What does it mean for a piece of music to be "predictable?"

What does it mean for a piece of music to be "predictable?" In the case of pieces you've heard already, obviously it is predictable because you know where the piece is going. But what about new pieces?

My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as predictable. I usually hear this word in conjunction with harmony. So every time one hears a I IV V progression or a circle of fifths progression, one says: "Ah, how predictable this piece is!" But, what about the rhythms and phrasing used in conjunction with this supposedly predictable chord progression.

If a piece were truly predictable, you could listen to the first couple of bars, and then derive the rest of the piece like a mathematical proof. Personally, I don't think this is possible.

What does it mean for a piece of music to be "predictable?" ...

If a piece were truly predictable, you could listen to the first couple of bars, and then derive the rest of the piece ...I don't think this is possible.

Predictable, to me, means a lack of creative insight. I personally wouldn't use the word 'predictable' ...perhaps instead: 'pedestrian' or 'pedantic'.

When a composer uses common tools (like the aforementioned progression), it's necessary to do something exceptionally interesting with the rest of it: melody, rhythm, form, texture...something. If not, the piece ends up...predictable.

Nothing special.

Not unlike any of the thousands of pieces preceding it.

Boring? Perhaps not, but again, nothing to write home about.

It could be a wonderfully constructed piece, good form, nice structure and melody, strong harmonic movement, and performed well...but it can still lack that certain je ne sais quoi; that oomph...

...

You're looking too much into it. Nobody can perfectly predict the rhythms and voicing of a chord progression, unless the same rhythm is being used in chords throughout the song, and the voicing is all basic guitar chords or something. In which case a piece can be very predictable. But when someone says it they mean they can tell where it's going, not that they can imagine all the chords and etc. in their head for the rest of the piece.

I think when we call a piece predictable, it's not that we know what's coming next but that the piece doesn't surprise us in anyway. There are a lot of romantic pieces that follow a loose form of starting small, building to a climax, and then ending after a denouement. We've all heard that a million times over but when you hear it you don't necessarily think it's a predictable thing to do(Well, you might). I think if a piece is written in a way that is predictable it just means there is a disconnect there somewhere. I've had this happen. I remember a song cycle written by this kid that had a lot of Imin flatIVmaj FlatVIImaj going on. I couldn't stand it. I think it was because the composer was a beginner-beginner and hadn't really developped a harmonic vocabulary yet.

If a piece was written with only I IV V progressions but was extremely innovative and original in other ways and succeeded in drawing you in, you would probably not get bogged down in the harmony as there would be other more significant things happening in the music that demanded your attention.

I think when people say a piece is predictable it just means it doesn't surprise them, if you were to hear a piece full of primary chords, no variation at all, then you might say it was predictable, however, things like secondary dominants, modulation and chromatic chords can reduce predictability.

predictable=already heard, and you manage to map the next chord already in your mind, like for instance in a "cadence". a broken cadence is so called because not predicted (well abuse of broken cadence disminishes the awaited effect)

What about the endless circle of fifths progressions you hear in Vivaldi's music (always in root position with the occasional suspended 7th)? Once you've heard it ten times in his music, you can pretty easily predict what's going to happen when you start hearing the beginning of the progression again... At least that's what I think!

I think predictable means that it doesn't intrigue somebody.

While I agree that an entire piece can't possibly be predictable (like Derek says it's impossible to 'solve' a work by mathematics), I would feel safe saying that certain elements themselves can be very predictable, such as a common chord progression, cadence, or rythmic figure. I tend to look at it in several smaller, independant bits rather then saying a whole work is predictable or not.

good responses. Yes, something like a 4-5 cadence or a circle of fifths progression can produce predictability. Mark pointed out that modulation can reduce predictability, for example where a circle of fifths doesn't go "all the way around the circle" and changes to some other chord and possibly pivots into a new key.

Tumbaba mentioned that it could be said that building a piece to a climax such as in the Romantic era is one form of predictability. Personally I don't agree. A climax can be reached in so many different ways: through tempo (both slowing down AND speeding up can produce climax in different ways!), denser harmonies, louder dynamics, more frenetic or urgent figuration, and so on and so forth. Just the fact that a piece climaxes shouldn't be looked at as cliche, I don't think. Just as a chord progression shouldn't seem like a cliche. It's a color. A climax is a device. The actual musical content, e.g. phrasing, rhythm (including harmonic rhythm), is where all the surprise comes from (I think so, anyway).

Now here's a good question: why should one seek to be surprised by a piece of music? I agree that one wouldn't want to listen to a piece which has almost no creativity invested in it, which just regurgitates a few chord progressions and a few half baked melodic fragments and then ends, but say someone composed a fabulous vivaldi clone concerto. Would you say you didn't want to listen to it (more than once) just because it sounded similar to Vivaldi, but even so was a distinct, new concerto never written before?

Also. I think there are varying degrees of surprise. Some people think it is an absolutely worthless pursuit to compose music that is even slightly derivative of styles of the past. Others base their entire compositional output on writing style-derivative music. Still others consider themselves universalists, who will take ideas from the past, and try to combine them with contemporary techniques (personally, I draw the line at real instruments played with real technique, I know some would so so far as to put junk inside a piano, etc. why not invent a new musical instrument in that case).

Personally, I'd rather hear work by style-derivativists and universalists. Those who abandon absolutely everything from the past and want nothing but profound surprises end up with a hideous din like Xenakis' piano concerto (now we reach the point where the derivativists say Xenakis is boring and random, and people obsessed with contemporary techniques say it is a brilliant work of genius).

Good post Derek, and you brought up something that I'll elaborate on a bit. Why do you need to be surprised? You listen to songs you like, sing along with them because you know them so well... I think stability can be just as effective as unpredictability. As long as stability isn't boring, and unpredictability isn't offensive to the ear.

Why can't something be offensive to the ear? Some of the most exiting pieces I've heard could be called ''offensive to the ear''. (The Hiroshima threnody comes to mind) We're not in the classical era anymore, you know.

One man's 'offensive' is another man's free jazz.

:o Indeed. :happy:

Fine, let me rephrase for the jazz guys. Offensive to the individual.

We're not in the classical era anymore, you know.

It's a shame! I, and a hypothetical ghost-Beethoven, laugh at your exciting threnody.

2 genious avante-garde kids, doing what genious avante-garde kids do.

- Oh, my gosh, I farted.

- Hey! do it again, record it and call it "symphonic fart".

1 month later, on an internet forum.

...

- Hey! That IS music!

- A fart is NOT music!!

- You guys don't get it. It's deep. Very philosophical: what is music? ... the composer wanted you to think! He's a genious.

- No. He's not a composer, he's a sound engineer. A fart is sound. Mozart is music.

- Shut up! You are so close-minded. If the composer calls it music, then it is music! Just listen to it man, it's about the experience.

- I ought to call my foot "music". Would you listen to it?

- Bah, ok. If someone makes a sound, and calls it music, then it is music.

- If I write a swedish sentance, call it an english sentance, then it is an english sentance.

- Precisely! It's entirely subjective!

- ... subjective ... subjective ...

- subjective! ... subjective... personal... subjective!

- Yes... subjective! ... subjective!

and so on.

...

Well...it doesn't quite work like that... It's the kind of thing that if you don't get it, you don't get it. Perhaps your ears will evolve, I know mine did.

AND, different strokes for different folks.

...

Eh? What are you trying to prove? I hate the avant garde attitude.

I'm surprised! :)

(I'm trying to prove things, yes.)

PS

I hope my ears do evolve, so that I can "get it": to better distinguish a man taking a crap from a violinist playing Bach.

I hope my ears do evolve, so that I can "get it": to better distinguish a man taking a crap from a violinist playing Bach.

You're leaving out the third part of this equation: actual, serious, creative music. It's not all pretentious charlatans posing as composers making noises and trying to pass it off as music. There is some highly creative and serious 'new' music out there...

There is some highly creative and serious 'new' music out there...

I agree!