Subject: Re: sensory consonance /dissonance' musical consonance / dissonance From: Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:21:49 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Thank you. I am struck dumb and speechless. Even relativity is a theory. It is a fact in theory. My understanding is that psychometrics is statistical in nature, but there again, so is temperature. The thermometer is forced to lie about the real temperature as it must decide between 22 and 23, when in its heart of hearts it wants to say: 22.516943572369874. I accept that you live in that world, but it is not mine. Best wishes Kevin >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 17:09:18 +0200 >From: Martin Braun <nombraun@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: sensory consonance /dissonance' musical consonance / dissonance > >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 Kl=E4ssbol >Sweden >web site: http://w1.570.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm=20