The appreciation of musical intervals
Willem J. M. Levelt, K. Plomp · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · 1968
In a former study (1) it was shown that musical laymen, in judging musical intervals, use the concept 'consonance ' as an esthetic qualifi-cation, i.e., as a synonym for words as 'beautiful', 'fine', and 'eupho-nious'. In musicology, however, the concept of consonance is esthetical-ly neutral. Therefore a divergence is present between musicological terminology and common language as to the connotational meaning of 'consonance'. As may be expected, this connotational difference is accompanied by a difference in denotation: In musicology the ordering of musical intervals according to degree of consonance is different from the order-ing a layman makes (1, 2, 3). The most important difference is that, where according to music theory Prime, Octave, Fifth and Fourth are the (most) consonant intervals, the layman gives highest evaluation to Thirds and Sixths (and therefore calls them consonant). Only after these follow Fourth, Fifth and Octave. In fact the Octave is evaluated rather neutral. For this difference in meaning of consonance historical reasons can be found. The musicological concepts consonance and dissonance did undoubtedly develop on the basis of esthetical considerations, but the scientific terminology stabilized in the Middle Ages, whereas the esthetic conceptions (including the layman's) kept changing. As an esthetic evaluation, layman's opinion on consonance is strongly his-torically determined. Well-known facts in this connection are for in-stance the rise in evaluation of the Third in the late Middle Ages (in the Ars Nova the major third was called clulcis) and the devaluation of