Use Of Dissonance, Chromatic And Harmonic Movement

The bottom line is that music can't have absolutely no sense of direction.

Sure it can.

music needs some type of harmonic structure to be truly pleasing and satisfying

No it doesn't.

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

Ah, those ones. Silly me, I was thinking of the scientifically proven laws like the laws of motion, matter/energy conservation, 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  :)

???

I almost feel that you didn't bother to read my whole post or to respond to the concept as a whole, but I guess that I can't help that.  You seem to have ignored the whole point that I made that dissonance and consonance as well as tension and resolution are based completely on context (to the vast majority of the population) and does not rely on baroque ideals at all.  Considering this, any idea you have about acceptable resolution is not a universal one and is therefor only shared by you and maybe a number of musicians that lived hundreds of years ago in the baroque era (and maybe some few others).  Considering this, the vast majority of people have a completely different idea than you of what is "natural", "organic", or "in line with the universe."  Why should the entire world conform its perception of consonance and dissonance to match yours or a bunch a people who lived hundreds of years ago?  Considering the vast majority of people hear resolution where baroque ideals would claim that there can only be tension, how would people now conform to such a thing?  Since the majority of the population does not agree with your concept of natural, organic, or universal, should every musician and consumer be forced to submit every written piece or recording to you personally for analysis and approval?  If not, then how in the heck would they conform?  Should they just try with all their might to think of how baroque musicians might think and only do that with absolutely no further innovation or progress?  Should the whole world just come to a complete intellectual and academic halt because you and the baroque musicians demand/demanded it?

As for the second part, you completely ignore what expression is all about according to a great number of master artists today as well as artists going back to even before as well as including the baroque era (yes, they are all true artists).  The truth is that expression is about communication of emotion.  You can never call it expression if you ever-so-conveniently leave out that which is ugly.  Anger, pain, and anguish are just as valid emotions as are love, pleasure, and happiness.  To only express that which is nice or pleasant isn't very artistic or expressive at all.  To ignore half of what it means to be human just because it isn't quite so pretty (to you personally) definitely does not make you an artist.  Expression is about all emotion and feeling, not just your favorites.  A true artist expresses what is inside and doesn't try to paint it with rose-colored glasses.  Dissonance is just as valid as consonance when it comes to expression and artistry.  You are also ignoring the fact that a great majority of the world does not necessarily share your religious beliefs or needs, therefor asking the world to only glorify god with their music and nothing else is completely unreasonable and would be wrong.  Besides, you are completely ignoring the fact that there are many pieces that the vast majority of the population finds beautiful and pleasing that does not follow baroque musical ideals in the least.  Not just jazz/pop/rock/etc., but many classical pieces as well that use chromaticism and 20th century techniques and doesn't sound random at all.  Maybe you are confusing all post-tonal music with certain serialistic pieces and just assumed that that is what it is all about?

Also, It is only wishful thinking on your part that atonal composers are somehow ignorant to the concepts of tonal harmony.  In fact, most educated individuals are required to finish a complete survey of tonal music as it has existed up to and continuing through atonality.  Since classes in tonal harmony,counterpoint, orchestration and music history far outweigh the required classes on 20th century techniques for basically all academic institutions in the United States, then if someone failed those classes there is absolutely no way that they are going to give that person a diploma.  Not to mention that any musician that expects to have any true understanding of post-tonality as a whole really needs to have a pretty thorough understanding of tonality as well.  Any qualified educator that you would ever take lessons from privately will follow these same principals.  Remember that "don't" and "can't" are two very separate things and one does not necessarily mean the other.  Besides, there are many post-tonal composers that use tonality frequently in their compositions or have written many separate tonal compositions in addition to their post-tonal ones, therefor proving that they are fully capable.

You'll have to excuse my last post.  I've been spending an unhealthy amount of time studying for my music theory class lately...  :facepalm:

SimenN. I am going to summarize this thread.

Chapter 1: Ravels law

You speak of a natural order. While I find that idea in itself quite old-fashioned, I have to say that Ravel did try to go along with you in the very beginning of this argument. He/She/It pointed out to you that you cannot maintain that the idea of tonality is based on the natural order of overtones, and at the same time call the tempered scale a compromise.

You hide behind hollow phrases as :

A tonic with a second or a six is a unstable chord, i would expect the second to resolve to either the prim or third.

It is only relatively true. And I like to stretch the word "relatively" here. Because if you would play a good old Sweelinck organ piece in D minor in C# minor in stead, on an original organ, that would prove that a C#-E minor third is not the same as any minor third (like D-F). So as a D minor second resolves to a D minor third, it is different as the C# minor second that resolves to a C# minor third.

This means there is no such a thing as a universal model of tension and relieve. There is nu such thing as a universal major second.

Chapter 2: Sojar

Sojar tries a new counter-argument: that of musical history. He tells about added 2nds and 6ths and so on, but your response is not really adequate:

Unstable harmony from my point of view should be used wisely, not as color in general.

If I connect this to the OP praising the beauty of nature, the natural order, basically: that your musical aesthetic is derived of a Renaiscance-concept of physics, the quote above boils down to: color is unnatural.

Yeah, right. Creation with too much color is not as the creator intended it...

Sorry, I got carried away and my cynicism took over. ;) For the sake of argument I could go along with you for a little and agree that tension should be relieved. But as you speak of the tools (chromatism, passing notes, tention to be relieved) of a composer: pitch is not the only way to relieve tension, nor is tonality the only scheme that brings order to define the interrelationships of pitches.

I'd like to progress along this thought proces but in opposite direction. Check Machaut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1O-BcZQwY And I'd like to point out the cadencial figures; lets take the finale cadence of the first part at 1:07. It is not authentic (V), it is not plagal (IV). The chord E-G#-C# resolves to D-A-D. There is clearly resolving the tension but in a non-baroque way. What would you say of this?

When compared to the baroque ideal it is rather odd to use vii-6 as the dominant.

But compared to you ideal concept, Marcaut is equally different with say a Bartok that uses the tritone in dominant function (NB note the prominent use of the G# in this example)

Chapter 3: God and atonality

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 am a christian that writes unblanced music, should I worry?! Am I posessed? Maybe we should call it Entartete Kunst, becuase, I am clearly gone astray...

Obviously my cynical counterpart kicks in again...

My conclusion so far

Frankly, it scares me to read stuff like this. This is so close minded, and I think this thread shows from the part of Simen an unwillingness to prove his point by arguments, gives no proper response to counter-arguments, does not seem willing to try to walk along a certain path of thought for the sake of argument.

I think what is happening is that more people compose atonal works than tonal works nowadays.

Actually the opposite is true. It's only that it's so hard to gain notoriety writing tonally when you have to pit yourselves against Beethoven, Bach or Tchaikovsky :p ...

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akslYLYGVHs'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akslYLYGVHs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akslYLYGVHs

Needs moar tones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akslYLYGVHs

Very nice music, to bad he did not stay with it. Something bad must have happend to that man ;)

Back to my statement:

Keep in mind im not telling that you should not write atonal, modern or what ever you like. Im stating that unresolved tension does not fit well with how the nature and universe works, tension is always relieved. That is not an assumption, but a fact.

Im not saying that you should not write dissonances, im stating that dissonance is a tool for expression. If you have dissonance all the time, you need more dissonance to make the effect you want (like cluster). If you have a clear harmony, its very easy to hear the dissonance and then easier to know when the piece is expressing something.

Im not saying you should stick to the theory of the baroque period, but im saying that some of the ideals can be used in modern music as well, the concepts.

What i am stating:

If music does not releave tenions, it goes against the nature of the universe.

Many composers today randomly use passingnotes and dissonance without it meaing anything other then its "nice", and this is a bad thing (ofcourse there are people that use it perfectly too)

Many composers have had to little training in traditional harmony to venture into atonality,  you have to master the traditional writing before even thinking experimental music,

and that requiers a liftime of practial use, not just exercises.

Some belive if you have studied and written chorales and some counterpointlessons you understand functional harmony enough to begin with more experimental stuff.

That is not true, to master traditional harmony takes YEARS of composing, not just some chorales and a quick study in counterpoint. I have met masterstudents in composition who cant even write a short chorale line without errors. traditional composition is much like traditional painting, you cant expect to be a good figurative painter after a couple of years practing to paint a human hand. it take years to master, and even at the end of ones life, you still could get better.

Why do i say use dissonance and chromatic wisely?

Because the effect of it will be grater as an expression.  The only tools we have as composers is: rhythm, melody and harmony. that is the core.

Everything you hear has a rhythm (because it ends)

Everything you hear has a pitch (need two notes, to have a melody)

Every melody you hear has harmony.

There are ofcourse other things like form,tempo, key, timesignature. etc that is vital for a composition, but lets keep it simple.

If you overuse this tools true a piece, much chromatic, dissonances most of the time (polychords), and advanced rhythm, how can a listener hear when you express the serious stuff? The only solution is adding more dissonance, or more chromatic.

Expression can also be used by imitation, like violin 1 and 2 are playing seperate, and then together, this could be used for much, have used it to symbolice the renunion with God, first the voices are searching for each other, and then they come togheter  (usually at cadece). here its perfect to add dissonace. But if i had dissoance all the time? then i could not use that tool to really try to get the listener to focus on this section.

To much dissonance is chaos

Why do i say its so imporant to be organic?

Its the same as playing music, what do we strive after when we are performing music? to be organic, breath, take time, move forward, move backward etc.

But the music itself is organic, becuase the composers had that im mind. (talking about baroque now) but this is related to all kind of music.

What makes a beautiful performance? the organic performece! We strive to communicate with the listener, have a conversation, not with words, but music as a tool to ignite feelings.

Is a rock organic? no its not. is the waves organic? yes they are. How? They move, they release tension. No we are back to my fist statement, music should be organic, and therfor tension have to be resolved, no living thing does not resolve tension, in fact life is a balance of tension and resolved tension. Music is organic, it breaths, it moves.

This is why i mean music should follow the rules of physics and the universe, because the medium that music is, is comunication with living people, not with a dead rock.

Merry Christmas to you all

Wrong. All wrong.


This is fact.



Merry Christmas.

 

This is why i mean music should follow the rules of physics and the universe, because the medium that music is, is comunication with living people, not with a dead rock.

This is music, not science. Neither mine nor your musical tastes can be claimed to be objectively correct. Pseudo-scientific arguments aren't going to cut it, especially considering that the style of music you're talking about comes from a time when nobody knew anything about physics or the universe anyway.  

Everything you hear has a pitch (need two notes, to have a melody)

Not true. Most of percussion instruments don't have a pitch.

I will remember this post of yours and will come back at it in 5-10 years. I wonder if you'd still be thinking and writing the same. I doubt. I remember how I was against atonality. Today, I know, how to make atonality sound "consonant" as much as possible. And believe me, most of people consider it beautiful and very pleasant to listen.

The thing is, if you were serious about your idea that music should follow the laws of physics and the universe, you would look at those laws and say "ok, what kind of music can I write that adheres to this".

What you're actually doing is cherry picking certain ideas about physics and the universe in order to justify imposing your own narrow vision of music onto others while conveniently brushing aside those aspects of physics and the universe that clearly disagree with your vision of music.

What about the random nature of quantum mechanics? That would seem to suggest something other than Baroque music. What about the harmonic series? Not only does it not suggest equal temperament, but even if it did, it still wouldn't suggest tonality at all, never mind Baroque music. What exactly is it about the universe that suggests a Concerto Grosso?

Very nice music, to bad he did not stay with it. Something bad must have happend to that man ;)

 

Back to my statement:

 

Keep in mind im not telling that you should not write atonal, modern or what ever you like. Im stating that unresolved tension does not fit well with how the nature and universe works, tension is always relieved. That is not an assumption, but a fact.

Im not saying that you should not write dissonances, im stating that dissonance is a tool for expression. If you have dissonance all the time, you need more dissonance to make the effect you want (like cluster). If you have a clear harmony, its very easy to hear the dissonance and then easier to know when the piece is expressing something.

 

Im not saying you should stick to the theory of the baroque period, but im saying that some of the ideals can be used in modern music as well, the concepts.

 

What i am stating:

If music does not releave tenions, it goes against the nature of the universe.

Many composers today randomly use passingnotes and dissonance without it meaing anything other then its "nice", and this is a bad thing (ofcourse there are people that use it perfectly too)

Many composers have had to little training in traditional harmony to venture into atonality,  you have to master the traditional writing before even thinking experimental music,

and that requiers a liftime of practial use, not just exercises.

 

Some belive if you have studied and written chorales and some counterpointlessons you understand functional harmony enough to begin with more experimental stuff.

That is not true, to master traditional harmony takes YEARS of composing, not just some chorales and a quick study in counterpoint. I have met masterstudents in composition who cant even write a short chorale line without errors. traditional composition is much like traditional painting, you cant expect to be a good figurative painter after a couple of years practing to paint a human hand. it take years to master, and even at the end of ones life, you still could get better.

 

Why do i say use dissonance and chromatic wisely?

Because the effect of it will be grater as an expression.  The only tools we have as composers is: rhythm, melody and harmony. that is the core.

Everything you hear has a rhythm (because it ends)

Everything you hear has a pitch (need two notes, to have a melody)

Every melody you hear has harmony.

 

There are ofcourse other things like form,tempo, key, timesignature. etc that is vital for a composition, but lets keep it simple.

If you overuse this tools true a piece, much chromatic, dissonances most of the time (polychords), and advanced rhythm, how can a listener hear when you express the serious stuff? The only solution is adding more dissonance, or more chromatic.

 

Expression can also be used by imitation, like violin 1 and 2 are playing seperate, and then together, this could be used for much, have used it to symbolice the renunion with God, first the voices are searching for each other, and then they come togheter  (usually at cadece). here its perfect to add dissonace. But if i had dissoance all the time? then i could not use that tool to really try to get the listener to focus on this section.

 

To much dissonance is chaos

 

Why do i say its so imporant to be organic?

Its the same as playing music, what do we strive after when we are performing music? to be organic, breath, take time, move forward, move backward etc.

But the music itself is organic, becuase the composers had that im mind. (talking about baroque now) but this is related to all kind of music.

What makes a beautiful performance? the organic performece! We strive to communicate with the listener, have a conversation, not with words, but music as a tool to ignite feelings.

 

Is a rock organic? no its not. is the waves organic? yes they are. How? They move, they release tension. No we are back to my fist statement, music should be organic, and therfor tension have to be resolved, no living thing does not resolve tension, in fact life is a balance of tension and resolved tension. Music is organic, it breaths, it moves.

This is why i mean music should follow the rules of physics and the universe, because the medium that music is, is comunication with living people, not with a dead rock.

 

Merry Christmas to you all

Any halfway decent musician will continually practice and implement all the tools that they have been given for the rest of their life and the really good ones pretty much always do.  I really don't think that it would even be remotely realistic to say that the vast majority of educated musicians spend the majority of their time training in tonal music only to completely throw it away and never use it again.  Also, your education in tonal harmony may have only consisted of studying and writing a couple chorales and a few counterpoint lessons, but mine was much more involved than that and I continue to study and practice long after I had completed it "formally".  Most decent musicians do.  So, your hope that the vast majority of trained musicians (especially the ones that use post-tonal theory more extensively) are in some way inept when it comes to tonal practice is still just silly wishful thinking and has absolutely no basis in reality.  In addition, if you neglect practicing chromaticism and post-tonality, you will be as inept in those studies as anything that you rarely use or practice.  It simply is not practical to say that musicians should train for an endless number of years before they begin experimenting with anything non-diatonic and I would hope that something so impractical would never become standard.

Now, since you can admit that music is man-made and there is no natural or universal law for the handling of dissonances but still intend on this "apply natural and universal laws to your music" concept, then let me try a different approach.  There are many things in nature that spend more time in consistent "tension" than relaxed, even if some may eventually come to a state of relaxation.  Take, for instance, gravity.  A constant force pulling against every person, place, or thing that exists on this earth.  In this case, there is practically no "relief" from this constant force enacting upon you and me.  Take the sun, it remains in a constant state of ignition and intense burning fury at a temperature that is so powerful that it would vaporize you in an instant and scientists estimate that it has been burning for 4.5 billion years and is only 1/3 through it's life cycle.  Every atom that exists is in constant vibration at any temperature except for absolute zero and scientists believe that absolute zero does not exist anywhere and most possibly cannot be created in a lab.  Almost all life on this planet is in a constant fight for survival, whether it be the search for food, the pursuit of procreation, the constant beating of your heart, or even the repairing process that takes place while you sleep.  Your body is simply never at complete rest until you die.  An object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force (in other words, moving objects will never come to rest until another unbalanced force acts upon it!).  Even the universe is constantly expanding with planets and stars constantly pulling and crashing and burning and spinning and engulfing in/at/around/out of/towards/away from/etc. one another.  The fact of the matter is that the universe/cosmos/nature is in constant upheaval and chaos in an uncountable number of ways.  And even if these "tensions" do eventually release, nonetheless, the chaos and tension in many cases far outweighs the release and relaxation.

Taking these things into account and the actual tension/relaxation relationship that is found in the universe/nature and trying to follow its example, I would have to say that the dissonance can and should outweigh the consonance the vast majority of the time and, while there should be some amount of consonance, the general rule should be dissonance!  Your argument really sounds like it should be in support for chromaticism and post-tonality, rather than against it.

Also, although frequent diatonicism can often make chromaticism and more extreme dissonance effective.  Most great composers don't even begin to believe that this is the only tool in the tool box.  Most composers strive to expand their horizons and change up their approach a little more than that.  I really hope that people don't just have one single little formula for composing their music and think that that's all there should be.  I also have to ask you why you believe that  less chromaticism/dissonance in the midst of mostly diatonic music makes the chromaticism/dissonance more effective, and yet you don't believe that less diatonicism/release in the midst of mostly chromatic/dissonant music will not be just as effective?  Introducing anything after having restricted it's use for a period of time can make it sound refreshing, new, and exciting.  Sudden consonance after ever-building tension can be just as refreshing, beautiful, and powerful as sudden chromaticism/dissonance in the midst of diatonicism.  What reason could there possibly be to avoid this technique if it is equally effective when done well (barring the opinions of someone who cannot personally appreciate it)?  And what if I want to express chaos with my music?  Are you actually going to try and convince me that overly-consonant music would somehow express chaos better than atonal music ever could?

Merry Christmas to you too! :D

 And what if I want to express chaos with my music?  Are you actually going to try and convince me that overly-consonant music would somehow express chaos better than atonal music ever could?

I don't think that's the point. SimenN would probably say that chaos won't last forever and will resolve into consonance. And that "consonance" is a question mark. Is that really in need to be simple, without added tones which SimenN believes they all need a resolve? Here is the answer: Not really. I can't remember anybody claiming that chords with added tones sound dissonant and need to resolve. That's been out of theoretical question for 120 years.

Why not formalize a theory using mathematics and cognitive science and music theory?Then we test it.If the theory pass almost all the test then and

only then we can have solid understanding about the matter.

Don't be ridiculous, nobody would ever do such a thing. Music theory based on mathematics and an understanding of aural perception? Using empirical data to come to an informed conclusion? You obviously don't know anything about music.

Exactly that's why this thread is going nowhere.

You obviously don't know anything about music.

*deep sigh*

Not true. Most of percussion instruments don't have a pitch.

I will remember this post of yours and will come back at it in 5-10 years. I wonder if you'd still be thinking and writing the same. I doubt. I remember how I was against atonality. Today, I know, how to make atonality sound "consonant" as much as possible. And believe me, most of people consider it beautiful and very pleasant to listen.

Not ture at all Sojar, every sound has a pitch! Why? if they had not, there would not be any soundwaves, and soundwaves is requierd to make a sound, if its a tone or just "bang" its still has a pitch.

Seems like people here have given tempered tuning and intervals to much atention, the pont is not that with the tempered tuning a third is not the same third in different keys.

The point is: ther iis constant tension, as long as your breathe (innhale = apply tension, exhale = release tension). When you apply tension, you have to resolve it. When you write a dissonance, you have to resolve it. A tone by it self has tension, the soundwaves tension is what makes a tone/sound. But when nature apply tension, it always resolves. Everything on the planet is based on this concept, who oxygen works, water, plants, everything. This is organic and natural.

So we know that nature always resolves applyed tension, when you write music, you are king of the world, and decide when to apply tension or not.

If you choose not to resolve tension, then you dont follow the organic life of this world.

This has NOTHING to do with intervals, one style is better then another, tuning, etc. Nature resolves tension, when its applys it. The concept is not that baroque music is better etc,its just happens that baroque follows this concept,purpose or not,is not a discussion, it could just be because they got lucky when they figured out the system), but how they threat dissoance (tension, pressure, what ever you want to call it) its resolved.

You state my point actaully. you say you where against atonality. Ofcoruse you where, everybody has been. Because atonality has to be learnd to like it, its a process that takes years. I just going to refer to my comments about how humans adapt to anything and dont repeat it. But i will once again use the example:

First sigarette; the body says NO! after some years the body feels it natural, now it give yous plasure, and the body and mind has become dependent on it.(gone against your nature)

First atonale piece, is not plesat, the mind says no, but after some years, you have learnd your mind to find pleasure in it. (its a process, but eventually you have gone against your nature) its not like learning to read or write.

So how can i say atonal music is unnatural?

Because its not, as we know cultureal and social changes our DNA, in the western world, tonality has been for 100s of years, not just the functonal harmony, but a tonal center.

When you grow up, you hear tonal songs, i doubt your mother sang Modus Novus by Lars Edlund before you went to sleep.

The eintre culture in westen europe from the gregorian (year 300) is based on a tonal center. That is why atonality is unnatural.

Dissonance, chromatic etc is not unnatural.

you must be trolling or blind not to see the contradiction in your conclusion

you must be trolling or blind not to see the contradiction in your conclusion

 

 

 

entire culture starts at 300? and how about stuff before that?

you try to make a certain western european cultural development into the one and only normative culture. it is like colonisation of culture.

i was refering that was written down, gregorian chants is some of the first music written down ( so we know it had a tonal center)

And by the way, western art music sprung out from church music (gregorian some of the first written chruch music)

Im soon starting to believe if i say " the world is shaped like a circle" you will say something else. Im giving facts, this is not subjective.

If you want to use it or not is subjetive, but the fact is. Applied tension always resolves, the rest is nothing  more then musicphilosphy, you can say, i dont think that matter, and music does not need to follow the nature, that is another philosophy. Yours to choose :)

But you can never say: its natural to not resolve tension, that would be a lie.

 " the world is shaped like a circle"

Poor guy lacks depth.

And by the way, western art music sprung out from church music (gregorian some of the first written chruch music)

 

Im soon starting to believe if i say " the world is shaped like a circle" you will say something else. Im giving facts, this is not subjective.

If you want to use it or not is subjetive, but the fact is. Applied tension always resolves, the rest is nothing  more then musicphilosphy, you can say, i dont think that matter, and music does not need to follow the nature, that is another philosophy. Yours to choose :)

 

But you can never say: its natural to not resolve tension, that would be a lie.

Gravity pulls things downwards. Therefore, any music that doesn't head in a downward direction is wrong and offensive. I'm giving facts, this is not subjective. If you want to use it or not is subjective, but the fact is. Gravity always pulls things downwards, the rest is nothing more than music philosophy. You can say I don't think that matters, and music does not need to follow nature, that is another philosophy. Yours to choose.

But you can never say: it's natural for gravity to pull things upwards, that would be a lie. 

The biggest flaw to your 'case' (I'm in a nice mood), is that you don't understand what saying the "laws of physics" implies. The "laws of physics" isn't a prescription, it's an explanation for what inevitably happens. You can't defy the laws of physics: leaving dissonances unresolved isn't 'against' these 'laws' because if it were, it couldn't happen in the first place.

As well as this: you have the misconception that 'natural is best', while at the same time being entirely unaware of what is 'natural' to begin with. In a broader perspective of 'music': music you consider 'natural' doesn't occur in nature. When you go on a hike, you're not going to hear diatonic melodies in 4/4. This music is highly organized: the soundscape in nature is the exact opposite.

So whichever way you look at it, you're wrong. At least you had a chance at a trial run at making your heroic case of "tonality goooooddd....disssonnace baddddd". There's no shame in being grounded with the important Western music archetypes, but claiming these to be the "best and right" way isn't just objectively wrong: it's basically announcing to anyone within ear shot that you have a weak understanding of the nature of sound and why it's organized by humans in the first place.