Modern Music

I personally like to refer to mildly dissonant and heavily dissonant intervals.

Me too. I would call the major second mildly dissonant, while classing the minor second as heavily dissonant.

Both still dissonant in my book.

I do see what you mean though.. the evolution of the fourth being classed as one thing, then the other.

And the context of course is important.

Personally, I feel dissonance/consonance to be a subjective designation. A minor second sounds differently to you, or me, or to Anthony Braxton.

The point at which your ear notices a dissonance is different for each person.

...

Personally, I feel dissonance/consonance to be a subjective designation. A minor second sounds differently to you, or me, or to Anthony Braxton.

The point at which your ear notices a dissonance is different for each person.

...

and thus my insistance on the point of "context".

and thus my insistance on the point of "context".

exactly.... the context (I think) being within a particular piece, or an individual listener's cumulative experiences.

In some contexts, so-called consonance can be a dissonace...

Sorry, boy, but that comment is to my opinion really unfounded. I make my thesis on that subject and can affirm that every dissonance has a different sound for the partials (harmonics) beats together in a different way for a different dissonance and thus create a different 'shade'. This is a bit why different violin interpretes will create different colors with the same Bach suit... in combination with the bow position, bow pressure, dynamics and all... they also vary the exact place of dissonances to create different stresses and 'shades' of tension. If you play a ornament #4-3 (like F#-E based on a C) the F# can either be played like the pure third up of D or the pure third down of Bb... giving a pretty different sounding dissonance.

And this is only one example... each dissonance... even the quater-toned ones (like in arab music) give different colors. Of course as soon as you pile up intervals... be wary to the combinations you do for it might well end up 'all grey' and confused sound... 'color sketching' in microtonal, tonal or atonal music isn't simple... of course if you limit yourself to the piano with 12 tones... it makes it a bit more simple. But we have already discussed all that ! ehehe

I have to disagree strongly. What I meant was this: we perceive small-whole-number ratios of frequencies as consonant - there is little you can do to change that. While dissonances may differ substantially from one another, you cannot make the listener perceive one as a consonance. When you talk about shades of tension, you are forgetting one thing: much art is based on the concept of tension and release. My general impression of the progression of music through the last 150 years or so is that it has moved in the direction of greater and greater tension... but more and more, I don't hear the release of that tension. In the new music that I have played (in my college orchestra), I have noticed that the release depends almost entirely on rhythm. The effect is that the music becomes stereotypical: eventually the resolution is to a sustained dissonance.

Reversing the use of consonances and dissonances is an interesting idea, but again I feel that "resolution" to a state of high tension automatically expresses a specific emotional state. Certainly appropriate to our high-anxiety times, and therefore useful in some contexts, but to build a whole system of composition around it may be an overextension. The same can be said about other modernist ideas: useful in specific contexts, but far too often someone tries to turn it into a cornerstone of a style of composition, which limits the composer's expressive range.

Completely separately, does anyone think that subtlety can be carried too far? My own experience is: I used to prefer recent music, but I think my reaction against it is mainly a reaction against overly intellectual art. At some point, the audience becomes fatigued from thinking too hard about the art in question. In my own case, 1) I've probably heard as much recent music as I can take in a lifetime, and 2) my regular occupation takes too much concentrated thought for me to think much about music beyond a basic intuitive level.

Forcing the listener to think is all well and good, but at some point you have to consider how far the listener is capable of going. To refuse to do so is to declare that listening to music is only for the intellectual elite, and only for those who have the energy to devote to listening. I personally cannot accept that kind of argument.

I would submit further that simply exploring new technical ideas is not composition. To me, many of the "landmark compositions" of the 20th century are experiments and curiosities, nothing more. No new compositional ground is broken until someone actually does something with those ideas. While you can say that people like Beethoven constantly pushed the boundaries, my answer is that none of Beethoven's compositions were experimental in the same sense that modern compositions tend to be. Beethoven's priority was always to write an effective piece for public performance, while attempting to incorporate something new in it. Meanwhile, the tendency of the present-day academic composer is to study new techniques in the form of a musical "thesis". This makes a world of difference, and IMHO draws the line between true composers and mere academics.

God!... 14 comments here since this morning... common boys... why such a waste of time ?? lol And for those tired of the intellectual arts... there is still Britney and Friends... :)

I shall repeat myself... if you want to read an excellent book about the history of consonance and disonance... read James Tenney book... it's enlighting !

lol

i think we all are all forgeting music that doesnt involve organized pitch at all

what about electronica? Percusive solos? granted they all have pitch but it is not organized in a fashion of much traditional theory. how about the sound of the wind with the crash of the waves combined? building and then subsiding is that not art though i would definitely not call it dissonance or consanece(i dont think i spelled that right) what do we call this music and is this not the future of it?

lol

i think we all are all forgeting music that doesnt involve organized pitch at all

what about electronica? Percusive solos? granted they all have pitch but it is not organized in a fashion of much traditional theory.

There's also rhythmic dissonance as well. Rhythm also has a traditional theory - much less academically scrutinized, but there nonetheless.

And as for your mention of waves and wind; you've left the realm of music and entered that of texture - sound painting, sculpting, whatever the kids are calling it these days....

1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color.

2. the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both.

3. musical work or compositions for singing or playing.

4. the written or printed score of a musical composition.

5. such scores collectively.

6. any sweet, pleasing, or harmonious sounds or sound: the music of the waves.

thats quoted from dicitionary.com look at the last one lol i personally think that type of thing will have more of an effect on modern music. Static Noise organized into a sound. White Noise whatever you want to call it. The vaccum, the breeze, the crashing of the waves of course it has a frequency but the sounds dont clash especially that i notice. so would you just call it all different level of dissonance? or is it consanace? who knows lol

If the sound is incorporated or used as part of a musical work, sure - but the sound of waves, wind, traffic, the vacuum, etc. is not music. They can be sonic textures/colours/concepts, but not music in and of themselves.

...so says I.

At some level, isn't rhythmic theory just pitch theory slowed WAY down?

That's what Henry Cowell was saying: if you were to slow any dichord WAY down, you'd have a rhythm, based on the relationships of the wavelengths of the fundamentals.

At some level, isn't rhythmic theory just pitch theory slowed WAY down?

That's what Henry Cowell was saying: if you were to slow any dichord WAY down, you'd have a rhythm, based on the relationships of the wavelengths of the fundamentals.

now thats interesting and robin music is noise arranged in a fashionable manner that pleases the listeners ear not tryin to poke at u man just bringin up the factor of things in nature with so many combined pitches(patter of the rain) that you no longer hear it as a note or chord thus it is white noise.... lol all in theory, im sure there are people here who are better informed about this than i am

At some level, isn't rhythmic theory just pitch theory slowed WAY down?

Certainly is. If you listen to some of the larger organs with 32' or 64' pipes, the lower notes are pulses that can act in dissonance with the rhythm of the durations above.

..........just bringin up the factor of things in nature with so many combined pitches(patter of the rain) that you no longer hear it as a note or chord thus it is white noise....

white noise being noise that has equal distribution across each linear unit of bandwidth.

...music is noise arranged in a fashionable manner that pleases the listeners ear

Okay, that's fine for you to define it that way. I just believe differently. The patter of rain, though pleasing to the listener's ear, certainly wasn't naturally arranged to be so. The act of arrangement or composition is necessary to create music. Music does not happen naturally. It must be created, on purpose. One can take these natural white noise elements and build music from them, but they are not music in and of themselves.

...things in nature with so many combined pitches(patter of the rain) that you no longer hear it as a note or chord thus it is white noise

There's a reason it's called white noise, and not white music...

I mean, if you think of a rock drummer's basic beat in 4 - that's a bass beat in 1, a snare beat in 2, and a ride cymbal in 4. Which means that the bass beat is the fundamental, the snare's the first partial, and the cymbal's the second partial. Meaning that the snare and cymbal are at an octave and a fifth to the bass.

I mean, if you think of a rock drummer's basic beat in 4 - that's a bass beat in 1, a snare beat in 2, and a ride cymbal in 4. Which means that the bass beat is the fundamental, the snare's the first partial, and the cymbal's the second partial. Meaning that the snare and cymbal are at an octave and a fifth to the bass.

That's an odd way of looking at it...I've never heard of it, but it does make sense.

I wouldn't label it with tonal harmonic terms, but yeah, I get what you're saying...

And, things that go against the rhythmic structure I consider rhythmic dissonance - 3 over 4, syncopation, displacement...etc.

in my opinion anything is music a thunderstorm to me is a perfect example it builds into something and then dissapates thus it has form or musical order used by alot of people. random things are art. art is in the eye of the beholder. people take pictures of nature which is random. i certainly believe that these things are art(music, or picturewise) anything can be music. or art just takes imagination. this brings me back to the point that i am just saying that people are starting to return to these kind of noises and this is what modern music will start to incorporate more in my belief. not necessarly more dissonant more concanent(still cant spell that) or better than any other kind of music. It is just different. Listen to some Pink Floyd albums i would certainly call this "noise" not music. ALSO, another point( wow this is getting long) everyone here in my belief should have respect for other people who try hard at what they do no matter whether you like it or not. Also please do not judge all music in generes THIS IS TAKING AWAY what makes it an individual and beutiful piece and replacing it with an injust stereotype. SO, IN CONCLUSION , lets all go back to writing and not burn on other things and not burn others back if they do it to us. Two negetives do not equal a positive. Two wrongs do not equal a right. this is a long post and im done

Originally Posted by Christopher Dunn-Rankin

I mean, if you think of a rock drummer's basic beat in 4 - that's a bass beat in 1, a snare beat in 2, and a ride cymbal in 4. Which means that the bass beat is the fundamental, the snare's the first partial, and the cymbal's the second partial. Meaning that the snare and cymbal are at an octave and a fifth to the bass.

sweet cool way of looking at it

in my opinion anything is music a thunderstorm to me is a perfect example it builds into something and then dissapates thus it has form or musical order used by alot of people. random things are art. art is in the eye of the beholder. people take pictures of nature which is random. i certainly believe that these things are art(music, or picturewise) anything can be music. or art just takes imagination.

I see your point, and it's perfectly valid - I'm just giving another point of view. Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder....and as I behold it, random things are not art. They can become art (...put it on a pedestal, hang it on a wall...bam, art). Before the human interaction though, it is not (to me) art.

Nature is not art. The photograph is.

All I'm saying is art is an aesthetic of humanity - caused or created by/for humans (please don't bring up those elephants that paint...). The intent/energy/passion behind a work of art is what gives it it's inherent art-ness. A banana peel is nothing more than a banana peel before an artist effects/affects it....likewise, a thunderstorm (fascinating it may be) is just a phenemnon of nature, until someone records the sound or takes a picture of it.

... i am just saying that people are starting to return to these kind of noises and this is what modern music will start to incorporate more...

Exactly.

...anyway, I'm done with this. I think my point is made.

art is in the eye of the beholder.

im with ya man this has been a good discussion, we are all the beholders art is a human structure.