The use of repetition in music raises a controversial debate for many listeners. In many cases, it is the sole delineator between the addicting songs and the irritating ones. After all, now that easy-to-use computer editing software has pervaded most of the pop industry, repetition in music has reached critical mass, especially for critics, who have been quick to point out the banality of excessive looping. Seemingly unavoidable, the folks over at IFL Science have suggested that the "mere exposure effect" and "semantic satiation" are behind repetition's ubiquity in pop music. They have even put together a video arguing how incredibly fundamental repetition in music is to impressing itself upon the listener, using the "mere exposure effect" and "semantic satiation" as its foremost defenses. Invoking what many would simply call "nostalgia" as the dominant force in musical preference, IFL Science reasons that, at the heart of it, the "mere exposure effect" is behind this phenomenon.
Simply put, people tend to enjoy what they've already heard --- which explains the almost constant onslaught of pop hit "earworms" pushing past our critical defenses. This effect is alternatively explained here, with respect to sociology: that "a person is more likely to feel an affinity with someone he passes on his street occasionally than for a complete stranger." This, of course, suggests that music lacking in repetition is more difficult to take in as a familiar entity and therefore induces a cautious and judgmental response.
With this hypothesis in mind, IFL reported on a survey used to test this theory in defense of repetition. They exposed listeners to several pieces of music: some being highly intricate works composed by "some of the most respected 20th Century composers" along with other, more repetitive works that were "assembled by brute force audio editing." In most cases, listeners tended to prefer the edited versions.
IFL put forth another defense of repetition, arguing that a process known as "semantic satiation" suggests that on each repeat, listeners are made aware of additional layers of the composition. For example, while the vocal track may dominate the initial listen, subsequent listens might bring the guitar or bass lines to the forefront.
It's hard to say what implications this study holds for the future of music as musical trends rarely follow any predictable pattern. It would follow that the ease of "brute force audio editing" (when combined with the scientifically-assured payoff found in the principles of the "mere exposure effect" and "semantic satiation") could mean that pop music will likely get more repetitive before it gets less so. Nevertheless, some skepticism can be maintained, as listeners who seek more challenging works will usually have more patience with less-repetitive structures. Relativity, it seems, is key.
Of course, marketers have known the power of repetition for decades. Perhaps the influx of bands and celebrities being more actively managed by large companies has led to this marketing strategy seeping into music? What do you think?
