Understanding the Relationship Between Catchiness and Groove: A Qualitative Study with Popular Music Creators

We followed an approach by Bogner et al. (2014) on how to design theory-generating interviews with experts, adapting where necessary. These guidelines are well-suited for expert interviews that investigate the three types of knowledge we were interested in:

• technical knowledge of how to play, produce, or compose music

• processual knowledge of what is done in common practice

• interpretative knowledge of putting thoughts and experiences into context and perspective

The approach resembles grounded theory (e. g., Mey & Mruck, 2010), as theories are developed “bottom-up” and grounded in expert knowledge. Usually, it includes data collection until a saturation of variation is reached. As this study is a first exploration, we instead use a fixed sample size, acknowledging that this makes conclusions preliminary. We deemed five in-depth interviews sufficient for a richly detailed, preliminary picture of the relationship between groove and catchiness.

We designed semi-structured interviews that loosely followed a pre-defined questionnaire (Bogner et al., 2014; Smith & Osborne, 2008), as is typical for expert interviews (Meuser & Nagel, 1991). Our questionnaire consisted of two parts: first, questions for discussing the topics in general, such as how groove and catchiness are understood, what role they play in the expert’s work, how they come about, and whether they are related. In the second part, we played short musical stimuli as an elicitation method and a linking element between the different participants. These stimuli—which the experts considered for their relative groove and catchiness qualities—further anchored and substantiated the discussion by focusing on specific examples. The experts were encouraged to exemplify further through singing or clapping, which they did on many occasions. We mentioned the context of popular music in the questionnaire several times, but neither defined it, nor asked the experts to provide definitions.

The first author conducted the interviews and took on a co-expert role (Bogner et al., 2014) which is deemed adequate and beneficial for this task and extended discussions. It is common among musicians to talk in technical terms or assume that the counterpart will understand implicitly, so we took special care that implied knowledge was explicitly described.

The interviews were conducted in German. The words “catchiness” and “groove” were presented in English, as they are common loan words in musicians’ parlance and we expected the experts to understand them. Groove even has an entry in German dictionaries (Dudenredaktion, 2022) and is not translated in research texts (e.g., Pfleiderer, 2010). Catchy is often translated as “markant” or “eingängig” in research texts (e.g., Schlemmer & Hemming, 2018, or Rösing, 1996), but commonly understood by musicians.

To find interviewees with high reputation in the field (see Littig, 2009, for a discussion of what makes an expert), the first author asked 30 professional musicians and sound engineers from his personal network to suggest suitable candidates working in popular music. The resulting list of suggestions encompassed around 50 suitable experts and had a severe bias towards men. Selection criteria were the frequency of mentions and argumentations of why someone would make a good interviewee, e.g., authoring a book or previously participating in interviews on similar topics. We aimed to balance representation of male and female participants and avoided overrepresentation of instruments, genres, or age. As not all selected experts agreed to participate, compromises had to be made. Sufficient command and understanding of German was required.

We conducted five interviews with notable members of Swiss and German popular music scenes, who cover a large range of styles, instruments, and age groups (Table 1). They were professional performers, composers, producers, and session musicians.

The background and preconceptions of the researchers influence and bias the research at all stages in qualitative research. While we cannot discuss all possible influences in detail, our background can provide context for the dependability and confirmability of our results.

Authors 1, 2, and 4 are experts in groove research. The second author also has a background in ethnomusicology, while the third author’s work centers around music meaning and analysis. All authors have researched popular music, but none has focused on catchiness before. The first author, who conducted the interviews, is also a professional jazz saxophone player. He performed together with participants N, B, and F in very few instances, while he had not met H and M before. His practical knowledge, familiarity with the typical parlance, and reputation made it natural to take on the role of a co-expert in the interviews. During these, he held back on established research theories and his personal assessment of the stimuli (Dimbath, 2013), but focused on engaging with the experts’ views.

We used six short musical excerpts (duration between 18–30 s) of popular music from different styles. Additionally, each expert brought one or two stimuli to exemplify their views on groove and catchiness, which were played and discussed at the beginning of the interview. We chose real music examples for high ecological validity. We expected these to be discussed in detail, and we anticipated discussions revolving around the combination of different patterns in polyphonic music.

Audio stimuli are rarely used in interview settings, therefore we adapted methodologies commonly used with visual materials. We intended the researcher-selected stimuli as cues to stimulate the memory of experiences and exemplify practices (Allett, 2010; Barton, 2015; Dimbath, 2013; Kwasnicka et al., 2015; Törrönen, 2002), and as microcosms to which participants can express their values, ideals, and positions (Kwasnicka et al., 2015; Törrönen, 2002). We also selected stimuli as provocation (Barton, 2015; Törrönen, 2002); that is, excerpts that we expected our experts to recognize as not groovy or catchy.

We aimed for two stimuli as positive examples for groove and catchiness, two to investigate how far groove and catchiness appear independently from another (one high-groove low-catchiness, and one low-groove high-catchiness), and two low-groove and low-catchiness examples (Table 2). The authors selected a pool of potential stimuli and then decided which ones fit these categories best. We avoided vocal parts, as lyrics could potentially focus the discussion of catchiness on these. In the end, the role of lyrics did not come up in the interviews. We did not control for familiarity and combined three well-known with three less well-known songs. This variety, assumed classifications, and functions of stimuli should reduce the risk that the experts feel the need to confirm a hypothesized connection between groove and catchiness.

We conducted two test interviews to optimize the questionnaire and verify the stimulus selection. The final interviews took between 68 and 106 minutes. Due to the global pandemic during winter 2020/2021, we conducted the interviews online, via Zoom (version 5.4.2) or Skype (version 8.65.0.78).

Audio was recorded in Audacity (version 2.2.2) via the internal microphone of a 2017 Apple MacBook Pro. We set transcription rules (following guidelines by Dresing & Pehl, 2010), which included anonymization and transcription of sung or clapped passages in musical notation. We sent the transcriptions to the respective expert for a member check (Flick, 2010). Quotes that appear in this paper were translated and naturalized by the first author.

To allow for voluntary preparation, the experts received participant information, a list of planned questions, and access to the stimuli several days before the interviews. Participants gave written informed consent in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. The procedure was approved by the University of Birmingham’s Humanities and Social Sciences Ethical Review Committee.

We used MaxQDA Plus 2020 (version 20.4.0) to perform a qualitatively oriented content analysis based on the principles of Mayring (2010). In Bogner et al. (2014), this is a four-step procedure:

1. Coding: inductive categorization of each statement. Statements were frequently coded with multiple themes. The resulting categories were anchored by a definition and an example, and grouped hierarchically where appropriate.

2. Thematic comparison: grouping of thematically corresponding categories across the interviews, and comparison of their content in terms of agreements, disagreements, or omissions between experts.

3. Conceptualization: changing the viewpoint of the analysis from collecting and grouping expert views to material-based interpretations by the researchers informed by established concepts.

4. General Theory: concepts are systematized and related to each other on a general level. The results are analytic condensates that can be linked to established theories or lead to new hypotheses.

All interviews were coded and analyzed by the first author, while the second author coded one of the interviews independently. The two coders compared their individual codebooks including exemplary quotes and definitions. The first coder additionally selected coded segments to illustrate the variety in the experts’ themes and to provide more material on infrequent themes in the second coder’s subset. One theme only found by the second coder aside, the same themes were found, but some differences arose in naming and granularity of categorizations. In these cases, the two coders discussed whether the first coder’s categorization was reasonable and made adjustments if this was not the case. For example, we decided to include the theme only found by the second coder (aesthetic quality) but we spread it over different categories depending on the context. The resulting codebook was discussed and category labels were decided with the fourth author. The first author conducted step 3 and 4 of the analysis in consultation with the fourth author. The third author commented on the outcome.

The analyses led to a codebook with four top-level categories that provide the structure for this section. We present our findings in regard to the (1) ontologies of groove and (2) catchiness, and discuss their components in subsections. Afterwards, we investigate (3) how the experts intend to promote groove and catchiness through five intended factors. We then present our theory about (4) different ways in which groove and catchiness are related.

Directly asking the experts how they understood groove mostly received brief answers. Yet, throughout the course of the interview, each expert frequently added further nuances, and a more detailed picture of how they understood groove unveiled itself over time and in different contexts. The experts talked about groove from two perspectives: while playing music and as expert listeners. If the context is not specified in a quote or surrounding text, the quotes should be read as the latter.

In musician’s parlance, groove often refers to what we defined as groove structure, but the experts also conceived groove as something that is felt and experienced.

They alternated between talking about groove as structure and as experience, but usually set them apart clearly. They saw groove structure as the reason for groove experiences:

The experts further implied this causation in many examples about how they change groove structures to encourage or intensify groove experiences.

In addition to the actual music, and in line with previous research (Senn et al., 2018, 2019), all our experts recognized the individual listener as an important influence on groove experiences. They claimed that mostly musical taste, but also musical expertise can decide whether they get into the groove or not. The third dependent in Senn et al.’s groove model—the listening situation—came up only occasionally, e.g., specific expectations in a dance club, or that bad acoustics at live concerts stifle groove experiences for performers and audience. In the remainder of this section, we will focus on groove experiences.

The shortest answer given to what groove is shows an omnipresent core component of groove:

This aspect of groove was mentioned in all the interviews, echoing its position within the many understandings of groove in the psychological literature. The experts saw movement to music as an indicator of groove, whether it is subtle head bobbing or expressive dance. They closely associated dancing with groove, but to them, the amount or vigorousness of the movement did not reflect the intensity of the groove experience, and actual movement was not necessary. The type of movement was seen as relative: whether one wants to swing one’s hair, stamp vigorously and raise one’s fist, react with more filigree movement or just sway a lighter in the air depends on the type of music, how it is played, and how it feels in the body.

However, some form of bodily feeling emerged as prerequisite for groove, and therefore we will speak of a bodily experience instead of movement hereafter. This bodily experience corresponds to the second aspect of groove in Roholt’s (2014, p. 2) phenomenological definition: “the felt dimension (the feeling of a “leaning” groove or one that “pushes,” “pulls,” and so on).” Our experts said that this bodily experience of groove resonates in the whole body, but can also affect specific body parts. We collected the descriptions of bodily feelings that our experts associated with groove experiences (Table 3). The list includes motor-related experiences but also visceral ones, a distinction previously found for musical entrainment (Labbé & Grandjean, 2014). Understanding this component broader than the urge to move makes sense considering the perspective of the musicians who must move to play music.

All experts besides N conceived groove as having a second core component that goes beyond the bodily experience—positive affect. They stated that mere body movement to music or even dance is not necessarily a groove experience, and that a second component is required.

B expressed the multi-dimensionality of groove here, and we already saw an example for positive affect in M’s description of groove as a “tremendously good” feeling above. When describing this component, our experts talked interchangeably about emotions, feelings, moods, aesthetic judgements and liking.

As we see, the list of affective phenomena that were associated with groove is quite diverse (Table 3), but most of them are of positive valence (Scherer, 2000)—they are pleasant. Some experts specified that negative affect, such as disturbance or stress, would stifle groove. Hence, we also interpret the affective phenomena with more ambiguous valence (e.g., surprise, being touched) to be positive and pleasurable in this context. This is in line with Duman et al. (in press) who include a dimension of groove by the same name, and comparable to Pfleiderer’s (2010) “emotional dimension” of groove. Our result is somewhat similar to pleasure, the second component in Janata et al.’s (2012) definition of groove. Pleasure is itself a positive affect, and plays a role in other positive affective phenomena. Yet, positive affect can include more dimensions, such as arousal. There are also different understandings of pleasure (Alwood, 2017; Katz, 2016). In some cases, positive affect and pleasure are used interchangeably. Janata et al. (2012) switches to pleasure in the definition after mostly discussing positive affect, and the pleasure scale in the Experience of Groove questionnaire (Senn et al., 2020) includes questions about both mood and liking.

Regardless of this complexity, it is hard to say why we found evidence of broader positive affect compared to pleasure in this study. When talking about groove experiences in hindsight, participants may find it easier talk about emotions, moods, and feelings compared to pleasure directly, as these terms are more commonly used in public discourse about music. Additionally, we can assume that our participants all have a strong affinity and emotional connection to popular music (although Duman et al., in press, found a similar result with a more diverse set of participants).

In our study, bodily experiences and positive affect were the most immediately apparent and most asserted characteristics of groove experiences, not unlike the two dimensions of Janata et al.’s (2012) definition. Therefore, we labeled them core components, but further research is needed before we can conclude that the other aspects we found for groove (and catchiness below) are generally less important.

We found social phenomena to be another dimension of groove. Pfleiderer (2010) spoke of a social dimension, in which listeners, dancers, and musicians are incorporated physically, emotionally, and cognitively. Several statements referred to this dimension:

We see that groove was understood as a way of building a connection between audience and musicians. Groove reportedly creates a sense of community within the band, and it is often interpreted as a group effort that arises from interaction between players, not an individual achievement.

Duman et al. (in press) defined groove as a participatory experience, related to immersion and social connection. Similarly, in our interviews, groove was understood as making the audience interact and (actively) engage with the music, (e.g., B’s description of groove experience as a rhythmic “pull” above). Common forms of participation in groove are clapping or dancing, which initiate or heighten the feeling of an immersive groove experience:

Immersion is a form of participation that is not necessarily movement-related, and may be required to get into a certain state in the first place. In groove experiences, immersion and participation involve and combine mind and embodiment. What Danielsen (2006) called “the state of being in groove” and what F referred to above is such an immersive-participatory experience.

As in previous interview studies with musicians (Berliner, 1994; Monson, 1996), the feeling while playing music was discussed. Descriptions of these groove experiences included effortlessness:

This effortlessness may just be one side of the experience, however. Danielsen (2006) considered opposing attitudes or feelings an important characteristic of funk music and our experts made similar remarks:

In psychology, the so-called flow state is highly immersive and participatory, and combines a perceived effortlessness with complete concentration (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Stupacher, 2019). Music performance has been a topic for examining flow experiences since the 1970s, and similarities between groove and flow have been speculated about (e.g., Janata et al., 2012). Flow experiences promote strong positive affect (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989), which might partly account for the “tremendously good feeling” (M) of playing while being in groove. It is unclear whether a similarly strong flow experience can be achieved as a listener, and this aspect could be a potential difference between groove as a player and as a listener.

Is every pleasurable movement to music a groove experience? Following Janata et al.’s (2012) definition, we would have to answer in the affirmative, but at the same time, we can imagine situations where this might not hold: choreographed dance, exercise classes, or mindlessly tapping along to a movie soundtrack involve a pleasurable urge to move, but not necessarily Danielsen’s (2006) state of being in groove. This topic is rarely discussed in the literature but came up in our interviews, e.g., when discussing the low-groove high-catchiness stimulus (Eric Clapton’s “Wonderful Tonight”):

This expert further acknowledged that this example had positive affect and conveys an urge to move, but would not groove:

According to B, this movement, originating from an emotion, is of the wrong kind to call it groove. Other experts shared thoughts in the same direction but concluded that it still is a groove experience. They distinguished it as a different kind of groove, with other associated bodily experiences, dance moves, and related musical features. Another discrepancy arose regarding the low-groove low-catchiness “Music for Airports.” M experienced a “gridless” and waterlike groove, while the others attributed no groove. Hence, the limits of groove vary for our sample, and the different qualities described support Hosken’s (2020) idea of a plethora of groove experiences.

When directly prompted to explain what catchiness is, many answers referred to memorization.

This supports Russell’s (1987) assumed equivalence of memorability and catchiness, but further relates catchiness to earworms (as in Beaman & Williams, 2010; Moeck et al., 2018), and marks it as a factor for popularity (as in Seabrook, 2015; Schlemmer & Hemming, 2018). According to our experts, catchy music can be memorized through mere exposure. Two experts recounted stories where a song was very strongly etched in their minds because of specific listening situations (their first Salsa concert in New York or a long drive late at night after a concert), and stated that such an experience can make music catchy as well, and hearing this music always brings back the memory of that experience. We call this component of catchiness memorization and recognition, to reflect its two consecutive stages: first, the memorization of music, and second, the recognition at a later (potentially imaginary) hearing.

We found that catchiness is multi-dimensional, as affective experiences are involved as well, making catchiness quite comparable to groove in that regard.

Similar statements were made by all experts besides N, who again did not mention an affective component. The experts suggested that an emotional reaction to specific music would be a prime reason why it is memorable in the first place. Emotions are known to play a role in memorization (Buchanan, 2007), and positive music-induced emotions have been shown to enhance the memory for music (Eschrich et al., 2008). Like groove, catchiness was said to require positive valence:

Interestingly, this statement seems to imply that H experienced a positive affect while listening but that he misses a perceived positive affect. Such distinctions were not brought up by the others. The affective aspect of catchiness was previously not discussed extensively in the literature, but some connections were drawn. Russell (1987) reports a correlation between perceived pleasantness and memorability, while Burgoyne et al. (2013) postulates that recognizing music would be pleasant. Affective aspects have been linked to earworms: they are more likely to start in positive affective states (Williamson et al., 2012) and people usually like the songs that get stuck (Beaty et al., 2013; Hyman et al., 2013). We conclude that positive affect is a core component of catchiness.

Aside from these components, the experts attributed other aspect to catchiness: luring the listener into listening, and therefore asking for engagement with the music, combined with a certain immediacy.

The potential of salient musical phrases, such as a lick, to lure listeners has been postulated previously (Honing, 2010). The associated immediate engagement is illustrated in the definition of catchiness as “instantly appealing and memorable” (Lexico.com, 2022) and thought of as necessary for (mainstream) popular music, which is otherwise often skipped quickly on modern platforms (Seabrook, 2015). This immediacy goes beyond mere attention grabbing and extends to another characteristic of catchiness: catchy music is easily and quickly grasped.

This concept of catchiness clearly goes beyond simple memorability. Yet, we can connect clarity with memorization: immediate clarity aids strong expectations, and thus facilitates memorization.

Hooks, defined as “the most salient, memorable, and easy to recall moment of a musical phrase or song” (Honing, 2010, p. 147) play a large role in the discussion of catchiness and vice versa, as the two seem closely related—hooks are even defined as catchy passages of music (Byron & O’Regan, 2022).

This suggests that individual parts are catchy, not necessarily whole songs or sections, and that the salient hooks can reduce the salience and catchiness of other parts (Kronengold, 2005). But above this level of individual hooks, catchy music can also stand out on a larger scale:

What is it that makes music salient? The experts differentiated two forms of structural catchiness, which we name textual and non-textual, following Burns’ (1987) nomenclature for hooks. Textual catchiness derives from composed elements, such as melody, rhythm, harmony, or lyrics, and is regarded as the more obvious form of catchiness:

Research on what causes earworms is often about textual catchiness (Beaman & Williams, 2010; Jakubowski et al., 2017). In contrast, non-textual catchiness derives from aspects of performance, such as instrumentation, dynamic changes, embellishments, or accidents. It can stem from music production, such as sound effects or a distinctive mix. The experts reported that they usually recognize familiar songs almost immediately, faster than the duration of a melody or chord progression, which suggests that the song’s non-textual timbral landscape is catchy. This is supported by Krumhansl (2010), who showed that snippets as short as 0.4s can be sufficient to recognize a song. The musical context was reported as an additional factor, as surprising one-time events, such as breaks or sudden changes, can be catchy as well.

Most previous research conceived catchiness as a purely musical quality, inherent to the music: “The memorability of purely instrumental music must be linkable ultimately to its properties as a patterned sequence of sounds” (Russell, 1987, p. 335). Our experts differed from that view and expected individual differences in what appears catchy to listeners:

Such listener-related factors for catchiness were found in previous research: musical taste (Russell, 1987; Schlemmer & Hemming, 2018), and expertise and familiarity (Russell, 1987). It is also likely that individual differences in memory for music play a part.

There were also discrepancies in our experts’ judgement of the two supposedly low-groove low-catchiness stimuli: two found the distinctive soundscape of Music for Airports catchy, and one thought the recognizable and striking performance of the Shaggs was catchy. If we accept the individual listener as factor for catchiness, it cannot be purely intrinsic to music, but rather a perceived musical quality. Hence, we suggest that catchiness is an interaction between listener and music.

Our experts frequently spoke about music catching them, and being caught or captivated by the music, indicating an exchange of agency and an immersive state of being. F described it as something “to be felt in the whole body.” If we accept that catchy music captivates the listener, puts them in an immersive state, and consider that affects play a role for catchiness, catchiness can be conceived as an experience. The soundness of this interpretation, how it is characterized beyond the sensation of being caught by (or in) music, and how it differs from perceiving music as catchy would need to be explored further in the future. Interestingly and unlike groove, catchiness does not seem to play much of a role while playing music.

The experts described groove and catchiness as central, even the most important music-related aspects of popular music. Groove and catchiness reportedly contribute significantly to making popular music popular and successful. Hence, groove and catchiness are major goals for musicians during different stages of music creation and function frequently as indicators of creative success.

Throughout the interviews, statements about what groove and catchiness are were intertwined with analyses of what is needed to make music catchy and groovy, and how this happens in practice. In our analysis, we disentangled these into three different stages (Figure 1):

• The strategies, i.e., the musical properties that musicians use and manipulate to foster groove and catchiness.

• The intended factors, i.e., the criteria the musicians intend to fulfil, which are either necessary for groove and catchiness or make them more likely (discussed in more detail below).

• The core components that constitute groove and catchiness, as discussed above.

How the stages relate to each other is influenced by the individual listener: their taste, familiarity with the song or style, current mood, or expertise helps determine the nature of the next progression.

We categorized the strategies based on the stage of music creation in which they appear: what happens before (composition), while (performance), and after (production or sound design) music is realized. This distinction is not always clear as these processes can blur and blend. The interviews yielded a large collection of strategies, but a comprehensive analysis of these is beyond the scope of this article and only partly expedient, since the experts asserted that while some general rules of thumb may exist, detailed strategies for groove and catchiness are relative and not universally applicable.

Hence, we will touch on strategies only briefly in relation to intended factors. An overview of the strategies can be found in the supplementary materials.

Five factors emerged from our interviews which the experts were keen to promote in their music to maximize the potential for groove and catchiness. These factors are attributes of how the music is perceived and processed by listeners, highlighting their subjectiveness. Figure 1 shows that the five factors are not entirely independent, as most of them support each other or overlap. How often these factors appeared in the individual interviews, and how often in discussions about groove or catchiness can be seen in Table 4.

The intention of the music or is to foster affective phenomena. We understand affectiveness as capability of the music or performance to trigger an affective response, not the actual affect felt by the listeners. Obviously, it is closely related to the positive affect component of groove and catchiness. But affectiveness as a capability of music is wider than that, and it influences the other components as well as the other intended factors.

This example shows groove and catchiness as consequences of affectiveness. Based on the match with the personal taste of the listener, there is an immediate and strong positive affect and experience. The affect fosters curiosity and attention (Jeffries et al., 2008) and makes the music stand out. A sudden change in the music’s fabric then leads to a positive feeling of disruption that promotes a strong bodily experience.

The experts understood liking the music as an important contributor to affect. They intend to achieve this by optimizing music for their target group and providing a (subjectively) high aesthetic quality. Other strategies to stimulate affect include a performance that reflects the performer’s personality, to which the listener can then connect, or a performance that conveys clear emotions.

Pain is here a perceived negative emotion, not a felt one. The blues signifies pain, but it is not painful to listen to. Hence, a musician’s intended perceived emotion is not necessarily what the listener feels, and they can potentially experience positive affect and thus groove or catchiness with such music (although H disagreed, as we have seen above).

Grabbing attention emerged as important factor for groove and catchiness. It came up in various forms: interest, attention, surprise, kick, tease, alertness, boringness, focus, curiosity, aha experience, unexpectedness, keep going, wanting to listen, get hooked, prick up one’s ears, gets me to listen closely, thrill, keep interest up, don’t lose flow. In the following case, Rrose’s “Waterfall” grabbed the expert’s attention immediately due to the sound design and genre that the participant liked:

But the unvarying excerpt we chose did not hold the expert’s attention for long:

The music became dull, and, as an overall judgement, the participant found the excerpt to be neither catchy nor groovy. She speculated that through the course of the full track, more layers are added, which, together with dancing, would probably sustain the attention and allow for groove. Hence, we need to distinguish the immediate “focused attention” that brings the listener’s focus to the music from the ‘sustained attention’ that motivates to stick with the music through continued interest. This distinction refines Senn et al.’s (2019) groove model, which features interest that arises from the music’s rhythmic organization (dubbed ‘time-related interest’).

Attention is a major factor for memorization, as it is closely linked to working memory (Baddeley et al., 2014). Madsen and Geringer (2000, p. 106) suggested that the “focus of attention over time might well be the most important variable in all music listening” and it has been hypothesized that popular music evolved to optimize the potential for grabbing attention (Leivellé Gauvin, 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising that our experts mentioned a large and refined range of strategies to generate attention: combining parts to bring out certain elements or moments, working with a foreground-background dichotomy, changing levels of the music, employing funny or strange sounds, introducing novel elements, thinking dramaturgically, creating a distinctive character, and disrupting expectations, while avoiding monotonous or boring music that is either too repetitive, vague, lacks intention, or does not have enough elements. They see participation and affectiveness as ways to keep interest high.

Being able to follow the music, to get access to it, was brought up often, vehemently, and as perquisite for experiencing groove.

In this example, M evokes a complex musical fabric that is hard to follow. Yet, a single easy-to-follow element can change that, giving access to the music and thus enabling groove experiences. Similar remarks were made by the others, for example about the important function of simple rhythms in metrically complex music. Such music can otherwise be difficult to follow, but the experts also explained that groove allows to grasp music in an embodied way instead of intellectually (as did Roholt, 2014):

According to the experts, the accessibility of music is mostly decided on a compositional level: complexity, repetition, and continuity were mentioned as main aspects to balance for music to be followable without being boring, which is often done by combining reciprocal parts. We can interpret this as a balance between our two factors accessibility and attention.

The groove literature refers to similar ideas: several studies showed a relation between syncopation (as a form of rhythmic complexity) and groove (Witek et al., 2014, 2015, 2017; Sioros et al., 2014), in which medium syncopation levels were optimal for groove.

The experts also stressed that the ease with which a basic musical idea or statement is conveyed influences the accessibility. Additionally, all experts acknowledged that the listener determines how accessible a piece of music is individually, as expertise and familiarity are thought to help following or understanding (as in Madison & Schiölde, 2017; Orr & Ohlsson, 2005; Pressing, 1999).

Accessibility also influences the memorability of music, as simpler or better understood music should be easier to memorize. Thus, accessibility was described as central for catchiness.

This is reminiscent of Kramarz’s (2014, p. 15) observation about popular music in general: “particularly easy to grasp, simply structured and thus not too complex.” On the empirical side, Russell (1987) found that music with low perceived complexity is easier to recognize. The amount of information is not the only reason why comprehensibility is important: music that is easy to grasp is also more predictable, which leads to the creation of stronger expectations in listeners, which in turn benefits emotional reactions (Meyer, 1956; Huron, 2006).

We have already discussed above how participation and immersion are important in groove experiences. The experts also reported mental engagement, such as filling in the beat when listening to syncopated music (Witek et al., 2017). Besides these and the already discussed flow, there is also trance.

This notion is reminiscent of Malbon’s (1999, p. 105) “ecstatic experiences,” a drug-assisted variant of the “oceanic experience,” a highly participatory and immersive state of being that is central to clubbing, among other practices. While the experts acknowledged the effects of social context and the use of drugs as part of the motivation for participation, their strategies for inviting participation concentrated on musical properties and meeting the audience’s taste.

For catchiness, active participation may seem less fundamental at first, but it is striking how often it came up when defining catchiness: several statements referred to singing or humming along to catchy music.

This is supported by studies about earworms which show that singing, humming, whistling, or clapping along is very common (Schlemmer & Hemming, 2018). Active participation has further played a part in assessing the catchiness of songs, as Pawley and Müllensiefen (2012) effectively measured the latter by counting how many people sang along. Our experts brought that up as an indicator for catchiness as well:

Once again, as with the clubbing context, we note the combination of a specific style of music with a specific social context that promotes participation.

Music needs to stand out in some form to be memorable and catchy, especially for experts that are surrounded by a variety of music every day. Hence, the distinctiveness of music is related to grabbing attention.

This example resembles Van Balen’s (2016, p. 190) definition of distinctiveness: “a violation of schematic expectations.” Innovations and the use of unexpected material or contexts can make music distinctive, but there are also other ways to achieve this:

This statement about his self-selected song implies that a strong character also leads to catchiness through an immediate clarity that strengthens expectations. Distinctiveness can be achieved through composition, performance (including recognizable musicians) and post-production.

For B, the two factors distinctiveness and accessibility stand in a certain tension:

The importance of distinctiveness for catchiness is so far not supported empirically. Van Balen (2016) hypothesized a positive relationship between distinctiveness and recognizability, but in his experiments the more typical sections (as calculated with MIR) were also more recognizable.

How important is distinctiveness for groove? A few statements seemed to imply that the little things that make a groove as structure distinctive also enhance the feeling of groove. However, our data does not allow a conclusion that distinctiveness is an important factor for groove.

As established above, groove and catchiness share one core component: positive affect. Table 4 shows that the other components also overlap: bodily experience did come up when discussing catchiness, and memorization did for groove, albeit less frequently compared to positive affect. We further saw that they share four intended factors. This overlap suggests that the frequent cooccurrences of groove and catchiness in popular music are not merely coincidence—apparently, similar mechanisms are at work for both. Therefore, we can assume a vicinity between groove and catchiness, but how close are they and where lie the differences?

A single musical structure can be perceived as groovy and catchy at the same time. But clearly, not all groovy music is also catchy, or vice versa (see e.g., discrepancies in strategies in the supplementary material). Furthermore, they are ontologically different. We encountered groove as structure, a purely musical quality, but also as an experience, and a state of being. We understood catchiness as a perceived musical quality, and only speculated about a potential experience.

That raises the questions whether catchiness can be a factor or dimension of groove and whether groove can be a factor for catchiness. The experts discussed interaction between groove and catchiness extensively, and often analyzed this in the context of the layered musical patterns of our polyphonic stimuli or other examples. Hence, as the relationship between patterns seems to be important to answer these questions, our analysis also focused on this context. We were able to distinguish three potential forms of interaction between groove and catchiness (Figure 2), which suggest hypotheses of how groove and catchiness interact.

In this kind of interaction, catchiness and groove mutually support each other but remain separable. One or more high-groove patterns, often played by the rhythm section, are combined with a catchy melody or riff. Of our stimuli, “Smoke on the water” with its steady backdrop of drums and 8th note bass, above which guitar and organ play the famous riff, falls in this category, and was analyzed similarly by all experts.

The same expert went on to explain that the interaction between the patterns is the key for a sustainable groove, as these patterns would not be sufficient for long on their own:

So, a catchy element sustains groove, but the catchiness of patterns is also enhanced by combining it with groovy patterns.

The experts assert that the interaction between catchy and groovy patterns results in a polyphonic sequence that is groovier and catchier than the individual patterns by themselves.

One expert explained this positive interaction by referring to how groove and catchiness activate different parts of the body:

The foreground-background interaction discussed in this subsection is frequent in popular music and reminds us of Denniz PoP’s intentions reported at the beginning of this text. It is further accentuated by compositional processes, such as composing hooks over an already produced backing track (“track-and-hook method,” Seabrook, 2015, p. 200) or band-composed songs with clear distribution of roles.

While the experts categorized patterns as either groovy or catchy with ease in some cases, they stated that it would not be possible to distinguish groove and catchiness in others. Of our stimuli, The Meter’s “Cissy Strut” was analyzed as such a case by all the experts. All the patterns—drums, bass, guitar, and organ—are by themselves both catchy and groovy. We label the associated interaction fusion.

Put together in this way, it is no longer possible to assess which patterns predominantly promotes groove or catchiness. But not only the perceived causes blend—in a catchy groove, the experience of groove and catchiness also seem to fuse.

Here, it seems to be no longer possible to dissociate groove from catchiness (apparently in its experiential form) for F. Fusion was discussed less often than mutual support, but we cannot conclude that it is less frequent in practice. Potentially, for music creators, who are used to deconstructing what they hear, the experience of mutual support may be more relatable, while listeners with more “holistic” listening habits might not distinguish between simultaneously running groovy and catchy patterns and experience fusion more often.

Based on the two preselected high-groove high-catchiness stimuli, we concluded that groove and catchiness can positively interact, even fuse. But what about the stimuli that were supposed to be high in one category and low in the other?

This hypothesized categorization of stimuli was mostly affirmed and we report all deviations above (see sections “limits of groove” and “perceived and experienced catchiness”). The experts expressed that groove and catchiness were unbalanced in these stimuli and consequently negated a universal relationship, as shown here regarding Eric Clapton’s “Wonderful Tonight”:

What might be the potential criteria for independent groove and catchiness? A simplistic rule of thumb may be whenever the other is not part of the song’s concept, maybe even deliberately avoided. For example, the experts that found Brian Eno’s sound tapestry catchy analyzed it as not intending to groove. Comparably, what makes Rrose’s “Waterfall” stand out and interesting might be related to how it develops over time, but this could not be appreciated due to the short length of our excerpt. This illustrates the third possible relation between groove and catchiness in polyphonic music: no interaction, but deliberate independence, when one of the two is not or hardly present.

There are three major limitations to this study. Foremost, the small sample size of five experts that makes it somewhat exploratory. As we did not sample participants until a data saturation of variability within themes was reached, we cannot extensively generalize our results. Additionally, the experts give a certain bias to the study, each individually, but also as a group of popular music creators and afficionados. It is possible that for people less interested, involved, or familiar with popular music, affective reactions would be less pronounced for groove and catchiness.

Another bias are the stimuli, which were selected by the researchers with a specific categorization and role. We played these during the interviews in a fixed order, going from presumably strong connections between groove and catchiness to weaker or no relationship. This order and the clear categorization may have been obvious, influencing the results.

Lastly, we cannot completely rule out a confirmation bias, as the interview design centered the question of a relationship between groove and catchiness, which the experts could easily agree on. However, handing out the questionnaire and stimuli beforehand, as well as performing a member check afterwards, should guarantee that there are no pressed-for answers that the experts cannot stand behind. Additionally, selecting stimuli with specific functions presented many possibilities to deny a relationship, which were utilized and lead to the inclusion of “deliberate independence” in our results.

In this study, we explored the views and experience of five popular music creators on groove and catchiness, how they attempt to achieve these in practice, and how groove and catchiness are related. We have four major findings:

First, we found more broadly defined groove components—a bodily experiences combined with positive affect. According to our results, positive affect is necessary, and groove cannot be reduced to a single movement-related dimension. Further, our results suggest that participatory, immersive, and social aspects are important for the concept of groove, and hence should receive more attention in future research. We also saw similarities between playing while in a groove state and flow experiences. We explored the limits of groove experiences and found groove experiences (individually) differing in quality—two ideas that require further research.

Second, regarding catchiness, we contributed several new insights: we found evidence that catchiness is not solely about memorability, but also requires positive affect, and is further related to engagement, clarity, and immediacy. Based on our analysis, we suggest that catchiness is not entirely intrinsic to music, and defined it as a multi-dimensional perceived quality of music, potentially even an experience. Additionally, we found two different fabrics of structural catchiness: textual and non-textual.

Our results and the detailed discussion of the ontologies of these two phenomena provide a valuable source for how they are understood by music creators but can also influence how researchers think about them, incorporating artistic knowledge, expertise, and philosophy in the psychological concepts.

Third, we collected and analyzed detailed information on how music creators work with groove and catchiness and what goals and strategies they have for this purpose. The perspective of musical creators, and especially their motivations and intentions, is a useful addition to the more common measurements and analysis of recordings and performances by listeners and researchers. It can inspire focused investigations and help with the explanation of previous and future results.

Fourth, grounded in the experts’ knowledge and reactions to the music that we presented, we built a theory about how groove and catchiness are related. We have seen that these two central pillars of popular music can be combined easily, as there is considerable overlap in groove- and catchiness-promoting structures and how they are perceived. We have further seen that they positively interact and support each other, with some exceptions. We will examine this theory with listening experiments in the future.

On a methodological level, this study successfully combined in-depth expert interviews with a listening task. The choice of experts and stimuli gives the study a certain bias. With six fixed stimuli and five experts, we were able to see strong common trends with somewhat varying emphases, and a few individual differences. The data was sufficient to construct theories, but we cannot claim that these theories apply equally to the whole expert community, the nonexpert listener, nor to all kinds of popular music.