Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-xmf2s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-29T01:33:31.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

accidents, hooks and theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2005

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

records often include accidents. i suggest this tells us something about the flexibility of musical practices and the limits of theories. musical ‘hooks’ provide useful test-cases because the hook is normally considered the least accidental part of a song. we imagine it emerging fully formed in a moment of inspiration – the catchy phrase that comes into a songwriter's head – or at least of calculation: ‘i’ll see your vibraphone and raise you a mellotron'. but hooks sometimes incorporate accidents or happen accidentally. if hooks are less than completely determinate, then every aspect of the popular record must be subject to contingency. i argue for theories – and views of musical practices – which begin with the recognition that accidents happen.

Information

Type
articles
Copyright
© 2005 cambridge university press