Is our perception of what sounds good here to stay?

I'm not going to argue about this, but I'll say that the way the brain works means that we have areas where we have a lot of control over, and areas where we simply don't.

We can't control the way our language centers work, we can only work with the end product. For example, it's almost impossible to "unlearn" the way we process emotions in our speech and due to the overlap, it's therefore almost impossible to really program yourself to hear something that is "happy" as really "sad," we don't have much control over that directly and we really can't help it much since we use it ALL the time in our every day lives. We are CONSTANTLY (consciously and unconsciously) listening for the "tune" of other people's voices and assessing their feelings and intentions through it. This carries over to music.

Where we have control is that, after that first assessment which has nothing to do with our opinions, we can then label it/classify it/justify it/oppose it/etc. Like if a seemingly "happy" song triggers a bad memory or emotions. These are all things that come after the fact.

But anyway, that's all.

i don't think it is right to assert taht we can't hear something 'happy' as something 'sad'. of course these are different things, they will differ, but it's aconceptual matter not a necessary one. sure it would kill any discussion if say sad=happy=sad. since it would become tautological. but, there's no logical contradiction in supposing that one may hear something that you hear as sad, happy. simple. if you want some empiricism to back it up, well, analyze your dreams more closer - the sequances of images that even you 100 percent in your life would feel as sad, might be accompanied by completely different emotions in dreams. but this is not an argumnent, argument is this - there's nothing in chemical reactions, cells, whatever, that would logically imply any thoughts whatsoever. taht it is correlated , sure, but an argument of materialist determinism doesn't hold on logical grounds. sure you may knock as much as you want that if we get correlations exactly the leap dissapears, because, well, what is the alternative (and you could get many many fancy interpretattions, check philosophy of mind), but on logical grounds it is not convincing.

Uhh that's good not goof. LOL <_<

Uhh that's good not goof. LOL <_<

That's why you have an edit button so you can edit mistakes in your post without creating another post and wasting space in the thread.

Good grief :headwall:

I've been wondering: Will our current perception of what tones sound good together ever change. Will we ever thing that a major triad or something simple like that does not sound "good?" Will our current tonal theory "rules" ever change (because all the guidelines are there because we think they sound good, right?). And I'm not talking about a change in the next 100 years or something. This would take much longer. What are your ideas on this?

Well, I think that there already has been quite a lot of change in the latest decades... I'm not all that sure if nowadays all people would consider a major triad sounding good. Most successful contemporary composers actually rather seem to avoid the use of triads - probably due to their archaic sound, which evokes associations to the music of the 18th century.

I'm not all that sure if nowadays all people would consider a major triad sounding good.

That may be true for some people, but could you find a single person who would say that a major triad sounded bad? And would a successful contemporay composer who doesnt use major triads much dislike them? Because someone can enjoy the sound of something, while still not using it very much in their own work. Just a thought...

A bit of both. Appreciation is a mixture of bioligical (i.e. fixed) and social (i.e. changing) factors.

As an example, each hair cell in your ear responds to a certain frequency range. A major third is far enough apart for each tone to be registered by a different hair cell. But a minor 2nd, is not, so one hair cell tries to register both pitches, causing the "clash" and roughness that we hear.

So (unless genetic scientists change the design of the ear) a major third will always sound 'clearer' than a major 2nd, but whether or not we prefer the clear or the rough sound may well change, depending on society's tastes.... as they have since the birth of music.

Our rules will never change when attempting to write in a particular idiom. (For example, in most historical idioms, you never write a major third in the low register, since at low frequencies, one hair cell covers both pitches, resulting in 'roughness').... but there will undoubtedly be new idioms with new values and new "rules".

Your explanation is basically true. I'd like to add that these are actually different regions on the basilar membrane, composed of hundreds of cells that in acoustics are called critical bands, which overlap and work like bandpass filters, and react only to certain frequencies. In dissonance (tones that are close in frequency and occur within a critical bandwidth), one band is affected by the amplitude of both tones, which slowly changes because of the changing sums of their amplitudes over time (as it can be visualised on a graph), causing beats or roughness. Dissonance rate objectively depends on the quality of the interval, which tells us about the overtone conflicts, and the frequency of beats. The latter changes with change of the register and slower beats in the low register lead to more perceptual roughness. Dissonance greatly depends on timbre, since overtones cause beats, as well, and in the low register, often more higher overtone conflicts lie above the threshold of hearing, which becomes lower and lower with approaching the middle frequencies. Now, all this reminds me of the power chords (open fifths) used in rock and metal music: the richness of partials resulting from the distorted electric guitars makes the open fifth to not sound so empty and guitarists miss the thirds, because otherwise the sonority becomes too dissonant.

The basic 'rule' is that the root of the lowest minor third should be above the lowest line of the bass clef. This doesn't mean it's wrong to use lower thirds - it could be a valuable expressive tool. (I usually put the word 'rule' in quotes, because I don't see music as set of rules and my personal opinion is that it is ridiculous to teach music in such a limiting way. Rather, I see rules as features of a certain period, style, etc., and guidelines when a composer wants to write in one idiom or another.)

Your explanation is basically true. I'd like to add that these are actually different regions on the basilar membrane

That's true :facepalm:

It's been a while since I studied all that!

Interesting point about power chords. It just goes to show that you don't need to understand the theory to make great music... presumable the first metalheads to use power chords were going by ear. If you tell them that such a technique was *reducing* dissonance they might have been less eager :P

I see rules as features of a certain period, style, etc., and guidelines when a composer wants to write in one idiom or another.)

I agree. The acoustical and psychoacoustical features show the unchanging aspects of music. And the "rules", show which features, sounds and collections of sounds are in vogue at any place (in time and cultural geography).

Well, yeah, if I am correct, one critical band consists of more than 1000 of those hair cells. Too loud sounds simply break them, causing hearing problems. And the baby with the headphones on your avatar risks to have some hearing problems as an adult, if (s)he uses them often and loudly enough since such an early age. :P

As for power chords - they can be seen as doubling at the 5th, which gives richness and prominence, and the added spectrum by the distortion makes them even more powerful, but when guitar players tried to include the third, they've probably found out it's not that nice to play it with the same instrument. :)

As to certain music pleasuring the brain, I can't see why the brain didn't develop, even evolve, over the time music was developing.

But I'm not optimistic about the progress we could make. We already make music influenced by every culture around the world, we already have inorganic sounds... Barring a great upheaval, we should only see increased globalization of marketable music and the sublimation of the non-marketable. Note the shortening of the alap to the length of a record side.

But I'm not optimistic about the progress we could make. We already make music influenced by every culture around the world, we already have inorganic sounds...

We do? What sounds are "inorganic" again?

Merely curious...

As to certain music pleasuring the brain, I can't see why the brain didn't develop, even evolve, over the time music was developing.

I think you are overestimating how fast evolution occurs. I'm no expert but I would guess that there isn't much genetic difference between the ancient Sumerians and their modern day descentants (thats 8 millenia). And most Westerners treat music history as beginning in the middle ages (that's 1.5 millenia). Evolution will of course change our perception of music, but it is SOOO slow that we may as well consider our general anatomy fixed.

Most Westerners treat Western Classicism as beginning in the middle ages because that's where Western Classicism more or less began... when the Holy Roman Empire sought to unite all people from various cultures under religion, singing the same hymns from one church to the next. Thus, notation was born in the Western tradition.

Anyone insisting that this is when -Music History- began is sorely mistaken.

We do? What sounds are "inorganic" again?

Merely curious...

I meant computer music, which can make any possible sound via synthesis, even sounds that will never be produced acoustically.

I think you are overestimating how fast evolution occurs. I'm no expert but I would guess that there isn't much genetic difference between the ancient Sumerians and their modern day descentants (thats 8 millenia). And most Westerners treat music history as beginning in the middle ages (that's 1.5 millenia). Evolution will of course change our perception of music, but it is SOOO slow that we may as well consider our general anatomy fixed.

Evolution was a bad word to use. I'm gonna preface this statement with the "I am a college-educated retard," so I may be barking up the totally wrong tree. But if society's rate of change is in any way indicative of a micro-level change, that is, a change of the individual themselves, then it'd follow that internalized non-physical changes might be the ones changing.

I dunno.

Plus, since when is science a better arbiter than any other? I mean, it's the standard pluralist defense of asking "why?" endlessly, but it's not indefensible... I'm saying that modernism mightn't have been so "out there" in a social sense if it didn't intentionally place itself there.

re: history

The problem with tracing music history to Greece by virtue of similarity is that it propogates two red herrings. Firstly, it makes it seem that Greece, and not some of the various cultures Greece conquered, was the progenitor of the musical ideas (hello Asia Minor!). Secondly, it makes the assumption that there's an unbroken line from Greece to Rome and one from Rome to Europe to the US; it just don't work that way. Any "history" is arbitrary as hell.

A lot of people like triads, some people like second chords and find triads to be boring, many classical composers prefer diminished triad as much as major or minor, and most people think jazz chords are "weird," but there are people who like those kinds of things, like me. So there is always a change in perception.

Well, yeah, if I am correct, one critical band consists of more than 1000 of those hair cells. Too loud sounds simply break them, causing hearing problems. And the baby with the headphones on your avatar risks to have some hearing problems as an adult, if (s)he uses them often and loudly enough since such an early age.

*shivers*

If I had hearing problems...omg I would be DYING! I NEED TO HEAR TO COMPOSE!!!!

I meant computer music, which can make any possible sound via synthesis, even sounds that will never be produced acoustically.

To me, personally, electronic music is just as 'organic' as acoustical music. Synthesizers work with electrical current and it all boils down to routing of electrical field and electrons movement - something pretty organic and natural, part of physics. Not to mention that synthesizers can be as expressive as acoustical instruments, when used with knowledge and taste.