TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Theory: Less repetitive music = More repetitive listening
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I'm not saying they don't. But poppy music is still more likely to use one-off elements, such as a guitar solo, a middle eight or a distinctive intro.

can you name some of your favorites? just to see how you are defining pop music?

I would say that your theory applies to my own experience.

In my own listening practices, super repetitive tracks tend to be reserved for very particular moods, and usually once at a time. The music I (re)listen to the most frequently is usually more song-based music of shorter length.

The drawn-out tracks are nice for certain specific moods I might have. I would think of them more like minimalist paintings or specific colors inspire a narrow but intense resonance. Without the right mood, the tracks tend to be unfavorable or boring even - if it's repetitive, it's got to be just what I want to hear at the moment.

Club tracks can be very fickle like this.

The things I listen to more frequently tend to be the music I would classify simply as 'good'. Music that always hits the spot or resonates with me no matter what my listening circumstance or mood is.

I also tend to listen more to entire albums on repeat than individual tracks, which means that individual tracks in the albums get higher play counts than they would if I didnt have the album.

Music that is shorter and sweeter tends to encourage me to want to immediately want to listen again, as if I can't get enough of the feeling.

I also tend to like to listen to extended sets of music than individual tracks. In general I don't favor listening to something over and over again - I think as a DJ I can't help but hear a song and then feel inspired to place another song after it which compliments the previous song and takes me somewhere else, or builds something, compounding and elaborating on the theme or mood.

quote:

Originally posted by sandstorm03 can you name some of your favorites? just to see how you are defining pop music?

Wasting half an hour listening to this tracks has reminded me of another thing: I don't listen to much pop music, but the few pop songs I do like I really fucking like.

i like this passage from Hazrat Inayat Kahn's "Mysticism of Sound & Music" as much as it relates to what I was talking about specificity of mood in repetitive tracks.

quote:

Mahadeva made his instrument as a help for the human body and mind, considering its condition in the morning, in the midst of the day, in the afternoon, in the night and when waking at dawn. He found that at every time of the day and night a particular effect was made upon the human body and spirit, and that a rhythm akin to that particular time should be prescribed psychologically and mystically in order to elevate the soul. And therefore a psychological science of music was made by Mahadeva, a science which was called Raga which means emotion; emotion controlled and used to the best purpose.

Intersting topic.

I wonder if it's because poppier music generally has something catchy like a melodic hook or a chorus, which you only hear a few times in the song; whereas more repetitive music, and in particular, electronic music is more consistent throughout the piece. So, rather than getting your fix only once or twice in a few miniutes, for repetitive music it is more constant and therefore you don't need to replay the tune as often.

I thought about this yesterday after you posted it and I still have no clue. pop music of the most formulaic kind is very repetitive and is given far more repeated play by the common person* than the so called ultra repetitive music (dance music or un-danceable minimalist type music or hypnotic type music) listened by the so called enlightened person. this is just elaborative bull saying, well I still have no clue.

jack you said "But poppy music is still more likely to use one-off elements, such as a guitar solo, a middle eight or a distinctive intro."
I usually find that it's this part of "pop" music that is usually taken out of it's context and looped up and made into a ultra repetitive dance-music track.

like i heard Abba's 'gimme gimme gimme' on radio recently but i came in right around the breakdown halfway in, and i as sampling type producer just thought. wow. that's amazing, never noticed that before, someone needs work that into it's own groove.



*even though a lot of these people don't really have a specific taste but follow commercial radio and tv. my younger sister for instance, who even though has a particular liking of stuff still has 30 tunes in her spotify playlist and are plowing through them everyday.

quote:

Originally posted by montana my younger sister for instance, who even though has a particular liking of stuff still has 30 tunes in his spotify playlist and are plowing through them everyday.

I meant her.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles When I think of non-repetitive stuff, I think of epic things that move through a whole bunch of different melodies and moods, like a symphony or multi-part prog rock track. So it would be the opposite for me.

I think this is in line with my own thoughts.
I didn't really think of ultra-repetitive and repetitive, but just repetitive (ultra-repetitive included) and non-repetitive.

In general I think people just like repetitive tracks more.
EDM tracks which were successful in top40 often were/are very repetitive IMO.

daft punk begs to differ

Agree, although I listen to alot of repetitive music too.

It's less about what is more repetitive, and more about what has been manufactured for him to enjoy(pop) his entire life versus his will or capability to find/understand something more.

quote:

Originally posted by montana jack you said "But poppy music is still more likely to use one-off elements, such as a guitar solo, a middle eight or a distinctive intro." I usually find that it's this part of "pop" music that is usually taken out of it's context and looped up and made into a ultra repetitive dance-music track. like i heard Abba's 'gimme gimme gimme' on radio recently but i came in right around the breakdown halfway in, and i as sampling type producer just thought. wow. that's amazing, never noticed that before, someone needs work that into it's own groove.

This is what I'm getting at. If someone sampled the break of Gimme Gimme Gimme and made a dance record out of it, you'd hear that part for six or seven minutes non-stop, and when you'd finished listening you'd probably be happy. When you listen to the original it plays for a minute or so, and so if you really enjoy that part of the song you probably want to go back and play it again to hear that moment.

This is the basic idea of sampling/looping culture: to take those special little moments of records people love the most, and make them the basis of the whole track.

quote:

"I think we are trying to do that more and more now," says Sandison. "I like to think that where we are going is trying to compose totally horizontally. The vertical way of composing is the lazy way, where you just build stuff up and build stuff up, and then just bring them in and out. I think the way we work is so much more orchestrated, so that you can hear something that just happens, and you want it to carry on because it's so tantalizing, and you want to hear it again and again. We both understand the principle that if you put something beautiful into a piece of music just once, it makes people put the record back on because they want to hear it again." "Someone criticized me once," recalls Eoin, "and asked why we'd made 'Roygbiv' so short. For us, that is exactly how long it should be. It's like that famous bit at the end of 'Strawberry Fields' by The Beatles, where you get the little voice at the end that says something like 'I buried Paul,' and it happens once, and it's such a transitory thing that's mixed in one ear really far away, but people went on and on about it for decades." "You know," Sandison says, "if a contemporary producer, with that kind of '90s or 2000 mentality did something like that, it would be going 'bang, bang, bang, I buried Paul' over and over again all the way through it, and you would never want to hear it again.

http://fredd-e.narfum.org/formerboc/interviews/

I don't think the vertical loop-stacking methodology is necessarily inferior. It's so common in dance music because it works better on the dancefloor, and there's a huge amount of ultra-repetitive ambient/drone/etc. music that uses the looping well. It's all about picking the right methods for the intended effect.

The problem is when musicians and producers use it all the time without thinking of the intended effect.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles http://fredd-e.narfum.org/formerboc/interviews/

That reeks to me of the protestant work ethic.

I've long felt that this kind of horizontal composition is has its origins of protestant religious song tradition.


Why does music have to be hard work


I agree with SYSTEM-J that one is not superior to the other. They really serve two different functions.

In a way the DJ set comprised of vertically composed music is a kind of extended version of one orchestrated horizontal song.

If I look at the songs that always top the end-year top something thousand lists here they are always the songs that have changing, somewhat unrepetitive structures. Examples:
Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, Meatloaf - Paradise by youknowhat and similarly ancient rock songs which, despite their age, can apparently be listened to over and over again by the most people. That might support the theory.

As for myself, according to my last.fm the most I've ever listened to a song is 15 times. And I can't say they're unrepetitive. But then again 15 times isn't exactly a lot. I always wondered when browsing through other peoples profiles why it is so common to listen to tracks or albums many dozens or even hundreds of times. I can't ever see myself doing so, because I can't fathom the thought of there not being something else out there I should be spending my listening time on. Although I won't deny instrumental albums get very repetitive after too many listens, but that may just be a mind set.

Sorry for raising more questions then answers.

Actually, now that i'm thinking about it. You say you don't listen to pop music much, which makes me think you don�t own much of it in comparison. If you'd have had a much larger collection of equally good pop music, would that mean the songs you mentioned would be played less?

I kinda agree with your theory, but I find it hard to explain it why, because "less repetitive music" refers to objective criteria whereas "more repetitive listening" refers to your own tastes and experience.

What is hard to explain is the link between the structure of a song and your own taste.
Imo it can be explained by 2 highly correlated factors:
- culture: what makes you like the song now, appreciate its originality, the emotion in it, etc.
- the objective quality of the song: there are no "scientific" criteria but you can build your own typology of "what a good song is in 2010". I can see 3 main factors: rhythm, melody and harmony (timbre is less important imo). The good combination of the 3 makes the quality of the song.
On a related issue, what we call a masterpiece is a song that transcend at least one of these 2 factors.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld Actually, now that i'm thinking about it. You say you don't listen to pop music much, which makes me think you don�t own much of it in comparison. If you'd have had a much larger collection of equally good pop music, would that mean the songs you mentioned would be played less?

Well I don't own much of it because I don't think most of it is very good. And such is the nature of pop music that there isn't really an underground pop scene full of great pop I haven't heard that, music that does pop in a way different to the pop I've heard on the radio.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well I don't own much of it because I don't think most of it is very good. And such is the nature of pop music that there isn't really an underground pop scene full of great pop I haven't heard that, music that does pop in a way different to the pop I've heard on the radio.

Italo disco?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This is what I'm getting at. If someone sampled the break of Gimme Gimme Gimme and made a dance record out of it, you'd hear that part for six or seven minutes non-stop, and when you'd finished listening you'd probably be happy. When you listen to the original it plays for a minute or so, and so if you really enjoy that part of the song you probably want to go back and play it again to hear that moment. This is the basic idea of sampling/looping culture: to take those special little moments of records people love the most, and make them the basis of the whole track.

I totally agree, word for word.

I was recently listening to 'The Smiths - Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want', and there's this 10 sec hook that I found myself rewinding and listening to over and over again. But it's not a conscious decision either, at least not until I look at the play count and realize that I've listened to this track for the 25th time.
And the repeats are mainly for the hook, not so much for listening to the track as a whole.



0.26 - 0.34

But in addition to that, I'm also looking at a list of my most played tracks and my number one is Modjo - Lady (Hear me Tonight),which is easily one of the most repetitive tracks; we're talking about a 5min track made of a looped 5sec guitar sample. But I imagine there will never come a day where I'd get sick of it - as simple as the melody may be.

quote:

Originally posted by QWERTY13 But in addition to that, I'm also looking at a list of my most played tracks and my number one is Modjo - Lady (Hear me Tonight),which is easily one of the most repetitive tracks; we're talking about a 5min track made of a looped 5sec guitar sample. But I imagine there will never come a day where I'd get sick of it - as simple as the melody may be.

Sampled from Chic - Soup For One, where it plays in a similarly repetitive manner. I think disco is a blurred line between pure pop and the longer, more repetitive grooves of dance music.

Although I prefer my disco without the Italo.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Sampled from Chic - Soup For One, where it plays in a similarly repetitive manner.

right, which seems to be common to house hits:
Supermode - Tell Me Why entirely samples Bronski Beat - Smalltown Boy
Eric Prydz - Call on me samples Steve Winwood - Valerie
Reflekt (feat. Delline Bass) - Need to Feel Loved samples the strings from Thomas Newman - Ghosts
etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Bierheld If I look at the songs that always top the end-year top something thousand lists here they are always the songs that have changing, somewhat unrepetitive structures. Examples: Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, Meatloaf - Paradise by youknowhat and similarly ancient rock songs which, despite their age, can apparently be listened to over and over again by the most people. That might support the theory.

But then again there are also repetitive tracks which are very old and still get played over and over again, or not?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Well I don't own much of it because I don't think most of it is very good. And such is the nature of pop music that there isn't really an underground pop scene full of great pop I haven't heard that, music that does pop in a way different to the pop I've heard on the radio.

Yes, but that's not the point. Assuming you listen to EDM more then you listen to pop, there might be other reasons why you personally have high playcounts for pop(ish) songs. Doesn't beat the theory, but i dunno, something about it just doesn't feel right to me. It's too arbitrary and there'd be too much exeptions.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.