Ron Chaplin wrote: >Hearing this work started me wondering just when dissonance began to be >used as a means of expression. From the scientific point of view, I think acousticians would say that for any interval other than unison and octave there is no such thing as absolute consonance or dissonance: it is a matter of degree, perception and opinion. A musician however might say that the concept of dissonance arises out of the concepts of harmony and counterpoint. It is possible, though unusual, to have harmony without counterpoint, but impossible to have counterpoint without harmony. Even where there is only a single line of melody, as for example in plainchant, there can be dissonance, if only because as we hear each note the previous note may not have completely died away, and even if it has we retain it in memory as we hear the next note. Where two or more pitches sound at the same time the dissonance of the resulting sound as perceived by different listeners could be anything from zero to maximum, and some combinations might appear more dissonant than others. Dissonance is a relative and comparative perception, not an absolute. Also, the idea of what harmony is consonant and what dissonant varies across the globe and from one era to another. To those of us thoroughly accustomed to classical harmony, very early music may sound dissonant, though it was not so intended at the time, as may more recent pentatonic, dodecaphonic or atonal music, which again may not be so intended. The whole thing is very hard to pin down. Very easy pieces, such as a child is taught to play in the earliest piano lessons, are probably not going to seem dissonant -- but then they quickly become boring because they seem so bland. In fact without dissonance all music quickly becomes very boring. This can be demonstrated by listening through headphones to "pure" electronic "music" generated without harmonics or upper partials. The complexities of timbre and dissonance, and factors such as attack and decay, are like the condiments that stimulate the appetite and the digestive juices and bring out the true flavour of the meal. So it seems to me that it is not a question of dissonance being "used as a means of expression", as if it was an add-on effect like crescendo or staccato. It can of course sometimes be used in that way, where for example the composer deliberately introduces discords in order to depict something like a struggle or a storm. But I believe that in music as in all art, how you say it is inseparable from what you are saying. Hence 'wrong-note harmony' in fact sounds right. Then of course there's the question of unpitched instruments through the ages. Technically dissonant because they are not consonant with any pitch, they nevertheless seem to fit in with whatever else is playing. You cannot make a triangle or tambourine sound out of tune. Go figure. Alan Moss