It's true that dissonance/consonance is rooted in our sensory perception. But that's not all! There is so much that is learnt, some learnt universally, some are culture specific. For instance the perception of pitch in the first place is not innate but learnt universally across all cultures. On the other hand, the perception of musical pitch structures are more likely to be culture specific. Our tolerance of dissonance is to a large extent affected by familiarity, exposure and taste. The more complex a sonic stimuli appears in terms of perception of harmonic patterns within a chord, the more dissonance it become. So familiarity with pitch patterns is a prerequisite for the perception of harmonicity and consonance/dissonance in music. http://www-gewi.uni-graz.at/staff/parncutt/publications/PaStr94.pdf 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 Is Man?' he refers to an interesting experiment where they played consonant perfect intervals (if I remember correctly) to certain African musicians (can't remember the exact origin) in a lab. The subjects however thought they sounded very harsh. This didn't make sense at first because even within the musical culture of the subjects these perfect intervals were described as pleasant. The problem of course was that in the lab they were using sine-tones, which is anything but musical to the musician subjects! 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'. It would be very naive to think that there exists a universal musical language for all mankind: a rather outdated and eurocentric concept based on misinformation or intentional (although often unconscious) misrepresentation of reality. Best Peiman 2008/5/11 Chuckk Hubbard : > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Dave Seidel 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" >