[discussion] repetition - its origins and role in music

[Louigi Verona]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

I'm lost here - lost here - lost here - I'm - here - lost - ---- - here

[uncloned]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

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...

[Louigi Verona]

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.

[psishock]

Repetitive stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhBoR_tgXCI&fmt=18
A man, a mike and a loopstation, pretty sick.

[Sam_Zen]

Nice bumping. Psi.. Pretty sickness..
Another side of repetition : not only rhythmic patterns, but also the echoes of sounds.

[uncloned]

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

[psishock]

you're welcome guys, glad you liked it.

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.

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.

[Louigi Verona]

Actually, why does everybody think that music should necessarily be moving forward?

Also, tell me why is mindless repetition bad?

[psishock]

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.

[uncloned]

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

[psishock]

jing and jang theory isn't it?

[uncloned]

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.

[Sam_Zen]

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.