Lahdelma, I. and Eerola, T. (2016) 'Mild dissonance preferred over consonance in single chord perception.', i-Perception., 7 (3). pp. 1-21.
Previous research on harmony perception has mainly been concerned with horizontal aspects of harmony, turning less attention to how listeners perceive psychoacoustic qualities and emotions in single isolated chords. A recent study found mild dissonances to be more preferred than consonances in single chord perception, although the authors did not systematically vary register and consonance in their study; these omissions were explored here. An online empirical experiment was conducted where participants (N = 410) evaluated chords on the dimensions of Valence, Tension, Energy, Consonance, and Preference; 15 different chords were played with piano timbre across two octaves. The results suggest significant differences on all dimensions across chord types, and a strong correlation between perceived dissonance and tension. The register and inversions contributed to the evaluations significantly, nonmusicians distinguishing between triadic inversions similarly to musicians. The mildly dissonant minor ninth, major ninth, and minor seventh chords were rated highest for preference, regardless of musical sophistication. The role of theoretical explanations such as aggregate dyadic consonance, the inverted-U hypothesis, and psychoacoustic roughness, harmonicity, and sharpness will be discussed to account for the preference of mild dissonance over consonance in single chord perception.
|Full text:||(VoR) Version of Record|
Available under License - Creative Commons Attribution.
Download PDF (11573Kb)
|Publisher Web site:||http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2041669516655812|
|Publisher statement:||Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub. com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).|
|Date accepted:||19 May 2016|
|Date deposited:||22 July 2016|
|Date of first online publication:||27 June 2016|
|Date first made open access:||22 July 2016|
Save or Share this output
|Look up in GoogleScholar|