Theory of Music/Art

Hey Everybody. I was reading Steven Pinkers book How The Mind Works and I learned some interesting ideas about music and made up (actually added on to) a theory of art and music. Please read and reread all of this very carefully because it is very interesting and, as musicians, you must take this topic very seriously so please feel free to ask me as many questions as you want. My main goal in this thread is not to debate and argue with you because I am very short on time and my views are already solidified (however I always will continue to look for new viewpoints and answers just like we all should), but to get you to intelligently debate among your selves so you can solidify your views (or, even better, change them for the better).

First lets review some fundamental and proven aspects of music. Pitch, or the frequency is the number of vibrations per an amount of time. Say, if you have an A (440 Hz) and you double the frequency, you get an A the is exactly one octave higher. To all humans this sounds like the same note and therefore is not much tension between them. If you triple the original frequency you get an octave and a fifth higher which is a G and this is also a very easy sound to hear (not much tension). If you multiply the original frequency by four you get an A that is two octaves higher. If you multiply it by five you get a note that is two octaves and a major third higher (an E). See a pattern? These notes, the C, E, and G, are the basis of Western music and most evolved eastern music until about the early 1900s. This is because there isnt much tension and it is easy to listen to. If you look at a C# and a C (dissonance) they are not nicely lined up like my previous examples and is why most people dont like dissonant music. It has been proven that infants as young as four months of age prefer consonant music to dissonant music. It is simply more relaxing and easier to listen to. I agree with everything I have said so far but I believe there is much more to be explained and I will cover that later.

So why do we enjoy music? Does it offer any evolutionary advantage? No, but I believe that there are other reasons why we enjoy it so much. One reason is that false stereotypes of certain music is passed to us by our parents, television, and associating emotional events with certain types of music. Here is an example:

If a child grows up listening to music in a major key during sad events (like watching a sad movie or at a sad funeral) and music in a minor key during very happy occasions (like a happy or funny movie, or at a wedding), and he/she is isolated from conflicting ideas, would he/she be affected much differently by certain types of music than other people? Why or why not? If the meaning of music can be changed only by changing ones habits, are we wrong in stamping false feelings to different types of music? Does this take away from what music should really be like?

This wasnt totally accurate: A major chord does have less tension in it then a minor chord. However, why on earth would our minds label it as being sad? Why not uncomfortable? I believe that I explained this in the above example.

Another reason why we enjoy music is because it is human nature to like a good story. So how do we get a story out of music? Well, music is full of points of tension and relaxation. Usually, music goes from tension to relaxation and this what voice leading and chord progressions in music are all about. In C major the Bs go to the Cs, the Fs go to the Es and so on. Somehow, our mind relates this tension and relaxation to actual events in our lives (you work hard and then you overcome an obstacle). Desire is also tied into this: If you like feeling a certain way then your mind will find a way to relate that feeling to any thing you can sense. In other words, no music is sad, happy, expressive, etc. Only living creatures make these connections so that they can satisfy their emotional needs and desires.

It is now a proven fact in psychology that music has no fixed meaning and our minds adept to it to create meaningful illusions.

So, then why are there two superior (superior in our mind) art forms: visual and auditory? Why cant we get that much emotion from smelling or tasting something or from feeling something (yes, I know that you can get a massage and feel good but I am talking about getting emotional from it)? Well, Steven Pinker said that he believes that music is auditory cheesecake. He said that our minds just enjoy it and he left it at that. That explanation does not answer the above questions so I thought differently about this. First of all, why does cheesecake taste good? Well, because it is fatty and this is essential to our survival. So naturally, if we need fat to live, we will like it and crave it. This is where I think he was wrong in relating it to music. Music is not essential to our survival. Therefore we like it for different reasons. So then why is visual and musical art superior to other things like taste when it comes to making us emotional? Simple, because they are neutral. When I say neutral, I mean that they can not hurt you or benefit you easily. It is extremely rare to be injured by looking or hearing something, though I guess it is possible. This neutrality is very important because your mind is able to create a system of translating physical happenings, which you can sense, into emotions. I believe that this is why taste, smell, and touch are not as important in art because they are not as neutral and if you have a bad experience with one of these (such as tasting something rotten, smelling something disgusting, or being pinched) it will throw off the translation of physical events into emotions. Say, for example, that one day you were listening to a very peaceful Bach choral. As you are listening you feel very tranquil until you hear a minor second (a dissonant interval). The instant you hear it you feel an extremely sharp pain in your head and pass out. This minor second in music is the equivalent to unpleasant extremes in touch, smell, and taste. However, what makes music work is that there is not enough tension in music to hurt you, yet just enough to give your mind a clear idea of what emotion you can connect it to.

So this is another way to say it: The more something can hurt you, the less of an art form it is to the mind because bad experiences will hinder that natural process that the mind performs that translates events, which can be sensed, into emotions.

Now lets move on to our favorite argument: about consonant and dissonant music. So why does a baby prefer consonant music to dissonant? Does this not prove that consonant music is better than dissonant music? Well, yes and no. Just like everything that is different, dissonant and consonant music both have different effects on the listener. Babies like safety and comfort and feel threatened when they hear dissonant sounds because there is tension. I believe that consonant music is superior to dissonant in relaxing the listener and making him/her feel comfortable. This is an obvious conclusion because there is less tension in consonant music. So what about dissonant music? Why is everybody fooling themselves into liking it? Well, their not. Think of this: One night you decide to go to watch a movie. It is very pleasant, easy to watch, cheerful, and there isnt much of a plot. You enjoy it because of all these good qualities. However, after youve watched it about three times it is still enjoyable but you need something a bit more intellectually stimulating. In other words, you want something with a bit more tension in it. I think that music may be a bit similar. How can you have a decent plot when there isnt much tension? Is it true that the more tension it has, the better plot it will have?

Consonant music is beautiful and relaxing where as dissonant music uses more abstract thinking which is very good for the creativity. Why does it use abstract thinking? I am about to answer this based on the following example from personal experience: When I listen to very dissonant music, the parts that are the most beautiful to me seem to be remotely related to tonal music. In fact, almost every single beautiful moment in dissonant music can be related to the equivalent example in tonal music and this is why it seems so beautiful. It is like looking at a photograph of a sunrise, then looking at a similar painting by the impressionistic painter Monet. Monets is only beautiful because you know what a real sunrise is supposed to look like and it is the changes in it that make it so beautiful. The more remotely connected the two (like Monet to a real sunrise or dissonant to consonant music), the more you have to use your creative thinking. However the original (consonant music or a real sunrise) is extremely beautiful and relaxing in its self. Also think about this: 95% of composers styles have become more dissonant during the course of their lives. That isnt because dissonant music is better (I know I have said that in the past but I was wrong) but because they felt as though they needed a better plot (more tension). However, they still enjoyed consonant music. For this reason there is nobody that truly enjoys dissonant music who doesnt enjoy consonant music.

Here is another interesting thought: Classical and Baroque music is not the most consonant music there is and therefore isnt the most relaxing music. If some of you say that you like consonant music best then you are actually saying that Classical or Baroque music isnt your favorite. To my knowledge, the most consonant music is Indian Raga (I know that there are more consonant types but I chose raga because most of you are familiar with it). In it, there are no chord changes and there is usually a drone or one key that it stays in for the whole piece. Look at ancient Indias culture: before it became polluted by western culture most people lead simple lives and meditated. Meditation is equivalent to relaxing and this is reflected in their music. So then why is classical music considered to the best music? Well, classical is quite consonant but does have a small amount of tension in it. In other words, it is consonant enough to seem relaxing and pleasant yet it is abstract and dissonant enough so that people will hear a decent plot and not be bored.

It is good to constantly reevaluate your thoughts because it doesnt do any harm and it could lead to growth. I am not trying to persuade you, but am attempting to steer the talk on this board to more relevant matters.

Lets try to get more replies on this thread than the Hi there! My names Hummy! thread.

If anybody disagrees with me about anything I would be very happy to hear any of your views, as Im sure Ive probably missed some important points. But please, if you disagree, dont do it blindly. Please back up your point with good reasoning. And please, lets not argue only on one point. If I wanted to do that I wouldnt have written the whole thing.

Thank-you for having the patience to read this and I am looking forward to hearing all of your opinions.

Very interesting reading. I'm writing a running commentary, so forgive me if I sound uncoherent....

"proven fact in psychology" is a bit of an oxymoron. But you weren't around for our psychology discussion....?

I think one can relate any exterior stimuli to responses. Pavlov proved that; but I also think that some chords, and some scales, have certain feelings about them that we don't feel because we've been conditioned to feel 'em.

Hmmm. I think the cake theory is a bit cheesy too, if you see what I mean. Har, har.

Ah, but your ideas are better - but here: why not like music because it is unecessary? IE, why do people enjoy gardening? You can't eat roses... why do people enjoy spirituality? They can survive without it... How about books? Music? Art?

You see, all these things we label as "noble" or "fine" arts, or as emblems of "civilization", all the *unecessary* things, we enjoy; and we enjoy because they are luxuries. Now, if listening to a bit of Beethoven before breakfast every morning suddenly became necessary to survival, I doubt people would enjoy it. It is, very simply, a different version of the Tom Sawyer "whitewash paradox". Have you read TS, I hope?

Oh, so now we're taking babies' opinions as the gospel truth. Groovy. (If you can't hear the sarcasm, it's there...)

And I heavily disagree! Consonant music has plenty of dissonance! Even all the classical composers - no, especially all the classical composers. Pick any piece (randomly, the overture from Verdi's Nabucco) and it's got dissonance, it's got tension.

According to your newest theory (the Monet one), you're labelling dissonant music as a "second-best"..... saying it's the "mistakes" that "remind" you of the "real thing". And yet just before you say dissonant music is very abstract.

"Led simple lives and meditated"? I'm sure. About as much as the Native Americans were constantly hunting buffalo..... please don't give me any history book crap. I get enough from my history teacher. You can't stereotype a whole culture, for God's sake. I bet the ancient Indians were as diverse as modern USA. They spoke 1000+ languages, no?

On the whole, however, I'm just nitpicking.... I like your theory. :-) all encompassing and all that.

Good to have you back for awhile, John! And of course a big yes to all you've said. You've stated only scientific fact, so how could anyone disagree anyway? Overtone series? Yup. Tension and release. Sure. Don't have anything to contest at all. Excellent.

I'd say the most consonant music ever that I hear is early strict organum. They use only fifths and octaves. Very consonant indeed.

The only thing I have to say is to Michael. You said, "And I heavily disagree! Consonant music has plenty of dissonance! Even all the classical composers - no, especially all the classical composers. Pick any piece (randomly, the overture from Verdi's Nabucco) and it's got dissonance, it's got tension." He's not describing all pre-20th century music as consonant. He's using consonant as a technical term...meaning, quite literally, consonant. He isn't using the term consonant interchangebly with tonal. So he hasn't denied any dissonance in tonal music.

This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The bit about exposing a child to different key associations sounds very interesting indeed. But how did those key associations get started in the first place? Who started the stereotypes, and more importantly, why? There must have been something about certain modes and keys that evoked certain feelings in people, and those associations stuck. However, not everything written in a minor key is sad...look at the last movement of Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony...pretty plucky.

Compliments for your thinking, John. Your theory sounds intriguing, but some of the assumptions seem a bit far-fetched. You wrote a very long message, so youll get a very long reply from X.

I agree with the first part of your story. Indeed, the emotions felt when listening to certain types of music are often just conditioned emotions. Perceiving music involves both bottom-up and top-down processing. When we hear music, we first experience auditive sensations (bottom-up processes), which everyone experiences the same way. Then we "make sense" of the sensations, combining and organizing them into meaningful units by relating them to existing knowledge, past events, etc. It is this top-down processing that causes everyone to experience the same music differently. If this is what you're getting at, I totally agree.

I do not agree with your answer to the question why there are two "superior" art forms. Are seeing (visual art) and hearing (musical art) really more "neutral" than the other senses? I'm not so sure about that.

Suppose you are a photographer and you just happened to have taken the most gruesome, most horrible picture of a war-scene ever. You consider it art. People looking at the pic will probably feel bad when they look at it, but they, too, still consider it art. So is smelling something disgusting really so much worse an experience than looking at such a picture? Suppose you have composed a piece that starts very soft, all instruments playing

i ppp

. Suddenly theres an unexpected extremely loud noise in the middle of the piece which frightens all listeners. The listeners will probably have a bad experience because of this noise and may never want to hear it again. So, in music too, there can be enough tension to hurt people, because we have a built-in, unlearned fear reaction to loud noises (known as the startle reflex). So what Im trying to say is that vision and audition are just like the other senses capable of hurting people and causing bad experiences. We only dont make our art that extreme.

I think the answer has more to do with limitations of our sensory system. The reason why most art is visual or auditory is simply because seeing and hearing are the most developed senses. Taste, smell and touch are often referred to as minor senses. We have a highly complex and highly developed visual and auditory system, because these two senses happened to be more central to survival than the other senses. Our visual system and auditory system are capable of making much more subtle and much more complex distinctions in the incoming sensory data than the other senses (we can, for instance, only distinguish four primary, taste qualities and also the number of odors we can smell is limited). Therefore, vision and audition are also capable of inducing a much greater number of emotions and therefore, its also easier to express ideas through these sensory modalities. Thats why we can distinguish happy and sad images, happy and sad melodies, but whats a happy or sad taste? The gustatory (taste), olfactory (smell) and kinesthetic (feeling) information our brain receives is simply not rich enough to induce a great variety of emotions.

(part II of Xs reply)

The last part of your theory makes perfect sense to me, except that I dont agree with how you work out the metaphor of more dissonant music, more tension, better plot. If I can carry the analogy a little further, lets say consonance or dissonance (tonality or atonality) is the general, cognitive schema on which the story is based. Judging your psychological knowledge, you must be familiar with the concept of cognitive schemas: a cognitive schema is a special memory package that follows certain expectations and rules. A story is often based on certain shemas but we look for what is new in any story. So it is the interruptions, the unusual elements in a scheme that make the story worth telling, and it is these that are most attended to. thus, what makes a consonant piece interesting are its dissonants and what makes a dissonant piece interesting are its consonants (this also explains why you think the tonality-related parts in dissonant music are the most beautiful). Now, you stated: 95% of composers styles have become more dissonant during the course of their lives. This is an overestimation, I think. You are referring to composers who started in a very consonant idiom in their early years and then moved to a more dissonant idiom (Schoenberg, Ives, Scriabin), but what about the reverse pattern? There are also many composers who started in a highly dissonant idiom in their early years and then moved to a more consonant idiom (gorecki, penderecki, arvo part). These composers also felt they needed a better plot, but for them, a better plot meant adding more consonants to their highly dissonant style. For people who started in a highly consonant style, it means adding more dissonants to their music. So, I think the best music is music that combines consonance and dissonance. Music thats 100 % consonant or music thats 100 % dissonant would be extremely boring. A decent plot can only be heard in music that manages to combine both consonance and dissonance. And Im glad to see that you agree with that.

Why not like music because it is unnecessary? IE, why do people enjoy gardening? You can't eat roses... why do people enjoy spirituality? They can survive without it... How about books? Music? Art?

I already explained why we like it in my message Because the more something can hurt you, the less of an art form it is to the mind because bad experiences will hinder that natural process that the mind performs that translates events, which can be sensed, into emotions. Why enjoy Gardening? Simple, it is human nature to feel good after accomplishing something. Remember the act of gardening does not give you strong emotions. The act of enjoying music and gardening are on two very different levels. You cant eat roses So then they are not essential to our survival and this proves my point. Books like I said, everybody likes a story because it satisfies emotional desires and needs. Spirituality who am I to say. I have many ideas about this but it is totally separate from art and would not belong on youngcomposers.com. I believe that I have already explained music and art. If you still dont understand what I am saying, read the original essay again or ask me a specific question. I cant be rewriting the whole essay in different words.

You see, all these things we label as "noble" or "fine" arts, or as emblems of "civilization", all the *unnecessary* things, we enjoy; and we enjoy because they are luxuries. Now, if listening to a bit of Beethoven before breakfast every morning suddenly became necessary to survival, I doubt people would enjoy it. It is, very simply, a different version of the Tom Sawyer "whitewash paradox". Have you read TS, I hope?

We enjoy them because they are luxuries? I sorry but I fail to see your point. If I read that in Pinkers book it would have left me extremely unsatisfied. Please reread some of the essay again. I hate to say this but I think that we either agree or I have already explained it in the essay.

Oh, so now we're taking babies' opinions as the gospel truth. Groovy. (If you can't hear the sarcasm, it's there...)

Babies are honest and untouched by the media and societys standards. They are a much more reliable source than any grown person whos opinions on music are based on their habits, personalities, and every bit of it they have heard on television, their national anthem, at church, etc.

And I heavily disagree! Consonant music has plenty of dissonance! Even all the classical composers - no, especially all the classical composers. Pick any piece (randomly, the overture from Verdi's Nabucco) and it's got dissonance, it's got tension.

No, we do agree. Of course classical music has dissonance. Never at one point did I say that it didnt. Maybe I wasnt clear enough: Classical music has plenty of dissonance. However this level of dissonance is nothing when compared to the amount used in some of Webern, Babbitt, Lutoslawski, or Cage.

According to your newest theory (the Monet one), you're labeling dissonant music as a "second-best"..... saying it's the "mistakes" that "remind" you of the "real thing". And yet just before you say dissonant music is very abstract.

I sorry if my writing was not clear enough. I think that some of the people who have read my old messages will see the irony in this. As Im sure Ive said before, I love dissonant music. It is my favorite type of music. Please go back and read that part over again because Im not sure if I can say it more clearly. I hope that you will find that I didnt say that dissonant music was inferior to consonant.

"Led simple lives and meditated"? I'm sure. About as much as the Native Americans were constantly hunting buffalo..... please don't give me any history book crap. I get enough from my history teacher. You can't stereotype a whole culture, for God's sake. I bet the ancient Indians were as diverse as modern USA. They spoke 1000+ languages, no?

Im sorry about that. Now that I think about it, it sounds very silly. However, I will still try to back up my point. Most of the musicians that play raga in India (the musicians not the culture) led simple lives which were full of meditation. For example, Ravi Shankars training consisted of 14 hour days in which he learned the sitar, meditated, received spiritual training, and went on walks in nature. Nothing else. I remember him saying something like this: My only entertainment was listening to the birds in nature. To me, it seems as though the music was a result of their lifestyle. I was only trying to make a point. Lets try to stay away from arguing only on this because it is completely irrelevant to the theory as a whole. In fact, lets stay away from talking about anything irrelevant to the theory because it wastes time. I think that some of these questions could have been answered simply by looking at my message again.

Also, to make things easier, if you disagree will something, could you please copy what I said into your message so I can actually see what I said? Thanks.

This all sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The bit about exposing a child to different key associations sounds very interesting indeed. But how did those key associations get started in the first place? Who started the stereotypes, and more importantly, why? There must have been something about certain modes and keys that evoked certain feelings in people, and those associations stuck. However, not everything written in a minor key is sad...look at the last movement of Mendelssohn's Italian Symphony...pretty plucky.

There is a bit more tension in a minor chord then a major chord. Since it isnt enough tension to sound angry or diabolical, we associate it with sadness. Also, I was only making a generalization. If all music in a major key was happy and if all music in a minor key was sad, then there would only be two emotions in tonal music.

I agree with the first part of your story. Indeed, the emotions felt when listening to certain types of music are often just conditioned emotions. Perceiving music involves both bottom-up and top-down processing. When we hear music, we first experience auditive sensations (bottom-up processes), which everyone experiences the same way. Then we "make sense" of the sensations, combining and organizing them into meaningful units by relating them to existing knowledge, past events, etc. It is this top-down processing that causes everyone to experience the same music differently. If this is what you're getting at, I totally agree.

Yes, I agree. However, this is standard knowledge that I didnt make up.

"I do not agree with your answer to the question why there are two "superior" art forms. Are seeing (visual art) and hearing (musical art) really more "neutral" than the other senses? I'm not so sure about that. Suppose you are a photographer and you just happened to have taken the most gruesome, most horrible picture of a war-scene ever. You consider it art. People looking at the pic will probably feel bad when they look at it, but they, too, still consider it art. So is smelling something disgusting really so much worse an experience than looking at such a picture?

Good question X. But you must remember that it must be directly and physically harmful. When smelling an acid in the chemistry lab the chemist always pushes the air above the acid to his nose. He never puts his nose close to it and takes a good whiff of it. Why? Because it is directly and physically harmful. Now, with the disturbing photograph, this is not physically harmful. And it isnt even directly harmful because the only reason you are disturbed by it is because you make the connection between death and the photograph. In other words, the actual nature of the photograph is meaningless light is merely reflecting into your eyes. It is what your mind does with it that makes it seem to be so harmful.

Suppose you have composed a piece that starts very soft, all instruments playing ppp. Suddenly theres an unexpected extremely loud noise in the middle of the piece which frightens all listeners. The listeners will probably have a bad experience because of this noise and may never want to hear it again. So, in music too, there can be enough tension to hurt people, because we have a built-in, unlearned fear reaction to loud noises (known as the startle reflex).

Thank-you for your good questions. Yes, it is possible to be physically hurt by listening to something or by looking at something. However the instance of being hurt this way is much more rare then in the other senses. For this reason, I believe that music and visual art is better.

I think the answer has more to do with limitations of our sensory system. The reason why most art is visual or auditory is simply because seeing and hearing are the most developed senses. Taste, smell and touch are often referred to as minor senses. We have a highly complex and highly developed visual and auditory system, because these two senses happened to be more central to survival than the other senses. Our visual system and auditory system are capable of making much more subtle and much more complex distinctions in the incoming sensory data than the other senses (we can, for instance, only distinguish four primary, taste qualities and also the number of odours we can smell is limited). Therefore, vision and audition are also capable of inducing a much greater number of emotions and therefore, its also easier to express ideas through these sensory modalities. Thats why we can distinguish happy and sad images, happy and sad melodies, but whats a happy or sad taste? The gustatory (taste), olfactory (smell) and kinesthetic (feeling) information our brain receives is simply not rich enough to induce a great variety of emotion.

Exactly. However I still think that what I said before has a bit to do with it

This could be an indication of what art could be like in a thousand years.

The last part of your theory makes perfect sense to me, except that I dont agree with the metaphor of more dissonant music, more tension, better plot. If I can carry the analogy a little further, lets say consonance or dissonance (tonality or atonality) is the general, cognitive schema on which the story is based. Judging your psychological knowledge, you must be familiar with the concept of cognitive schemas: a cognitive schema is a special memory package that follows certain expectations and rules. A story is often based on certain shemas but we look for what is new in any story. So it is the interruptions, the unusual elements in a scheme that make the story worth telling, and it is these that are most attended to. thus, what makes a consonant piece interesting are its dissonance and what makes a dissonant piece interesting are its consonants (this also explains why you think the tonality-related parts in dissonant music are the most beautiful).

Yes, I agree with you again. Once you reach a certain amount of dissonance that plot doesnt seem as effective. However, I think that the more dissonant (lots of dissonant notes that give a cloudy, unclear effect) the music, the more you will have to use your creativity and abstract thinking to relate it to consonant music. Plot and beauty from abstract ideas are two very different things. And another thing, I dont know a thing about psychology - you probably know much more.

Also, you stated: 95% of composers styles have become more dissonant during the course of their lives. This is an overestimation, I think. You are referring to composers who started in a very consonant idiom in their early years and then moved to a more dissonant idiom (Schoenberg, Ives, Scriabin), but what about the reverse pattern? There are also many composers who started in a highly dissonant idiom in their early years and then moved to a more consonant idiom (gorecki, penderecki, arvo part). These composers also felt they needed a better plot, but for them, a better plot meant adding more consonants to their highly dissonant style. For people who started in a highly consonant style, it means adding more dissonance to their music. So, I think the best music is music that combines consonance and dissonance. Music thats 100 % consonant or music thats 100 % dissonant would be extremely boring. A decent plot can only be heard in music that manages to combine both consonance and dissonance. And Im glad to see that you agree with that.

I agree that this is the best way to create a good plot in music. But please dont say things like the best music. Music with a good plot is not the best music. And remember that there is a difference between plot and abstract music which requires creativity to enjoy.

Michelle, thank-you for your refreshing post. But as always, you have given me way too much credit.

I really cant write this much anymore I need some people to argue on my side.

Before I begin. Michelle, you said I said something about consonant and dissonant music unless there is another Michael on this board. What are you referring to that I said?

What makes a piece "consonant"? What makes it "dissonant"? To be general and make a technical statement, I think that all music falls on a "consonance-dissonance continnum". Each one is at an extreme end, and all music falls on a point in between. I really don't think that any music falls right ON each extreme (unless you show me an atonal piece composed entirely of nothing but half-steps, tritones, etc., or a piece composed all of the most consonant intervals, P5s and P4s). Admittedly, this is purely theoretical. Now, suppose you take an older Renaissance (sp?) piece that is quiet and relaxing. It would fall very near the extreme consonance end. Now suppose you take an EXTREMELY modern and atonal piece. It would be placed near the extreme dissonance end. You can place virtually all music this way.

Now, the question is, what "point" or "region" on this continnum is the "best"? Obviously neither extreme is all that great. So what I'm getting to is this: You simply can't pick one over the other. Here's the key: If total consonance is as bad as total dissonance, who's to say that a piece that is *generally* dissonant is worse than a piece that is *generally* consonant? You can't say that.

Sure, babies like consonant music. It's more relaxing; however, there is a great deal of extremely frenzied consonant music. (Note: when I use the terms "consonant music" and "dissonant music" I refer to music that is closer to the specified end of the continuum than the other end.) On the other hand, a lot of dissonant music has been made that is eerily relaxing.

For Christians, here's an interesting thought: God created music using scientific and mathematical ideas. Did He create it intending it to be more consonant or dissonant? Obviously, according to John's post, the answer is "consonant". So why are composers plunging into dissonant music? It seems to me that it is more of the "rebellion against God" that is growing faster and faster these days in many forms.

I'm sure that last thought will be misinterpreted on several accounts, so I'm prepared to explain.

By the way, John, I agree with you 100%.

Did I say Michael? I meant Al. Sorry.

Yes, about this whole "visual art and music can't physically harm you" thing, it's true, you know. I think it was X who mentioned an example about comparing an awful war-time photograph with a bad smell. We do use our noses to warn us directly about poisons and such. In any case, when we smell a bad smell, it is actually there. It is actually happening to us now. When we see a picture of something awful, it is not quite the same. It's still an idea--a representation. It's on the abstract plane. If we were actually there watching the war, I'm sure we wouldn't call it art at all. Same with music. Music occurs on an abstract plane as well. It is actually happening, yes...but it sort of represents ideas or emotions that are being fabricated when we listen to the music.

Here's a response to Michael's last paragraph. "For Christians, here's an interesting thought: God created music using scientific and mathematical ideas. Did He create it intending it to be more consonant or dissonant? Obviously, according to John's post, the answer is "consonant". So why are composers plunging into dissonant music? It seems to me that it is more of the "rebellion against God" that is growing faster and faster these days in many forms."

Hmmmm...the thing I love about John's theories is that they rarely judge what is good and what is bad, only what is different. Simply because the overtone series naturally occurs doesn't mean it needs to be the only thing we use, or even that straying from it is wrong, and he never said that. If God created the overtone series, then we can use it as a tool. We can use the pure overtones, the major chord, to make people feel relaxed, and we can stray from the overtone series to make them feel tension. Tension-release is what we use for colour in our music. In that way, God didn't dictate that we should only use a major chord, but rather created a palate of colour which we can use to create truly moving and emotional work. I highly doubt that an atonal piece of music is a "rebellion against God."

I'll respond to your last paragraph, Michelle: I do see your point; however, is God a God of tension and disorder? Yes, true, music would be boring without a bit of tension and clashing. But here's what I'm getting to: You said he created a palate of sound colors that we could choose from. That's great. Go ahead and mix up a bunch of sound colors and call it a piece. But to use just one or two of the most extreme sound colors (atonalism) is negligent of the more relaxing, soothing, peaceful sound colors that, to me, embody the essence of God.

Am I making any sense?

Micheal, I have a friend that says this atonalism that you say is "negligent of the more relaxing, soothing, peaceful sound colors..." moves him to tears because of its beauty. I too find beauty in this music, but I'll abstain from that argument and cut to the business at hand.

Michelle, I agree with the what you said about God/music.

God is truth and truth is beauty so would you say God is beauty? Logically you would say yes, but some would make the assumption that highly consonant music is Godly as has already happened. What then would you say to my friend who takes much pleasure in the beauty of dissonant music?

Michael, I am not trying to turn this into a debate on religion, but your list of adjectives describing the essence of God bothers me. God is truth. This truth is absolute. Beauty is not absolute. There is always going to be a right and a wrong side of truth, but what is beautiful and pleasing to one may not be to another. Just because something doesn't fit into your box of "happy" adjectives doesn't mean it is void of God.

God is "truth"? Yes, God is truth, but along with that truth comes many other things. Truth brings about peace. This peace leads to happiness and calmness. So in an indirect yet simple way, yes, the essence of God could be considered peace and harmony. (Unless you want to say that God is a God of discord and confusion.) ...Anyways, I really didn't even mention beauty. Beauty does not come into play in my argument. Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly that beauty is in the esye of the beholder. But I am talking about more basic, non-relative concepts, like relaxation and harmony, and then the opposite of that: frenziedness and discord. You can't argue these basic concepts. They're just there.

It is interesting to see how this argument has evolved. It started out with John Bouz stating several elaborate scientific facts and then asking if anyone "agreed". Then, everyone interjected their opinions and it came to this.

I'm going to have to agree with Justin on this one. I am a big fan of atonalism myself and I find that it, like tonal music, is capable of expressing a broad range of emotions from beautiful to biting. Like Michelle, I think God created the overtone series so that we would have a broad palate of sound colors and intervals to choose from and create a broad range of emotions. Here's where I disagree with Michael: Atonalism is not rebellion against God. It is simply a utilization of the full spectrum of tonality and atonality.

Dears, dears, you are making the same mistake that I thought we cleared up before. You are using the words "dissonant" and "atonal" interchangeably. This is not the case at all. There is plenty of dissonance in tonal music.

Let's forget atonal music altogether here for a second. Let's talk music using the tonal system. Major chord is happy. Major chord is consonant. Tritone is not happy. Tritone is dissonant. Tritone strays from natural overtone series.

Tritone is in dominant seventh chord. Dominant seventh chord resolves to happy major chord.

See the colour? See the excitement? Yay. See how much more we appreciate the relaxation of the major chord when it is preceeded by a more tension-filled dominant seventh? Hmmm?

Well, this is what I mean. Dissonance is used as a tool to create colour. It has nothing to do with disorder at all. It is part of the order of music. V7 goes to I. Tension releases. It is part of the order, not rebelling from the order.

Tension and release doesn't have to be restricted to consonant vs. dissonant. It can also be achieved rhythmically, texturally, or most any method that has two extremes of tension and release. This can be used effectively in dissonant or consonant music.

I can't believe we are debating this. Any other comments on messages 8 to 11? If not, at least we are on the same page.

Michael, relaxation is extremely relative.

Aside from that minor quibble, I think that as long as music can appear beautiful to some - even if it isn't tonal - than why doesn't it *represent* God to them? Some atonal music doesn't make you tense at all.... at least not me.

Well, Justin, of course it can. I was talking only about harmony.

Let't think of ways we can create tension rhythmically, melodically, texturally and so on. How do you guys do it? Or not just tension--but also extreme contrast.

An atonal theme that was atonal coz it was repeated by a few instruments at a different semitone getting faster is probably the only time I have created tension with much of an effect.