Maybe this is all learned, but these particular intervals are
undeniably important, and, as you say, universal.  In fact, if humans
must learn these correspondences by listening to speech, all the more
reason to give credence to the idea that Mozart's music can help that
process.
If you want to talk about the intervals between the elements of the
harmonic series, Mozart's music is based on them, and represents every
possible one up to the 6th harmonic.  Beyond that, see below.

Yes I should point out that it is learnt but not actively. Listening to Mozart's music is not going to teach one to detect harmonic patterns in complex sonorities: this is a skill that's developed because it is crucial for survival (not only a prerequisite for speech). To perceive a harmonic structure as one source (auditory stream) with one virtual fundamental, as opposed to disintegrated partials, is an important skill that we acquire from very early stages of childhood. Nothing to do with Mozart. Mozart's music would be practically useless if we didn't perceive harmonic structures in the first place (i.e. if we hadn't developed the ability).

When it comes to music the matter is far more complicated than just the intervals between the elements of the harmonic series. Not only we look for harmonic constructs but also, when hearing chords, we need to pars the identity of each individual pitch (virtual fundamental) from a complex mass of information (i.e. the combined sonority created through the mixing of several harmonic structures). This is done statistically through a process of elimination, and the most probable possibility is selected. In order to be able to do this, the subject needs to be familiar, not only with harmonicity (which is universal), but also with existing patterns that occur within the pitch structures of a given musical style (the neural nets learn to detect certain patterns). The more complex or difficult the parsing of information, the more dissonant the complex sonority (this is one aspect of the perception of dissonance the other is the physical sensory experience that's universal and innate). So here is where information theory comes into play... Composers of the so called spectral school have dealt with these concepts. It is only realistic to accept that the perception of music (including dissonance/consonance aspect of it) is influenced by both physiological sensory experience and culturally learnt behavior. http://www.angelfire.com/music2/davidbundler/grisey.html

I have a  hard time believing the music which attempts to change this role is
anywhere near as common as that which holds tight to its IV-V-I's and
is a delight to millions.

"Of course, consonanct sounds are not necessarily preferred to dissonant sounds. Instead, listeners tend to prefer a certain optimal amount of dissonance, complexity, or information flow (Smith and Cuddy 1086). Optimal dissonance gradually increased during much of the history of western music, and depends to a large extent on the musical experience and taste of individual listeners. Optimal dissonance may be conceived relative to an underlying "objective" scale of dissonance, that depends primarily on the acoustic signal and is relatively independent of "subjective" aspects such as musical experience and taste." (Parncutt & Strasburger 1994).

Being common does not make something into definitive truth or universal by any means. As far as western music is concerned, the role of dissonances have change: even Mozart's music, and functional tonality in general, would seem dissonant in comparison to much of pre-tonal counterpoint or medieval polyphony. I have friends who cannot hear the individual intervals (partials) present in an inharmonic bell sound, they are unable to mentally disintegrate the partials. To them a highly inharmonic sound probably doesn't sound very musical, similarly they miss all the pitch relationships that I may try and create in my work through inharmonic sonorities. Of course when inharmonicity becomes too complex we all lack the ability to pars its individual componants: there is continuum from simplicity (consonance) to complexity (disonance) that can be used with the same coherance of tonalit harmony.

A composer must know her/his audience: there is no "one size fits all".

Thanks
Peiman






Maybe this is all learned, but these particular intervals are
undeniably important, and, as you say, universal.  In fact, if humans
must learn these correspondences by listening to speech, all the more
reason to give credence to the idea that Mozart's music can help that
process.
If you want to talk about the intervals between the elements of the
harmonic series, Mozart's music is based on them, and represents every
possible one up to the 6th harmonic.  Beyond that, see below.

> Even Reading Zarlino's (1517-1590) 'Art of Counterpoint' one realises that
> there is a huge discrepancy between what degree of dissonance/consonance
> were attributed to musical intervals by different theorists. Is a third
> dissonant!? Is a perfect fourth dissonant?! In John Blacking's 'How Musical

Zarlino fought with the best of them.  Ancient Greek theorists
likewise disagreed on how intervals should be tuned, and why they were
considered consonant, but as much as anyone knows the musicians
themselves just played whatever sounded right at the time.
Mersenne is supposed to have been the first to suggest the 7th
harmonic as a consonance.  As yet not too many other theorists have
agreed, although again, musicians use the interval without knowing it
(except for me, I use it knowingly).

> In addition it is not the perception of dissonance/consonance alone that
> creates musical meaning, but the roll that composers give to such phenomena
> (i.e. dissonance/consonance). And this roll has changed dramatically
> throughout western music tradition, which is a proof that musical perception
> relies far more on learnt (active or passive) behavior than it does on
> innate (although this cannot be excluded from the equation either).see David
> Huron's 'Sweet Anticipation'.

I bought it, alas, I did not bring it to Europe.  It looked good.  :-/
As far as the role composers give to consonance/dissonance changing,
that in itself would seem to require a selective sample.  As in, only
the "serious" or "respected" composers.  Lots and lots and lots and
lots of musicians around the world today use consonance and dissonance
in very similar ways to each other and their predecessors.  I have a
hard time believing the music which attempts to change this role is
anywhere near as common as that which holds tight to its IV-V-I's and
is a delight to millions.

> It would be very naive to think that there exists a universal musical
> language for all mankind: a rather outdated and eurocentric concept based on
> misinformation or intentional (although often unconscious) misrepresentation
> of reality.

I've looked into lots of tuning systems, and chosen a few that I find
very beautiful to work with, and they are anything but eurocentric.
My point, that Mozart's music contains harmonies that are present in
nature (or "based on physical truths"), stands.  That doesn't mean I
think his work is the pinnacle of music!  I don't mind that I started
such a discussion, but don't set me up as the one claiming "our"
system is the best!  I don't even use it!

On the other hand, I do use lots of tonicizations in my own little
way.  Thanks Europe!

-Chuckk

>
> Best
> Peiman
>
>
>
> 2008/5/11 Chuckk Hubbard <badmuthahubbard@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Dave Seidel <dave@superluminal.com> wrote:
> > > Agreed.  This music is very much bound to a particular (Euro-centric)
> > > musical tradition.  I might accept the idea that if a person had a
> >
> > It's true that the music is from one tradition, but it is also true
> > that the consonances of what's traditionally called tonal music are
> > based on physical truths...  The major triad, any modulation by a
> > fifth, a 9th, or a major third, none of these things are just by
> > chance or just "learned", and most of them are not unique to European
> > tradition.  Actually, when one studies the tunings of Indian music it
> > can be a bit of a disappointment to learn most of the notes are
> > similar to Western ones, just tuned more accurately (e.g. Pythagorean
> > third is not mixed with major third in the same scale; but both are
> > used in similar ways as in Western music, but they're not equated).
> > And, at least in the Carnatic ragas I looked at, the scale step
> > equivalent to SOL is never violated; there are alternate tunings for
> > all other notes, but there is always a perfect fifth above the
> > "tonic".  In other words, Western music implemented its consonances
> > because they sounded good, not the other way around.  IMO they stopped
> > too soon, though; the upper harmonics offer a bounty of harmonic
> > richness few care to explore.
> > With all the research that's been done on pattern perception, Gestalt,
> > Law of Pragnanz, saying that listening to music can't develop a
> > child's brain is like saying that solving geometric puzzles can't
> > develop a child's brain, or learning multiple languages, or chess.  In
> > order to hear the patterns in the music, the brain has to exercise its
> > pattern recognition ability (a truism).  Perhaps this doesn't increase
> > intelligence- Nik Lygeros, among others, says that thinking can be
> > learned, but intelligence can't- but I don't doubt that it helps
> > develop whatever other quality it is that makes people sharp.
> >
> >
> > > background in this music (meaning: some training or education, or at
> least
> > > immersion) that listening to it might have some beneficial effects,
> because
> > > then the listener had some cognitive and perceptual preparation.  But if
> you
> >
> > For a 2-year-old?  I think the contention is that listening to certain
> > music *is* that kind of education.
> > If anything, I'd say the focus on Mozart is because his music is so
> > often melodically simple and straightforward, meaning the parents
> > won't object to it.  As my father says, it's good for 3-year-olds
> > because even a 3-year-old can understand it.
> >
> >
> > > are from a completely different musical culture, I don't expect it would
> > > mean very much at all, and might even be perceived as cacophonous (no
> > > offense to cacophony).
> >
> > I don't think that's possible.  "Boring", maybe, but cacophonous?
> > I don't mean to bash Mozart, I do enjoy his music sometimes, it's just
> > not the most exciting for me.
> >
> >
> > >  Personally, as someone who grew up in the States and heard both
> classical
> > > and folk music all the time growing up, it was years before I was able
> to
> > > listen music from the classical era with any interest at all -- it just
> left
> > > me cold.  For me, Stravinsky was the way in, and I worked both backward
> and
> > > forward from that.
> >
> > There will never be an Oprah Book Club book about it, but I suspect
> > Stravinsky has a similar effect, but only for more intelligent
> > children.  Or perhaps they chose Mozart because Stravinsky would
> > frighten the parents.  Can't have the kids burning down the playpen.
> > Thanks to Dad, my way in was all Zappa (literally from infancy), and
> > later Zappa was a way in to Stravinsky.  Thanks Dad!
> >
> > -Chuckk
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >  - Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >  Pedro Ferreira wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that _teaching_ music to kids is a great way of stimulating
> > > > their intelligence and the development of their abilities, but I find
> > > > it hard to believe that the simple fact that they just _listen_ to
> > > > music will make them smarter. Maybe your intelligence actually
> > > > increases (for a limited amount of time) in response to sound
> > > > frequencies: you can stimulate it artificially by other known means,
> > > > though with no permanent results. However, all the hype around this
> > > > effect seems to be a huge load of BS (actually, the "Mozart effect" is
> > > > widely known as a classical example of a scientific myth).
> > > > In any case, teach your kids the practice of listening to good music
> > > > :). It won't hurt them for sure...
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Pedro
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Send bugs reports to this list.
> > >  To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body
> "unsubscribe
> > > csound"
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.badmuthahubbard.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Send bugs reports to this list.
> > To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
> >
>
>



--
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com


Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"