Consonance vs Dissonance
emynd
830 Posts
The link to the neurological study from the James Mason had an interesting finding:"The study also revealed that the brain processes consonant and dissonant sounds in very different ways. Dissonant sounds affected areas of the brain involving memory and anxiety, while consonant sounds stimulated areas involved in pleasant emotional responses."My question(s) is(are): aren???t the concepts of "consonance" and "dissonance" socialized phenomenon though? Or aren???t they at least very subjective terms? Or is there something more "scientific" about the terms "consonacne" and "dissonance" that I???m failing to understand? And what about the fact that there???s a heck of a lot of dissonant music out there that people like (presumably) at an emotional level as well as an intellectual level?Anybody who knows more about this shit wanna school the lil' dude?-e
Comments
I've always thought that the concepts spring from music theory / composing, meaning that they are musical terms along the lines of minor or major, rhythm signature, etc..
Word. Thanks. So then my point is that the statement "Dissonant sounds affected areas of the brain involving memory and anxiety, while consonant sounds stimulated areas involved in pleasant emotional responses" is probably inaccurate since I'm sure there are people out there who have a "pleasant emotional response" to the Black Sabbath dissonance. Agreed?
Perhaps then the terms themselves--"dissonance" and "consonance"--aren't exactly socialized since there is some sort've standardized/"scientific" basis to them, but surely our reactions to "dissonance" and "consonance" are--at least at some significant level--socially constructed, right?
-e
In the case of a study like this the fact that consonance may be very different for fans of Bach, Korean opera, and Merzbow doesn't matter all that much since they're probably aggregating data from a number of subjects who are all socialized in a western context. The brain regions in question are fairly high-level and are modulated (and modulate) by experience.
The more interesting tests in terms of subjective/objective etc. type distinctions would be looking at early auditory processing areas where incoming sound streams are initially parsed. These are the regions that are less likely to be significantly different across individuals.
Awesome. Thanks. Anybody know of any studies that attempt to address this? Adorno wrote pretty extensively about the socialization of aesthetics, but I'd be interested to read some actual studies that holler at it, whether from a neurological standpoint, or a more opinion-based "I like/don't like this or that" type jawn.
-e
this IS an innate human thing. people prefer consonant intervals. I have read studies done on BABIES in their cribs smiling at perfect 5ths or 3rds and crying/frowing at minor 2nds and diminished 5ths, so you can't argue conditioning on that one.
Also, there is an element of nature in this. I.e., if you use say, A, as ringing at 440, and then take whatever the 5th of that is, if you divide it, it boils down to a small fraction, that is, i remember correctly, part of the Golden ratio (something you see in the way plants grow, the way snails shell's spiral, etc).
It's pretty interesting stuff and there's lots of info online, fibonacci sequence, stuff like that...
that said, i do admit that non-Western music is ALOT freer in their use of what we would call dissonant intervals like minor 2nds or flat 5ths, but even cultures like India that use these in their MELODIES will very rarely use them in their HARMONIES...
Well, perfect thirds used to be considered quite dissonant. Nowadays, we resolve to perfect thirds in many instances.
Edit: Major thirds for all instances above. A II-V-I progression, for example.