I am now reading a book on music which amongst all things speaks about repetition in music and explores why music of many so-called primitive cultures is repetitive and why a lot of modern musicians are returning to repetition.
Before I share the most curious information from that book (it is written by a very known Russian composer and thinker, Martynov), I would like to address this question to everyone here, specifically:
1. What do you think are the origins of repetition?
2. What role do you think repetition plays or may play in music?
1. rhythm and/or good chain of melodies. (when we didn't had instruments, we did sung vocal stuff, but it's the same generally)
2. well mostly lazyness/out of structure ideas. It's much easier to do monotonic repetitive stuff, than trying to bring something new and variable all the time to the listener. Most hardest is to make those variable stuff blend together, and still sound seamless.
1. Repetition has the benefit of getting you to learn a song quickly, and the pattern you use in your song can easilly be recognised as your song. People hear a fragment of your song and they instantly think about you.
2. See 1. X)
The questions seems to be able to be considered on many levels. Any way: repetition has been used in shamanic religious rites as a transportation to other states of consciousness. I think there is a lot in common with electronic music and tribal music in this sense, that repletion is used for a "hypnotic" effect on the listener. In my world, techno is close by as a reference.
The origin of repetitive music is probably a fascination by humans in a primitive and rhythmic simplicity, which in itself is the origin of music itself I believe. Think of the heart-beat as the primal beat of existence.
(cleared out a few typos)
1) I agree with LPChip
2) I agree with LPChip
I wrote a blog post inspired by this subject. It can be read here (http://suecae.blogspot.com/2009/06/tribal-roots-of-electronic-music.html).
I hope that this discussion will continue, and that I will be able to read more about Martynov's thoughts.
I haven't finished reading the book yet - it is very complex meaning that it is a lot of information which needs processing and that takes time.
However, here's what I already know and what was new information to me (although I never considered repetition in general to be "primitive" in a sense of poor quality or any other negative sense).
In the earlier world music was not considered to be an expression of human feelings - music was viewed as a method of correlation with cosmos and it's base sounding.
For that reason the whole thinking about music was different. The goal was not to create a unique or original composition, the goal was to try to be as close as possible to the canon, which were archetypes of what was believed to be the sound of cosmos. These archetypes, usually very basic and yet very fundamental, were often repeated - repetition here was not only (and in some cases not at all) a method of putting one into trance, but a focus on a musical archetype, a focus on the canon and correlation with it.
As with many things about early periods of our civilization, things are not as "primitive" as we often believe them to be. In fact, lots of things our ancestors did they filled with profound sense and interconnected together.
In our present culture it is considered to be a talent if you go as far away as possible from the archetype - basically, new things are valued. In the culture of our far away ancestors this was viewed as great loss of contact with the cosmos. But yet I underline again - music was viewed as something completely different - a path, not entertainment.
Actually, such views are not as old as one might think - Romans, for instance, did not welcome new music and chromatic music was considered to be not beautiful. It would be superficial to consider this to be the result of a habit, let alone fashion.
Anyway, these are very small excerpts, I do hope I was able to pass on the idea.
The main idea of the book is "The end of times of composers". From what I told you above you might understand what is meant by that - that the method of differing from the archetype is coming to an end and the music turns back to what it was in the early times in form of minimalism, repetition and such stuff seen as a strong movement and direction of the modern music.
There )
And here is the person himself playing the new type of music. Don't ask what it means yet - I am less than 100 pages into the book =)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U86ymu5zZdA
I dunno, music is a form of expression (like drawing for instance) and i don't like the idea of simplicity and minimal-repetitive stuff (not speaking about quality, i've heard a lot of nicely made minimal music, they are just not me, that is all). Layered, complex and variable what is appealing to my ears, they are keeping the mind locked and focused to the music all the time. You can listen to them all the time, dig into the background, hidden stuff and find something interesting with every listening, because the brain is slowly catching up with the layers, and separates them.
Music is a form of expression today. Do remember that music is viewed very differently even today in the east. Our culture, at least western one, is very individualistic and disconnected from nature. There is no need now to judge whether that's good or bad, but this is how it is and it is very difficult to understand what other ways of living there may be. So do not be quick to dismiss the beauty of correlation with the cosmos.
Also, I do not believe such music to be dull. It is canonical, not necessarily minimal or always repetitive. Repetition is not as simple a technique as it may seem.
Quote from: "psishock"I dunno, music is a form of expression (like drawing for instance) and i don't like the idea of simplicity and minimal-repetitive stuff.
To me, minimalistic music is more about just keeping the essence of a piece than about repetition. But all good music needs repetition; be it a motif, a chorus, a steady beat or a bassline. How else could one get into the groove? ;)
Repetition is the basic of musical sound. Without repetition of a waveform, no sound at a certain frequency.
Repeating patterns is another thing, of course percussion is a very obvious way.
But also repeating vocal choruses can bring a certain 'groove', like african children do.
Whether repeating a pattern will lead to boredom or a kind of trance, depends on the quality of the pattern.
If it's not leading into a trance, then the listener will get an urgent need for a change.
So this asks from the composer a clever play of dosage. When to apply some change or not.
To avoid this point of boredom (so causing a 'mind-zap') the composer has to play with the tension.
Random things cause a need for a repetition, repeated things cause a need for a change.
Some really deep thought here LV.
I need to ponder it - and I see very much the point of how music was a means and not an end. I have not heard of this point of view before but the truth seems self-evident now I have heard it.
I respect the thinking of our elders and I think there is much wisdom to be found.
And this fits into your idea of the composer not owning the music.
As I said deep thought required.
Here's my opinion. I'm going to answer in reverse order, because I think #2 is needed to explain #1.
2. Music cannot exist without repetition. For something to be "musical", it must at least have rythm, or some degree of something recognizable as rythm. And rythm implies repetition. That's why primitive music was repetitive. It is natural that the first music that existed concentrantes in the very feature that causes a group of sounds to be recognizes as music. Of couse, someone may collect a number of non-repetitive, non-rythmic sounds and say "this is music". The question is: would someone else, without being told that that is music, recognize it as music? I think not?
1. I think the question is about "repetition in music", not repetition in general, right? And I think that the origin of rythm, which implies repetition, is the origin of music. When someone started repeating patterns, knocking stuff rythmically, music was born. Music and repetition have the same origin ,because the former cannot exist without the latter.
Additional comment: too much repetition is boring. However, repetition is necessary. Good music requires a balance between repetition and variation. That's why a lot of music is based on varying themes, thus imitating without exactly repeating. The mind is rewarded when it expects something to happen and that happens, but it also likes to be surprised from time to time, and it also likes to find repetitions with subtle differences.
There's an iteresting book on the subject of how the brain processes music. It's called "This is your brain on music". It combines information on music, acoustics, psychoacoustics and neurology.
In short:
Repetition is the image of eternity in music.
Music try to express man thoughts and feelings, so there is a need for both repetition and variation.
Hey guys!
I am reading the book.... it is difficult to explain what I am reading in short, but it is very interesting and as Chris said as I am reading it, I get the feeling I already knew that. I think it comes from indeed certain things being in us, just unexpressed.
Anyway, Martynov goes further by saying that the main difference between a traditional person and contemporary western civilization person is that the first person views existence as correlation with cosmos, while a western person views it as history - by history it is meant that in a mind of a western person existence is viewed as a process which is "explains everything" and which is a movement of humanity in a certain direction. In the first case the cosmos is a self-sufficient entity, while in the second case the cosmos is just the stage upon which history is unfolding.
So, the method of a traditional person to bring order into his life is a ritual - which is repetition of an archaic model. The method of a western person is revolution - that is, innovation and trying to differ from the archaic model. In first case we have traditional non-composer ritual music, in second case we have composer music.
From the point of view of a traditional person, composer music and innovation are not good - because to him this is the loss of correlation with cosmos.
In the western culture innovation is cherished.
However, because differing from the archaic model cannot be forever - that is, sooner or later all the differing will be tried - composer music has a life span which has come to its end.
Now, I haven't read further and explanations of why it has come to its end, what next - all of that lies ahead.
Also, I did not mention that he also describes a third variant - apart from traditional music and composer music he views religious singing. Those three types of music are independent, irreducible to each other and are based on three different types of looking at the world.
Anyway, I hope all of the above was interesting and understandable. Of course, do keep in mind it is all very well described in the book, I am posting conclusions only.
I'm lost here - lost here - lost here - I'm - here - lost - ---- - here
Isn't being at one with the cosmos - that is traditional - actually religious? So I see no distinction between those types.
That is what I understand to be the (good) meaning of religion - making one's self at peace with creation because creation and God are a unified whole, more or less.
I think there is a lot that can be learned from the First Peoples - the Native American way of thinking about the world points to a sustainable and ecologically sensitive culture. I think that is something we all could learn from.
We could indeed. A higher being is not that important, they believed in the sovereign nature as itself.
So no claim on some square acres of soil to be called a possession by someone.
So if it's nobody's, no fight can emerge, like with the silly temple struggles in the middle east.
We could learn from the Abo's, who would declare some area in the landscape, a mountain or so, 'holy',
but at the same time declared the area forbidden for human beings. Let nature rules there.
So no fight about the rights by someone/something...
Quote from: "uncloned"Isn't being at one with the cosmos - that is traditional - actually religious? So I see no distinction between those types.
Martynov does make a distinction (which I also do agree with). But it is delicate.
Basically, it comes from the New Testament and makes cosmos and correlation with it not the goal, but a means of becoming closer to God. While in a traditional way correlation with cosmos IS the goal in itself.
I have to look into the book and reread it carefully, but there are many differences. Actually, the New testament even says that too much enthusiasm of correlating with cosmos can lead away from God, as people who do that do gain wisdom, but in that wisdom they may not manage to reach God, thinking it is enough.
Also, religious way as given in the New Testament sort of adds personality to the world, while cosmos is impersonal and to some point even mechanical, just like sound waves. So if in the traditional way of life cosmos is music and the goal is to be in that music, in its rhythm, the religious way treats that music not as a goal, but as a canticle to God.
Repetitive stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhBoR_tgXCI&fmt=18 :D
A man, a mike and a loopstation, pretty sick.
Nice bumping. Psi.. Pretty sickness..
Another side of repetition : not only rhythmic patterns, but also the echoes of sounds.
Thanks Psi - I love the sax - excellent.
and the vocals are really good as well
but this is NOT mindless repetition - it has a purpose - the piece develops - the vocal and sax drive it forward - the beat is just the backdrop for the rest
you're welcome guys, glad you liked it.
Quote from: "Sam"Another side of repetition : not only rhythmic patterns, but also the echoes of sounds.
good point Sam. I loved it, when he purposely added tape delay from time to time, to make the sound more richer.
Quote from: "uncloned"but this is NOT mindless repetition - it has a purpose - the piece develops - the vocal and sax drive it forward - the beat is just the backdrop for the rest
Exactly Uncloned, the artist have used the repetition as a backdrop, and made everchanging, carefully composed variations with vocals and sax to the song, that will keep the interest of the listener 'till the song lasts. Just like any modern artist would do. I've picked this piece because its a good and simple example for a good combination of repetitive and variable material in a song. There are more styles, that depends even less to the backdrop repetition, or even the steady rhythm, like piano plays for instance. I've heard pieces that are (almost) without any repeating parts, with very variable playing speed, and are still very nice to listen.
Actually, why does everybody think that music should necessarily be moving forward?
Also, tell me why is mindless repetition bad?
because we didn't stuck on the tree, or caves holes, and started to think for our own. Started to develop our mind, expressions and technology. Moving forward is the key, influencing, and helping each other, bringing innovations and interesting advancements to our lives.
Stuck in a place, mindlessly cling to "something" really wont get us nowhere.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"Actually, why does everybody think that music should necessarily be moving forward?
Also, tell me why is mindless repetition bad?
the usual name for the problem here is "boredom"
also remember - there is a whole world of music out there and a whole world of musical taste to go along with it
for every pro there is a con
for every con there is a pro
jing and jang theory isn't it? :D
And lots of Abo peoples use various drugs which of course makes repetition more acceptable if not desirable - like many non-abos do now.
If one is to *listen* to music I think repetition or drone becomes less acceptable to many. I know the women in my family generally expect "good" music to grab them immediately. They have no patience for long development be it simple or complex. The difference is between classical symphonies and punk rock.
Hmm. Women and repetition .. I'm afraid to get OT here.. :)
Drugs may be stretching the time before boredom, not sure. It could also lead to more concentration power,
as in my case, so it's no problem to stay focused (if I choose to) disregarding if new things happen or not.
perhaps I should add - that the Abo's drugs are also a means to obtain the oneness with the cosmos - drugs/music/dancing - all part of the package - I'm not sure, upon reflection, if the author of the book LV is reading should divorce (as far as I understand) one from the other aspects.
I'm not denying your experiences - but the position of the author is making generalities I'm questioning.
The problem with the analysis of cultures of the past is that we try to judge their actions with our thinking. This is one of the most serious and yet very common mistakes people make.
The general belief that technology is progress and that living in a cave is less cool then living in a luxurious house with Internet and all that other technology - but this is just our way of thinking. We've seen how differently one can look at a simple thing as innovation. Imagine people living in an absolutely different mindset. Their values can be very alien to ours.
So we do not know what the direction towards technology and our way of thinking gave us and what made us part with. This is a very important point, think about it.
The simplicity of the earlier civilization should not necessarily be looked upon as an undeveloped complex civilization of today. Simplicity has qualities and properties which are lost in the transition to complexity, although complexity does give more freedom and more possibilities, but all those possibilities stop embracing the whole of existence and instead have a smaller field of operation. (uh oh, I hope I am clear on what I mean).
So I would look at the earlier world as a phase which is unreachable from today and a mindset that is hardly reproducible today. And thus all our judgment of earlier civilizations should be limited and will always have a big portion of errors and misinterpretations.
Even the differences between nations are so big that people can't understand each other at all. They are like aliens. A good example is a French movie Fear and Trembling (Stupeur et tremblements).
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"The problem with the analysis of cultures of the past is that we try to judge their actions with our thinking. This is one of
So I would look at the earlier world as a phase which is unreachable from today and a mindset that is hardly reproducible today. And thus all our judgment of earlier civilizations should be limited and will always have a big portion of errors and misinterpretations.
).
We can tap into the existing aboriginal cultures to get some understanding.
Is it good to call earlier cultures "simple" ? - surely in terms of human interaction there were as complex as contemporary cultures.
Yep. Is the conversation between two blackbirds just a simple twitter, compared to our human grammar ?
As I am reading further into the book its more and more difficult to summarize without raising too much questions on your part, guys, questions that can be answered only by reading the whole book.
Besides, the book isn't about repetition anyway, there are just interesting thoughts on repetition.
As for what I think about repetition is that it is not as simple a matter. In the above posts we've seen how it can be a very serious and intended thing. Repetition should be handled properly.
Repetition is the core of things. Look around - there are never truly singular things in the world. One exact star is unique only in the combination of certain properties, but it is one of many other stars. Same for all phenomena we see around - it is always a variation of one model.
Repetition becomes boring only if the listener awaits entertainment. If his attention is tuned to change - repetition will seem boring to him. However, if one is attuned to another mode of perception, the one that does not favour, require or mark out change, repetition will be normal space of existence.
Another interesting thing about repetition that I'd like to share is how it requires the listener to "work". When a listener is exposed to changing music, he is passive - he is being entertained and he needs not do anything. But if he is exposed to direct repetition, he becomes active and starts supplying the change by his perception. With time his perception changes, it's as if he is holding the sound in his hands and turning it around and trying to cast light on it to see how it changes and starts to move in the rhythm of repetition and in some manner tries to become one with it, to tune to its rhythm and frequency to understand it, experience it, to move with it.
As an example, please try this tune:
http://www.louigiverona.com/files/serenade1.mp3 (11Mb)
It is direct repetition, but if you start listening to it, you will soon notice that it does give you development. And your ears, your mind become active members of this development - you become involved into the movement because it invites you to by not delivering the change, and instead asking for you to deliver it.
I've listened to the piece, liked it, and after a very short time already got some ideas for nice solo melody to it, some chord strings and structure changing variations. But that's because we are composers, i'm having those ideas popping out from my head even if i listen to more developed pieces. If a common ear would listen to these repetitive, basic form pieces, they most likely will find it boring after a short time, shouldn't expect from them to start composing, developing the song further in their heads.
Merlin's Magic - The Heart Of Reiki (originally over 1hour long, but we have a 10min fragment on youtube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWvS9llbSJ0&fmt=18
This is basically a very calm, repetitive, but yet charming and variable enough piece, for most ears to enjoy.
About repetition and the universe, well we are living in the nature, but somehow we are not entirely part of it, mostly because of one main thing. As long people can think for their own, they can choose to differ, to have their own, new ways. One can interpret the "music" (chains of sounds) in any form, entertainment, relaxation, aid, self expression, are one of the most common.
QuoteAbout repetition and the universe, well we are living in the nature, but somehow we are not entirely part of it
This is exactly the mindset which I am speaking about - the mindset that is so different and that tends to consider humans not part of the Universe.
Quoteand after a very short time already got some ideas for nice solo melody to it, some chord strings and structure changing variations. If a common ear would listen to these repetitive, basic form pieces, they most likely will find it boring after a short time, shouldn't expect from them to start composing, developing the song further in their heads.
But this is not what I was speaking about at all. The development of this piece does not mean that in your mind you should develop it literally - melodically. Try to listen to it for what it is. Try to understand it just like you are listening to rain, to a waterfall. Do not focus your mind on the need of direct variation. I am not sure if I can explain it any further.
Quote from: "Louigi Verona"QuoteAbout repetition and the universe, well we are living in the nature, but somehow we are not entirely part of it
This is exactly the mindset which I am speaking about - the mindset that is so different and that tends to consider humans not part of the Universe.
ok, here I understand this point - the Christian POV is to reject this world for the next.
It is a pervasive POV in western society.
NO, I didn't mean it in that way. If there is such a POV and it thinks it is Christian, then it misinterprets religion in general. It is not something that you use to worship the future and instead reject the present. This is actually closer to Indian philosophy.
What I was referring to was that in the past people were more keen on being one with the existence, nature, cosmos. Today people do the opposite - they define themselves by putting themselves away from the existence, by trying to change it.
If anyone wants to discuss this and feels that the forum format is too rigid for that, please feel free to suggest Skype.
But seriously LV - I was raised a Catholic - you are taught to put off the pleasure of this world for the next and partaking in most of those pleasures is a sin of some sort. The Amish (and others) take that a step further and reject all (of what they define) as technology.
And First Peoples did build things and changed their environment. There are lots of examples of this. Even animals will change their environment - like beavers building dams, termites mounds, ants and rabbits underground habitats.
The New Testament is largely misinterpreted as the whole religion is. Again, I feel that a forum is a wrong place to discuss this simply because it is too much to type, but to try it short - the world pleasures should not be rejected, they should be used as means to come closer to God. Saying that they are not worthy is not right. And this is not just my opinion, but... too much background and explanations to do for a forum, sorry %) This is an interesting discussion though
QuoteAnd First Peoples did build things and changed their environment. There are lots of examples of this. Even animals will change their environment - like beavers building dams, termites mounds, ants and rabbits underground habitats.
Having to change an environment and having a mindset of requiring revolution, change as something that defines your life are different things. This is what I mean.