consonance vs dissonance

[sonic1]

This ought to be quite a debate...

There is a quote I have read somewhere, "the dissonance of today is the consonance of tomorrow".

I mention this in light of the rampant activity of anti-avant-garde posting of a small handful of detractors lately.

There was a time when certain intervals in music were frowned upon, many considered totally undesireable, and some even evil. Back then it was a religious music. But taken in modern context, one could say that there are those who wish to impose their idea of what is "right" in music and what is "incorrect", but without of course admitting it. Yet the idea comes through in their posts in which they constantly talk shit about avant-garde music.

Now I will also mention that most people I know who are into avant-garde have respect for the roots of jazz. People who are open minded enough to appreciate Keith Rowe are often open minded enough to like Ellington. ANd they give those musics equal respect. (keyword: equal). There may be some out there who don't agree, feel free to rail me for assuming too much.

Yet there are MANY traditionalists out there who have no respect what-so-ever for the avant-garde, or extremely selective respect (usually according to what certain critics will accept/reject).

A good example: I was reading an old (1990s) Coda magazine reporting on a jazz show in which was double billed Cecil Taylor and another artist who I can't remember, but something fairly more "in" like Sonny Rollins or something like that. The audience was split between those who like the avant-garde and those who liked more "traditional jazz". When the more "in" player played, there was total respect from the whole audience. When Cecil played there was a bunch of rude booing and such from traditionalists.

This is the kind of crap I personally am totally sick of. Recently I have made comments about Wynton Marsalis but mostly in reaction of his nasty habit of telling jazz fans what is "jazz" and what is not, or what is worthy and what is not (though I believe him to be mediocre).

But every generation of jazz has resistance from traditionalists. At every step of the way jazz has resisted itself (or rather people in jazz resist the changes). And over the years as every revolution of jazz has occured the audience is once more whittled-down and split. It is possible to say that jazz and jazz-influenced music has grown too fast for the audience.

But no revolution in jazz is without its genius innovation. It is not without genius and artistic integrity that the art of jazz suffers, but rather almost too much genius and innovation-WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I LOVE JAZZ.

Those who wish to pirate the art for their own sentiments and purposes (commercialism and sentimentality) attack the very root of jazz. We can argue about how chromatic new orleans musicians got and such. But one cannot argue that throughout the history of jazz it has been almost totally unparalleled in terms of innovation. In one century the music went arguably further than the whole of classical music (though being in the 20th century has its advantages).

Now if traditionalists just wanted to promote their own music, I would have no problem, in fact I would be a ready supporter myself. But the fact is there is a habit of exclusion and resentment, even hatred among traditionalist in jazz.

WHat are your thoughts?

Jared

[Uli]

Originally Posted by sonic1

This ought to be quite a debate...

There is a quote I have read somewhere, "the dissonance of today is the consonance of tomorrow".

I mention this in light of the rampant activity of anti-avant-garde posting of a small handful of detractors lately.

There was a time when certain intervals in music were frowned upon, many considered totally undesireable, and some even evil. Back then it was a religious music. But taken in modern context, one could say that there are those who wish to impose their idea of what is "right" in music and what is "incorrect", but without of course admitting it. Yet the idea comes through in their posts in which they constantly talk shit about avant-garde music.

Now I will also mention that most people I know who are into avant-garde have respect for the roots of jazz. People who are open minded enough to appreciate Keith Rowe are often open minded enough to like Ellington. ANd they give those musics equal respect. (keyword: equal). There may be some out there who don't agree, feel free to rail me for assuming too much.

Yet there are MANY traditionalists out there who have no respect what-so-ever for the avant-garde, or extremely selective respect (usually according to what certain critics will accept/reject).

A good example: I was reading an old (1990s) Coda magazine reporting on a jazz show in which was double billed Cecil Taylor and another artist who I can't remember, but something fairly more "in" like Sonny Rollins or something like that. The audience was split between those who like the avant-garde and those who liked more "traditional jazz". When the more "in" player played, there was total respect from the whole audience. When Cecil played there was a bunch of rude booing and such from traditionalists.

This is the kind of crap I personally am totally sick of. Recently I have made comments about Wynton Marsalis but mostly in reaction of his nasty habit of telling jazz fans what is "jazz" and what is not, or what is worthy and what is not (though I believe him to be mediocre).

But every generation of jazz has resistance from traditionalists. At every step of the way jazz has resisted itself (or rather people in jazz resist the changes). And over the years as every revolution of jazz has occured the audience is once more whittled-down and split. It is possible to say that jazz and jazz-influenced music has grown too fast for the audience.

But no revolution in jazz is without its genius innovation. It is not without genius and artistic integrity that the art of jazz suffers, but rather almost too much genius and innovation-WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I LOVE JAZZ.

Those who wish to pirate the art for their own sentiments and purposes (commercialism and sentimentality) attack the very root of jazz. We can argue about how chromatic new orleans musicians got and such. But one cannot argue that throughout the history of jazz it has been almost totally unparalleled in terms of innovation. In one century the music went arguably further than the whole of classical music (though being in the 20th century has its advantages).

Now if traditionalists just wanted to promote their own music, I would have no problem, in fact I would be a ready supporter myself. But the fact is there is a habit of exclusion and resentment, even hatred among traditionalist in jazz.

WHat are your thoughts?

Jared

I think all this vs VS vs is complete bulloney.

[Stuckinagroove]

A fight to the death!!

[Nate Dorward]

This ought to be quite a debate...

Not only ought it to be, it has been--haven't there been oodles of threads kicking this topic around?

[Gary Sisco]

I haven't read the children and the a.g. thread, but the thread title and basic notion would be good for that one. Root Doctor's young (and very bright) son, I know, has been taking piano lessons and so is having it driven into his head what is right and wrong so far as notes and harmonies and what have you go. Sometimes he's voiced skepticism to Roots when listening to his father's records that a.g. guys really "know how to play" -- because of this set-in-concrete view of "dissonance." (A weird view, given its prevalent use in a lot of classical music, actually). At the same time, the kid's favorite musician is Ray Anderson, so go figure.

Well, thinking more clearly as the caffeine sets in, Ray is a very serious, but also very entertaining and often funny musician, so I guess it's not all that surprising for a smart kid to dig him.

[Gentle Giant]

I dig Bartok and I dig the Beach Boys. There are different paths to truth and beauty.

[sonic1]

I guess I should have prefaced the post with the statement that I myself see no need for the "vs" but only in that people consider some things "dissonant" instead of what I call "new and interesting".

And I also have many many beach boy records, among a great more many records ranging the whole spectrum of music. My point was that most avant-garde fans are like that. They listen to everything.

While some people have...um...more descriminating (I would say narrow) tastes! If only those tastes would just stay IN their mouths and not run uncontrollably from their lips!

Jared

[Dr Dave]

I distinctly recall a time when Monk's lines were considered just too wierd. Now I walk around the supermarket whistling "In Walked Bud" and think nothing of it at all.

More generally speaking, consonance/dissonance is just another way of saying yin/yang. Got to have both to make music interesting.

[Gary Sisco]

And there can't be the one without the other.

[sonic1]

I almost totally agree with that. Except there is a lot of music which does not employ the use of releasing or creating tension in music. Now whether it is a successful venture is another story. But none-the-less there is the attempt to move beyond the idea of consonance and dissonance.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by sonic1

I almost totally agree with that. Except there is a lot of music which does not employ the use of releasing or creating tension in music. Now whether it is a successful venture is another story. But none-the-less there is the attempt to move beyond the idea of consonance and dissonance.

Oh, I think Gregorian Chants have stood the test of time OK.

[graypencil]

It'd important to note here that the consonance/dissonance factor is basically founded upon what the prevailing "norm" of the music in question is:

what was considered "dissonant " in the academic common practice theory model ( i.e. 17/18th Century Bach /Mozart /etc. )became gradually more accepting throuout the Romantic period of "dissonant" tones that evolved through the impressionistic into total freedom of the twelve tones early in the 20th century ..

also: the factor of context plays a large part ..what will be accepted as dissonant in a triadic folk setting would create a similar effect as a pure major triad in a twelve tone setting ..

all good music( regardless of genre )employs this consonant/dissonant tension/release effect to some extent ..

[Gentle Giant]

In a way, dissonance becomes more consonant the more you can appreciate it. There's a concept called cognitive dissonance which is discomfort that's derived from either espousing an idea with which you don't agree or being forced to assimilate something you don't want. Dissonance may have a technical foundation, but in terms of how people hear it, it seems like maybe we're just not wired for that and so it strikes us initially as wrong or bad. But through conditioning or awareness, or something within us that is particularly open to differences, we are able to appreciate and assimilate dissonance. Sometimes to the extent that we no longer favor the opposite.

[Sergio Zamora]

Actually, I don't really perceive that much player-hating on the avant garde here in JC. I don't know how it is in the real world, but here there's at least tolerance (most of the time). JC is pretty unique among jazz boards in that there is a stronger affinity for out music.

I'm really generalizing here, but I do think folks who listen to the avant garde also are more likely to listen to, appreciate, or at least be pretty familiar with 'in' music as well as all other kinds of music than the reverse. I think this is for obvious reasons.

At the same time, I often see folks who don't dig out music discuss some stuff that I'm not familiar with and probably not very interested in, so it's by no means an absolute.

[Jon Abbey]

good post, gg.

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

Sometimes to the extent that we no longer favor the opposite.

or to the extent where we almost never even consider there to be a divide anymore.

[sonic1]

I know that the diatonic scale is built off of the partials in a tone. But also remember that with equal temperment, we had to alter many of the natural tones so that we could have more than a few functional keys, and those have only been around since Bach's time.

Jared

[Enforcer]

Well, there was a time when even 7th chords sounded "dissonant." Today, 7th chords can be found in the occasional top 40 tune (not that often, but it happens). It's amazing that not so long ago, even the use of modes in jazz was considered revolutionary. Listen to a tune played in the Dorian mode and tell me that it sounds anything but "normal" now; it's just a part of the vocabulary because it became a popular movement and our ears were inundated with it.

Even Louis Armstrong scoffed at the dissonance of bebop. Bebop! Times change you, man.

Larry

[sonic1]

and there was a time when anything but the first, fourth, fifth and octave were the only acceptable tones. The third was dissonant (the third these days is the second most important tone, designating major from minor).

the term accidentals (sharps and flats) came about when singers naturally wanted to flatten or sharpen notes (the harmonic minor). It was forbidden by the church, but the people kept it in use until it overcame the ideas of the church.

Consonance and dissonance are learned. It is very deep: the augmented fourth was once called the interval of the devil, and to this day denotes danger or warning because of its use in dramatic music and commercials.

Even without any music background, especially in these media-drenched days, we are surrounded by the programming of what is expected in music. And I think at present the artistic tastes of many depends more on the expected with only a hint of unexpected.

But there is a strong movement of people who prefer the latter. I am not sure how many people that is, but enough to generate enough interest that all these free jazz labels of the 60s can see it commercially viable enough to re-issue all that good music.

J

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by sonic1

I know that the diatonic scale is built off of the partials in a tone. But also remember that with equal temperment, we had to alter many of the natural tones so that we could have more than a few functional keys, and those have only been around since Bach's time.

Jared

The diatonic scale is based upon the partials of the overtone series:

: In the following, regarding the names of the pitches, the actual method of constructing the C major scale, and the tuning of a physical keyboard instrument in "just" temperament, there are some very misleading and incomplete statements.


fundamental / partials

C C' G' C'' E'' G'' Bb'' C''' D''' E''' etc ....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10





"just" temperament refers to the system in place prior to the 18th Cent. Bach era which modified the temperement to allow playing by keyboard in all chromatic keys rather than by compensating by fingering( on strings ) or by ear ( in vocal situations )


I too agree that in a subjective sense "dissonance " is a matter of assimilation ..if you hear a 12 tone combination a number of times, you will become more accepting of the sound ..the same thing goes for other world musics based on non western scales..( i.e.: arabic/balinese/ chinese/indian ) although many of these musics tend to be monophonic ( linear ) in nature eschewing harmonization in the western sense.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by graypencil

if you hear a 12 tone combination a number of times, you will become more accepting of the sound

Arnold Schoenberg, baby.

Larry

[sonic1]

YES!

And though in nature, WITHIN A TONE the partial system applies, when nature "harmonizes" (more than one tone coming from non-human beast or river, etc. there are no rules. The idea of imposing rules that say we need to match certain tones because of what is within a tone is totally human constructed. Not a bad idea, but neither an idea we need to senselessly chain ourselves to.

Birds don't harmonize according to the partials and they even sing.

Jared

[Gentle Giant]

I'm not capable of following the more technical discussion that's been going on, but the ear obviously senses what is disonant vs. consonant, and what is complex vs. straightforward.

I'm "only" 41, so when I first heard Brubeck's Time Out, and read the liner notes, I couldn't figure what the fuss must have been when it was first released. Yes, it's great music, but I was already accustomed to hearing stuff outside of common time. (Thank you, King Crimson!) And today, it seems like there's nothing that can't be made to swing.

[Gary Sisco]

I didn't mean to get spiritual. I was only remarking that terms like dissonance only make sense in relation to consonance, and vice versa. That's all. One's definition of either may vary but the one can only exist in comparison with the other. Otherwise, neither has meaning.

[GoodSpeak]

I respectfully submit, however, that for the original thread post to be true:

#1 There would need to be be a vast majority listening to AG.

#2 AG artists would be largely known rather than unknown.

AG has been with us since the 60s and neither of the above statements are true. This isn't a good thing or a bad thing...it just is.

Therefore, the theory being presented isn't always true, IMO.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

I'm not capable of following the more technical discussion that's been going on, but the ear obviously senses what is disonant vs. consonant, and what is complex vs. straightforward.

I'm "only" 41, so when I first heard Brubeck's Time Out, and read the liner notes, I couldn't figure what the fuss must have been when it was first released. Yes, it's great music, but I was already accustomed to hearing stuff outside of common time. (Thank you, King Crimson!) And today, it seems like there's nothing that can't be made to swing.

This is true...the difference would be that TIME OUT has withstood the test of time.


Only art that was once considered dissonant that is now consonant can claim this. Hence the term: Classic.

[sonic1]

I said in another post that jazz has evolved very sharply in a short period of time, certainly not enough time to have a broad audience keep up.

But mr goodspeak, you don't really understand how many people really listen to the avant-garde. Especially people of my age (I am not assuming how old you are).

And if you use that argument than with the dying generation of listeners going into the grave with their love of Handel, Bach, etc. I could argue that the interest in the avant-garde is more significant in my generation, few of which listen to classical music. The numbers are closing.

Also the avant-garde never really looked to become popular. It is art for its own sake, of which their are many enthusiasts. And that art influences people. It informs other artists. Now some of yal' maybe closed minded to the avant-garde. But many have always been open to it.

The Beatles were influence by stockhausen, cage and avant-garde jazz. Radiohead (a more current band) has mentioned some of the same kinds of influences. There are quite a lot of these artists, and interestingly they are the most influential-how much more influential can you get than the fuckin' Beatles???? And Radiohead is probably one of the better pop acts in a long long time. Oh, and Beck is another of the same vein.

So to write off the AG just because of a lack of album sales is short sighted. Look at the Velvet Underground! One of the most influential avant-garde pop bands of the last 3 1/2 decades. They hardly sold any albums at all!! But it is said that almost everyone that bought the albums started a band!

Now they are really not all that avant-garde, in terms of what we are discussing, but for pop they are. I used to work at a cafe years ago and nothing could drive out the guests like White Light White Heat.
John Cales influence was certainly avant-garde with his droaning bowed strings, etc. There are many examples and if you don't think that is a good enough example, look at the white album.

And you are wrong even about the jazz. Ornette Coleman was certainly, undoubtably avant-garde, has sold a lot of albums, and now his music almost sounds totally in. The audience IS catching up.

Jared

ps this kind of reminds me of when I was in my early 20s and I made the mistake of telling a jazz society guy that I really liked Anthony Braxton. He scowled at me and said, "Oh... you can't possibly understand Braxton until you listen to Ellington for at leat 20 years..." But really I think it was that HE didn't understand. How could he tell me what I was supposed to understand and LIKE and what I was NOT supposed to understand and like. In fact for me, the more "in" styles were further from my understanding than the out. I don't think I am alone in that.

[Jon Abbey]

the new Wilco album debuted at #8 in the US in Billboard this week. near the end of the record, there's a 12 minute electroacoustic drone piece, which is pretty damn "avant-garde" (a pretty meaningless term as it's being used in this thread, to basically describe a style of music created forty years ago, free jazz) for the pop world.

[sonic1]

yeah, actually the term avant-garde, in its strictest sense, refers to very little out there now. I believe it is getting harder and harder to come up with new ideas. But I am enthusiastic that something new will appear. That is not to say that there is nothing new out there now. I think sometimes we don't realize how revolutionary something is until we digest it a little.

But if you have listened to straight up stuff all your life, or are resistant to new sounds, finding them "jarring", then even some basic stuff can be avant-garde. (I don't mean to equate avant-garde with dissonant...)

an aside thought: To reach the masses commercial music most often must work with the lowest common denominator, which is why generally I am not necessarily attracted to it-(does that make me anti-social?). Exceptions are there (we have mentioned some already).

Jared

[Gary Sisco]

The a.g. is not any one thing today but many. I think of it as more of a scene of scenes, in this period, with much overlap and intersection. Nevertheless, free jazz, at least in its purist forms descending from the 60s line, I would consider more an art for art's sake (as said above, and as is the motto of the Vision Festival) than an avant-garde, for reasons already stated. My comments are not meant as criticisms or as a downgrading of the music. I happen to be a big fan of it, as most here know. But it can't be considered an a.g. form 40 years down the line without rendering the term nonsensical.

sonic -- Don't waste your breath too much. Goodspeak hasn't heard more than a few minutes worth of most of the music you're talking about, none of some of it, and he doesn't get out much, so he doesn't -- and won't, because he doesn't want to -- understand that free music already has a new generation of listeners, half his age and younger than that. I've had this discussion with him already to many times to bother again. He believes what he wants to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

He also forgets that people are still buying and listening to Ornette Coleman (and others') records that are as old and "classic" as "Time Out." So apparently they have "stood the test of time."

But of course a popular music cannot be an avant-garde, by definition, so his attempt at creating a syllogism is illogical to begin with.

[SinginSumo]

A lot of this can be reduced to:

1.) a zeitgeist kind of thing

2.) personal tastes

and

3.) the ear has the ability to educate itself over time.



Many worthwhile posts here!