What Makes INTERVALS Sound Consonant or Dissonant? [The REAL Answer]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Why are some intervals more dissonant than others? And can you make intervals more or less dissonant? Keep watching to find out!
00:00 Dissonance Is In Your Mind!
01:14 The Most Dissonant Interval
02:11 Element 1: Cheating With Octaves
03:07 Element 1 Application
04:19 Element 2: Attack Is The Best Defence
05:27 Element 3: You Need To Move Up
07:07 Element 4: Dynamical Dissonance
07:53 Element 5: With A Little Help From Some Friends
09:30 Element 5 The Best Example
11:30 How Musicians Use All That
---
FREE eBook "How To Learn The Notes On Your Guitar Fretboard": www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
FREE eBook "18 Tips To Make Your Pentatonic Solos Sound Professional": www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
Complete Chord Mastery course: www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
Master of the Modes course: www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
---
If you like this video, share, like, comment & don't forget to subscribe for more content!
Need help with music theory for guitar? Check out these FREE resources: www.musictheoryforguitar.com/...
FOLLOW ME:
RUclips: / musictheoryforguitar
Facebook: / musictheoryforguitar
Twitter: / theoryguitar
Website: musictheoryforguitar.com 
Видеоклипы
"Sour" is a great adjective for the dissonant intervals! because of the association with food, where sourness definitely has it's place and often enhances the other flavours. Whereas as "dissonant" sounds more like it's being labelled as incorrect, or broken.
such a great lesson....i love how you organized multiple strategies to make the dissonant not only less dissonant but beautiful. I've thought about this within the context of the ALT chord's many options--All flavorings with dissonant notes. These ideas also make me think of the math underling this too-- and the subtleties in overtones. An A on the low E string, factoring in the actual string gage isn't an identical sound to the E on a higher, thinner string. Its not hard to hear, just like in the examples. The idea of "adding in extra notes" not only works, but has me thinking of the idea of cooking(!) as similar idea. A chord consists of ingredients. You can add or subtract ingredients and it will change the overall flavor when its mixed and tasted. But you can apeggiate flavors... its going to hit the sensory palette different when you taste the one at a time. WIth sound you can blend in even more subtle ways depending on the speed---is that even an arpeggio or just a slowly strummed chord? thanks
Haha, great lesson! Also if you play a dissonant chord and quickly move to a consonant one it sounds not so stinky.
Yeps. Context matters.
Another great class! Masterfully Done!
Very cool video! There´s a Whitesnake song called judgment day where Steve Vai, the genius that he is, uses and minor second interval and it sounds great because the base riff is changing between an A5, to an A#5, A6 and comes back around (hopefully I could explain this right hehe...) right over this base. Here´s the song, it´s at 1:05 : ruclips.net/video/L5gQSfUywas/видео.html
Great video, thanks (:
Funny how much more things make sense *in context.*
This needs to be the standard for people trying to understand the complexities in things like arts and politics.
I agree... but good luck with that :)
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar : Haha! Yea. But like music, it all gets easier with practice. ❤🌍🌎🌏🌐
This is an outstanding lesson 🙏
🤔 Wondering...what is it about bass frequencies that cause closer notes to sound "muddy"? And what is it about simultaneous attacks that facilitate dissonance?
There are two schools of thought on the low note dissonance: 1) you can hear more of the upper harmonics of each note, so there are more conflicting overtones and 2) the ear is less efficient at hearing at low frequency (it requires longer sampling) and this psychologically translates to dissonance. For the record, I think they are both wrong (there are easy counterexamples to each...) but I don't have an alternative.
really cool video thank you so much
I immediately disagreed from a science perspective, and of course as I listened *musically* your point is absolutely correct. Reminded once again that listening is an experience, not a science. Though after while my sensory issues started freaking out over the dissonants.
The fun thing is that several things I show were already recognized and even explained by Helmholtz more than 150 years ago. Then I hear people on RUclips saying that the dissonance depends only on the fundamental frequency ratio...
Of course, another interesting situation is people watching this video and then sending me hate emails because they think I am anti-science. I happen to have a PhD in Physics. And there is nothing anti-science in saying that something is perceptual - it just means the answers are to be found not just in the sound, but in the human ear.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar People who can't reconcile science and art are both anti-science and anti-art. Sometimes the "wrong" word is the right word, the "wrong" note is the right note, the "wrong" color is the right color. We live in a world where the placebo effect is finally recognized in medical science. Perception trumps the numbers.
oo, well said!
dissonance is about playing in a dissonance way, if you have the right tools you make anything "dissonant' sound good, like you say its all about the way you play it
what transcribing software are you using?
Yes, please share. 🙏 ...🤔 You need an affiliate link.
I think it might be "ChordieApp"
Deftones этим злоупотребляют. Очень красиво получается.
Hello Tomasso!
I am playing a tune in the key, for example, of G major. If I play a dyad consisting of F# and G, will it sound less discordant than a dyad of A and A#; F# being a note in the key of G major while A# is not.
Yes, that's another element that goes into it. Thanks!
10:47 I can't not hear Def Leppard with that voicing.
Actually dissonance IS physics but not in the simplistic way often portrayed as an integer ratio. Real life sounds have both dynamics and harmonics that both influence how they are perceived. What happens in general is that EVERY partial of one frequency interacts with EVERY partial of the other frequency through a dissonance function that has its maximum at a minor second. (partials are themselves sine waves). This more sophisticated model does account for all of the effects you are demonstrating.
1) ALL of them? Including dynamics and simultaneity? How exactly? 2) So if I use pure sine waves (no upper harmonics) what happens to these effects according to your model? 3) What are the physical (not perceptual) basis of a "dissonance function" with the maximum at a minor second? If the origin of this function is perceptual, then you simply moved the perceptual part in a convenient function, but it's still part of the theory (i.e. it's not "just physics", rather it still depends on the mechanism of hearing)
4) if your theory is true, adding more notes would ALWAYS add more dissonance, as there are more partials to content with. But like I show at 9:30 , adding more notes can REDUCE the perceived dissonance. That, of course, unless there is a renormalization somewhere in the theory (and that would be hard to justify purely on physical and non-perceptual grounds)
NOTE: I'm not saying your theory is "wrong". It's BETTER than just thinking of the ratio of the fundamentals (MUCH better!) But it still does not explain all the other phenomena.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar Lets take these points one by one. (for briefness im simplifying quite drastically). And yes there is much more to be investigated. It's been quite a long time i occupied myself with these questions (because i was very unhappy with the ratio of fundamentals explanations) so i have the source materials somewhere but not accessible. One thing that really stood out was indonesian gamelan music that really turns things on its head since the metallophones used do NOT have harmonic overtone series
1) Increasing the distance by octaves lowers the dissonance because the amplitude of the harmonics gets lower the higher the harmonic number (and the frequency) gets. This does also account for playing the intervall at a higher frequency since the frequency response of the signal chain lowers the amplitudes of higher harmonics more than the lower one. Staggering and arpeggiating does move the harmonics in time since the harmonic content is highest at the attack so dissonance is highest for simultaneous attacks.
2) pure sine waves are pretty irrelevant since they never occur naturally. I also think that more research into wavelet transform can give much more information since it takes dynamics into account and also it does not suffer from the windowing problen of fft.
3) its perceptual. BUT it is consistent in a way that strongly suggests that there is a very physical base
4) Sound level is logaritmical and also hearing is adaptive to sound level so there is inherent normalisation.
I understand the simplification :) Here are my comments:
1) That is an interesting theory with testable consequences:
a) It is actually possible to generate sounds that have more energy in the higher harmonics than the lower harmonics. In that case your theory predicts that the dissonance will INCREASE when we increase the distance by octaves.
b) It is possible to create sounds where the upper harmonics enter with a delay. In that case your theory would predict less dissonance for simultaneous sounds and more dissonance for staggered sounds, as long as we time them right.
As far as I know, neither effect above actually happens. But I'm willing to be surprised either way! :)
2) Nearly-pure sine waves do occur (tuning forks) Even if they did not occur, they would still be a good test ground for your theory. I mean, particle accelerators do not happen naturally, but we still use them to test our theories no? ;-)
3) That's why I said perceptual, not subjective.
Think of visual illusions: they happen consistently for all people. But would you say there is a physical basis? Or wold you say that the human visual system has glitches that are consistent from person to person?
4) Agreed, but that normalization happens IN THE EAR, because sound perception is (approximately) logarithmic. So it's perceptual, not physical.
We measure sound levels logarithmically not because that's the "natural", "physically correct" way of doing it... but because WE perceive sound logarithmically, so it makes more sense to us.
It's all physics, amplitude, high-low frequencies, timing and harmonics. Everything about sound waves is physics. Great techniques though, thanks)
Of course everything about sound waves is physics. But dissonance is a perceptual phenomenon. If it was only about the waves, we will have also dissonance in color -these are waves too!) and that dissonance would follow the same rules (frequency ratio, etc). But we don't observe that.
I'd say that it's a good example that with consonance /dissonance, intervals do not have octave equivalence - the minor 2nd and the minor 9th intervals are not the "same" interval. The minor 9th and major 7th intervals are far more alike
The first "trick" is literally changing the frequency ratios. 3:4 is not the same as 3:8.
As for the second trick, playing intervals melodically emphasizes individual frequencies, not the simultaneous sounds of the tones of the intervals, where consonance and dissonance would be apparent.
As for the octaves - the overtones of tones played in lower octaves would clash more since there would be more (audible) overtones to clash, while in higher octaves there would not be as many.
Regarding volume - the existence of less audible dissonances doesn't mean that they're "less dissonant".
In chords there are complex relationships and ratios between different tones, so this again doesn't make dissonant intervals "less dissonant". However some ratios might stick out more than others. You could remove the dissonant intervals and play chords without them and then add them to chords in order to find that the chords would indeed be perceived as more dissonant.
I don't consider this as proof that levels of dissonance are not related to physical phenomena.
I appreciate all these advices as songwriting tools and I love your channel, but please don't use misleading language, since some people might get wrong impressions about music as a phenomenon.
I argued for "not solely determined", not for "not related". Also, volume, absolute frequency, simultaneous attack etc, ARE physical phenomena. I simply argued that the frequency ratio is not the whole story.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitarAt around 0:30 you said that it's not true that the ratio of frequencies determines whether an interval is consonant or dissonant.
@@Crowsinger How does that contradict what I just wrote?
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar they're different things - what you replied and what you said in the video.
Could you explain me the difference? I genuinely don't see it.
So a note that is out of tune isn't really out of tune, it's just in my mind.
In a sense, yes... But a more proper way of thinking, about how the psyche works, would be from the other direction; it's all in our mind that a equal-tempered major 3rd sounds like a 4:5 ratio.(e.g.), even though the real ratio makes for an irrational number (rather than 1.25 or .8).
Me: "There is this curious perceptual effect..."
YT: "OMG rEaLiTy DoEs NoT eXiSt!!!!"
@@Cr8Tron Fourier analysis shows this is not true. Dissonance is easily understood mathematically.
@@MusicTheoryForGuitar You're a physicist right? The just intonation ratio of a minor second is 16:15, the ratio of a flat nine is 32:15. There's no perceptual effect it's just maths.
@@spoddie Fyi; you're talking at a musician who's been composing for over 30 years, with a bachelor's in computer science and a minor in mathematics (with a high GPA). Don't get me started on this shit! If you want to have a respectful conversation, that's great. But, otherwise, bug off!
I hate when people try to explain music using frequencies, it’s such a useless piece of information and, honestly, kind of stupid. It doesn’t make a difference to music education to measure frequencies. If your ears are *so bad* that you need math to figure out what does or doesn’t sound good, you may need to quit music