdim chord. Again, not much feeling going on. Consonance can make you cringe as well and a bunch of notes hit randomly can be lovely and relaxing.

:>

True, I spoke to soon!! I remember some classical piano piece I hear ages ago, and it was all just wayyyyy to consonant, it hurt.

^^

Although I don't know if a bunch of notes could ever be relaxing... once again I guess it comes down to context and personal taste :)

Yeah. Ligeti's Atmospheres is brutal... :huh:

I think it is. Getting through Ligeti for me is like getting through a boxing match. But hey... that's me.

And also, what's with all the "dissonance brings bad emotions!" comments? It blows my mind that people can think this way. Dissonance can be just as beautiful as consonance (sometimes more so). -_-

I'm inclined to think are two uses for dissonance. There is passive dissonance, and aggressive dissonance. This is my own (subjective) thought that I have no intention of convincing others of. Passive dissonance may be the use of major 7ths or added 9ths or other extensions as a means of colouring a base chord, or polychords used to colourify a passage. Aggressive dissonance (think pounding or bleating minor seconds) can be the use of dissonance alone to create an atmosphere - a mood that is supposed to be less agreeable or more offensive to the ear to convey a more serious emotion. This idea of course I'll only apply to tonal music - I can't speak for atonalism-type stuff. Anyways, just an idea.

I think it is. Getting through Ligeti for me is like getting through a boxing match. But hey... that's me.

A recurring theme I see on this site is that music is has harmony, melody, or both. I think of music as organized sound. Sound that has been put together in a certain way to achieve a certain result.

Ligeti is wonderful, but it is focused on the actual texture and timbre, not melody and harmony. Just like people will often put on a recording of the ocean or other areas of nature to relax - it doesn't have harmony or melody, but it is immensely pleasing.

Just relax when you listen to it, let yourself actually experience it and you might be pleasantly surprised by how interesting and alive the music is.

It is a completely different experience than listening to Beethoven, but it is none-the-less an amazing experience if you stop fighting with ideals.

Small reminder concerning one or two deleted posts: There's no reason to attack other posters in this thread for voicing their personal dislike of certain music, especially if said attack is purely offensive and doesn't contribute to this thread's topic. Even if the opinions of these posters you are replying to you seem absolutely ridiculous to you.

Replies such as healey.cj's right here ^ are so much more constructive.

Replies such as healey.cj's right here ^ are so much more constructive.

You're welcome, Gardener :-)

----

I have to wonder if the "ugliness" of dissonance has actually come from movies and T.V.? I mean, people hear the Psycho theme and they can't help but imagine that scene in the shower...

I am forced to wonder weather a life-time of similar associations has lead to dissonance being "ugly" because it invokes emotions and images related to rather disturbing acts.

It is the same with Major and Minor chords probably. Minor sounds "sad". We've all heard this, but does it really or have we just attached a sad emotional reaction to it?

Any other thoughts?

I haven't the slightest clue. I love it, I use it all the time

It is the same with Major and Minor chords probably. Minor sounds "sad". We've all heard this, but does it really or have we just attached a sad emotional reaction to it?

I think the stereotype says major is happy and minor is sad, but again, it also depends on the person. It's unique to each based upon personality. It's just like when you get in an argument with someone. There's the person who laughs while they yell, all smiles. There's the person who remains emotionless while throwing remarks that kill. And there's the "typical" mad person who has slanted eye brows and a red face and a furrowed brow. These people are all expressing the same emotion and/or passion in whatever they're arguing about, though it comes off in different ways.

I think music is the same way. First, you have the composer, who writes and orchestrates it one way, and even sometime will dictate in performance notes his exact feelings and precisely how it is to be performed. But from there, you have each different conductor that may interpret it a different way. "This Eroica needs to be proud and revolutionary and anrgy at the establishment!" So the piece changes, even slightly, per conductor. Then if you're dealing with a soloist, or perhaps a concerto, where the conductor interprets it one way for the orchestra, but the soloist interprets it a wholly different way. Then you have the audience's reception of all the interpretation. By the time a composer's piece reaches the ears of the audience, it may be a completely different emotion altogether, on a person to person basis. And especially the masters who aren't around to say how their piece should be performed, so then the London Symph, or Royal Concertgebow, or St. Martin/Fields or whoever else does a recording, and suddenly that becomes the standard and from there, many new/young conductors base their interpretation off of someone else's interpretation....so on and so forth.

So I say write what you feel, if it's minor, then let it be minor, and if it's major, so be it because no matter what you write, people are going to be affected differently by it, no matter how much 'like the emotion' you intentionally write it.

--Minor Pieces that (to me) aren't sad--

Orff-Carmina Burana "O Fortuna" - intro

Mozart-Rondo alla Turca

Rachmaninoff-Prelude in G-Minor Op.23 No.5

Chopin-Waltz in C#Minor-Op.64 No.2

To name a few.

You're welcome, Gardener :-)

----

I have to wonder if the "ugliness" of dissonance has actually come from movies and T.V.? I mean, people hear the Psycho theme and they can't help but imagine that scene in the shower...

I am forced to wonder weather a life-time of similar associations has lead to dissonance being "ugly" because it invokes emotions and images related to rather disturbing acts.

It is the same with Major and Minor chords probably. Minor sounds "sad". We've all heard this, but does it really or have we just attached a sad emotional reaction to it?

Any other thoughts?

Sound has more properties than frequency, I don't think anyone's really talked about this yet. The presence of certain intervals are not what create dissonance, however, but the actual sound envelope. If I'm playing a piano, I could play {0 5 t 4 9 2} in a multitude of ways and produce a unique effect/affect with each situation I subject those pitches to. You see it doesn't matter what the pitches are but how I use them. Let's just think simply for now and consider three musical gestures: 1) aggressive, biting, severe; 2) "peaceful", amorphous, wet; 3) transparent. *See attached for examples.

I didn't feel like writing a third example, I don't think it would come across well on piano in differentiating between the *types* of sounds I'm attemting to create. But I assume my point is being made, this weird notion of "dissonance = pitches" is kind of absurd. I think 1) people need to be more specific when they say "dissonant" and 2) they need to know pitches alone DO NOT invoke a certain affect. Give me the right instruments (or I'll just do it in Sibelius later...) and I guarantee I could make the most "vicious" sounding piece on the planet and only use M3s.

example1.pdf

example1.mid

Good post, Gavin!