While consonance and dissonance exist only between sounds and therefore necessarily describe intervals (or chords), such as the perfect intervals, which are often viewed as consonant (e.g., the unison and octave), Occidental music theory often considers that, in a dissonant chord, one of the tones alone is in itself deemed to be the dissonance: it is this tone in particular that needs "resolution" through a specific voice leading procedure. (See also Noise in music and Noise music.) In addition, the oppositions pleasant/unpleasant or agreeable/disagreeable evidence a confusion between the concepts of "dissonance" and of " noise". This may be justifiable in a psychophysiological context, but much less in a musical context properly speaking: dissonances often play a decisive role in making music pleasant, even in a generally consonant context-which is one of the reasons why the musical definition of consonance/dissonance cannot match the psychophysiologic definition. Most historical definitions of consonance and dissonance since about the 16th century have stressed their pleasant/unpleasant, or agreeable/disagreeable character. For this reason, consonance and dissonance have been considered particularly in the case of Western polyphonic music, and the present article is concerned mainly with this case. In both cases, the distinction mainly concerns simultaneous sounds if successive sounds are considered, their consonance or dissonance depends on the memorial retention of the first sound while the second sound (or pitch) is heard.
Bach prelude from the 1700s however, the same interval may sound consonant in the context of a Claude Debussy piece from the early 1900s or an atonal contemporary piece. the notes C and D played simultaneously) would be considered dissonant if it occurred in a J.S. a major triad in 20th century atonal music). Dissonance can then be defined as a combination of sounds that does not belong to the style under consideration in recent music, what is considered stylistically dissonant may even correspond to what is said to be consonant in the context of acoustics (e.g. In music, even if the opposition often is founded on the preceding, objective distinction, it more often is subjective, conventional, cultural, and style- or period-dependent.In modern times, it usually is based on the perception of harmonic partials of the sounds considered, to such an extent that the distinction really holds only in the case of harmonic sounds (i.e. In acoustics or psychophysiology, the distinction may be objective.The opposition between consonance and dissonance can be made in different contexts: 4.4 Neo-classic harmonic consonance theory.
#SONANCE DEFINITION SERIES#
In casual discourse, as German composer and music theorist Paul Hindemith stressed, "The two concepts have never been completely explained, and for a thousand years the definitions have varied". However, a finer consideration shows that the distinction forms a gradation, from the most consonant to the most dissonant.
The terms form a structural dichotomy in which they define each other by mutual exclusion: a consonance is what is not dissonant, and a dissonance is what is not consonant. Within the Western tradition, some listeners associate consonance with sweetness, pleasantness, and acceptability, and dissonance with harshness, unpleasantness, or unacceptability, although there is broad acknowledgement that this depends also on familiarity and musical expertise. In music, consonance and dissonance are categorizations of simultaneous or successive sounds.
0 kommentar(er)
