Talk:Emancipation of the dissonance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

1910

Full title 1910: The Emancipation of Dissonance ISBN 0520200438. NOT published in 1910, an obvious reference to Schoenberg's "emancipation of the dissonance."Hyacinth 03:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Timeline

What on earth does the Timeline [above] represent? Acceptance of upper partials by the ear? If so, no one but a musician studying advanced musical analysis will figure it out... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly referenced to Chailley's Traité historique d'analysis musicale (1951), and almost certainl represents, as you say, acceptance of higher partials by the ear. If further clarification is needed, surely an appropriate quotation from Chailley should suffice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article does not make it clear if the same techniques [song?] written again now would be more consonant. please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.76.11 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What techniques? What is your time reference? I do understand what you mean by "now", but the timeline refers to Jean-Philippe Rameau, Henry Cowell, Jacques Chailley, and Thomas J. Harrison's 1996 book about events in 1910. Do forgive me for being confused about your question.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the past? whether songs in the past are less dissonant than they were. and whether if that same song was written now rather than then it would have the same consonance. by techniques i meant rules of composition or whatever they teach you in composer school idk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.76.11 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) sorry i should have typed "songs in the past are less dissonant now than they were". see now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.76.11 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I see now. Probably. Or possibly not. What "songs" are you talking about? Purcell's? Stephen Foster's? Alban Berg's? Andrew Lloyd Webber's? I suppose they are all either more dissonant or less so than when they were written. Or possibly neither. Or both.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads: "the harmonic series is often used as physical or psychoacoustic justification for the gradual emancipation of intervals and chords found further and further up the harmonic series over time"

then gives, "Chailley (1951, 12; cited in Nattiez 1990) gives the following diagram, a specific timeline he proposes: [image of "the Timeline"].

Thus the image represents an example of the use of the harmonic series as a "justification" for the "emancipation of the dissonance" over time. One wouldn't need to have studied advanced musical analysis, but one would have to know how to read English and music notation.

It would probably help greatly to provide links to the text in the image. Hyacinth (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example provided. Hyacinth (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]