Subject: Re: sensory consonance /dissonance' musical consonance / dissonance From: Martin Braun <nombraun@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:09:18 +0200 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>We should not confuse fact and theory. Kevin Austin wrote: > Somehow the fourth became dissonant. This is theory, and one from an extremely sectarian and geographically and historically very limited context. If you want to know how listeners rate the fourth, you have to run carefully designed experiments. > a number of psychoacoustic ideas are learned, and can be unlearned No matter what is learned or unlearned, facts can be observed. > Webern and Schoenberg (et al) forever changed consonance / dissonance. Their views were ideosyncratic, and their impact on music making has been close to zero. > My reading of the original question was that a non-cultural, non-learned > metric was being sought for a cultural, learned metric. This is not true. What was sought were ways to find facts about human perception. Martin --------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Braun Neuroscience of Music S-671 95 Klässbol Sweden web site: http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm