On Feb 5, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
And when you eliminate the concept of dissonance in the musical text (i.e., the dissonances are never resolved), then you no longer have a distinction between the two types of intervals beyond the culturally defined meanings the listeners bring to the table.
This is a good explanation of the situation - unfortunately it's beyond the distance that even musicians are prepared to go to question whether their understanding of music is inate or acquired. I do find is scary, that people can react so vociferously against any suggestion that the major/minor tonality that *feels* natural to them is actually not something inherent or natural. They wouldn't react the same way if I told them that English wasn't the 'natural' language, or that base-10 wasn't 'natural' maths (assuming we got that far in the maths class :p ) But I find the defensiveness that surrounds western tonality quite scary, and very puzzling.
There IS a certain part of music, language, AND base ten math that IS natural. Base ten is natural to beings with ten fingers (why else would the concept have sprung up independently in many different cultures?) In English, like many other languages, "ma" sounds are associated with parents, being among the first sounds that babies make naturally (those with lips and septums, anyway!) And of course, in music, perfect fifths tend to dominate, even among cultures that DON'T have the means to count the frequencies. Now, just because those are easy and common ways of doing those things, it does NOT mean that they are universal, not by any means! But there is more and more evidence pointing to a combination of nature and nurture, rather than just one of those things, to explain more and more of human culture.
Christopher
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
