# Why does postmodernism and pop rely so heavily on repetition?



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

It sounds simple, but why have we gone down the repetition route in recent decades? Is it a reaction against modern art music composers such as Schoenberg and Stockhausen? Is it an attempt to get back in touch with the general public who were alienated in the first half of this century by modernism?

The same goes for pop music. It now has more in common with the art music of its time than ever before with regards to repetition. I know minimalism is on the decline, but will we ever see another art music composer as financially successful as Philip Glass? What makes repetition so appealing given that it has very little depth or direction?

These are just some of my thoughts on the matter. I'm curious to know what you think and also where you see the future of music going? Has minimalism had its day or will it continue to haunt us well into the 21st century?


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> It sounds simple, but why have we gone down the repetition route in recent decades? Is it a reaction against modern art music composers such as Schoenberg and Stockhausen? Is it an attempt to get back in touch with the general public who were alienated in the first half of this century by modernism?
> 
> The same goes for pop music. It now has more in common with the art music of its time than ever before with regards to repetition. I know minimalism is on the decline, but will we ever see another art music composer as financially successful as Philip Glass? *What makes repetition so appealing given that it has very little depth or direction?*
> 
> These are just some of my thoughts on the matter. I'm curious to know what you think and also where you see the future of music going? Has minimalism had its day or will it continue to haunt us well into the 21st century?


General music listeners aren't after depth and direction, they're after melody, catchyness, pop singers with good voices, lyrics that appeal to them, etc etc.

I don't think most people have enough time to sit down and listen to a 60 minute symphony, or something that requires careful attention to detail.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

People like repetition.










Most music from all time periods exhibits some amount of repetition; some more so than others. If you don't like it, stick with listening to music with no repetition.:tiphat:

Are you sure you mean post-modernism? Most music I immediately think of when I hear that label doesn't have that much repetition, or are you using it as a catch all term for post-Cagean classical music. Earle Browne, Morton Feldman, Cornelius Cardew, Christian Wolff, Mauricio Kagel etc, and yes Karlheinz Stockhausen are what come to mind when I think of the term 'post-modern'. Indeterminancy, open/free form, graphic notation, improvisation and the influence of the visual arts seem to be key ingredients. I see the minimalists as being seperate from this movement, otherwise you'll also have to include any acousmatic/musique concrete composers, and I can't see their work supporting your argument.

From a pop perspective, just think about it. You hear something you like, you want to hear it again. This is just what a hook or riff is to a pop song. This extends to all music too. Imagine if Beethoven had only repeated the da-da-da-dum motif from the 5th once in the work. You'd think why did he create such a great sound and then only let people hear for a few seconds. It'd be a waste. It's just logical that a song designed to be between 3-5 minutes needs to be focussed on the core material and filler is mostly detrimental. The verse-chorus form is proven to be popular so why would a pop musician stray from this formula, especially if it resembles music they themselves love and have grown up on?



EE said:


> I know minimalism is on the decline


Watch a _modern_ movie, TV show or advertisement and notice there is a far greater likelihood of you hearing minimalist or minimalist inspired music than any other classical genre (even more so than Romantic). I hear PG's Metamorphosis #x and AP's Fratres in loads of BBC documentaries.

God bless repetition.:trp:


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Interesting idea, that the repetitive nature of pop music could be seen as a reaction against more sophisticated classical and modern art music..

I think a certain amount of repetition is highly desirable in most circumstances. However, the more you're expected to pay attention, the less repetitive the music will be. The creators of pop music don't expect you to listen very carefully - they expect you to pay just enough attention so that the music makes you feel good. That way they're free to use a lot more repetition.. even if it means banging out the same 5-second dance beat over and over for an entire 3-minute song.

Let's look at symphonies. For late 18th and 19th century classical music, the composers expected that the audience would take the time to go to a concert and listen to the music with their full attention. Symphony premieres were events akin to a new film production. Even then, you'd still hear pretty much the same material three times: exposition, exposition repeat, and recapitulation. However, the exposition contained such a wealth of material that its meaning would likely be lost if it were not repeated at all.

Composers would use other devices to hold the audience's attention and help them to follow the music- as Argus mentioned, Beethoven based the entire first movement of the 5th symphony off of the da-da-da-DAAAA motive. There is no material that literally repeats itself within the exposition itself, but Beethoven uses that same motive in hundreds of ways throughout the exposition to help people follow. It's another sort of 'repetition,' but in a much more sophisticated away, appropriate to the concert setting _where people are expected to give their full attention._


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Edward Elgar said:


> It sounds simple, but why have we gone down the repetition route in recent decades? Is it a reaction against modern art music composers such as Schoenberg and Stockhausen? Is it an attempt to get back in touch with the general public who were alienated in the first half of this century by modernism?
> 
> The same goes for pop music. It now has more in common with the art music of its time than ever before with regards to repetition. I know minimalism is on the decline, but will we ever see another art music composer as financially successful as Philip Glass? What makes repetition so appealing given that it has very little depth or direction?
> 
> These are just some of my thoughts on the matter. I'm curious to know what you think and also where you see the future of music going? Has minimalism had its day or will it continue to haunt us well into the 21st century?


Nice thread. (Gives me more opportunities to bash modernism). Speaking of repetition and drivel, here's an interesting piece by G. Ligeti, _Continuum for harpsichord_ (1968). The interesting part is on this particular performance: it appears to have been performed on a double manual French period harpsichord (probably a modern copy). The instrument itself was more a work of art than the music!

In this case though, I don't think the repetition is that appealing at all; certainly it won't be deserving repetitive listening due to its reptitive drivel.








Argus said:


> People like repetition.


Not always. I doubt people would like the piece I posted above. Maybe you might though.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

The End of the World will soon come! Because Music has no where LEFT to progress to! It's hit a dead end-- oops, now we have to turn around. I hope we have an arevolution soon, where everyone goes back to Romantic musical ideals and beyond.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto, why do you feel compelled to bash modern music at every opportunity? Will such bashing help anyone feel better? Will it make people better listeners? What?

Huilunsoittaja, what are "Romantic musical ideals"? I think you may be confusing the ideals of Romanticism in music with what 19th century Romantic music now sounds like *to us.* (You know, don't you, that in the late 18th century/early 19th century Mozart and Haydn were considered romanticists, in contradistinction to the classicism of Bach and Handel.)

Romanticism as a term for the counter ideas to Classicism is all about revolution, independence, variety, freedom, wildness, asymmetry. What you seem to have a hankering for* is a certain sound, a sound that's almost universally pleasing to us today, but was often heard as rough and harsh and undisciplined to contemporary auditors.

*I'm basing this, you understand, one other posts of yours where you've gone into detail about your likes and dislikes, not from this last post alone.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The End of the World will soon come! Because Music has no where LEFT to progress to!


It is an interesting observation that in Western music, from 300 to the end of the Renaissance the emphasis was on melody; from the Baroque to the end of the Romantic period the emphasis was on harmony (i.e., chord progressions), and from the 20th Century on the emphasis has been on sound (from liberated chords/clusters to sound itself.) Yeah, what else is left? Maybe as Hamlet said, "The rest is silence."


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't think pop music really does repeat as much as some of us would like to think. There must be some subtle variety or it gets stale fast. Even in electronica, you must try very hard to put variations into each bar or you wind up sounding like a tyro. It's the same effect that Mozart's Alberti bass has on me. 

There's nothing like a great riff, but even riffs should not repeat mechanically.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Go to any live concert where a pianist is playing (or watch a video) & if they are playing with sheet music, you'll notice the amount of times there are repetitions (the page turner going back and forth). Use of repetition is not new. Just look at how (say) the minuets in Haydn's symphonies have a ABA structure, the last part being an exact repeat of the first. I mean if I was more knowledgeable about this sort of thing, I could go on with other examples. Repitition has been used in music, classical and otherwise, for yonks...


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Argus - Stockhausen Cardew and Wolff are modernists in my eyes (or ears!) I know the definition of postmodernism is hazy, but I consider the reaction against modernism to be postmodernism (not to be confused with antimodernism). The postmodernists for me are Reich, Glass and Part. The minimalists. Yes minimalism is used in the commercial world, but why to such extent? What's so appealing about it? Why do you bless it? Is it something to do with attention spans or with hypnotic relaxation?

Ravellian - Yes, repetition was used in the baroque, classical and romantic eras, but only in moderation and over long periods of time. It could be ten minutes before you heard the next repetition of a theme in a late romantic work. My opinion is that Schoenberg (who never repeated) alienated his audience who used the repetitive nature of pop and postmodernist minimalism to fill the void left by High Modernism.

HarpsichordConcerto - I think you mistake a continuum with repetition. In Ligeti, as soon as a "cloud" of harmony has been used, it becomes redundant and is not used again in the piece. I like Ligeti.

Andre - Same comments as I posted in response to Ravellian. Was it the annihilation of repetition in classical music that distanced itself with the general public? Did Reich, Glass and Part reconnect with them specifically because of their use of repetition? And did pop music fill the void where there were once symphonies and concertos?


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

Repetition is a tool like any other.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In this case though, I don't think the repetition is that appealing at all; certainly it won't be deserving repetitive listening due to its reptitive drivel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like that Ligeti piece and at a guess I'd say about half of the members who have contributed to this thread would say they like it too. However, like Elgar has said, Continuum is not a good example of pure repetition as it has a lot of change over the course of the piece. Early Philip Glass is proper repetition.



Andre said:


> I mean if I was more knowledgeable about this sort of thing, I could go on with other examples. Repitition has been used in music, classical and otherwise, for yonks...


Exactly. There are enough repeat signs in Scarlatti's 555 sonata's to feed a family of four for a year. I think Elgar is focussing on micro-repetition which is more prevalent in todays compositions, but macro-repetition has certainly been a mainstay of classical form for centuries.



Edward Elgar said:


> Argus - Stockhausen Cardew and Wolff are modernists in my eyes (or ears!) I know the definition of postmodernism is hazy, but I consider the reaction against modernism to be postmodernism (not to be confused with antimodernism). The postmodernists for me are Reich, Glass and Part. The minimalists. Yes minimalism is used in the commercial world, but why to such extent? What's so appealing about it? Why do you bless it? Is it something to do with attention spans or with hypnotic relaxation?


Why use the label post-modern when you are really referring to minimalists. Post-modern is so vague that it includes many diveging styles.

Here's a list from Wikipedia of post-modern classical composers:



Wiki said:


> John Adams
> Luciano Berio
> John Cage
> John Corigliano
> ...


I can see (or hear) no strong thread that bonds these disparate composers together. Avant-garde, experimental, serialist, minimalist, ambient are all equally valid terms for those artists independent from each other.

If we take all these composers into consideration I wouldn't say repetition is common to them all.

Is this repetitious:





Is this post-modern:







> Yes minimalism is used in the commercial world, but why to such extent? What's so appealing about it? Why do you bless it?


Because people like it and because I like it. I don't necessarily like a piece of music just because it is repetitious but it certainly doesn't stop me from liking it.



hocket said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CdlayR1zrw
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good selection and good point.:tiphat:

Consider the bassline in this:





Two chords repeated throughout the entire song, and I think it works most excellently.

Serious repetition:


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Argus - That list from Wikipedia is bunk. Ives is a modernist through and through.

If I could pick out the successful ones from that list however, they would be Adams, Corigliano and Reich. Glass is missing, but he's probably the most successful of them all.

A sonata form is like a continuous, directional narrative, but repetitious music just goes back on itself. There may be joy to be found in such stuff, especially if you like to go into a relaxed trance and shut down. However, this leaves little if no room for depth or intellect. I have no problem with this, but is it really the way art music should be going?


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> Argus - That list from Wikipedia is bunk. Ives is a modernist through and through.
> 
> If I could pick out the successful ones from that list however, they would be Adams, Corigliano and Reich. Glass is missing, but he's probably the most successful of them all.
> 
> A sonata form is like a continuous, directional narrative, but repetitious music just goes back on itself. There may be joy to be found in such stuff, especially if you like to go into a relaxed trance and shut down. However, this leaves little if no room for depth or intellect. I have no problem with this, but is it really the way art music should be going?


That list is bunk because the term post-modern is bunk.

There is no correct way that music should be going. Listen to the music you like and ignore that you don't. There will always be someone doing their own thing apart from the mainstream; endorse them if you want.

You can't be picky about what constitutes repetition. Sonata form is clearly repetition. ABA. Rondo form is also repetition. Macro-repetion - a large part of the piece repeated. You are focussed on micro-repetition - a phrase or motif repeated. Remove your bias and accept the truth that repetition is a tried and tested (and popular) tool/method.


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Interesting idea, that the repetitive nature of pop music could be seen as a reaction against more sophisticated classical and modern art music..


Nah, doubt they care what's happening with art music, and i'm sure if they're aware of say JS Bach, Stravinsky or Wagner they can only dream of having those unattainable 'tools' at their disposal (takes a lot of work to get to that level, and pop artists aren't about disciplined shedding) ... pop/commercial music is a totally different 'game' ... it's trying to reach the widest audience and maximize profits. It's about fun & entertainment ... it's not really about deep music making ... so it's got a different 'goal' & it's going to be as easy to digest as possible and not require any effort on the part of the listener in absorbing. Pedestrian rhythms, simple homophonic song-form structure & having a few simple ideas repeat therefore is apart of that well established (& successful) formula. I like a fair share of well-crafted popular music, at least it's concise & to-the-point ... good for a blast of joy, nostalgia & moving, and the best of it i find is a lot better & more stimulating than most of what I've heard from the art music that is like the aural equivalent of watching paint dry ..


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

Repetition as an active force in music is a relatively recent development in Western music - I can think of a few exceptions where a classical composer repeated a motif or something just one time too many, using repetition to be playful or draw out a cadence or something, but the first real use of repetition actively employed to achieve musical effect is Satie's "Vexations": repetition is, for the first time in Western music, the strongest force at work in a tune. The notes chosen are really secondary to the fact that they're repeated 840 times - when (if) you listen to "Vexations", it is the repetition that is foremost affecting you.

The majority of music does not use much repetition at all - in a pop song, for example, the repeating chords on guitar is not a use of repetition, it's a lack of development (the repetition is obviously there, but it's not actively employed as a musical device; this is confusing, but there aren't unique words for actively employed repetition and repetition that exists as a result of lack of development - for convenience's sake I'll use the word 'repetition' to refer to repetition actively used to achieve an effect in a song)- this 'lack of development repetition' is a technique used in almost all music to draw attention to certain aspects of the music and avoid a perception overload or 'white noise' effect - if all or most aspects of a song are constantly changing, the music becomes impossible to follow, what most people would call, 'unmusical'. A through composed classical piece repeats rhythmic patterns, motifs, harmonies, the same pitches, the timbres of the instruments etc. Any instrument solo repeats at least the timbre of the instrument and the collection of notes or noises the instrument is capable of producing.

Back to the pop song - the chord pattern does not change, which allows the listener to focus on the melody, over a comfortable harmony. This is not a use of repetition, but a use of lack of development. If the chords kept changing, it would be harder to focus on the melody. If the chords and rhythm they're strummed kept changing it'd be even harder-- if the chords, rhythm, and instrument and dynamic kept changing it'd be near impossible (and so on...). Lack of development is a musical device not to be confused with repetition. 

And minimalism, or pieces using active repetition, are working on a completely different aesthetic plane. The repetition of the music again and again can be used to achieve multiple aims: to create a climax, having different phrases of different lengths overlapping in different ways to change the listener's perception of each phrase, to bring out melodies or textures in phrases that were not immediately detectable, etc. Take my favorite piece by Steve Reich, "Come Out". So many emotions backed into one phrase, and the form of the piece gives ample showcasing to each- anger, injustice, futility, revulsion, pain, resignation.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

Interesting comments Poppin' Fresh. I can't help but feel that you're redefining the word repetition to suit your own interpretation but I would at least accept that what you describe does distinguish a couple of different types of repetition -the distinction is valid even if the semantics are questionable. What about imitation as found in Canon or Fugue, and are found extensively in Renaissance music -surely these are a kind of repetition?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'd agree with the member Edward Elgar that minimalism was a reaction against modernism. Pieces like Arvo Part's Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten have been described as virtual declarations of war on atonality. The tonal (or is it modal (?), I'm not quite sure) nature of these kinds of pieces was probably just as much a departure from atonal/serial music that had went before & so was the use of repetition.

To be quite honest, I'm not sure where to next in regarding what's happened after minimalism. My knowledge of the more recent trends is not as good as some members here. Undoubtedly, minimalist composers like Riley, Reich, Glass, Adams, Part & Tavener are now firmly part of the "establishment." Remember, this style or approach is nearing it's 50th anniversary (Terry Riley's piece "In C" was considered the seminal piece, and it was composed sometime in the 1960's). Undoubtedly, even as minimalism emerged, some composers just continued what they were doing before (Elliot Carter for one).

I agree with JMJ that whatever goes on in pop music is largely seperate from classical - different musicians, different audience, different economic and other sources/incentives. But if you said things like rock, hip hop, jazz, even metal - classical influences have permeated those for many years. Just recently bought the second last album of the Gorillaz, and they include in it an (acoustic) string sextet! Even my argument of pop today (what little I know of it) being seperate probably didn't apply in generations past - the key and time signature changes in a Burt Bacharach song can be just as complex as anything in C20th classical. But was he pop or easy listening? Again, it's sometimes hard to draw the line between these kinds of things. There are probably no firm boundaries, there have been (& are) some overlaps, but (on the whole) pop and classical function at different levels. I wouldn't even compare someone like Glass to a kind of popstar, because he has been more than a one hit wonder, and as I said, he's now no longer on the fringes, but part of the "elite."


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

hocket said:


> Interesting comments Poppin' Fresh. I can't help but feel that you're redefining the word repetition to suit your own interpretation but I would at least accept that what you describe does distinguish a couple of different types of repetition -the distinction is valid even if the semantics are questionable. What about imitation as found in Canon or Fugue, and are found extensively in Renaissance music -surely these are a kind of repetition?


Interpretation? I was just pointing out that the repetition deployed in your average pop song or a fugue has a very different purpose than in music where repetition is the driving compositional force, like minimalism or drone or Javanese Gamelan.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

*Poppin' Fresh wrote:*



> Interpretation? I was just pointing out that the repetition deployed in your average pop song or a fugue has a very different purpose than in music where repetition is the driving compositional force, like minimalism or drone or Javanese Gamelan.


...and I agreed with you. I don't think there's any need to take umbrage. It was late last night when I commented and I seem to have not really taken in that you were using a different term for some kinds of repetition only for convenience -apologies for any confusion. I would still suggest that imitation as it appears in Renaissace music is _''repetition actively employed to achieve musical effect''_. So were all the popular music examples that both I and Argus linked to actually -these aren't just 'basso continuo'.

Regarding the view that repetition is only for 'spacing out' to as elaborated by Mr Elgar -do you know anyone who listens to music for the primary purpose of 'spacing out'? I think you're just attempting to reinforce your own prejudices. That Brinkmann could hardly be any more playful. There are some Far Eastern musical traditions that are designed for non-active listening (and some Eno stuff and followers that have taken up that idea -although repetition isn't always a prominent device) but Western music of any type is intended for active listening. The arts, of all kinds, have used variations on patterns as a device for pretty much forever and are very much features of folk and blues as well as more modern popular styles.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

I do think there are different types and different levels of repetition. These are all my own terms and aren't in any way definitive.

The Types

Aside from the obvious pitch, timbral, rhythmic and dynamic repetition, there is _actual_ repetition, _near actual_ repetition and _variable_ repetition. A sample, tape loop or recording when repeated is _actual_ repetition; the repeated signal is a copy moved forward in time. Reich's It's Gonna Rain being an example. _Near actual_ repetition is audible in any composition with a repeat sign in it. Satie's Vexations is an example of this because due to it being performed by a human, each repetition will be slightly different. _Variable_ repetition would be a sequence or a repetition at a different pitch or played on a different instrument; it is aurally reminiscient of the original sound fragment but physically very different. A fugue subject is a good example, as well as various forms of arpeggio when transposed for different chords.

The Levels

Here there is repetition by a source and repetition in the whole. Riley's In C contains both but mainly repetition by a source. The individual instruments (source) may repeat the 53 phrases many times over the course of the piece, but when listened to as a whole ,or analysed on a spectrograph or oscilloscope, there will be heard little real (or even close to real) repetition. Also, the use of human performers inevitably equates to _near actual_ repetition. It's Gonna Rain is similar but uses _actual_ repetition due to the tape. An Indian raga generally features repetition by a source. The tanpura repeats the PA-sa-sa-SA drone to establish the harmonic centre, but over that the other instruments use little rhythmic repetition if a bit of harmonic repetition to remain in the raag or thaat. Repetition on the whole is featured in notated music whenever a repeat sign (or D.C) is acknowledged. Pop music too uses repetition on the whole more so than say jazz, which will use repetition of a source (the chord progression) over which instrumentalists will solo creating difference in total.

An analogy to represent repetiton by a source would be like looking at a pointillist painting or a mosaic up close. It will just look like a lot of multi-coloured dots or tiles. Step back and observe the work as a whole and it is clear it is more than that.

To claim pop and classical (or any other music genre) require or suggest different modes of listenening is unverifiable.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh (Oct 24, 2009)

hocket said:


> *Poppin' Fresh wrote:*
> ...and I agreed with you. I don't think there's any need to take umbrage. It was late last night when I commented and I seem to have not really taken in that you were using a different term for some kinds of repetition only for convenience -apologies for any confusion. I would still suggest that imitation as it appears in Renaissace music is _''repetition actively employed to achieve musical effect''_. So were all the popular music examples that both I and Argus linked to actually -these aren't just 'basso continuo'.


No worries, I didn't take umbrage.

You're right, there is a lot of grey area between repetition used as a musical device and repetition as the result of a different device. I would agree that the imitation as it appears in Renaissance music is a formal use of repetition as a musical device. "Vexations" is the first use of repetition as the driving force of a song, not the first use of repetition as a musical device.

The way Bach repeats rhythmic and melodic shapes to give clarity to his different voices is an example of the other type, what I've been calling lack of development. He wasn't repeating stuff to achieve a minimalist effect - this was precisely what he was trying to avoid, by shifting attention to different voices (even on solo pieces).


----------



## JMJ (Jul 9, 2010)

Poppin' Fresh said:


> Repetition as an active force in music is a relatively recent development in Western music - I can think of a few exceptions where a classical composer repeated a motif or something just one time too many, using repetition to be playful or draw out a cadence or something, but the first real use of repetition actively employed to achieve musical effect is Satie's "Vexations": repetition is, for the first time in Western music, the strongest force at work in a tune. The notes chosen are really secondary to the fact that they're repeated 840 times - when (if) you listen to "Vexations", it is the repetition that is foremost affecting you.


Wrong. Repetition has always been an active ingredient of art music since the very beginning, most prominently in terms of pulse/meter until the 20th century, the rest to a varying degree of course and with musical intelligence, variety & contrast, many musical ideas working together in tandem ... not the kind you get with bare bones minimalist and pop music which use it to a degree that's redundant, boring (sleep inducing) & obvious. Clear cut example, that Satie ... I like some of his music but _Vexations_ = poop.


----------

