Interesting TED talk on the topic of repetition in (pop) music

A very interesting video. But I was completely distracted by an overwhelming desire to get that guy a sandwich, and a burger, and a piece of pie. Man, that guy needs to eat something!

 

I have been giving this issue a good deal of thought today. I had just been working on one of my newest compositions, trying to eliminate literal repetitions, when I saw this thread. Perhaps I should worry less about literal repetition in my own music?

In the classical era of classical music (Mozart, Haydn, etc.) there was a significant amount of literal repetition or literal repetition except in a different key. During the romantic era of classical music (Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak etc.) the use of literal repetition decreased significantly, but examples are still common. In 20th century classical music, especially the more atonal type, literal repetition is virtually gone. Could this be ONE factor in the refusal of large audiences to embrace the atonalists (Schoenberg, Berg, et. al.)? I think so.

Other 20th century works that while harmonically complex, still retain a connection to CPE harmony, and also contain at least some repetition have entered into the mainstream of classical music. These works would include the Planets, Firebird, Appalachian Spring, and many others.

So how much literal repetition is the right amount? That is my question to myself. I suppose it depends on each individual listener and composer. But I have no doubt that studiously avoiding ALL literal repetition is going to alienate almost all listeners. What do you think?

 

@Mike Verta your post above is extremely interesting and I cannot disagree with anything you wrote. In fact, your teaching on this issue is, in my opinion, one of your most significant contributions to the art of musical composition. I am particularly impressed by your reasoning as it relates to the need of the human brain for pattern recognition. Actually, as you have previously discussed over the years, pattern recognition gives us a form of pleasure and satisfaction, intellectually and emotionally. Now, the art of judging how many repetitions versus development versus presenting new ideas, that is hard.

 

A few thoughts. I have to admit I didn't finish the talk, though. It completely turned me off here: "Whether they want to admit it or not, everyone loves repetitive music. Psychology studies have shown...".

1-About that point: Give me a break! Can you find a way to make music as a topic any less exciting or thrilling? That is hardly an argument. We don't need to measure these kinds of things like that, this is pointless bullshit.

2-A huge chunk of people are being FED music, they are not going out of their way to get it. And hence, they love endless boring repetition because that's what they are being played, none of the "non-repetitive" music finds its way to their ears anymore. They seem to loooooove love love those big drums and string ostinatos and brass farts, don't they? Hmmm. Interesting. So Debussy's out, according to this Lana Del Rey fan, I guess.

3-People DO appreciate good music when it is being played for them, too. Bohemian Rhapsody is almost 45 years old and still, we all know of it and I'm yet to find someone who does not think it is AT LEAST a cool song. But people are just not being played that kind of music anymore. So there is a selection bias that goes on way before you start your (apparently) controlled study. Go do that research on a group of melomaniacs and see what you find.

4-Bohemian Rhapsody does contain repetition, but each iteration contains a new element, it is developed. So yeah, no wonder your 7zip compression algorithm does not get it, dude.

5-The comparison is unfair in a time dimension, too. As I said, Bohemian Rhapsody is almost 45 years old and still awesome. Let's see in 45 years who can remember "Run the world (girls)" by Beyonce as an iconic song. My money is on "Just Beyonce's kids when they cash that royalty check".

 

I've never been a big fan of TED-Talks. People are always praising them, but I think most of the time it's just a fancy way of showing how wonderful people can repackage a simple and well known "fact" into a superior looking scientific model. I rarely make it through a complete video. In the first few minutes you can already tell where it is going: nowhere. But regarding repetition, here is a TED-Talk I highly recommend and I know that @Mike Verta loves hearing this guy talk.

 

Never give a lecture with a water bottle in your hand. Also, never tell your audience "My world is very closed down, creatively." Bummer.

Here is a positive and entertaining Ted Talk about Classical Music for everyone.

 

Mike, I feel like I owe you $30 for this. This post teaches more about composition than the "here are some composing lessons" websites I wasted two hours on a few years ago.

As someone who's embarrassed to have majored in Psychology (thankfully I compensated with a good deal of neuropsychology and philosophy), I laughed quite hard at this. I couldn't care less about what most psychologists think, because most psychologists aren't terribly research literate (neither are the vast majority of laymen who appeal to "science" to support their political or philosophical arguments, ditto this talk), most are philosophically incompetent, and the field of social psychology has constantly had theories driven into the ground over the last few decades.

Well said -- I barely ever watch TEDx (the franchise version) talks that attempt to justify arguments using neurological jargon anymore because these talks are often chock full of little more than semi-scientific appeals to what's happening neurologically when someone does anything, as if the mechanical explanation of what's going on is somehow more meaningful. This reductionistic pseudo-argument typically misses the point entirely.

Bingo. You can make the same appeals about the dopaminergic activity found in children when consuming sugar, or better yet, the exponentially greater dopaminergic release when a child consumes cocaine, but why on earth would this support the argument that this is a good thing?
I was fortunate to coincidentally be studying valid learning theory, Aristotelian metaphysics and the central concepts in your classes when our daughter was born (close to 2 years ago), and I'm incredibly thankful I did because it completely reinforced the suspicions and skepticism I had about all the garbage marketed to children in the form of musical/"educational" toys, programs, etc. A lot of music in kids' programs and films over the years have been more sophisticated than a lot of what we encounter now in Hollywood, but a lot of what is found on the internet or in stores today is trash.

I found this a more enlightening take:

 

What album and what subgenre?

I find certain metal songs by i.e. Opeth tend not to have too many repeating sections, but riffs will repeat for a while with drums and vocals, etc changing overtop of it. Often times it's because it's more complicated or multi-phrase riff, and as such needs more repetition in order to "stick". It also depends on what kind of form is being used -- they sometimes have repeating or alternating sections with numerous sections that don't repeat, so this less conventional structuring tends to require more internal repetition (within sections) to stay and feel coherent and relevant. I find this works well in the genre since it tends to be riff oriented (although they do fill their songs with melodies), but I haven't really figured out how to apply it to orchestral writing. I think more basic writing serves orchestral writing at root -- "colours" don't change very much in a band setting, and as such it's fairly easy to not lose people even if a riff or connected riff structure is more obscure (melodic metal bands tend to do this best, especially Swedish bands). There's a lot more to get lost in with orchestral writing, so maintaining a simple and followable but developing thread makes it feel much more like a journey (you can also take a simple idea much further given the variety of colours available to you).

Alternatively, some bands opt to play too "out there" riffs that don't repeat enough, and others write one "main riff" and repeat it all song long, which I find I burn out on extremely quickly for obvious reasons.

 

It can still work. I don't think there's anything wrong with repetition, and a lot of BM bands used that to create atmosphere. The genre is originally about somewhat stripped-down simplicity. Mostly not my cup of tea but the aesthetic influences that have crept into other music are interesting.

I may not understand this well enough yet, but there's nothing inherently wrong with something growing vertically so long as it goes somewhere horizontally. Mike has videos about presenting a main theme in a variety of different ways (I think it's Mod Squad?) and contexts, but it's essentially the same theme with variations orchestrationally, harmonically, etc. Take i.e. the Fellowship theme in LOTR -- it's presented a handful of times over the course of the films but the theme breaks down and builds in the aforementioned ways depending on what part of the story is being told. You don't really have that kind of flexibility in a band setting.

I think it's because they're not really death metal. They're closer to proggressive rock with metal aesthetics and influences. They don't hook you until they do, and then they really hook you.

Haven't heard them, will have a listen.