Eerola, T. and Lahdelma, I. (2021) 'The Anatomy of Consonance/Dissonance: Evaluating Acoustic and Cultural Predictors Across Multiple Datasets with Chords.', Music & Science, 4 .
Acoustic and musical components of consonance and dissonance perception have been recently identified. This study expands the range of predictors of consonance and dissonance by three analytical operations. In Experiment 1, we identify the underlying structure of a number of central predictors of consonance and dissonance extracted from an extensive dataset of chords using a hierarchical cluster analysis. Four feature categories are identified largely confirming the existing three categories (roughness, harmonicity, familiarity), including spectral envelope as an additional category separate from these. In Experiment 2, we evaluate the current model of consonance/dissonance by Harrison and Pearce by an analysis of three previously published datasets. We use linear mixed models to optimize the choice of predictors and offer a revised model. We also propose and assess a number of new predictors representing familiarity. In Experiment 3, the model by Harrison and Pearce and our revised model are evaluated with nine datasets that provide empirical mean ratings of consonance and dissonance. The results show good prediction rates for the Harrison and Pearce model (62%) and a still significantly better rate for the revised model (73%). In the revised model, the harmonicity predictor of Harrison and Pearce’s model is replaced by Stolzenburg’s model, and a familiarity predictor coded through a simplified classification of chords replaces the original corpus-based model. The inclusion of spectral envelope as a new category is a minor addition to account for the consonance/dissonance ratings. With respect to the anatomy of consonance/dissonance, we analyze the collinearity of the predictors, which is addressed by principal component analysis of all predictors in Experiment 3. This captures the harmonicity and roughness predictors into one component; overall, the three components account for 66% of the consonance/dissonance ratings, where the dominant variance explained comes from familiarity (46.2%), followed by roughness/harmonicity (19.3%).
|Full text:||(VoR) Version of Record|
Available under License - Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
Download PDF (834Kb)
|Publisher Web site:||https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043211030471|
|Publisher statement:||This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) 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:||18 June 2021|
|Date deposited:||20 August 2021|
|Date of first online publication:||12 July 2021|
|Date first made open access:||20 August 2021|
Save or Share this output
|Look up in GoogleScholar|