- Author
- Posted by surprisetalk, with a reply from the paper's author
- Published
- 28 July 2026
- Kind
- Hacker News thread
- Original
- news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49085280
- Subject
- Consonance and tuning
- Themes
- What the senses do
What it is
This thread discusses Wilkerson's paper and drew 105 points and 114 comments. Musicians and engineers argue about what a scientific theory of harmony can explain. Wilkerson joins to defend it as computer science.
What it says
- klik99 calls claims about pleasant ratios and missing-feeling minor chords simply wrong.
- TheOtherHobbes says consonance depends partly on frequency, and points to Sethares and Tymoczko.
- TheOtherHobbes calls the idea that major is happy and minor sad a simplification.
- atoav finds the most consonant combinations boring and other aspects of music more interesting.
- MetaWhirledPeas says a perfect scientific theory would take the fun out of music.
- Wilkerson, dswilkerson, asks commenters to read the paper before responding.
What evidence it gives
The comments give personal experience and pointers to other work. None of those listed reports a test of the paper.
Interests and limits
A thread shows who chose to reply. Commenters are pseudonymous, and their expertise cannot be checked from the thread. The paper's author has an obvious stake.
Connections
These links are this wiki's own reading, not claims the sources make.
- Human Judgment as a Specification. PICK assumes some truth lives only in the person asked. The harmony thread keeps arriving there too. So PICK's method might suit tuning. Generate candidates, find where they differ, and let ears vote.