[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Clarifications of some terms

Consonance and dissonance seem to have at least two meanings. In western music, dissonance requires resolution to consonance. Depending on the historical period this will mean different things. The "third" required resolution in the 12th century, that is why it was an 'imperfect' interval.
Harshness, in my experience, relates to spectrum and distortion components. Ringing refers to the duration of a sound in that one may not have a ringing sound which is very short.
I think part of your question is about the belief that these terms have meaning independent of sounds. They are after all (simply) labels, and for me reside in the psychometric domain of interpretation, and as such agreement on their meaning would be statistical in nature (and contextual). There are times when an eight-note chord can be heard (by some people) as consonant. 

Best

Kevin




Date:    Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:12:38 -0500
From:    Ranjit Randhawa <rsran@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Clarifications of some terms.

Dear List,
With all the heavier topics under discussion in this forum, my request for information could be a bit trivial, but am hoping for your indulgence.
I have read about "consonance" and dissonance" and have assumed a kind of understanding of these, but then I have also read about "ringing" and "harshness", and have been wondering whether there is a relationship between these terms and how one would describe this difference.
My own assumption has been that the auditory system performs its frequency analysis in its own unique way, and a clearer understanding of these terms may show that it is not based on our present analytical models. If one is trying to develop a different model, than the test stimuli used for auditory psychological experiments could also be drastically different than those usually described. Therefore, a better understanding of the above terms would be helpful. 

Thanks in anticipation, cheers,
Randy Randhawa