Use Of Dissonance, Chromatic And Harmonic Movement

SimenN, don't forget that a long time ago an interval of third was considered a dissonance.

In 16th Century music, any chromatic note was considered a tension and suspended intervals as well. The triads were not used as a tension and there weren't any I-IV-V relations as well. Only final cadenza had a tonality-like ending. So imagine the reception of people, when first dominant seventh chord was used, with it's "brutal" dissonance of the interval of seventh.

 

Your beliefs are too naive so I'd suggest you start to write simple pop music and have your philosophies fully deployed there. Like it or not, the music of Debussy, Ravel, Berg, Shostakovich, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Stravinsky and other "dissonant" composers will live on, like it or not. If you intend to make any impression in the field of contemporary classical music, you will have to start thinking more broadly and expand your limits.

Sojar, yeah they will live on, not that Messiaen is very famous. Well, its more likely that you are naive, still following the radical thinking of the 70s and 80s. I have written pop music, i almost got a record when i was 16 years old, so no thank you :) My philosophies might seem radical to you, off course it does, i say quite the opposite of what you in many ways represent. Classical match, revivalist vs modernist ;)

SimenN, don't forget that a long time ago an interval of third was considered a dissonance.

In 16th Century music, any chromatic note was considered a tension and suspended intervals as well. The triads were not used as a tension and there weren't any I-IV-V relations as well. Only final cadenza had a tonality-like ending. So imagine the reception of people, when first dominant seventh chord was used, with it's "brutal" dissonance of the interval of seventh.

 

Your beliefs are too naive so I'd suggest you start to write simple pop music and have your philosophies fully deployed there. Like it or not, the music of Debussy, Ravel, Berg, Shostakovich, Lutoslawski, Messiaen, Stravinsky and other "dissonant" composers will live on, like it or not. If you intend to make any impression in the field of contemporary classical music, you will have to start thinking more broadly and expand your limits.

Sojar, yeah they will live on, not that Messiaen is very famous. Well, its more likely that you are naive, still following the radical thinking of the 70s and 80s. I have written pop music, i almost got a record when i was 16 years old, so no thank you :) My philosophies might seem radical to you, off course it does, i say quite the opposite of what you in many ways represent. Classical match, revivalist vs modernist ;)

Not to forget about jazz - there are no basic chords in it. There is always an added 6th, 7th, or 9th. So you would berate the style as "unbalanced" or what?

Hehe, they have their own scale, so its alright, and its tonal, and often has a melody, with a simple form

Sojar, yeah they will live on, not that Messiaen is very famous. Well, its more likely that you are naive, still following the radical thinking of the 70s and 80s. I have written pop music, i almost got a record when i was 16 years old, so no thank you :) My philosophies might seem radical to you, off course it does, i say quite the opposite of what you in many ways represent. Classical match, revivalist vs modernist ;)

Considering me as the follower of the "radical thinking of the 70s and 80s" shows you have no knowledge about the history of modern classical music. The radical thinking was in the 50s and 60s. When 70s came, there was already a "revival" of classical beauty.

SimenN, have you listened to my music uploaded here? Compare me with Stockhausen, Boulez, middle-aged Ligeti, Kagel, Bussotti and others and then call me radical.

No, I don't consider your philosophies radical, just naive.

Yet, I do love to release my limities a bit by bit as time goes by. I used to berate atonality as well, when I was 18. But slowly, I found lots of beauty outside tonality based sistem and believe me, it's refreshing.

Considering me as the follower of the "radical thinking of the 70s and 80s" shows you have no knowledge about the history of modern classical music. The radical thinking was in the 50s and 60s. When 70s came, there was already a "revival" of classical beauty.

SimenN, have you listened to my music uploaded here? Compare me with Stockhausen, Boulez, middle-aged Ligeti, Kagel, Bussotti and others and then call me radical.

No, I don't consider your philosophies radical, just naive.

Yes, i have heard your works, and the choir piece was very good as i commented before. I like your more traditional compositions, very good music.

Arne Nordheim was very active here in the 70 - and 80s. I would never compare you to Stockhausen, Boulez, middle-aged Ligeti, Kagel, Bussotti, i dont call them composers, i call them experimental noise arrangers.

what is it you consider naive? to use chromatic and dissonances with affects and deeper meaning? the concept of stable and the effect of the unstable as an tool of expression?

Sojar:

"the same goes for unnatural music, you have to expose yourself to it, and with time it will be natural for you

But the fact is you have gone against your nature. "

I just quoted myself lol

Stockhausen, Boulez, middle-aged Ligeti, Kagel, Bussotti, i dont call them composers, i call them experimental noise arrangers.

Oh? Which pieces by Ligeti and Bussotti are you familiar with? What about said pieces lead you to the conclusion that they aren't 'composers'?

Oh? Which pieces by Ligeti and Bussotti are you familiar with? What about said pieces lead you to the conclusion that they aren't 'composers'?

The bubbels in Ligeti Artikulation sounds like its in a cartoon form the 70s, i dont even bother to comment on Bussotti :)

seriously, you cant accept this as composition?????

The bubbels in Ligeti Artikulation sounds like its in a cartoon form the 70s, i dont even bother to comment on Bussotti :)

seriously, you cant accept this as composition?????

Artikulation is a stylistic outlier in his output. Incidentally, it is also the very first composition that comes up on youtube when one searches for "Ligeti" ;)

Man, I love condemning composers and then not providing any justification (while very obviously not being in the slightest bit familiar with those I am condemning).

Sojar:

"the same goes for unnatural music, you have to expose yourself to it, and with time it will be natural for you

But the fact is you have gone against your nature. "

 

I just quoted myself lol

Oh, by the way, the natural sounds are far more dissonant than music. If you listen to a bird chorus, it's heavily dissonant, much more than lots of modern "dissonant" music.

Not to forget the tempered system is not natural. The natural harmonics are out-of-tune, by the way, so they are dissonant.

I smell this topic winning a 2013 award as the most controversial one.

SimenN, how well do you know Ligeti's music to call HIM a noise experimentator?

By the way, he was NEVER an experimentator. He never found any new sounds on instruments and only his later works use out-of-tune sounds, based on NATURAL harmonics.

And, for final: My Ave Maris Stella you mentioned to be your favourite of my pieces has a dissonance in final chord, an added 6th. So would you claim this composition to be a product of unbalanced soul?

I have a couple of problems with the many weird assumptions that has been made by the creator of this topic.

First of all he talks about dissonance in music as perceived by a select group of people that existed hundreds of years ago as being the only correct one and all others as being unnatural or false when people of almost any era have differing views on consonance and dissonance that do not correspond with this one period in history (baroque).  The fact is that the "hundreds of years of tradition" do not narrow down to one single use of consonance and dissonance.  Composers before the baroque era had many differing views on the subject, as did the composers that followed, and these ideas were constantly evolving throughout the baroque era itself.  Even composers in the same era didn't necessarily always agree on everything when it came to the treatment of music (Bach wasn't the only composer in the baroque era, you know).  The assumption that one treatment of consonance and dissonance remained "standard" throughout the entire history of western culture or even began anything like how it ended up is simply false.

Also the creator of this topic talks about "tension" in music and that a resolution of this "tension" as defined by baroque musicians is consistent with the "laws of the universe", when in reality, the laws of nature and the galaxy/universe do not seem to agree.  Take for instance something I had noticed on a hike in the mountains that I had recently taken.  I noticed that the wind was whistling through the hollow of a nearby tree creating an A flat/G sharp (approximately).  I also noticed another tone coming from somewhere nearby (I couldn't distinguish exactly where from) creating a B flat/A sharp (approximately).  This, of course, creates an apparent major second to the human ear which, by baroque standards, would demand resolution.  And yet, nature made no attempts whatsoever to resolve this apparent "dissonance."  The hollow of the tree neither extended nor contracted to change the interval to a unison/octave/fifth/third/sixth or any other interval of any kind.  The other nearby whistling also made no attempts to adjust its pitch to "resolve a dissonance."  According to the OP, the laws of the cosmos should have intervened to resolve this apparent "tension", and yet if I went on this same hike on a windy day today, tomorrow, or two years from now the same dissonance would occur without any resolution nor any attempt for resolution (barring human or animal intervention or some natural disaster).  The truth is that the universe/galaxies/cosmos/nature does not care about dissonance and consonance in music and these entities never have and never will demand resolution when it occurs.  Many sounds in nature will create a perception of dissonance without any attempt to "resolve" itself.  This perception of dissonance and consonance is one of humans and possibly some (but most definitely not all!!!) animal species.  The apparent "tension" in music is simply a perceived one and does not actually exist in the natural world.

In addition, in order for his theory on "natural" dissonance and consonance to make any sense, there would have to be nearly complete conformity amongst most all people in all circumstances, thereby showing some possibility of proof for an inherent "rightness" of consonance as perceived by baroque musicians.  The actual fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people (not just in this time but throughout history and probably extending forever into the future) always have and always will perceive consonance and dissonance differently depending on context.  Jazz quite commonly uses the same major and minor scales that have been used throughout the history of western music (in addition to some others, like the whole-tone, octatonic, and blues scales).  In jazz, the chord of resolution will commonly have an added sixth, seventh, and/or ninth, and yet most people hear a resolution (not just some small portion of the population).  These added tones on the chord of resolution also occur fairly frequently in all sorts of contemporary styles including pop/rock/alternative/etc. and yet most people accept it as resolution and a convincing ending with no perception of it being "unfinished" and no further desire for resolution.  In fact, in most blues and a great number of jazz pieces, most people would hear a piece ending on a simple triad as being strange or "all wrong" and more "unfinished" than a seventh chord (suggesting that the simple triad has more tension than relaxation in this context), even if this piece was played entirely in the common major and minor modes and used no other scale.  Most people can also hear tension and relaxation in many pieces written using 20th century techniques and find the ending to be quite convincing without any need for further resolution.  Also, people can very commonly hear the "retrograde" progression in pop music (I-V-IV-I) as a completely convincing ending.  The creator of this topic says that pop music is mostly fine and yet most pop will use this retrograde progression as a cadence quite frequently and this would practically never occur in baroque music.  In spite of this "unacceptable" progression occurring so frequently, no one hears this as any sort of a problem.

I also feel like this topic tends to assign some ridiculous sense of "morality" to music that doesn't really make any sense.  For one thing, most people perceive beauty quite differently and (quite contrary to the OP's belief) it does not conform completely (or nearly) to the ideals of any single era for the vast majority of people for now and throughout history.  The vast majority of music today has no desire nor intention to "glorify God" and it most definitely has no care about SimenN's sense of musical morality nor any intention to conform to some made up need for resolution from the universe/nature/etc. since natural laws do not make any attempt, whatsoever, to actually correct dissonance when it occurs.  Most music today (and almost all secular music throughout history) was intended for expression and only expression.  Overly-diatonic music rarely accomplishes this goal satisfactorily for the vast majority of people after the middle of the classical era and so there is no need nor desire on behalf of most musicians as well as consumers to conform to any bizarre need to avoid chromaticism and/or atonality.  In fact, baroque music is not actually currently popular with the vast majority of western civilization.  In fact, a great number of people now can find it quite unsatisfying or even boring (not me, but many).  You should use the melody/texture/chord progression/rhythm/instruments/compositional methods that you as an individual feel accomplishes the goal to express exactly what it is that you desire to express.  Any opinions that someone is "doing it wrong" has no ground in actual fact.

Tradition is also a ridiculous reason to follow any preconceived notion of what music might be "correct" since (as I've already demonstrated on most of these topics): there is no "natural law" that the universe/galaxies/cosmos/nature follows for the treatment of consonance and dissonance and any opinions on that are simply OPINIONS and have no ground in fact; most eras in history and sometimes the people in any individual era disagreed on these concepts; most individuals find importance, resolution, and beauty in all kinds of music composed using all kinds of different compositional methods and styles; and "everyone else has done it this or that way" (or, in other words "everyone is doing it") is a very silly reason to do anything.  Just because a bunch of people do/did something doesn't mean that it is correct or even desirable.  Vast groups of people have been wrong and continue to be wrong, that's just how it is and always will be.

I would never want to imply that writing in a past style is ever wrong, though, depending mostly on the composers intentions.  I'm simply trying to say that there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to composing.

BTW, SimenN, a great many colleges and universities in the United States teach chromaticism as a standard part of music theory and 20th century techniques as a standard requirement for most degrees in music.  So, telling someone to "go ask your teacher" will not necessarily have the affect that you desire since most qualified music educators will have studied chromaticism as well as post-tonality and would only agree to baroque standards of what is or is not acceptable (in regards to use of chromaticism and atonality) when referring to that particular time in history.

What's this talk about having multiple notes played simultaneously? It is unnatural and demonic, at odds with the nature of reality. Stop it. I know what I am talking about because I almost had a record deal when I was twelve.

And, for final: My Ave Maris Stella you mentioned to be your favorite of my pieces has a dissonance in final chord, an added 6th. So would you claim this composition to be a product of unbalanced soul?

Favorite modern piece maybe, dont confuse that with" listening to the piece" when i want to release tension. Sorry it was from a modern point of view, compared to earlier music, sorry to say, your Ave maris stella sounds like the other modern choir pieces. And as you know, is not the kind of music or philosophy i prefer

I think all of you should give it a thought : dissonanse = tension = tension should be resolved, or used for making movement. A restless chord is not in balance.

  The truth is that the universe/galaxies/cosmos/nature does not care about dissonance and consonance in music and these entities never have and never will demand resolution when it occurs.  Many sounds in nature will create a perception of dissonance without any attempt to "resolve" itself.

The vast majority of music today has no desire nor intention to "glorify God" and it most definitely has no care about SimenN's sense of musical morality nor any intention to conform to some made up need for resolution from the universe/nature/etc.

First quote:

Exactly, music was not created by nature, its made by man, as well is the instrument, just a tone is not music, nor is two tones. The definition of music is wider. That is WHY we should heed how the nature works and be organic, and not go against on the principles we are born and die of this world. Music is made by man for the expression of feelings, instruments, rythem, melody, harmony is just tools.

So my statement is: if you keep stick to the rules of the universe, and use it in music, i think the music will be much more clear, and have a deep impact. Randomly adding chromatic and passing tones is not very art.

Second quote:

Yes! True, too bad, as believe Gods is present composition, the experimental atonal stuff i more satanic in my ears. It actually scare the living hell out of me. I cant understand how composers can accept that as composition, know that it sounds random, and im starting to believe its those composers who cant, who do it. A skilled figurative painter would rarely change to painting a red line on a white background. Why? Well, i guess they feel the art loses its integrity, same with composition.

But never mind, my posts, accept why im stating or you dont  :)

Favorite modern piece maybe, dont confuse that with" listening to the piece" when i want to release tension. Sorry it was form a modern point of view, compared to earlier muisic, sorry to say Ave maris stella.

 

I think all of you should give it a thought : dissonanse = tension = tension should be resolved, or used for making movement. A restless chord is not in balance.

OK: What IS a dissonance? Just an old fashioned explanation of (more or less) irritating interval or chord (I wonder how many people and living beings consider an interval of major second or minor seventh as a dissonance)  or a PERSONAL view which cannot be measured by one single fella?

 

So my statement is: if you keep stick to the rules of the universe, and use it in music, i think the music will be much more clear, and have a deep impact. Randomly adding chromatic and passing tones is not very art.

 

Second quote:

Yes! True, too bad, as believe Gods is present composition, the experimental atonal stuff i more satanic in my ears. It actually scare the living hell out of me. I cant understand how composers can accept that as composition, know that it sounds random, and im starting to believe its those composers who cant, who do it. A skilled figurative painter would rarely change to painting a red line on a white background. Why? Well, i guess they feel the art loses its integrity, same with composition.

I hope you realize that Beethoven was considered a deranged, a satanist composer when he composed his best works. One priest once wrote that it's a shame what confusion Haydn, Mozart and especially "crazy" Beethoven created into their music. Where are the good old days of Palestrina, Bach, Dietersdorff?

And believe me, practicly none good composers of 20th century, including most of avantgarde, didn't put their chromatic and passing notes randomly. Their process is sometimes extremely well selected, almost too well and it's better to use random notes instead of total serialism, for example.

Here's the impression I'm getting is somewhat of a "purist" who believes that the only proper way to utilize harmony, consonance, dissonance  and all that jazz is by staying within the realm of common practice techniques. (and that is completely OK)  I think what is happening is that more people compose atonal works than tonal works nowadays.  It's great that people want to do something different with all of the different elements of music, but more often than not, this atonal approach can result in awkward dissonances, and harmonies with no flow or sense of direction.(as I do believe the OP mentioned somewhere)  The bottom line is that any composer, whether they compose in any style, common practice or now, needs a firm grounding in music theory.  I'm not saying that the theory has to guide your work, but one shouldn't be completely oblivious to theory,

There seems to be a confusion here equating tonal/atonal with consonant/dissonant. There are plenty of dissonances in tonal music, in many cases there are more than there are in some atonal works.

In tonal music, tritones occur at most cadences; minor and major 2nds occur horizontally as passing notes, auxiliary notes, appoggiaturas and vertically, along with 7ths and 9ths, as suspensions, retardations, anticipations, etc. Dissonance is fundamental to tonal music.

Likewise, consonance is often fundamental to atonal music. Take this example by that hack, Ligeti:

In that piece, the left hand plays an ostinato consisting of the first tetrachords of a C major scale and an F# major scale. Not really harshly dissonant at all but the fact that the two tetrachords are a tritone apart keeps the key ambiguous. The right hand plays major, minor and diminished triads. The triads are from many different keys so an overall key is never established for the piece. The piece is absolutely loaded with consonance yet it is atonal. You can't really make a case for the inferiority or superiority of modern music based on the level of consonance or dissonance.

And I don't see why we have to follow nature's example when composing music. Nature sucks at making music. All the best music I've ever heard was composed by people.

What laws of physics were we talking about again?

What laws of physics were we talking about again?

Those made by God (in close coordination with Buddha, Allah and Robert Plant).

tuohey, you are absolutely right.  (In fact, I do admit even I had that a bit mixed together in my head when I wrote my original post.)  Yes, both atonal and tonal have various degrees of consonance and dissonance.  For instance, any first year theory course would tell us that intervals such as minor seconds and Major sevenths are dissonances.  I don't think anyone will argue a lack of dissonance in common practice music.  But look at Mozart, he had dissonance in his music like any composer, but he also had clear (if bland) harmonies and harmonic progressions.  The bottom line is that music can't have absolutely no sense of direction.  I think it's wonderful that people are experimenting and pushing the envelope musically, but whether it be tonal or atonal, music needs some type of harmonic structure to be truly pleasing and satisfying. (of course there are instances where this does not apply, but for the most part, it does.)

Favorite modern piece maybe, dont confuse that with" listening to the piece" when i want to release tension. Sorry it was from a modern point of view, compared to earlier music, sorry to say, your Ave maris stella sounds like the other modern choir pieces. And as you know, is not the kind of music or philosophy i prefer

 

I think all of you should give it a thought : dissonanse = tension = tension should be resolved, or used for making movement. A restless chord is not in balance.

 

 

 

First quote:

Exactly, music was not created by nature, its made by man, as well is the instrument, just a tone is not music, nor is two tones. The definition of music is wider. That is WHY we should heed how the nature works and be organic, and not go against on the principles we are born and die of this world. Music is made by man for the expression of feelings, instruments, rythem, melody, harmony is just tools.

 

So my statement is: if you keep stick to the rules of the universe, and use it in music, i think the music will be much more clear, and have a deep impact. Randomly adding chromatic and passing tones is not very art.

 

Second quote:

Yes! True, too bad, as believe Gods is present composition, the experimental atonal stuff i more satanic in my ears. It actually scare the living hell out of me. I cant understand how composers can accept that as composition, know that it sounds random, and im starting to believe its those composers who cant, who do it. A skilled figurative painter would rarely change to painting a red line on a white background. Why? Well, i guess they feel the art loses its integrity, same with composition.

 

But never mind, my posts, accept why im stating or you dont  :)

You're confusing your understanding of 'Baroque' rules with rules that (don't) govern all forms of music.

Also, you never answered my question: why does the Universe create tension then resolve it, over and over again? What is the point of that? Seems like this Universe fella has poor memory, don't you think?