Dissonance |

Dissonance (French dissonance, from Latin dissono – I sound out of tune) – the sound of tones that “do not merge” with each other (should not be identified with dissonance as an aesthetically unacceptable sound, that is, with cacophony). The concept of “D.” used in opposition to consonance. D. include large and small seconds and sevenths, tritone, and other magnifications. and reduce intervals, as well as all chords that include at least one of these intervals. A pure fourth – an unstable perfect consonance – is interpreted as a dissonance if its lower sound is placed in the bass.

The difference between consonance and D. is considered in 4 aspects: mathematical, physical (acoustic), physiological, and musical-psychological. From mathematical D.’s point of view is a more complex ratio of numbers (vibrations, lengths of sounding strings) than consonance. For example, of all the consonances, the minor third has the most complex ratio of vibration numbers (5:6), but each of the D. is even more complex (the minor seventh is 5:9 or 9:16, the major second is 8:9 or 9: 10, etc.). Acoustically, dissonance is expressed in an increase in the periods of regularly repeating groups of vibrations (for example, with a pure fifth of 3: 2, repetitions occur after 2 vibrations, and with a small seventh – 16: 9 – after 9), as well as in the complication of internal. relationships within the group. From these points of view, the difference between consonance and dissonance is only quantitative (as well as between various dissonant intervals), and the boundary between them is conditional. From a musical point of view D. psychology in comparison with consonance – the sound is more intense, unstable, expressing aspiration, movement. In European modal system of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, especially within the later funkts. systems of major and minor, qualities. the difference between consonance and dynamism reaches the degree of opposition, contrast, and constitutes one of the foundations of the muses. thinking. The subordinate nature of the sound of the D. in relation to the consonance is expressed in the natural transition of the D. (its resolution) into the corresponding consonance.

Muses. practice has always taken into account the difference in the properties of consonance and D. Until the 17th century. D. was used, as a rule, under the condition of its complete submission to consonance – correct preparation and resolution (this applies in particular to the so-called polyphony of “strict writing” of the 15th-16th centuries). In the 17-19 centuries. the rule was only permission D. From the end of the 19th century. and especially in the 20th century. D. is increasingly used independently—without preparation and without permission (“emancipation” of D.). The prohibition of octave doubling in dodecaphony can be understood as the prohibition of doubling dissonant sounds in conditions of continuous dissonance.

Проблема Д. has always been one of the central in the muses. theory. The theorists of the early Middle Ages borrowed ancient ideas about D. (they included not only seconds and sevenths, but also thirds and sixths). Even Franco of Cologne (13th century) enrolled in the group D. large and small sixths (“imperfect D.”). In music. theories of the late Middle Ages (12-13 centuries) thirds and sixths ceased to be considered D. и перешли в разряд консонансов («несовершенных»). In the doctrine of counterpoint “strict writing” 15-16 centuries. D. is considered as a transition from one consonance to another, moreover, a polygonal one. consonances are treated as combinations of vertical intervals (punctus contra punctum); a quart in relation to the lower voice is considered D. On the heavy side of D. is interpreted as a prepared detention, on the lungs – as a passing or auxiliary. sound (as well as cambiata). Since the end of 16 in. the theory affirms a new understanding of D. how special to express. means (and not just means of shading the “sweetness” of the consonance). AT. Galilee (“Il primo libro della prattica del contrapunto”, 1588-1591) allows an unprepared introduction by D. In the era of chord-harmonics. thinking (17-19 centuries), a new concept of D. Distinguish D. chordal (diatonic, non-diatonic) and derived from the combination of non-chord sounds with chord sounds. According to the func. theory of harmony (M. Gauptman, G. Helmholtz, X. Риман), Д. there is a “violation of consonance” (Riemann). Each sound combination is considered from the point of view of one of the two natural “consonances” – major or minor symmetrical to it; in tonality – from the point of view of the three fundamentals. triads – T, D and S. For example, the chord d1-f1-a1-c2 in C-dur consists of three tones belonging to the subdominant triad (f1-a1-c2) and one added tone d1. Всякий не входящий в состав данного осн. triad tone is D. From this point of view, dissonant sounds can also be found in acoustically consonant consonances (“imaginary consonances” according to Riemann, for example: d1-f1-a1 in C-dur). In each double sound, not the entire interval is dissonant, but only the tone that is not included in one of the bases. triads (for example, in seventh d1-c2 in S C-dur dissonates d1, and in D – c2; fifth e1 – h1 will be an imaginary consonance in C-dur, since either h1 or e1 will turn out to be D. – in T or D in C-dur). Many theorists of the 20th century recognized the full independence of D. B. L. Yavorsky admitted the existence of a dissonant tonic, D. как устоя лада (по Яворскому, обычай завершать произведение консонирующим созвучием — «схоластические оковы» музыки). A. Schoenberg denied the qualitative difference between D. and consonance and called D. distant consonances; from this he deduced the possibility of using non-tertzian chords as independent ones. Free use of any D. possibly in P. Hindemith, although he stipulates a number of conditions; The difference between consonance and D., according to Hindemith, is also quantitative, consonances gradually turn into D. Relativity D. and consonance, significantly rethought in modern. music, the Soviet musicologists B. AT. Asafiev, Yu. N.

References: Tchaikovsky P. I., Guide to the practical study of harmony, M., 1872; reissue Full coll. soch., Literary works and correspondence, vol. III-A, M., 1957; Laroche G. A., On correctness in music, “Musical sheet”, 1873/1874, No 23-24; Yavorsky B. L., The structure of musical speech, parts I-III, M., 1908; Taneev S.I., Mobile counterpoint of strict writing, Leipzig, (1909), M., 1959; Garbuzov HA, On consonant and dissonant intervals, “Musical Education”, 1930, No 4-5; Protopopov S. V., Elements of the structure of musical speech, parts I-II, M., 1930-31; Asafiev B.V., Musical form as a process, vol. I-II, M., 1930-47, L., 1971 (both books together); Chevalier L., The history of the doctrine of harmony, trans. from French, ed. and with additional M. V. Ivanov-Boretsky. Moscow, 1931. Mazel L. A., Ryzhkin I. Ya., Essays on the history of theoretical musicology, vol. 1-2, M., 1934-39; Kleshchov S. V., On the issue of distinguishing between dissonant and consonant consonances, “Proceedings of physiological laboratories of academician I. P. Pavlov”, vol. 10, M.-L., 1941; Tyulin Yu. N., Modern harmony and its historical origin, “Issues of modern music”, L., 1963; Medushevsky V., Consonance and dissonance as elements of a musical sign system, in the book: IV All-Union Acoustic Conference, M., 1968.

Yu. H. Kholopov