Bingo! Bingo, and further more; bingo. Let me also say that I agree with you and think you are completely right and that nothing you said in your sentence was wrong. When you are right you are right and you are right! Should I maybe agree with you in Latin and Korean as well or would that be beating some poor dead horse here? But anyway, you make a good point about him making the same point over and over again, and have I said bingo! yet?
The problem with modern pop is it feels "good." Bohemian Rhapsody takes me on a journey and not all of it feels good. There are bitter and sour notes. Like gourmet food.
Your analogy, it's like comparing wallpaper to paintings from great artists. Totally different purpose, totally different product. However, the well of brilliant (often way left of mainstream) music nevertheless runs very deep, and potential for discovery (of artists past and present). You could spend a lifetime excavating and listening, and still so many stones would be left unturned. I like to consider this more positive message whenever I get depressed thinking about the average consumer's musical interests.
There is no pain present in the kind of music you're alluding to because it's marketed and sold as musical prozac to subdue and mollify the exploited working classes. It's just a cheap, cringe-worthy spectacle on one hand; on the other, there's the more anonymous "elevator music," pre-fab playlists for a morning jog, buying groceries, pumping gas. It is by design that the product is sanitized not to contain any jarring or distracting "bitter" or "sour" or otherwise dissonant content; the product is engineered to avoid any challenge or distraction to its user(s), therefore it would not be serving its intended purpose. Like wallpaper is made to be seen rather than observed, the record industry cartel's music is made to be heard, rather than listened to, or explored, or grappled with.
It's sort of like fast food, cheap, plentiful, ubiquitous, and it appeals somehow to people's most irrational, base urges even despite knowing on some level that it's "bad." Even if they enjoy it on some level (i have no idea how...), most would acknowledge it is not "good" per se, even though they admit to "liking" it. I think when it comes to music, this principle does not apply for people; what one "likes" and what is "good" are seen as synonymous, no matter how uncompromisingly vapid the music. Ok no more analogies.
If you look at the chart and compare it to eras considered to have produced some of the finest music ever you'll see a surprising trend of repetitiveness falling.
O_o if it wasn't catchy no one would listen... Like no one. Not you, not me, not the next door neighbor. He's right, and he's done the research, repetitive is catchy. You can't have a song all over the damn place without rhyme or reason. It can't start one way, suddenly swap a different, then end in something completely different from the first two. No one would listen. Period. It goes for everything, from classical, to current age. Moonlight Sonata is very repetitive. So is pachelbel's canon. It's the same set of notes, over and over and over again (I rather enjoy both pieces of classical music). Today it just has words to it now.
@@KadeSmash I don't know a single cellist or even a single experienced violinist who likes Pachelbel. (Not that I'm disagreeing. Just adding that for the musician, repetitive can equal boring)
He missed a major point, although he's right about the repetitiveness. A song like Bohemian Rhapsody could be analyzed and interpreted deeply in terms of it's story, meaning, and feeling expressed through it, whereas the Beyonce song can be reduced simply to "girl power!" It's not the repetition that frustrates critics of modern music, but the lack of raw, authentic feeling in an original and compelling style that the listener can truly connect with and feel. Even simple melodies and simple lyrics can do this, but songs about the club and cliche catch phrases simply don't. Repetition isn't the problem, it's the content.
If you want to know about that part, it's been proven new music has started to make songs louder by modifying the lowest parts of a song to amp up the volume a little bit, and it ends up taking a lot of details that you can't hear anymore. And that's BAD, it's like desaturating a picture, eventually it becomes a gray tile.
@@tvnorminstudio3080 well now that's not entirely true. I'd like an analysis about why billie eilish is so popular and how she's seen as a counterculture hero
This, exactly. For some reason music is this 'but everything is subjective' thing whereas every other art form, including cooking is at least open to some sort of objective interpretation. You might like fast food and that's ok, and fast food has a really interesting process and history behind it and it works, but you'd be damned if you could convince chefs that it's holistically great food. Having a little fast food every now and then (or pop music) is fine but most people who listen to pop are restricted to the same old formula.
Seriously. I love at the end where he says "Music ain't what it used to be, but maybe it's better" and he's standing in front of Freddy Mercury and Beyonce Knowles! Too much ear-candy can rot the brain...
"Around the world" should not be treated as lyrics, as vocals, but as a rhythmic part of instrument, which this loop sample actually is in this context. It's not a vocalist singing a song with three words, it's electronic dance music with composition and rhythm based 100% on cut short sound samples.
I tought the same about treating "la la la la la la la la la" as lyrics - to me that's more just a melody, sung by a human, than actual "lyrics". "La" is not even a word, what does "la" mean? Nothing, there's no such word. If I'm humming some melody, that's not lyrics. So "la la la la la la la la la" is not "lyrics".
@JM Coulon Exactly! So many times explaining "why they sing that way you cannot even understand the lyrics" because it's not about hearing the lyrics, if you want to know what they sing just check in a cd cover, on google or ask them
I thought that too. "Around the world" isn't a lyric, it's a sample. It's essentially an instrumental song. Then again, the video is more about mathematics and algorithms than it is about the actual percieved decline of creativity in pop music.
It really irritates me when people assert that the lyrics are the most important part of music. Instead of the actual music, which is what distinguishes song lyrics from poetry. Repetitive GOOD music is enjoyable. What we get today is repetitive music of an extremely poor quality.
@LegoGuy87 I don't care about inane lyrics if the tune is worth listening to. Good lyrics are just a bonus, but good melody is an essential in most cases. I don't even like most of Bob Dylan's original songs, due to the lack of a melody, and usually find that the covers are better. 21st century pop just has nothing going for it at all, and even if they had Bob Dylan quality lyrics, that still wouldn't compensate for the terrible musical quality.
@@micgooflander95 What do you mean about Bob Dylan songs lacking a melody? Covers of his songs still use his original melodies. Anyway the part I really wanted to reply to was the phrase "What we get today". There is so much good modern music, and its never been easier to access it and discover it. Its totally up to you to find music that you enjoy. You dont have to listen to any music you dont like. Theres no single type of music being served up for everyone. I could never stand to listen to radio music for example, but I never would so its not an issue.
@@NowhereMan7 The original songs don't generally have much of an instrumental arrangement. I have heard very little good music from the last 2 decades, although admittedly I don't go out of my way to hear a broader range than what usually plays on the radio, in supermarkets, etc. Usually when someone recommends some good obscure music, it's just as tuneless as what you would normally hear on the radio, but perhaps without the 'millenial whoop' considering that it's not composed by committee with input from focus groups.
@@micgooflander95 yeah the early 60s songs are almost all just acoustic guitar and harmonica and vocals. Still have vocal melody though but I can see how he's not for everyone. I actually prefer 70s Dylan albums with a full band myself
If we are talking about songs - yea, lyrics matter. Just like without music rhymes are just poetry. The same way music without lyrics is just music, not song. But at the same time we can make a song without any music(acapella). So yea, lyrics matter for a song.
The Beatles' first release, 'Love Me Do' is one of the most repetitive songs ever, as is the song from which it is loosely derived, Buddy Holly's only slightly less repetitive 'Peggy Sue'. Both are immortal. 'Love Me Do' has just one verse of four simple syllables per line, with the verse repeated six times. It has an equally minimalistic bridge and no chorus.
@pietkrijger When I was younger I wrote poetry in german that tried to incorporate expressionism from fien de siecle and stuff from authors like rimbaud and baudelaire... now im all about that gucci gang... (not anymore thiough - thats songs alsomst a year now :P) dunno... maybe ive had a strong decline in intelligence but .... then again... gucci gang was good!
Lol to all these people in the comment talking about how they listen to superior music, yet Gucci Gang is still objectively better than whatever their favourite song is.
I liked the analysis in one way, but it's very strange to focus purely on lyrics. The melody and rhythm are just as important and tend to be even more repetitive than the lyrics, even in songs with great lyrical diversity. So the whole analysis is a little misleading imo. For example, Hit me baby one more time's stresses are more to do with the rhythm and the melody rather than the lyrics behind it. If I were to guess (and I'm 90% sure) I would say the melody was written first in that song, and then the lyrics were written after. So the analysis of stresses on the lyrics are a little misguided, you could have totally different lyrics in those parts, and the stresses would be the same in order to follow the rhythm and melody. Let's not forget that even bohemian rhapsody has repetitive verses in terms of melody and rhythm, and it definitely has hooks and repeated elements (the piano riff being the main one) even if the lyrics are mostly unique.
Hit me baby one more time was written by Max Martin, a songwriter that is notorious for writing the melody first and then making everything fit to that melody. So you're probably right.
Good point. Still you can't really blame him for that. It's always better to pick a focus first and then compare it to others in order to get a wider picture, because you can only take so much into account in one study. Otherwise your paper is gonna lose on accuracy and detail.
And modern pop is more complex in ways any sort of music ever was since the beginning of time. Texture and tone and beat are so much more complex in modern pop than orchestral music which is extremely similar from one to the next. I didnt see him analyze lyrical content of choral music from catholic masses from hundreds of years ago. Kyrie e leison the whole song. Or all of the music that only say alleluia over and over
I think the big thing missing from this and many of these style commentaries is that this is not a sign of music or even pop music getting worse. What we are seeing is the emergence of a new genre: corporate pop. In recent years we have seen a shift towards heavily manufactured music being the mainstream, rather than an artist with a voice. That meme just shows that despite there being 5 times as many people involved, it is nowhere near 5 times as good.
Hey, can I steal that genre name for private use in conversations? because honestly Corporate-Pop(or Corp-Pop) perfectly describes the condition of the music industry of today.
"Corporate music" has been with us for fifty years now. Ever since Woodstock lost money for the festival organizers but made millions for Warner Bros. as a movie and soundtrack album, corporations have gotten more and more involved in all aspects of the music business as time passes.
Corporate Pop has been around for decades. The Brill Building in the early 60s was basically a factory full of song writers.Tin Pan Alley was a street choc full of publishers churning out commercial music from way back in the 1880s.
Funny how he picked that Britney song, written by Max Martin. Max Martin who happens to be the writer of most of the recent top pop songs. There IS a reason music has become more repetitive and it ain't because we like it.
Exactly. And I might add that the sum of music can't be characterized by its lyrics alone. The music itself is being dumbed down. It is much less intricate.
i think the point he missed was that it’s not just the lyrics that make pop music so repetitive it has a lot to do with the chords used and the arrangements of such. if you listen to pop songs without words many of them sound exactly the same. He totally glossed over that and i think he did it because it would have proved him wrong lol. Pop music is getting worse and it’s not a good thing.
I don’t see how repetitive chords are sow different from repetitive lyrics. Most likely they are also a product of highly skilled professional, trying to produce most likeable music by the average consumer. If you want to change it, you should consider consuming (using money) music that you enjoy.
Pop songs usually follow the same structure, he goes over it - verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, and chorus. Every chorus chord progression will probably be identical, lyrics and all. Using lyrics is a good measure, but he could have used chords. Either way, lyrics are weighted a lot because even the compression algorithm showed that "Around the World" by Daft Punk was the most repetitive song. Agreed, a lot pop songs use G - D - Em - C, but you're arguing similarity and not repetitiveness.
I feel his analysis is fundamentally flawed. He is only looking at the lyrical content and not the rhythmic and harmonic devices which have been the key contributors to how degraded today's music has become. There's also a trend in recording today that makes everything sound similar to everything else. There was a time in history when radio shows were programmed by the hosts and disk jockeys and they weren't afraid to take chances so there was more diversity and variety. These days everything is very calculated.
Not everything, there's alternative radio station which was actually the first private station around here and it has still a lot of variety because it's selected only by independent DJs, moderators, and hosts. They still manage to showcase upcoming music which may not be mainstream popular but it's interesting and good quality, yet still remaining unique. In this age to remain at least somewhat unique you need to have some amount of complexity and try to take on composition in untraditional way, using unusual instruments and techniques because everything simple has been done and repeated several times already. This can't be captured from only counting similar words in the lyrics. There's plenty of good new music but it stays relatively underground.
@@jan.tichavsky Sure, of course you have Public Radio, College and Private Local Stations and if you can manage to get promotion and publicity through that, it would be quite the accomplishment, although it does happen every once in a while. I am speaking of about the major networks of the big cities in the United States which rely on advertising to keep them in business.
You know why everything sounds the same? Because it is all in bloody english! How many foreign languages have ever made it to the US top 100? Music already is a lingua franca in itself. The english-ization of today's music is commercially understandable, fits repetitiveness and monoculture.
What this guy is saying is pretty cool and it's interesting to see new ways to visualize and interpret songs. But I'm of the opinion that pop music is degrading not necessarily because of the quality of the content that's being put out but primarily because of the intent of the songs that lead to the quality of what's being put out. Pop music is very clearly being treated as an industry run by people who are mostly motivated by money. They've found a method for economic success by means of exploiting the mere exposure effect leading to only promoting songs that sound like other songs, have a lot of repetition, etc. and then essentially brainwashing the public into thinking that those songs are good because they play them everywhere at all times. I would like to see what pop music would be like if it wasn't run by people like that.
This has been happening for as long as there has been pop music though; it's not a modern phenomena. Look at the Brill Building writers from late 50's early 60's for example. But, music isn't run by "people like that", it isn't run at all in the way you suggest, because there are other artists out there that do it very differently; in other words, those making the music he is describing in the video, are not preventing other syles of music from being made. The real issue is presuming that the only purpose in making music is to gain fame and untold wealth, but really, music exists independently of those things. The proliferation of repetitive pop music does not halt the individual creative process that enables musicians to produce diverse forms of music.
Convincing the public that a song is good because they play it everywhere, isn't possible, per-say. When you hear a song playing in the store, or on the radio, can you tell if it's cheap? Because I can, and everyone I know can. People can tell when a song is bad. Saying that "Those People" are brainwashing the community is a falsehood. What he said, about people enjoying repeating songs, is true. The majority of people I know enjoy repetitive songs. The record labels and the producers take advantage of that. They have found a way to make money, what's wrong with that? Also, you would be surprised by how many artists write their own songs. Take NF for example, he has some reasonably repetitive songs (Hands up, If you want Love, Just being me...) He writes his own songs. The label gave him a contract because they saw an opportunity. Faith Marie writes her own songs, and 98% of her songs are repetitive. Your argument has several flaws, although I see where you are coming from. But why should that stop us from enjoying songs like Bad Blood or Cheap Thrills?
Music is not just about structure, but originality and creativity. Nowadays pop music is a *product,* not a piece of original art. It's *designed* to be consumed and discarded right away. It's not fair, in the slightest, to be compared with Queen, which music creation was driven by truthful spirit of art.
And Bach's Masses weren't a product for the church to be consumed on a Sunday and then discsrded? Shakespeare wrote plays to be performed in front of paying audiences. Product. Michaelangelo was commissioned to paint the Sistene Chapel. Product. You're criticizing art as "bad" based on the perceived motivation behind its creation. Form your opinion of art based on its own merit and how it makes you feel regardless of how it was made.
A work of art is supposed to be a work to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power, but some songs or pieces of music are trite -- they are "junk" rather than "art". But the existence of the junk shows me how very grateful I can be for the good stuff -- like Händel's Messiah and Haydn's Die Schöpfung.
@@Jinni_SD It must be a symptom of my tendency towards attention-deficit disorder, but what you said reminds me of food -- "form your opinion of food based on its own merit and how it makes you feel regardless of how it was made".
I wouldn't say "nowadays". The fact is there has always been commercial pressure and the interest of patrons who make the art possible. The extent of that design, the enormous level of competition, and our knowledge about writing effective earworms are all new. The dollars funding the artwork are not.
When he uses "hits" to measure song quality or likeability, he sets up a false foundation. Songs do not become "hits" because they are popular. They become popular because they have been paid into the status of "hit". This was true in the 60s, to a lesser degree, and is more true now. You can't argue that "hit" songs are more liked due to their repetition because songs are chosen to be "hits" before listeners even hear it.
And "hits" these days are only so because as Thoughty2 pointed out in his video - The Truth Why Modern Pop Music is so Awful. Is that it's essentially brainwashing.
@@alienspacebat5218 It's not a conspiracy theory it's just business. Music that is highly marketed is more commercially successful. As with any product, if it weren't so marketing wouldn't exist.
IF "everyone loves repetitive music" 7:11 (yes i quoted him) then why is 'Bohemian Rhapsody', a song which has no chorus, verses and virtually no repetition whatsoever thought of as the greatest song of all time and is still extremely popular to this day
@@kradicalkaymeom2969 The fact that 'everyone likes repetitive music, he translates that from the scientific research mentioned, does not exclude the fact that a lot of people name bohemian rhapsody the best song. Almost everyone I know likes the taste of crisps. But if you ask everyone what the best tasting food is, it would probably not be crisps
Sort of how like how explosion-filled action movies sell better than many oscar-winning titles or well-written books do not sell as much as many teenage love stories. Nothing wrong with that, neither of them are objectively "better". I think there will always be a divide of consumers of culture and media between the simple hedonistic consumer and the analytical consumer/collector.
His argument falls flat on the dunning-kruger effekt. People having less understanding of something and liking it out of plain ignorance isn't universally just "better". It's like saying we should go back to using leeches for every ailment instead of modern western medicine and saying "you know what. since people seem LIKE the idea of leeches, perhaps it's just BETTER?"
@@collectorduck9061 Even though I do like music with complex content, and not regarding only the lyrics specifically, I can't say your example is very accurate. Contrary to medical treatments that often provide objective data, music is almost completly subjective. So naturally, opinion matters. Everything can be good and bad, depending only on listeners opinion. If many people think a song is good, then given subjective statistical standard as a measurement, it is. I wouldn't say Dunning-Kreuger is as applicable in such a case either. Complexity is also very undefined here, and does not equal to good production quality in any way. For example: "Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis confirmed a separation of the polypeptides." or "Hi" are both complex statements, and the filter used and task at hand will decide which one is more complex. To find a pattern in 2 letters is very hard to do, for instance, and it might also be the sum of a long assumed context of thought. I do wish music was not simplified, because I like metal, blues, jazz and so forth, but there will always be a market for that too. Don't worry, just make an effort to find what you like and it will be there :)
Exactly. Catchiness is addictiveness, and the same analogy applies to Little Debbie cupcakes vs gourmet cupcakes. Which is bought more often? Yet we know gourmet cupcakes are higher quality...
Not only that but also the assumption: what is popular = what is good. He literally brought nothing to the table, his whole argument is "pop songs are good because they are popular." But no-one is arguing that repetitive songs aren't popular, quite the opposite, really.
Songwriters are giving producers what they want and the producers are giving audiences what producers think will sell. Audiences listen to what producers give them because they are generally too distracted by life to seek music beyond what’s on the radio or on their Spotify playlist. This feedback loop feeds on itself like an ouroboros until music becomes nothing but single word repeated over the same four-chord progression that too many modern songs already use. The issue not being addressed in this talk is the lack of melodic inventiveness, which is an issue in modern music, especially if you listen to rap or hip hop.
You got that right. There are many good things that come out of pop music, but there is so much profit driven "music" that lacks the true elements of music that short changes the public from a higher level music and more variety. Music has been turned into a competive sport on TV. All razzle dazzle ad glitter and no substance. The folk singer or jazz trumpet player is out of work....Repetition is only one tool or trick in music than can be used in music. What about melody, harmony, tone quality, rhytthm variety and style, musical form - outside of the common song form, dynamics ranging from loud to soft, ritardando (slowing down) the algorythm study does not address the whole picture and is lacking in full scope of the musical preference mind control problem in this country. From a former music teacher.. .remember, commercial music is an industry for profit...not to enlighten or to educate or necessarily broaden your musical horizons. Of course I am preaching to the choir here lol.
When I was young, we actually used to listen to music. That is to say, we'd put on an album and pay attention to it for an extended period of time (usually the album side, around 20 minutes) with actual concentration and focus. We found this rewarding because we appreciated the depth that went into the compositions. I am referring to album-oriented-rock -- the Dark Side of the Moon, Close to the Edge, In the Court of the Crimson King. People will not take the time to do that these days; they "listen" thru cheap earbuds on their phones while they are going about their daily lives, thinking about what they need from the grocery store, that kind of thing. No concentration is given, so music which doesn't require concentration is what becomes popular. It still has less substance, IMHO, but who's going to listen to substantive music these days? Sheesh, you kids. Get off my lawn!
Those cheap earbuds probably have better sound quality than the sound system you had when you were young and listening on the go does not preclude paying attention. Granted, the people who are paying attention to their earbuds are probably mostly listening to audiobooks, but that's because tuning out music is an effect of bad music not an effect of multitasking.
@@nathanbrown8680 Cheap earbuds do NOT sound better than headphones from years ago. There is no evidence to support that. Pop music to me is not bad because it's repetitive..it's because it is not really relevant to me anymore. It seems that we have just about reached the end of 4 chord songs. I like the new electronic beats, there more to explore.
Anyone ever listened to the radio and thought: "Man, I don't like this song.". And then you hear that song multiple times throughout the day/week/month. The song gets stuck in your head at some point. You get the urge to listen to the song for satisfaction. Do you genuinely like it then or have you been brainwashed? Any thoughts? I'm curious. Thanks :)
It doesn't really happen to me. I don't get an urge to listen to it. Even if I download it anyway, I end up listening to it only once or twice and then forgetting about it. conversely, I might hear a song that's somewhat good. I download it but then I realize before long that it's not really all that good and I forget about it too. So, I'm hard to impress.
The problem for me is that lyrics in pop songs don't relate to my life experiences. The compositions are generally hideous because they are extremely disposable and the concepts are painfully simple. Pop music is just not my cup of tea in general. Sure some songs are "fun" but it doesn't strike me deeply and I disagree that repetitive songs are memorable for a good reason. They are memorable because there is hardly anything going on. Guess people just want mathematically catchy songs in the background while they are honking their horns in traffic.
and it puts people in a hypnotic trance or makes them angry. Science has show this and the ancient greek even knew this to some degree and would imprison people for doing it.
They like catchy background noise, and sometimes a track they can sing along to. But they listen to "music" very casually and never really take a moment to analyse and think about what they're hearing.
I completely agree with you! I lent my phone to a friend on a long train journey after her ipod went flat once. Watching her face as she explored sounds she'd never even imagined before was great fun. Her finding out that Prince (as great as he was) was not the only multi-instrumentalist in history, and that funk-fusion was a style he explored with others, and that is still being explored today was amazing. But finding her still actively exploring the boundaries of her own (very different to mine, but now clearly owned and enjoyed) musical taste was priceless. I wish more people could experience the joy she now gets from the music she loves. Even the weird awkwardness that comes with showing each other our newest audio love affairs only to cringe at each other's god awful taste is fun!!
Ah, the good old "X vs Bohemian Rhapsody" example to show how repetetive music has become. This example has kind-of lost its power. The example I know compares Queen to Justin Bieber, and it goes like: Baby, baby, baby ooh Like baby, baby, baby no Like baby, baby, baby ooh I thought you'd always be mine (mine) ~ Justin Bieber - Baby, My World 2.0 (2010) Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see ~ Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody, A Night at the Opera (1975) And then you simply pick two different examples: I just can't sleep tonight Knowing that things ain't right It's in the papers, it's on the TV, it's everywhere that I go Children are crying Soldiers are dying Some people don't have a home ~ Justin Bieber - Pray, My Worlds Acoustic (2010) Sweet lady Sweet lady Sweet lady... stay sweet Stay sweet Oh, run away Come on Yeah yeah, yeah yeah Sweet lady Wooh ~ Queen - Sweet Lady, A Night at the Opera (1975) And there goes your point by showing that you're just cherry-picking your examples to "prove" it.
Actually it doesn't because the Queen song may repeat words but not inflections, it's not just repeating, it's spoken words over a chorus and solos. There are plenty of repetitions in 70s rock, but it's way more dynamic than the copy pasting we are seeing today. Not only that the point of the original comparison is to compare two widely popular songs. Where you selected whatever would prove your point. I'm not saying you're wrong but you're not playing by the same rules here.
@@RupeeRhod I was illustrating the point that one can't make a point regarding a trend by comparing two more or less arbitrary examples. So you are right in a sense that while the example "Baby vs Bohemian Rhapsody" alone is not suitable to prove the trend, "Pray vs Sweet Lady" alone is not capable of refuting it. Luckily he used some more sophisticated methods to analyze the repetition. On a side note, while "Sweet Lady" may not be comparable regarding popularity, "Bicycle Race" from 1978 somewhat is: Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle I want to ride my Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle I want to ride my bicycle I want to ride my bike I want to ride my bicycle I want to ride it where I like ~ Queen - Bicycle Race, Jazz (1978) The best thing about this talk is that the methods he used are useful to investigate other aspects about repetition. What I think could be interesting to look at as well is to have all songs from various artists printed in those self similarity matrices, and then lay those images out in a grid in order of the songs' appearances. I wonder if you could see that former artists had less of a universal pattern they always stuck to compared to modern artists, where every song could be structurally more similar to the others.
@@zenithquasar9623 I did. I know it is not the only example. I'm not even contradicting his point, I'm just objecting to this particular method. I love the compressabilty metric and the self similarity matrices though, those are quite clever tools to use.
He did take this into account by compressing 20k songs. The compression algorithms will give him the amount of repetitiveness over time. I don't think you really paid attention to the video.
Take away... Colin Morris leaves out the intention of a contingency of industrial complexes to condition consumers through repetitive media products like "pop music" (but also repetitive themes in films, commercials and news propaganda) to be emotionally influence consumers to the point of neurochemical imbalance resulting in their habitual conditioning resulting in consumers consuming more and objectively thinking less. This is a brilliant study with a limited contrived feel good conclusion.
Funny- I’ve always preferred instrumental music. It’s funny how people think words and lyrics are the main part of music. Try listening to King Crimson instrumentals.
Tried it and I have to say that this is why i read the comments, I'm always hoping someone backs their opinion with actual data to prove their point. You sir, have proved your point.
King Crimson instrumentals would most likely perplex most pop music listeners... Maybe Discipline could win some over with its 4/4 beat hidden under all the polyrhythmic grooves. Then again probably not...
I am a 64 year old journeyman musician who has played top 40 for 50 years. I was SO ready to bash this but as I watched it I was fascinated by the lengths Colin went to; employing new techniques to an ageless discussion. There was a book published back in the mid-60's called TWILIGHT OF THE GODS. It was fascinating in the same way - a massive deep dive into the historical musical patterns ascribed by "scholars" vs. the notion that maybe, just maybe, the writers wrote it the way they did because it sounded good. I actually really enjoyed your presentation Colin!
Respect for your journey, Sir. I'm also (not that long as you) a musician and I enjoyed to watch new approaches to discuss something that seems to have no answer. Even if I have some points on his speech, like the way he put the ostinato - what obviously is so much more important in a context of a Bach's mass than being the whole structure of a pop song - it is important and desirable to have new possibilities of think the music we listen to (or the ones we do not). Pleasure to share those feelings. Cheers from Brazil.
The thing is that people ignore the change in listening habits. In the 60s people still collected disks and sat down to listen to the music (later cassetes or CDs). Nowadays, people do 100 different things while the music is blaring in the background from their phone. Complex music can be distracting while simple repetitive music is not. So perhaps the change in preference is also partly due to this change.
It's one of the reasons why the few folk songs we know, among countless we don't, are remembered for centuries. Repetitiveness makes catchy. Celtic folktunes for example have the same melody for verse and chorus, and sea-shanties are one line verses, with one line choruses. The term popular in pop music means folk. It's the same thing, the music of the masses.
Great analysis! I loved the way you thought about this subject and how you employed such interesting tools to dissect and deep dive into it further. I may not necessarily agree with the final conclusion :) but I definitely LOVED the analysis. 👍🏾
I was reading the comments looking for this exact sentiment! The presenter definitely didn't focus on the entirety of the elements of music, like rhythm and meaning, but the element they did focus on and the techniques they used were really cool! Thanks for being nice on the internet!
I don't think it's the repetition that annoys me as much as the topics of the song. Like I really don't care about Taylor Swift's failed relationships.
America says we love a chorus But don’t get complicated and bore us Though meaning might be missin' We need to know the words after just one listen so Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff Repeat stuff, repeat stuff, repeat stuff - *Bo Burnham, Repeat Stuff*
Not only for this reason. It's because before pop music were made by using actually real instruments like guitar, keyboard, drums while today music is made using a computer. Everything is artificial now...
I basically break down music into the “At home” listening experience and the “Public/event” listening experience. When I’m at home I prefer more complex and introspective music. When I’m in public like a festival/bar/club, I prefer more simple and repetitive music. It can be hard really enjoy introspective or lower BPM music in a public space. Both have their place for me.
They are catchier, not better, I vastly prefer the song on the right to the song in the left, bohemian rhapsody is excellent, there is a line where a song becomes far too repetitive, I’m a millennial yet I believe that music is getting worse, it depends on how well the repetition is used, as well as the actual notes being repeated, not just how many times the same sequence occurs.
@@Chierushi (Apology beforehand for the unintentionally long paragraph) It's something you can't understand unless you expand your horizon in what your listening to. I could sit here and explain how absolutely simple and lazy the lyrics are, how overdone the melody's are, how manufactured and uninspired every hit is nowadays. But you wont agree at the moment. People only like repetition because most of the population likes stuff that sounds like other stuff they already like, and are afraid or (unwilling) to jump out of their bubble of only top charts music. That's why pop music is popular. They don't feel like there's any reason to expand because they're perfectly comfortable where they are. But for those who DO take the time looking for other artists/genres that aren't on the top charts... they find themselves enjoying music a lot more and will never go back to listening to only top charts music. Their tastes have (evolved) if you will. For example if you're only listening to top charts music, you're only listening to like a max of 10 artists and probably only certain hits off of certain albums from each artists. But once you expand... You'll have like 100's of different artists you know and even listen to certain artists entire discography. Your love for music has evolved. And more people should do this. It'd give actual talented artists and bands more attention and it'd show that talent should be cared about more than just Looks and auto-tune. Modern pop sucks most of all in my opinion for it's thievery of fame. Leaving all the other artists and bands to crumble and rot away never to be remembered by anyone except their small following.
@@Chierushi What I said was partially in jest but most of Pop music today is unoriginal, lacks almost any kind of decent timbre, and is made for musically unsophisticated people who just want something catchy they can dance to and don't really have to think about it. Now that's not to say that there is no talent in write a super catchy "ear worm" of a song that can sell millions but that fact that music has come to the point where all you need is some kind of synthesizer computer program and a few words and THIS is what most people want to hear is just plain sad...and is thus, why most modern pop music ultimately SSSSUUUUUUCCCCKKKKSS!..But we have to blame the average listener more than anything since its their lazy ear that is leading to this generally inartistic, musically unsophisticated junk on the radio.
@@JRHockney "Some kind of synthesizer", "lacks decent timbre"? I can already tell you know nothing about pop production, it's one of the hardest genres to produce for and it definitively has the most diversity of timbre of any genre. Most genres use the same instruments over and over, pop uses all those instruments and everything else, too. Go and try to make "some synthesizer" sound good, lol. What a load of rubbish.
@@SubscribersWithoutAnySubscribe I may not have direct experience in 'pop' music production but being a musician myself, I know a thing or two about timbre and musical creativity and I've also spent time in the studio. But the reason I even brought up Timbre is because of a video I saw not too long ago that talked about how researchers seem to think the height of musical Timbre within pop music recordings being back in the 60s and its gone down hill ever since. Look up 'The TRUTH Why Modern Music Is Awful' by Thoughty2 here on RU-vid and I've seen similar TED talks that talk about this as well. Granted, looking back at the video, it appears to be talking more about Timbre 'variety' and I'm not sure which researchers he's using but my ears tend to agree with its conclusions. I'm sure you pop producers spend alot of time making sure your interesting and weird keyboard sounds are crisp and don't sound like they came from an 80s walmart keyboard but in my opinion (which is admittedly a bit oldschool), its still sounds synthetic and played out to my ears even if the tone itself is higher quality than it was 10 years ago.
Isn't modern pop music written by a couple of people now-a-days? I think he fails to address the problems with the modern music industry, and the conditions of what makes the "Top 10" has changed drastically over the years.
That moment when you realize being an intellectual doesn't equate to being wise... or human even. Let's face it, the guy's persona reeks of cognitive technical overload. I would otherwise wonder what musical instrument he plays, but I honestly don't see any evidence toward that type of expressive personality.
Reasonable thesis, but one dimensional. Modern pop is driven by the bottom line, $$$$$$$, hence the reduction of risk and homogenisation of pop music. he is right, there is nothing wrong with repetition, but there are many more aspects to modern mass produced pop that have eroded creativity and force fed the modern youth with what the industry wants.
To play devils advoacate, isn't that a motivation for a lot of musicians? Even people we look at as classic artists, did they always play the creative route and never go with something just catchy? Were they always challenging norms and creating something new? And who is to say that modern songwriters are purely doing it for money? Is it fair to say a songwriter who has made tons of money will always keep just writing songs purely for money? Will they never want to try to experiment at all and put something creative in it? That they have no creative ideas they want to express in any sort of way? I mean money can corrupt but to pretend like it completely squashes out any creative ambition or drive out of someone seems like an over reaction.
I found that he went in-depth on this topic. The impact of money on the music industry is another topic. I agree with what he said, listening to pop songs shouldn't be a guilty pleasure. Not taking risks is often what corresponds well to the majority of people, which is why pop songs make so much money in the first place. I am all for experimenting with music but I don't think we should shun producers for following a template that people like and will give success.
I disagree sort of- there were a lot of artists emerging from soundcloud and other platforms that were marketed way AFTER they did their thing in primitve matter and had success! A lot of forced stuff fails at teh end to gain the same sort of mass appeal!
Using a phrase like "the industry" is largely meaningless when the way that people [especially young people] consume and enjoy music (thanks the internet, youtube, spotify, soundcloud, bandcamp, etc. !) is completely different and divorced from what it was not even 10 years ago. You're a little out of touch and late to the party with your criticism. It might have been more valid in the 2000s but now it's completely different.
I like how some people may say to me that my taste in music is repetitive or that I like listening to "repetitive" just because I like trance , drum and bass and breakbeats are the same people that love pop music and will listen to the top 20 tracks over and over again.
The problem with repetitive songs is not only that they lack depth, but they sound the same. There's also a big difference between a song that literally repeats one or two lines throughout the whole song and a song with a repeating chorus.
I'd love to see him apply his algorithm and self-similarity matrix to other genres of music. That would be fascinating to me. Also, I think it would be cool if he somehow managed to apply the same ideas to the music (melody?) to see what happens.
It seems like you could make MIDI files of the notes in a song, perhaps with a bit of quantization applied judiciously and accounting for "swing", and then run those through the compression test. Perhaps normalizing the notes to convert the time offset into the song into an offset within the current measure???
Right?? take let it be for example, the words "let it be" repeat 4 times (I think) in the chorus, but that doesn´t mean the chorus repeats four times, because the melody for each time "let it be" repeats is different.
@Renzo The words "let it be" are repeated 5 times in each chorus. And even though they change along with the melody, they are still repeated exactly the same way every time the chorus is repeated, so the song has to rely on its variation of instrumentation and gradual build in intensity to keep the listener's interest.
If the brain gets fed with repetitive, thus "comfortable" songs... doesn't it stop being stimulated? In comparison to listening to a song like Bohemian Rhapsody, where it is "surprised" by changes in rhythm etc...?
Using Bach's Mass as an example is sorta disingenuous. That piece of music is close to two hours long and goes all over the place. It's also held to a physically imposed structure. The Latin Mass. The song does what it does to fit the timing of actions inside a rigidly defined ceremony. Yes, there are repetitive parts, because the ceremony is repetitive in places and the song is meant to mirror what's going on in reality. For all intents and purposes it isn't a song, it's a musical score. The very first musical score. It's also wildly inventive with chord substitution. The brain gets caught listening to a particular key in this case Mass is in B Minor, but it's not always playing it straight. It'll jump from key to key in repetitions to keep the listener interested. It'll play something close to the original variation outside of the way we're expecting to hear it. Not to mention it's an orchestra piece, so slapping up any particular snippet of sheet music doesn't really have anything to do with how it actually sounds as a finished product.
Michael Holloway Wow it sounds like you really know your stuff! Thanks for saying what needed to be said! Do you have anything explaining those types of pieces in more detail?
@@luismerces6479 Best answer, listen to Beethoven's 5th. It's wildly famous for a reason. Objectively and cynically, the entire thing is 4 notes. Mostly. The big deep 4 notes the french horn opens the piece with the lower register of the string section acting as a fill, then it moves to high strings, wind, and even timpani as the piece goes on. All repeating those 4 notes. But, and this is important. None of it sounds the same. Because Beethoven constantly moves from key to key, instrument to instrument, up and down the register. We never stay with anything long enough to get bored, for it to be repetitive. It speeds up, slows down, sometimes the 4 notes are played light and airy, other times with the sound of a thunderstorm. To listen to it is to not believe it's all just 4 notes repeating, but it is once you sit down to the sheet music. It only looks repetitive, it sounds anything but because he has the entire orchestra to play with. Everything at some point or another plays lead.
Michael Holloway first of all I want to thank you for the awesome, it was highly informative! Second, you expressed exactly the point, repetition is only present for a long period of time if not noticed. I would also ad that having to much repetition is precisely the reason why songs have diminished in size. I’ve been observing and the truth is that we can stand large youtube videos, movies and even technical podcasts. I think that we just don’t pay attention to boring things, and although accessible looped music tends to become incredibly boring, what do you think?
I equate pop music to being a cup of lone, strong coffee in the morning instead of a full actually balanced nutritious meal... This is a world of quick fixes, and it feels like everything and everyone is trying to grab you in and use you for a quick buck with as much flash and clickbait and what-have-you as possible. It's nice to sit down and actually listen to more thought out and thought-provoking music that uses dynamics, differing rhythms, other things that are seldom found in pop. ('nother food analogy here, meow) It's like a public school that serves poptarts to it's students instead of something with actual nutritional value... All the students love it, of course, but at their own expense, oblivious that there is something much better for them out there.
Like Baby Metal, or Give some one a good pair of headphones to put on and turn them on to Animals by Pink Floyd, some one who never herd Floyd then ask them, so any Questions?
If I hear Iron Maiden while driving car my concentration for the traffic is slightly reduced. Even though listening to it while not in the car is far better. It's not the right music for the car. Many people don't actually listen actively. They do something else and also listen to music. I also like Sia's "cheap thrills". One of the best music videos. Reminds me of "Back to the future". I think 21 pilots are nowhere as sophisticated as Metallica. But I'm amazed how they master the art of varying speeds. Simple music becomes a pleasure. Different situations require different music.
It makes sense when you think about it though, because that's how the major music industry has dialed it in. They've analyzed even the tiniest elements in terms of profitability, and the music is built off of that equation. So when you're putting that connection together, you can't look at or explain an analytical profit margin like it's still music.
@@ossiehalvorson7702 I recently started thinking about this as my interest in music has piqued over the past few weeks. I noticed some specific "feeling" to every song with millions of views, meaning the extremely successful songs. I realized there's gotta be some parody going on. If I were trying to make it big I would dissect every big song and try to emulate the similarities that draw across lots of the biggest hits.
Instead of the music telling a story and evoking thought, it strokes our brains desire for a beat. Background music for digital media addicts. Doesn’t make it better.
The unspoken presumption is that songs are at the top of the charts because people like them. In fact, the charts are manipulated as a matter of course.
As pattern seeking mammals, it's not surprising repetitive lyrics and musical content appeal to the masses. But to argue that content geared toward our basic animal instincts is somehow better or more sophisticated is limiting artistic quality down to something that appeals to that animal instinct. In the end, art is subjective: We can't argue (reasonably) song A is 'better' than song B because more people listen to song A.
His defense of melodic repetitiveness was inadequate. In classical music, an ostinato is typically used to frame more complex music that is played over it (also the word is Italian, not Greek). It's true that a certain amount of repetition sounds nice, but it's totally fair to call out a simplistic, uncreative melody for what it is. Also, I think that a big point of criticism for pop lyricists is not merely the repetitiveness of the lyrics, but the vacuous nature of many of those lyrics. Take the example from the video of "Run the World (Girls)". The repetitiveness is much more apparent when the lyrics don't have a lot to say. And, sure, people have been writing repetitive songs forever, but I still think it's fair to call out musicians who write boring, thoughtless, overly simplistic tripe, appealing to ever more atrophied attention spans. I think it's clear that this presenter does not play an instrument.
This is an important point. The problem isn't repetition, it's information content. Information content is what compression really measures, but to get a good measure you have to filter out the noise first. A lot of pop music is entirely devoid of meaning. "Run the World (Girls)" could be simplified to the singer just chanting "feminism." The compression test gives a misleadingly high information content because of this.
missing is the fact that the popular music during the swing era required a group of relatively talented musicians to play together as an ensemble, whereas todays repetitive music is pre-recorded repetitive backing tracks synced to people who ½sing, ½talk/yell & are primarily performers not musicians.
The problem with his reasoning: what people like and what is good _for_ them are two entirely separate things. As we can see with food: people usually like stuff that is, at least in the long run, pretty bad for them. He's basically making a case for fast food here.
Classical Music == Raw Veggies Pop Music == Junk Food / High Fructose Corn Syrup / Processed Cheese Sure it might taste good initially but too much of anything without a well rounded meal is unhealthy.
You missed the point of each of these new songs being highly unique. That is not the case with fast food, where you have not the same amount of effort put into, let's say each hamburger or soda can. As in snowflakes, they only SEEM similar from a distance.. When you zoom in on the cola can, it continues to be the same. But zooming in on the pop songs, or snowflakes, the differences appears. Zooming in on music is equivalent to having an open ear and mind The equivalent of consuming fast food would be to listen to only a few over and over and over. Here, one could argue the people most attached to 'their good old songs' are the ones most guilty of approximating that fast food-style approach to music.
@@avionphoton6414 I see your point but you misunderstood the analogy. "Fast food" wasn't about repetitiveness but low nutritional value. Repetitive music is easy to deconstruct, it's easy to memorise, it's easy to consume - it is easily "chunked". In pop music there's typically just the right amount of variation so most people won't get bored by it. Its goal is to be as rewarding as possible at minimal mental effort, that's why it's so attractive and popular and why it has "low nutritional value".
It should be added that pop songs are played over and over within the same hour on commercial radio stations. So even if you dont like the song on the first day you are more likely to by the 5th day, as you slowly get brain washed. Then you go and buy it and a week later you realise you dont like it but its too late they have your money and it goes up the charts and them more poeple get to hear it and the cycle goes on and on around the world, around the world.
I was talking to a chef one day and he had this amazing sandwich on special that day. I wish i could remember what it was but it was years ago. He said "it was the second best sandwich ever created." Then i asked "what's the best?" He said "easy, the hamburger sandwich"
Yea it's kinda funny, but I don't think it is necessarily fitting or pointing out what the video is about. Most people don't like pop music, it's just the one that most people know and which is broadcasted and listened to and also "relativly positive" received the most. And just because you have something that is "meta" doesn't mean it is gourmet or high end, top of the notch. But what he wanted to express is that it is still good (maybe for volume) for the good basic stuff to exist. also "talks" or presentations kind of always need a conclusion, this one should maybe have focused more on how these snowflake patterns of compressed song lyrics are like a mandala and a fractal of nature too, even though it is also man made, then he could also have compared it to other structures like this in nature, like the repetitiveness of flowers and how they additionally might also be repetitive in bloom (like tulips can bloom once a year for like 4-7 years) and how that would imply that the universe is kind of singing a song too, the joy of life or sth like that. Ending the presentation with a conclusion of whether or not something should be considered good is maybe a representation of the guy's thoughts about presentation rules and I also think of him being autistic. Yes it is not really good ether xD but comparing it to "gourmet burgers"... Wait that's a different thing altogether haha
One of his main arguments is essentially pop music is not dumbed down because of the way the lyrics are pronounced, and syllables are spoken on beat. Well a donut maker can make a million yummy donuts, but he'll never be as skilled as Gordon Ramsay. Pop music is like Mcdonalds, and arguing that it's popularity equals its quality is a fallacy at its core.
He mentions a lot how the repetition makes the song catchy, which is not a bad thing, but while being catchy makes the song much more likely to make it to the top 100 billboard, it does not necessarily translate to people still listening to that song decades later as we would with songs that people now days call classics, such as bohemian rhapsody. I think there are two reasons so many people call modern pop songs bad, the first is that a lot of them sound very similar to each other and the second is that because of the internet more songs are becoming popular then before. Combining these two reasons would conclude that because there are so many more popular songs and they sound so similar to each other they seem less unique, almost as if the same artist released all the albums and over saturated the market, thus making them both less likely to listened to decades later.
If you're going to judge music, you cant judge it by a single component. any one component of a music piece can ultimatley butcher All the others. you have to judge how theyre put together over all. nothng in music ever surprises me because it is art
"Well here I'm gonna make a point" *Proceeds to throw Vox Populi out there like it actually proves a point about cultural density and quality of any given production*
@@cassieramsayanderson9054 The actor isn't. The character he plays is from Idaho, though, but I wouldn't assume those two accents would be similar. Regardless, it's not so much the accent as it is the quirks and patterns in which he speaks that remind me of Kip.
Oh thanks - that's interesting ... and yes I have spent a lot of time in Idaho - also Montana and in the north areas near Canada's border are almost the same. He is so funny - reminds me of brainy kids I knew in Ontario.
Something I deduced on my own a long time ago, was that older songs were about telling a story, and more modern ones less so; and also about repetition, I figured that a repetitive song has more chance to be liked by more ppl, since if the part of the song you happen to like, is the repetitive part, then you'll have plenty of it before the song ends, whereas in a song that doesn't repeat anything, it becomes harder for one person to like the whole song, most likely they will only like a few parts, which then they'll have to wait until they hear the song again to hear the parts they liked. So in that sense, it seems logical to make songs that repeat themselves.
The argument that adding repetitiveness to classical music makes more people enjoy it means repetitiveness is good is a terrible conclusion to draw and is the most un-artistic analysis ever. There’s a balance, dude. That’s what artistic expression is about. And the associations being made in rhythms and repetitiveness with classical music and poetry are these one-off examples, and why would you make the comparison in the first place if those similarities existed to any reasonable degree? I grew up on punk so I won’t say all repetitive music is bad, or that even pop music is bad, but the basis for your argument is pretty awful. You can take pretty much any data and make it look pretty and unique. Music is still subjective, and there’s far better evidence to support the opposite if it was objective. Primarily, the authority of people who play and listen intently, which is kind of the opposite of the demographic of pop... On the other hand, this video is kind of like a robot trying to understand a Van Gogh, so I can’t really blame him. He just wants to have logic behind why he loves what he loves. Here’s a shortcut dude: “I just like it. Don’t judge me. You can like whatever you want, just leave me alone so I can finish coding.” You don’t need to justify it. It’s art. That was your first mistake. I really like the compression analysis thing, tho. That’s funny.
The attempt to explain WHY we like art is not a new thing. I get really tired of people wanting to shut down conversations of analysis when it comes to music/movies/art by chalking it all up to taste that can never be influenced or changed. It devalues the integrity and intellectual aspects of these things for which some of us long to appreciate on a deeper level.
Aaron Branson Taste is influenced and changed all the time, and there’s nothing wrong with analysis. What I’m actually criticizing is his context of doing so, and the flaws in his reasoning for what constitutes “good.” If you think solely manipulating the human psyche for mass appeal and profit is art, that’s a very limited view of art.
Lol, "manipulating the human psyche", what nonsense. The people who make pop listen very intently, it's one of the hardest genres to produce and it's full of subtlety and nuance. The fact that the broader demographic doesn't consciously analyse it that way doesn't mean that they don't hear what they're listening to.
Edgy Music I would actually agree with that and I never said there was anything wrong with pop. I said his justifications for claiming that repetitive music is objectively better music don’t actually make sense, as they are way out of context. I was actually trying to avoid mentioning any genre. Still, when I listen to a lot of pop, I find it insulting, but at least I’m fully willing to admit that that’s just me and that people have different tastes. There’s not really an objective good or bad, necessarily, and you can still analyze music without needing for it to be a competition.
@@almightytreegod Alright, fair enough. But I think what he was trying to say was that repetitive *pop* is objectively better, although I acknowledge that he didn't specify that in his statement as he probably should have.
I'm not persuaded that increased repetition is a good thing. The complaint against repetitive music seems to come from the interpretation of the listener that the repetition serves no purpose and becomes annoying. In dance music, the repetition doesn't need to serve a purpose other than create a framework for the listener to build on with their dance (Around the World). In a movie soundtrack, repetition might provide a rhythm for the action to build on. Listeners who aren't into that will just find it annoying. In the case of Daft Punk, we can see them do both (Around the World and Tron Legacy), and they do it with pieces are repetitive to greater and lesser degrees. Some repetition is necessary to music. Not many pieces have been composed without any repetition or rhythm. I think they've all been experiments in composition rather than art or commercial pieces. Repetition is nearly universal in music, but when it doesn't seem to serve the listeners tastes, it is a liability according to the listener. So, I think repetitiveness itself isn't good or bad, except for how well it is used. A rise in criticism that music is becoming repetitive suggests that it is becoming increasingly less well used, or that the people to whom it seems inappropriate finally found a way to reach one another and a meme has arisen. Repetitive music might also have some characteristics of meme, and still all we know is that some people like it and some don't. Personally, I don't care for it,. So, unnecessarily repetitive music seems to be of poor quality. It doesn't work for me. Neither does the analysis in this talk, though the data is interesting ("Are" interesting? What kind of pedant are you?)
