-----Original Message----- From: jesse henning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Friday, June 23, 2000 5:36 PM Subject: [313] the appeals of repetition...
>I am presently working on some psych-socio theory on repetition in music and >why its an attractor to some, and an utter bore to others. I was wondering >if there is already some theory, be it music theory and/or psycho-social >theory, in which asks and solves this question... > >What I am avoiding is the usual answer of "its in your heart...", ect. I >feel that there is a more concrete explination to this appeal, we as >arttists tend to be dramatic and vague, i wish to define... As Otto wrote not long ago, in brief, "good luck defining anything". I think I may be offering an oversimplification, and I know you're looking for theory, but I still think it's an interesting topic for the list. I've noticed the preference for repetition seems to be all about having a sympathetic ear. Sometimes you need to acquire the sympathy for repetition through hearing the music in it's proper context (who wants to listen to Mills through a laptop speaker)? Once you let yourself feel the groove and become receptive to the intoxication of repetition, everything else falls into place. But most of us don't start out liking repetitious music because we've already built a core understanding of what sounds "right" to our ears, and it takes some acclimation to the new sounds, or destruction of our preconceptions before we can let the new style in. Very few people hear repetitive music before they hear less repetitious, or poppy music. Then again, there are other people with critiques as simple as, "I don't like music without words". I think you also have to consider whether or not hip hop would fall into this category, where the music is very repetitious, but covered with ever-changing lyrics, structurally similar to pop music. Granted, there are some people who have been exposed to tons of it, and simply don't care for it, and from my perspective, it seems they are being rigid and closed minded, but there's no accounting for taste as they say (like the guy who used to work in a record store here who got pissed off any time co-workers would play anything electronic, yet was exposed to tons of it). And matters of taste are inherently hard to analyze anyway, particularly in terms of rigid personality classifications, that in my mind are fitting only via the questions asked, and not as a true description of a person's character. Then again, I hate objectifications, and behaviorism in general. For instance, how on earth do you put a degree on someone's level of introversion/extroversion without considering the social context and how that context effects a person's core of experiences, let alone classifying someone as being introverted or extroverted period. OK, I've strayed. If anyone wants to engage me in a psychological debate, I'm available off 313. None of this even considers what type of repetitious music the listener has been exposed to, to what degree, and what "objective" quality standards you can impose on that music. Tristan ========================================== PHONOPSIA<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Lounge/5102 "FrogboyMCI" on AOL Instant Messenger New Album, "Québécois", online now. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
