J. P. van de Geer, W. J. M. Levelt, and R. Plomp "The Connotation of Musical Consonance." Acta Psychologica 1962.
Ten lay subjects were asked to classify pure-tone intervals at integer ratios. Analysis found three basic structures of classification: pitch, evaluation, and fusion. Study found no straightforward relation between consonance and fusion.
Ten "intelligent" non-musicians.
23 pairs of sine tones
frequencies at integral ratios using 4 through 12.
This generates just M2, m3, M3, P4, P5, m6, M6, m7 and P8, plus a bunch of odd ratios. Frequencies ranged from 340 Hz to 1020 Hz (no common average or base frequency)
- high/low
- sharp/round
- beautiful/ugly
- active/passive
- consonant/dissonant
- euphonious/diseuphonious
- wide/narrow
- sounds like one tone/sounds like more tones
- tense/quiet
- rough/smooth
F1 (pitch) F2 (evaluation) F3 (fusion) high .766 euphonious .593 rough .524 sharp .672 consonant .537 more tones -.479 tense .621 beautiful .499 active .258 narrow -.530 active .525
Factor 1 (scale 1 plus scale 2) increases with mean frequency of the interval.
Factor 3 (scale 8) increases with interval width.
Factor 2 shows no such clear-cut relation to physical variables, but has some relation to simplicity of tone ratio (simpler ratios have smaller integer numerator).
For lay people, consonance is an evaluative term. Contra Stumpf, subjects differentiate between consonance and fusion, so consonance does not derive from fusion. Thirds and sixths are more highly evaluated than octaves, fifths and fourths.