I find the major/minor thing so fascinating. I remember it having the "happy"/"sad" vibes from my earliest memories and have a really hard time with the idea that it could be cultural. But if it's not cultural, then why? Also is the fact that major 9ths have a beach/island vibe cultural due to Brazilian jazz? :-)

Right on. In my experience across different art fields, I’d say the only generalizable facet of ‘good’ art/music/etc is the “it sits just outside of what we expect”.

These days I liken it more to the idea of ‘surprise’ in information entropy which denotes an informative signal then to revealing any sort of objective truth.

Yep, I have come to believe that as complex adaptive systems made of complex adaptive systems the part of us that experience music do so through being able to predict new information.

If there is no ability to predict it’s random and just noise.

If there is no uncertainty and it’s just purely repetitive then there’s also no new information and it loses the music (see what happens with overplayed pre-recorded songs).

The sweet spot is when we can to some degree predict what’s coming and thus understand it to be information while not being sure of what’s coming so we get the reward of encoding it.

I think this works for pretty much all genres and contexts. Even listening to techno in a dark warehouse while off ones face: the altered state makes most things seem novel no matter how repetitive and your mind doesn’t tune the information out.

But that’s IMO why octave harmonies largely don’t work: the mind perceives no information in the pure octave, and so little joy is gained from it.

I don't buy that minor being "sad" is all nurture and no nature. No matter what tempo or rhythm you put on it or what instruments you use to play it, it may not sound sad, it may sound dramatic and powerful instead, but it never sounds upbeat and happy the way major does (or at least can).

> you cannot make a fully scientific theory of harmony since cultural expectations factor in just as much (and maybe even more) than the expectations around harmonics.

That's only true if you're expecting a "fully scientific theory of harmony" to mean "a theory that can precisely predict how popular/enjoyable any given piece of music will be." But I don't think that's a reasonable goal, since (as you say) individuals are complex and culture is even more complex.

It's not unlike, say, pain or discomfort, which we can also develop scientific theories for. We can discover how pain works physiologically and psychologically, but our theories are never going to fully explain why individuals or cultures might welcome and even seek out certain types of pain in certain contexts.

I think you could make a scientific theory of harmony (and perhaps music or even sound more generally) through the physiological lens of human perception. Straying a bit from music, but some sounds are fairly universally unpleasant, so there may be some objective basis for some sounds, and harmonies, being more “pleasurable” than others.

>happiest music would be entirely octaves

While chords certainly do have a perception of emotion, it's resolution and chord progression that seals the deal whether it's perceived as joyful or sad or otherwise.

> if it was right, then the happiest music would be entirely octaves

Not necessarily: if you read the essay, one assumption is that the brain is halving and doubling frequencies to fit them all into one frequency magnitude, an obvious optimization for reducing circuitry. If so, then an octave is too simple to fire the recognizer for a particular harmonic series; instead we need an input that places it relative to the other tones even after the halving/doubling.

Consider the fact that we name both middle C and high C as "C" because, even though they are different notes, they sound so similar that we literally deliberately confuse them notationally as they play the same role in harmony: one can be used to replace the other.

> Music is pleasurable when it mostly meets expectations but surprises you as well, IE it sits just outside of what we expect.

Ok, but where do the expectations come from? Your assertion that it is all culturally relative ("nurture") and none from the structure of the most efficient algorithm for recognizing the harmonic series ("nature") has no basis in fact; you just assert it without proof.

In contrast, there is strong evidence for the absolute nature of auditory processing. In the essay, there is a quotation from Daniel Levitin's book "This is your Brain on Music" where it discusses an experiment he witnessed in graduate school where music was played through wiring directly into the brain of an owl. The music was played into the brain with the root removed; when coming out of the brain of the owl, brain had restored the root (see the essay for details).

That means that virtual pitch (1) is created by the structure of the brain, not by a cultural expectation, and (2) further, that it is created by the brain of, not just a human, but of an owl! This is a very strong argument for the assertion that the processing of sound and the artifacts thereof are quite universal, not just across cultures, but across species.

> ratios and how chords derive from that was absolutely part of my education at Berklee

So at Berklee they teach recognizer algorithms and artifacts thereof? I did not know that Berklee is that strong in computer science. The explanation of the experience of the minor triad in "Harmony Explained" requires the concept of an inconsistency arising from a redundant recognizer algorithm.

In this case, one recognizer fires, that of the conjunction of three pairwise intervals of tones, whereas another recognizer does not fire, that if the triple of tones in order. This combination of firings is inconsistent because it is not possible for it to occur by playing any single normal harmonic series on, say, a flute. To generate it, one must play multiple notes and then use the effect of the recognizer of intervals pairing up tones from across the notes.

That is, this is a new kind of auditory perception that can be created as an artifact of the auditory recognizer algorithms of the brain, but cannot be heard otherwise. This is harmony.

If this this was taught to you at Berklee, please tell me which course that was and what the textbook is so I can look it up in the course syllabus and table of contents.