Consonance and dissonance - a question

[BassChuck]

Consonance and Dissonance. We all know the difference. But how? How did we learn that? Neither is better than the other. And the each need the other, because a piece of music dedicated to only one is boring or irritating, depending on your point of view.

How did we come to these conclusions? Usually when this question is asked, someone comes up with a semi-complex answer based in wave theory physics. But that doesn't have anything to do with aesthetics. The classical composers (Beethoven, Mozart etc) used the same level of dissonance that we use today (with the exception of micro tonality). They just used consonance as a main focus of their tonality.

Where's the balancing point for you? How does it figure into the music you love, play, create?

 

[mambo4]

Consonance is not entirely learned, it has basis in the harmonic series. Notes that are closer to the partials of the series are universally percieved as more consonant. There is also evidence that the pentatonic scale is pretty universal. What *does* change with time and culture is the acceptable level and placement of dissonance - the rest of the notes.

For me the "balancing point" depends on context. If your gonna give me vinegar there better be some honey in it. Gil Evans and Jobim were both masters of making sense with dissonance, IMHO. More recently I'd say Jacob Collier is probably the most impressive harmonist about.

 

[BassChuck]

Consonance is not entirely learned, it has basis in the harmonic series. Notes that are closer to the partials of the series are universally percieved as more consonant. There is also evidence that the pentatonic scale is pretty universal. What *does* change with time and culture is the acceptable level and placement of dissonance - the rest of the notes.

For me the "balancing point" depends on context. If your gonna give me vinegar there better be some honey in it. Gil Evans and Jobim were both masters of making sense with dissonance, IMHO. More recently I'd say Jacob Collier is probably the most impressive harmonist about.

Probably true about the partials of the overtone series. Yet some cultures have a serious system of micro tones within the scales.
What always interested me in this discussion was, what seemed natural. After 4 decades of teaching beginning band instruments it was curious the number of children that felt that the Dorian scale (they would not have called it that) was the most natural to them. That is to say, they'd play the 3rd and 7th degree a half step flat and not really be bothered by it. To further that thought, Socrates, in 'The Republic' said that the Dorian scale was the most perfect scale, and easiest to tune on the lyre.
I was lucky enough years ago to witness a rehearsal of the Gil Evans band. I'm a long time fan. Thanks for the Jacob Collier reference, I'll have to check that.

 

[Groove Master]

Probably true about the partials of the overtone series. Yet some cultures have a serious system of micro tones within the scales.
What always interested me in this discussion was, what seemed natural. After 4 decades of teaching beginning band instruments it was curious the number of children that felt that the Dorian scale (they would not have called it that) was the most natural to them. That is to say, they'd play the 3rd and 7th degree a half step flat and not really be bothered by it. To further that thought, Socrates, in 'The Republic' said that the Dorian scale was the most perfect scale, and easiest to tune on the lyre.
I was lucky enough years ago to witness a rehearsal of the Gil Evans band. I'm a long time fan. Thanks for the Jacob Collier reference, I'll have to check that.

You know why kids would love the sound of dorian and lydian as well?? Because there are no dissonance inside those 2 scales. You can stack the whole scale in thirds without any intervallic problems.

 

[SteveCS]

You know why kids would love the sound of dorian and lydian as well?? Because there are no dissonance inside those 2 scales. You can stack the whole scale in thirds without any intervallic problems.

That's a new one on me. Given that dorian and lydian are modes of a scale that contains dissonant intervals, the same dissonances, by definition, continue to exist in all of the modes. To take the most obvious case, the tritone between subdominant and leading tone of the major scale still appears between mediant and submediant in Dorian, and from tonic/final to subdominant in Lydian.

 

[Groove Master]

That's a new one on me. Given that dorian and lydian are modes of a scale that contains dissonant intervals, the same dissonances, by definition, continue to exist in all of the modes. To take the most obvious case, the tritone between subdominant and leading tone of the major scale still appears between mediant and submediant in Dorian, and from tonic/final to subdominant in Lydian.

I'm not sure I'm with you with the dissonance intervals in the scale which is the horizontal movement. Dissonance and consonance are the results of chords or intervals from the vertical aspect of music... Anyway that was what I meant by that.

 

[SteveCS]

I'm not sure I'm with you with the dissonance intervals in the scale which is the horizontal movement. Dissonance and consonance are the results of chords or intervals from the vertical aspect of music... Anyway that was what I meant by that.

Even setting aside for a moment the effects of dissonance and consonance in melody, if you harmonise and mode of any scale you get the same chords as from any other mode of the ssme scale. For example lydian goes ^7, 7, m7, m7b5, ^7, m7, m7. So the dissonance and consonance of the various chords is unchanged.

But back to the question of melody. Even a simple melodic fragment, say C-D-E-C (think "Fre-re Jaqu-es") is quite different in character from one that goes C-D-Eb-C (think "roll-ing down on" from Feelings), or the same fragment in a different context (say "I know how to hide" from Crying in the Rain), and no additional harmony is needed to highlight the obvious differences. My point is that without the tension and resolution of carefully placed dissonance and consonance, melodies would go nowhere. And most good melodies can rely on their own implied harmony to stand alone without any additional harmonic support.

The art of the harmonist is to modify, support, enhance (or maybe undermine, if that is the aim!) the harmony implied by the tune. At which point you are absolutely right - the choice of chord and it's function can make or break the tune.

I do think we're looking through the same telescope here, just maybe from different ends...

 

[ryco]

I'm thinking we learned the concept just by listening to music as little kids growing up. Not knowing what consonance and dissonance was as terms or concept, but what made music in our culture "sound good" to us.

If we went on to be musicians or players, one either learned the concepts in school (grade school orchestra ----> college theory) or by playing by ear and hearing standard progressions what every one believes or agrees "sounds good" and expanding out from there - either by exploration, trial and error, or serendipity.

Consonance to dissonance back and forward are what keep progressions moving forwards, and keeps them interesting.

 

[BassChuck]

I'm thinking we learned the concept just by listening to music as little kids growing up.......
Consonance to dissonance back and forward are what keep progressions moving forwards, and keeps them interesting.

This was always the big discussion in theory class in college. The prof maintained that a child separated at birth from all music would be a 'clean slate' for learning any kind of music as the most important to them. Well, that's a totally esoteric argument. But it should be clear to anyone listening to different styles of music that the treatment of consonance and dissonance is the essence of any style or musical culture.

Our acceptance of that makes up the 'rules' of music theory and guides our understanding of style and history. As a small example, the first two vocal notes of the Beatles "Yesterday" would have be unacceptable to 19th century music theory as it is an unprepared 9-8 suspension. Today, it is so much a part of what we accept it's unnoticed.

To many people Gregorian Chant is boring, there's very little dissonance, and so it sort of floats and doesn't have a lot of energy. Heavy Metal is unacceptable to others simply for it's unrelenting dissonance. I'm guessing the majority of people prefer something in middle. The handling of dissonance to consonance is a benchmark of the art of the music.