Repetitve vs non-repetitive music?

[Akos89]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think a trend started quit a few years ago that new bands use less and less reperition in their songs. Mostly in prog/tech/avantgard/dissonant bands.

I don't really like this approach, since there isn't too much to grab on, and most of the time if there's a good idea or riff, I would like to hear it again. I get the idea that "it tries to tell a story", but I don't really feel any strucutre in these songs.

Which one do you prefer, and why don't like the other?

What do you think, what would be the "optimal" middle ground?

 

[Werecow]

If a riff i like comes up in a song, i definitely like the song to hang around with it for a while.
I've heard the other approach called "riff salad" , and i don't think i've liked any song that's been described as that. I've described them myself as like being in a guitar shop, listening to several guitarists all noodling at the same time, because the parts generally don't feel like they go together to me.

 

[gnoll]

If it's good it's good. And there's many ways to make good music. Lots of repetition or none at all, both can be great. It would suck if all music followed the same formula.

 

[Akos89]

If it's good it's good. And there's many ways to make good music. Lots of repetition or none at all, both can be great. It would suck if all music followed the same formula.

And what makes a "non-repetativ" music good?

For example I love the mood and ideas in Ulcerate music. But it's too much, and I can remember a single riff from a song.

 

[Rev2010]

I do both, depends on the song, but I do generally make new parts in most of my tracks. Like I'll often make the last chorus totally different than the first two that repeat. I personally cannot stand bands that do the exact same verse/chorus 3x with a really short quick bridge that is more like a long fill than an actual section of music. Even worse when the lyrics also just repeat. I've often thought, "Fuck how easy is it for some of these singers?? They literally write one verse and chorus and go x3 and DONE!!! Wooohooo that was easy". Boring boring boring.

I have a track "The God Democracy" in which all three choruses are different but the first two are variants of each other. In other words, they are different parts but have the same vibe so that they compliment each other and sound related. I have another song "Birth of a Monster" that just goes! It just builds as it goes and no part is an exact repeat. And then I have another track called "Mask" that is much more traditional (very Korn like) that has the same verses and choruses but the second half of the last chorus it changes up a bit.

So, depends on the track. One should never get stuck doing it only one way, that's just lame. Some songs have great catchy verses or choruses that deserve to be repeated, but don't stagnate and just do that cause it's what most pop music does successfully. And don't just do something solely for the sake of being different. Do what needs to be done for the sake of the song(s).

 

[iamaom]

Depends on the level of repetition and skill level as a listener: individual notes, scales, chords, song structure, fretboard patterns, rhythms, time signatures?
-Alan Holdsworth sounds repetitive because there are too many notes per second to the point of sounding like minutes of random noise
-bands like Meshuggah sound reptitive because they don't play enough notes per second and the rhythm changes are too subtle to pick up on casually listening
-bands like Origin sound complex and give the illusion of many key changes but often stick to the same 3 sweeping patterns, just on different root notes
-Miles Davis' So What? sounds repetitive because there's only 2 chords in the whole song
-12 bar blues is a whole subgenre based on a single song structure and a 5 note scale
-Thrash is an entire genre built off of alternating notes with the open low string almost every riff
-the vast majority of music from classical to tech death stick to 4/4 time, with most generes having a set rhythm (strong beat on 1 and 3, strong beat on 2 and 4, etc) that never change

Most musicians focus on creativity in 2 or 3 areas, and leave everything else to the "default" settings; when you pick up on whats being tweaked and whats not, most music gets pretty easy to understand.

 

[BlackMastodon]

As everyone is saying: it depends. Depends on my mood, the riff, the song, how long it repeats/how many riffs are going on, etc.

The end of Gojira's Explosia comes to mind where it's a very siple riff that repeats while an acousticy sounding simple solo goes over it, but that simple riff crushes and works really well, it also doesn't overstay it's welcome.

Some tech/prog bands also work repetition in very tastefully. Then there are bands like Archspire that I can't stand listening to (just my personal taste). You mentioned Ulcerate which I get, but I wonder how much of it has to do with the wall of sound production where each song just sounds incredibly dense and it's almost hard to pick out a riff to hold onto. I'd actually categorize them more in the camp of "repeat the crushing riff for several minutes" rather then "play it once and move on, never to hear it again."

 

[Dwellingers]

I like to write some classic songwriting, but i like to listen to both kinds - repetative vs. non-repetative.

 

[CanserDYI]

Repetition legitimizes riffs, but I like varying patterns and non repetition in seemingly repetitive music.

 

[SalsaWood]

I don't write stuff that repeats because I think it's boring from my standpoint as a composer. I've been in a lot of verse/chorus/verse bands and the music was dull as hell for me. Because of this my problem is actually writing songs that make sense as single pieces, which usually involves lots of disparate variations of a general technique or chrodal change.

As a listener I like all kinds of arrangements. There's definitely a skill to composition regardless of how you go about it.

 

[TheWarAgainstTime]

Rev made a good point about songs where the verses and choruses are exactly the same each time they come back around. I've definitely been guilty of that, although I'm not a vocalist, so there could theoretically be different lyrics or a twist on the melody over the repetitive instrumental parts for some variation. Regardless, the songs I've written that I'm the most proud of all either have something different in the sections that repeat or have fewer sections that repeat at all.

 

[Neon_Knight_]

There's a big difference between 'repetition' and 'repetitive'.

If there's no continuity between ideas within a piece of music, there's a risk that it's just a mess of random ideas mashed together. There's also the risk that it won't be at all memorable (memorable and catchy are not the same thing).

 

[AwakenTheSkies]

I like the Periphery formula.

Intro - Verse - Chorus - Intro - Verse Variation - Chorus, then they do this soft break and go into an epic finale instead of doing a bridge and going back to the chorus.

LMAO

 

[somethingsomething]

This isn't really a question about repetition as it is about songwriting. Take classical music, which is generally complex, but incorporates motifs that movements are built around. There are anchors that allow the piece to evolve over time, so that even very long compositions can have extremely memorable moments. Contrast that with many modern tech-death bands, who are more concerned with WANKITY WANK WANK 6 MILLION NOTES PER SECOND--yes, technically accomplished but completely forgettable. There's nothing to hold onto. Nothing that gives the song character. This is because the song doesn't tell a story. There's no interesting structure, no themes, no actual songwriting. It's one thousand riffs played in sequence. A straight line to fucking nowhere.

On the flipside, I've heard some songs that literally use three chords or a single riff and manage to be incredibly evocative. They don't feel boring, despite being repetitive. You can do a lot with a little and too little with a lot.