3 ms·
> Also, the idea that symmetry sounds nice is intuitively appealing, but nothing sounds better to us, more pleasing, than the (highly irregular) major scale, or
by crazynick4 8y ago
> Also, the idea that symmetry sounds nice is intuitively appealing, but nothing sounds better to us, more pleasing, than the (highly irregular) major scale, or scarier, more ominous than diminished and augmented chords - musically, a square and equilateral triangle. Or more disorienting than a whole tone scale - a hexagon.
Yes, the perceived consonance has less to do with the simplicity/symmetry of the concept used to construct the scale and more to do with the 'simplicity' of the denominators of the ratios that make up the intervals. The smaller (simpler) the denominators involved, the more pleasing/consonant the sound will be (provided that they're integer ratios). Frequency ratios like 3/2 and 4/3 are among the simplest possible and are both present in the major scale but absent in the latter two examples.
- yesenadam 8y agoHmm that's not quite what I was saying - symmetry in scales in actually unpleasant, asymmetry pleasant. It seems that with these symmetrical scales/chords, the ear suffers vertigo, cognitive dissonance, because it can't hear a tonal centre. With e.g. a major scale, the asymmetry makes it obvious what key you're in.
- crazynick4 8y agoI see what you mean. Still I would argue that both tritones and minor thirds only appear to possess the symmetrical property as a result of temperament. It doesn't exist 'in nature' as such. The frequency ratios that they represent, 7/5 and 6/5, respectively, don't lend themselves to the same type of symmetry. If you have a tritone, 7/5, you would need a 10/7 ratio to make the octave, which would be a different interval (although close). With a minor third (6/5), if you were to stack the intervals starting from let's say 500 Hz, you would go to 600, 720, 864, and 1036.8, and you'd be off 36.8 Hz from the octave.