Grove Music Online

Consonance
Claude V. Palisca and Brian C.J. Moore

https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.06316
Published in print: 20 January 2001
Published online: 2001

Acoustically, the sympathetic vibration of sound waves of different

frequencies related as the ratios of small whole numbers (see
Interval); psychologically, a harmonious sounding together of two or
more notes, that is with an ‘absence of roughness’, ‘relief of tonal
tension’ or the like. Dissonance is then the antonym to consonance
with corresponding criteria of ‘roughness’ or ‘tonal tension’, and the
consonance–dissonance dimension admits of degrees of relative
consonance based on either criterion. The ‘roughness’ criterion,
however, implies a psychoacoustic judgment, whereas the notion of
‘relief of tonal tension’ depends upon a familiarity with the
‘language’ of Western tonal harmony. There is a further
psychological use of the term to denote aesthetic preferences, the
criterion generally used being ‘pleasantness’ or ‘unpleasantness’.

1. History.
Claude V. Palisca

The association of consonance with simple ratios goes back at least

to the Pythagoreans of the 5th century BCE, who used the term
‘symphonies’ for intervals produced by string lengths in the ratios
formed from numbers between 1 and 4. These comprised the octave
(2:1), the 5th (3:2), the octave-plus-5th (3:1), the 4th (4:3) and the
double octave (4:1). Plato (Timaeus, 35b–36b) constructed the world-
soul by harmonizing various ingredients by means of these
consonances, and he believed that the planets produced them as
they moved in their silent orbits. Aristoxenus dissociated the
auditory phenomenon of consonance from numbers and recognized
as consonant any interval (besides those named above) produced by
adding one or more octaves to a Pythagorean consonance. Though
critical of Aristoxenus’s purely sensory approach, Ptolemy retained
these compounds in his new classification (Harmonics, i, 7), which
embraced homophonic intervals (the octave and its duplicates),
symphonic (the 5th and 4th and their combinations with the
homophonic), emmelic (intervals smaller than the 4th that are used
in melody) and ekmelic (intervals not admitted into melody).
Boethius, following the Pythagorean Nicomachus, returned to the set

Page 1 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 produced by the ratios using numbers 1 to 4 (De institutione musica,
i, 7), but he also reported (v, 9) Ptolemy's opinion that the octave-
plus-4th was a consonance.

Theorists of the early Middle Ages were content to remain faithful to

the Boethian tradition, since it did not seriously conflict with the
practice of organum. Johannes de Garlandia in the 13th century,
however, saw that practising musicians recognized different
distinctions. He proposed threefold classifications of consonances
and dissonances (De mensurabili musica, CoussemakerS, i, 104b; ed.
E. Reimer, 1972, chap.9, p.67). Consonances were perfect (unison
and octave), imperfect (major and minor 3rds) or intermediate
(mediae; 4th and 5th). Dissonances were imperfect (major 6th, minor
7th), intermediate (major 2nd, minor 6th) or perfect (minor 2nd,
tritone and major 7th). He was followed by, among others, Anonymus
4 (CoussemakerS, i, 358b), who noted that in the west of England
3rds were thought to be the best consonances. The minor 6th was
admitted among the consonances in the anonymous 14th-century Ars
contrapunctus secundum Phillippum de Vitriaco (CoussemakerS, iii,
27), and both the minor and major 6ths in the anonymous Ars
discantus secundum Johannem de Muris (CoussemakerS, iii, 60, 70),
while the 4ths were rejected by them.

Walter Odington (Summa de speculatione musicae; CSM, xiv, 75,

early 14th century) first associated, albeit tentatively, major and
minor 3rds with superparticular ratios (5:4 and 6:5) rather than with
those of the Pythagorean tuning (81:64 and 32:27), but Ramis de
Pareia (Musica practica, 1482) was the first theorist to divide the
monochord in such a way as to produce these tunings for the
imperfect consonances. Gaffurius (De harmonia, 1518, i, 3) still
regarded the imperfect consonances as irrational, because he
recognized only the Pythagorean tuning. Zarlino (Le istitutioni
harmoniche, 1558, i, 14), by extending the Pythagorean inner
sanctum to the number 6 (senario), was able to admit the ratios 5:4,
6:5 and 5:3 but had to rationalize the minor 6th, 8:5, as a composite
interval made up of a perfect 4th and a minor 3rd.

Giovanni Battista Benedetti (Diversarum speculationum

mathematicarum et physicorum liber, 1585) proposed that the
concordance of intervals depended on the coincidence of periods of
vibration; for example in a 12th every three vibrations of the shorter
string meet one of the longer string. He showed that an index of
consonance could be derived by multiplying the terms of the ratios,
putting the major 6th (5:3, or 15) ahead of the major and minor 3rds
(5:4, or 20, and 6:5, or 30). Vincenzo Galilei (Discorso intorno
all'opere di Messer Gioseffo Zarlino, 1589, pp.92–3) opposed any
numerical limits and denied that there was a natural order of
sonorous numbers, insisting that all intervals were equally natural
and that theoretically there was an infinity of consonances.
Descartes took a similarly empirical position in three letters to
Mersenne (18 December 1629, January 1630, 13 January 1631),
positing two criteria for distinguishing consonances, simplicity of
ratio and pleasingness, the 4th being simpler while the 3rds are

Page 2 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 more pleasing. This separation of the subjective and objective
qualities of intervals has characterized modern thought since that
time.

2. Psychoacoustic factors.
Brian C.J. Moore

‘Sensory consonance’ refers to the immediate perceptual impression

of a sound as being pleasant or unpleasant; it may be judged for
sounds presented in isolation (without a musical context) and by
people without musical training. ‘Musical consonance’ is related to
judgments of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of sounds
presented in a musical context; it depends strongly on musical
experience and training, as well as on sensory consonance. These
two aspects of consonance are difficult to separate, and in many
situations judgments of consonance depend on an interaction of
sensory processes and musical experience.

Historically, some theorists have argued that the basis of perceived

consonance is physiological or sensory (Helmholtz, 1863), while
others have attributed it to the learning of relatively arbitrary
cultural patterns (Lundin, 1947). However, one should not regard
these theories as mutually exclusive. The relative importance of
sensory factors and learning in a particular musical culture will
depend on the types of sound being presented, on the instructions
given and on the musical experience of the listeners. Psychoacoustic
studies have usually emphasized sensory consonance, and tried to
explain it in terms of the physical nature of the sounds and the way
the sounds are analysed in the peripheral auditory system.

An interval that plays an important role in all scale systems is the

octave, in which the frequency of the higher note is double that of
the lower one. Consequently, two complete cycles of the higher note
occur for each cycle of the lower note. Sensory theories of
consonance are based on this fact, and on the fact that other
common musical intervals – at least in Western, Indian, Chinese and
Arab-Persian music (see Burns and Ward, 1982) – correspond to
relatively simple ratios of frequencies (e.g. perfect 5th, 3:2; perfect
4th, 4:3; major 3rd, 5:4). Generally, when pairs of tones are played
together, intervals giving simple ratios are heard as consonant, while
intervals with complex ratios (such as minor 2nd, 16:15) are heard
as dissonant. As a rough rule of thumb, ratios involving integers
greater than 6 are heard as dissonant, while intervals involving
ratios less than 6 are heard as consonant.

Sensory theories offer two (not mutually exclusive) explanations for

this preference for simple ratios. The first is connected with the fact
that when two sinusoids (pure tones) with similar frequencies are
presented together, the total sound fluctuates in amplitude, an effect
called ‘beats’. The beats occur as the tones move alternately in
phase (the peaks in the two tones coinciding) and out of phase (the
peaks in one coinciding with the dips in the other). Beats occur at a

Page 3 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 rate equal to the difference in frequency between two sinusoidal
tones, and in the case of complex tones they also occur between the
harmonics (overtones). When two complex tones have fundamental
frequencies in a simple ratio, such as 2:1, the harmonics of the
upper tone always coincide in frequency with harmonics of the lower
tone. Hence, no beats are audible. The more the fundamental
frequencies depart from a simple ratio, the greater will be the
tendency for beats between the harmonics. Intervals may be
preferred that minimize audible beats between harmonics of the two
notes (Helmholtz, 1863); this point is expanded later.

The second explanation is connected with the fact that action

potentials (nerve impulses, ‘firings’ or ‘spikes’) in the auditory nerve
tend to be synchronized to a particular phase of the stimulating
wave in the cochlea or inner ear (see Hearing and psychoacoustics);
for example, the impulses may occur close to the peaks of the wave.
As a result, the time intervals between successive nerve impulses
are close to integer multiples of the period of the stimulus (the time
taken for one complete cycle). Thus, if the stimulus is a sinusoidal
tone with a frequency of 500 Hz, then the intervals between
successive nerve impulses cluster around values of 2 milliseconds, 4
milliseconds, 6 milliseconds and so on. Pairs of tones presented
together may sound consonant when the intervals between nerve
impulses share common values for the two tones (Meyer, 1898;
Boomsliter and Creel, 1961).

Beats may be perceived differently depending on their rate (Plomp

and Levelt, 1965). If two sinusoids are presented simultaneously, and
their frequency separation is very small, then the beats are heard as
slow fluctuations in loudness, but the sound is still consonant. If the
two tones are moved apart in frequency, then the beats become
faster and the percept is of rapid loudness fluctuations which are
somewhat unpleasant. For still greater frequency separations, the
loudness of the sound becomes steady, but the sound has a rough,
unpleasant quality. Finally, when the frequency separation is
sufficient, two separate tones are heard, and the overall sound
appears to be consonant. At this point the tones are resolved or
separated in the cochlea, so they no longer interact. Plomp and
Levelt found that consonance judgments for pairs of sinusoids are
related to the critical bandwidth of the ear, which is itself closely
related to the bandwidth of the auditory filters. The tones do not
sound dissonant at all if they are separated by more than one critical
bandwidth. Maximal dissonance occurs when the tones are
separated by about one quarter of the critical bandwidth, which
corresponds to a frequency separation of about 3–4% (somewhat less
than one semitone).

Plomp and Levelt and others (Kameoka and Kuriyagawa, 1969) have
proposed methods for calculating the consonance of complex tones
from the consonances of the simple-tone combinations that they
contain. Generally, the calculation requires summation of the
dissonance of all combinations of neighbouring harmonics (or
partials in the case of non-harmonic complex tones, such as those
produced by gongs or bells). The consonance is then inversely

Page 4 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 related to the total dissonance calculated in this way. The results of
the calculations correspond reasonably well with subjective
judgments. According to this theory, two simultaneous harmonic
complex tones having fundamentals with simple ratios sound
consonant because the lower harmonics of the two tones are either
widely separated in frequency or coincide. The lower harmonics are
usually the more important in determining the overall impression of
consonance, because, for most musical instruments, they are more
intense than the higher harmonics. If the frequency ratio is less
simple (if the ratio cannot be expressed by integers less than about
6), then there will be a number of harmonics from the two tones that
differ only a little in frequency, and these will give rise to beats and
to dissonance.

Explanations based on beats cannot explain all aspects of the

perception of consonance. For example, beats do not occur between
successive notes, yet a certain amount of dissonance can be
experienced for such notes. Also, beats do not occur when the two
notes of an interval are presented one to each ear, yet some
dissonance may be experienced. Both of these effects might be the
result of learning. A given dissonant interval will have become
familiar under conditions where the tones are presented
simultaneously to the same ear. Hence that interval is automatically
associated with a sensation of dissonance, and this sensation may
persist when the tones are presented sequentially or to opposite
ears.

The second sensory explanation of the preference for simple ratios –

attributing consonance to the coincidence of neural firing over a
period of time – was put forward by Meyer (1898), and has since
been supported by Boomsliter and Creel (1961), among others.
Boomsliter and Creel emphasized that there is no sensation of pitch
when the sounds are very short. Generally, periodic sounds
containing fewer than about ten cycles appear click-like rather than
tone-like, and the tonality progressively increases as the duration
increases (Doughty and Garner, 1948; Moore, 1973). Boomsliter and
Creel's ‘long pattern hypothesis of harmony and hearing’ arose from
this fact. They argued that both pitch and the consonance between
notes require the synchronization of neural firing to individual cycles
of the sounds, and that the synchronization needs to persist for a
certain time for it to be analysed. Similar arguments have been
advanced more recently to explain the perception of pitches based
on the temporal synchrony of neural firing to the stimulus waveform
(Plack and Carlyon, 1995; Moore and Sek, 1996).

An explanation in terms of the synchrony of neural impulses to

individual cycles of the sounds is supported by the observation that
both our sense of musical pitch and our ability to make octave
matches largely disappear above 5 kHz (Ward, 1954; Attneave and
Olson, 1971), the frequency at which neural synchrony no longer
appears to operate (Palmer and Russell, 1986). Furthermore, the
highest note (fundamental) for instruments in the orchestra lies just
below 5 kHz. One could argue from this that the disappearance of
musical pitch at high frequencies is a result of a lack of exposure to

Page 5 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 tones at these frequencies. However, notes produced by musical
instruments do contain harmonics above 5 kHz, so that if the
learning of associations between harmonics were the only factor
involved, there would be no reason for the change at 5 kHz.

It is of interest that the equal-temperament scale in general use

today does not consist of notes in exact simple ratios. This might
appear to undermine sensory theories based on either beats or
neural synchrony. However, the deviations from a simple ratio scale
are small. For example, the interval of a perfect 5th corresponds to a
frequency ratio of 3:2; on the equal-temperament scale the ratio is
2.9966:2. This deviation may produce a small increase in beating
between the upper harmonics of complex tones, but the effect is not
very noticeable.

A different explanation of the preference for simple ratios between

the frequencies of musical tones is that humans learn about octave
relationships and other musical intervals by exposure to harmonic
complex sounds (usually speech sounds) from the earliest moments
in life. For example, the first two harmonics in a periodic sound have
a frequency ratio 2:1, the 2nd and 3rd have a ratio 3:2, the 3rd and
4th 4:3, and so on. Thus by exposure to these sounds we learn to
associate harmonics with particular frequency ratios. Terhardt
(1974) suggested that such a learning process could account for the
perception of the pitch of complex sounds, and especially the
perception of the pitch of tones with ‘missing fundamentals’ (see
Hearing and psychoacoustics). Judgments of similarity and of
consonance or dissonance may depend upon a similar learning
process (Terhardt, 1974); we learn which musical intervals ‘belong’
together by learning the intervals between the lower harmonics in
complex tones. Terhardt referred to this as ‘harmony’ and
distinguished it from sensory consonance.

While simple ratios may be preferable for simultaneously presented

tones, it is not clear whether this is the case for tones presented
successively. A number of experiments investigating preferred notes
in performances on stringed instruments of various kinds have
shown that there is no simple answer. Some workers have found
preferences for simple ratios, while others have found that the
preferred scale corresponds fairly closely to equal temperament,
except that notes higher than the tonic or keynote tend to be
sharpened relative to that note. Musicians were asked to play
familiar tunes on a monochord, a one-stringed instrument with
continuously variable tuning; while subjects consistently chose the
same tuning for a given note within a given tune, they chose
different tunings, for what is ostensibly the same note, in different
melodies and in different parts of the same melody (Boomsliter and
Creel, 1963). However, the chosen patterns formed a structure of
small whole-number ratios to the tonic and to additional reference
notes linked by small whole-number ratios to the tonic. Thus within
small groups of notes simple ratios are preferred, although the
‘reference’ point may vary as the melody proceeds. Others have
concluded, in contrast, that ‘there is no evidence … that suggests

Page 6 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 that the performers tend to play intervals corresponding to exact
small-integer ratios, … for either melodic or harmonic
situations’ (Burns and Ward, 1982, p.259).

There have been few cross-cultural studies of the perception of

consonance. This makes it difficult to assess the relative importance
of learning and of innate sensory/perceptual processes; moreover,
few cultures remain that are accessible to experimenters but
unaffected by Western music. One cross-cultural study found no
meaningful differences in preferences for musical intervals between
American and Japanese students (Butler and Dalston, 1968).
However, aesthetic preferences seem to be distinguishable from
psychoacoustic judgments. Consistent results across listeners for
judgments of ‘roughness’, have been reported (Taylor, 1965);
however, the judgments became very inconsistent when the criterion
was changed to ‘pleasantness’. A factor-analytic study of the
determinants of consonance judgments yielded two psychoacoustic
factors, ‘pitch’ and ‘fusion’, and one aesthetic or ‘evaluative’ one
(van de Geer, Levelt and Plomp, 1962).

Some studies have shown that preferences for musical intervals

change with age, at least among schoolchildren. One found that
British children under nine years of age did not show distinct
preferences for tones with simple frequency ratios (as compared to
complex ratios), whereas children over 12 did (Valentine, 1913).
Such changes may reflect the development of sensory and
perceptual skills, or they may reflect increasing familiarity with the
‘grammar’ of the local musical idiom and a development of concepts
like the resolution of tension in music. How much the perception of
consonance and dissonance is due to basic sensory and perceptual
factors and how much to learnt ones remains unresolved.

See also Psychology of music, §II, 1.

Bibliography
History
C. Palisca: ‘Scientific Empiricism in Musical Thought’,
Seventeenth Century Science and the Arts, ed. H. Rhys
(Princeton, NJ, 1961), 91–137

Page 7 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 R. Crocker: ‘Pythagorean Mathematics and Music’,
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 22 (1963–4), 189–
98, 325–35

C. Dahlhaus: ‘Ein vergessenes Problem der antiken

Konsonanztheorie’, Festschrift für Walter Wiora, ed. L.
Finscher and C.H. Mahling (Kassel, 1967), 164–9

S. Gut: ‘La notion de consonance chez les théoriciens du

Moyen Age’, AcM, 48 (1976), 20–44

H.F. Cohen: Quantifying Music: the Science of Music at

the First Stage of the Scientific Revolution, 1580–1650
(Dordrecht, 1984)

Psychoacoustic factors
H. von Helmholtz: Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen
als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik
(Brunswick, 1863, 6/1913/R; Eng. trans, 2/1885/R as On
the Sensation of Tone)

M. Meyer: ‘Zur Theorie der Differenztöne und der

Gehörsempfindungen überhaubt’, Beiträge zur Akustik
und Musikwissenschaft, 2 (1898), 25–65

C.W. Valentine: ‘The Aesthetic Appreciation of Musical

Intervals Among Schoolchildren and Adults’, British
Journal of Psychology, 6 (1913), 190–216

R.W. Lundin: ‘Towards a Cultural Theory of Consonance’,

Journal of Psychology, 23 (1947), 45–9

J.M. Doughty and W.M. Garner: ‘Pitch Characteristics of

Short Tones II: Pitch as Function of Duration’, Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 33 (1948), 478–94

W.D. Ward: ‘Subjective Musical Pitch’, JASA, 26 (1954),

369–80

P. Boomsliter and W. Creel: ‘The Long Pattern Hypothesis

in Harmony and Hearing’, JMT, 5 (1961), 2–31

J.P. Van de Geer, W. Levelt and R. Plomp: ‘The Connotation

of Musical Consonance’, Acta psychologia, 20 (1962), 308–
19

Page 8 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 P. Boomsliter and W. Creel: ‘Extended Reference: an
Unrecognized Dynamic in Melody’, JMT, 7 (1963), 2–22

R. Plomp and W.J.M. Levelt: ‘Tonal Consonance and

Critical Bandwidth’, JASA 38 (1965), 548–60

C. Taylor: The Physics of Musical Sounds (New York,

1965)

J.W. Butler and P.G. Dalston: ‘Musical Consonance as

Musical Preference: a Cross-Cultural Study’, Journal of
General Psychology, 79 (1968), 129–42

A. Kameoka and M. Kuriyagawa: ‘Consonance Theory I:

Consonance of Dyads’, JASA, 45 (1969), 1451–9; ‘II:
Consonance of Complex Tones and its Calculation
Method’, 1460–69

F. Attneave and R.K. Olson: ‘Pitch as a Medium: a New

Approach to Psychophysical Scaling’, American Journal of
Psychology, 84 (1971), 147–66

B.C.J. Moore: ‘Frequency Difference Limens for Short-

Duration Tones’, JASA, 54 (1973), 610–19

E. Terhardt: ‘Pitch, Consonance, and Harmony’, JASA, 55

(1974), 1061–9

E.M. Burns and W.D. Ward: ‘Intervals, scales and tuning’,

The Psychology of Music, ed. D. Deutsch (New York, 1982,
2/1999), 241–69

A.R. Palmer and I.J. Russell: ‘Phase-Locking in the

Cochlear Nerve of the Guinea-Pig and its Relation to the
Receptor Potential of Inner Hair-Cells’, Hearing Research,
24 (1986), 1–15

C.J. Plack and R.P. Carlyon: ‘Differences in Frequency

Modulation Detection and Fundamental Frequency
Discrimination Between Complex Tones Consisting of
Resolved and Unresolved Harmonics’, JASA, 98 (1995),
1355–64

B.C.J. Moore and A. Sek: ‘Detection of Frequency

Modulation at Low Modulation rates: Evidence for a
Mechanism Based on Phase Locking’, JASA, (1996), 2320–
31

Page 9 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).
 See also
Theory, theorists, §8: 15th century
Psychology of music, §II, 1: Perception & cognition of
pitch

Page 10 of 10
PRINTED FROM Oxford Music Online. © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single article in Oxford Music Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).