Todd Stadler's blog

punk vs. daft punk

Christy's question about "working mode" music got me thinking about the nature of listening to music, which in turn reminded me of my theory of rock vs. techno.

And since you can't stop me, I will now recount that theory. Because there is a small chance I haven't already told it to you.

First, I will acknowledge that "rock" and "techno" are not really perfect terms. However, I can't think of any other words that would be as understood while remaining so short, so rock and techno it is. Feel free to mentally substitute your own preferred nomenclature.

It is fairly obvious that both rock and techno have a great deal of repetition in them. Indeed, I can think of no music genre that does not repeat in some way. For repetition is how our mind understands music. Indeed, it is probably how our mind understands everything.

A song that doesn't repeat is like a road without an end - it just keeps going, and eventually we get tired and stop travelling down it.

But when there is repitition, we not only find a way to break down a song so as to understand it, we find a shorthand for describing the song.

After all, I'm fairly certain that more people would respond to "da da da dum" than a question about Beethoven's fifth symphony. And, indeed, that simple phrase is the cornerstone upon which the first movement is built.

But what interests me more is the repetition found in rock and techno. Both are forms of popular music (as opposed to the intellectualized - or so they are often perceived - realms of "classical" music or jazz), and yet, how they repeat is rather different.

For example, rock music usually divides a song into three parts - the verse, the chorus, and the bridge. At a high level view, the music mostly alternates between verse and chorus, over and over, with the bridge thrown in to add variety. After that, the chorus is often repeated until the end of the song.

So clearly, the repetition occurs at this high level view. The verse and chorus do not necessarily repeat within themselves. Another way to put it is that rock music repeats every minute or so, but varies from second to second.

In contrast, techno repeats from second to second, but varies every minute or so.

At a low level view, techno seems to be the same measure over and over. This is why some people think that all techno sounds the same (of course, such an attitude more often betrays a lack of familiarity with a genre, but that's a diatribe for another day).

But when viewed at a higher level, techno music can be seen to change gradually from one part to another.

When one considers that techno is at least historically tied to dancing, this pattern of repetition makes sense. Not only do dancers need a very predictable beat from second to second, but their physical activity distracts them from the details of the music. As such, a song that changes slowly is a good thing.

I, for one, find it difficult to sit down with a techno CD and concentrate forcefully on the music contained therein. My mind simply starts to wander. This is why I like to play techno when I'm working. It doesn't distract me so much with constant changes.

Rock, on the other hand, changes so much from second to second that it is captivating enough to stand on its own. Thus, I have no problem going to a rock concert and not dancing. But going to a techno club and not dancing is downright dull.

And there you have it. Not only my treatise on rock vs. techno, but a relatively concise summary of why I don't write more analytical pieces, as evidenced by the sweeping generalizations, shallow arguments, and a general abuse of "transition words".

But hey, I don't have a comments section, so if you don't like it, I guess you'll have to cry yourself to sleep again tonight.