# Is classical music really about complexity?



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

That's implied in a number of recent threads, like the one about whether pop music makes us too dumb to like more complex music. I'm not sure about this at all. How consistently is classical music more complex than other genres? Is greater complexity the salient difference between classical music and other genres? Is complexity good, anyway?

Thoughts?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Depends what level one is as a listener. A novice hears a lot of surface stuff and is satisfied. A music major wiill hear deeper stuff.

Wasn't it Mozart who wrote about one of his piano concertos to his father that it is pleasing enough for a novice listener but will also satisfy the sophisticated professional.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

It certainly is more complex than popular music. Let's leave jazz aside for a moment and I have no qualms in stating that it is generally more complex in structure and arrangement. 
How consistently? Well, on the whole nearly always. Even if we focus on the period considered to be 'simpler' in style - the classical period - just a cursory look at the writing of the composers active at that time shows a musical complexity far above that used in the vast majority of popular music. The arrangements/orchestrations in art music are also vastly more complex and intricate than arrangements in pop music, and are often done by a single person. In rather a lot of cases I would make a sliding scale comparison between this and pop music as ranging from master cabinetmaker, to skilled good joiner, to putting together something from IKEA.

Is it good? I'm not sure I can answer this, but I want to try. It's 'good' for classical music because it produces a great variety of multi-layered artistic music, blending highly aesthetic qualities with a complex and precise group of hard-earned skills. 
Clearly some of this applies to other genres of music making. Jazz, for instance. I can't write-off pop music (and don't want to) because it has produced a great deal of good music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

No, I don't think classical music is all about complexity.

I think complex music is only really effective when it reveals an underlying simplicity. On the other hand in certain moods I don't mind simple pieces of music, but they are generally more powerful if they have undertones or suggestions of something more complex. 

In general I think music is more about striking a balance in music and I like composers that show they have range and can do things both simple and complex effectively.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> That's implied in a number of recent threads, like the one about whether pop music makes us too dumb to like more complex music. I'm not sure about this at all. How consistently is classical music more complex than other genres? Is greater complexity the salient difference between classical music and other genres? Is complexity good, anyway?
> 
> Thoughts?


Is classical literature really about complexity? Classical visual art? I read a comment by Charles Wourinen about the difference between art and entertainment. He essentially said that while entertainment is worthwhile and even necessary, art seeks to communicate on a more sophisticated level and requires more effort and background knowledge on the part of the audience. James Joyce's Ulysses is a novel of great complexity and detail but it basically tells what happens (which is nothing much) to a few ordinary people during the course of one day in the ordinary city of Dublin, Ireland in 1904. If you lived in Dublin in 1904 and were reasonably well educated most of it would require little explanation. The trouble is, you probably don't live in Dublin and it certainly isn't 1904. So a lot of explanation is needed and Joyce himself doesn't provide it.
Is it worth the effort to figure out Ulysses? I think so. It is a remarkable demonstration of how supposedly ordinary people living ordinary lives in an ordinary place are anything but ordinary if you look deep enough beneath the surface.
Nathan Milstein asked Pablo Casals why he performed the Bach cello suites so often, and Casals responded with a story of visiting Picasso's studio and asking him why he was painting depictions of the same few objects on a table over and over. Picasso angrily responded that each day he saw those objects in an entirely new way.
So I suppose artists take a more nuanced and subtle view of things, that can sometimes also be viewed as complex.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

It is complex in the sense that the forms for each era need to be mastered for a composer to be taken seriously in that era, with those forms requiring facility with things like keys, voice leading, counterpoint, or in the Renaissance, mastery of modes and rhythms. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the composition itself will be complex.

Pop music can be complex or it can be written by teenagers with rudimentary skills. I don't think an individual's skill level in music will hinder them from indulging in pop music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

isorhythm said:


> That's implied in a number of recent threads, like the one about whether pop music makes us too dumb to like more complex music. I'm not sure about this at all. How consistently is classical music more complex than other genres? Is greater complexity the salient difference between classical music and other genres? Is complexity good, anyway?
> 
> Thoughts?


Classical music is about complexity. It is more complex than many other genres--Country & Western, for instance. Is complexity good? It is, if you're in the mood for complexity. If not, then not. All a matter of personal taste, ALL!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For me personally, much of Classical music has a pureness, lyricism and poetry unmatched in any other genre. It resembles the sounds and rhythms in nature more. I’m a big nature fan, and feel most at peace with the impressionistic qualities of Classical.

Since modern classical music, is it has become more and more expressionistic, like a lot of Jazz, and pop. That has its own good qualities too. Classical may be more complex, but it is more a by-product than the actual goal.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Classical may be more complex, but it is more a by-product than the actual goal.


Yes I agree with this, but also, not all classical music is complex and some of the simplest pieces are important parts of the repertoire - how complex is Bartok's Mikrokosmos Book I?



eugeneonagain said:


> In rather a lot of cases I would make a sliding scale comparison between this and pop music as ranging from master cabinetmaker, to skilled good joiner, to putting together something from IKEA.


I think many people when discussing pop music ignore the recording aspect of the trade, the producers and sound engineers. If one thinks making a professional sounding pop _recording_ is way less complicated than composing a piece of classical music, I would say not necessarily.

The way some pop (ie- The Beatles) is recorded makes the recording equipment act as another instrument. It is not the same way that a Bach or Mozart piece is recorded - it is way more complex.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I doubt if Erik Satie would have said that music is about "complexity"; I believe he would probably have said that it's more about honesty, simplicity and purity, at least for him. On the other hand, I believe that one really has to go composer by composer, because they all vary in their degrees of subtlety & complexity.

I'm not for trying to reduce the music to just one thing. It's impossible! Perhaps the realization of that comes with time and maturity, instead of trying to reduce it to some kind of an impossible formula. I believe the great composers let the music itself dictate its form and complexity, and of course it's not always the same from work to work even by the same composer. That's what I would call music and composition.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

More often than not, a piece of classical music "goes somewhere." More often than not, a piece of pop music doesn't. That, to me, is the most significant difference.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

tdc said:


> I think complex music is only really effective when it reveals an underlying simplicity.





MarkW said:


> More often than not, a piece of classical music "goes somewhere." More often than not, a piece of pop music doesn't. That, to me, is the most significant difference.


These are the closest to my view. I think the greater complexity of classical music is in some ways incidental. The main distinguishing feature of classical music is that it's written down, which makes possible a kind of precisely controlled development over time that isn't as much a feature of other music. Often, but not always, this manifests as relative complexity.

On the other hand a lot of prog rock and metal is very complex, but to me it's mostly just noodling. It doesn't become more like classical music by adopting the superficial trait of complexity.

How complex is this?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think classical music composers consistently take more into consideration when writing music. Or they use a fuller gamut of music techniques in order to create effective music, if that makes sense.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

There is depth, there are layers, to most classical pieces, so I'd think that complexity is usually part of it. When there's something 'conspicuously simple', one still feels that there is art behind it and that the sounds have been arranged more thoughtfully than in a simple folk or pop song.

That is not to say that other musics lack complexity. 'It depends' - my all-purpose answer to any question, like the clown's 'O Lord, sir!' in _All's Well That Ends Well_.


----------



## Bevo (Feb 22, 2015)

(First note, I am not including Jazz in this comparison here. I have respect for some Jazz!) Being someone what has self taught myself music theory, there is a lot more complexity under the surface than what most new listeners hear. That being said, not all composers or pieces are very complex. I mean, look at Mozart. He wrote a piece a piece titled, "A Musical Joke" to mock amateur composers. With the exception of the last few atonal chords, many people who don't listen to Classical Music nowadays would probably not be able to hear anything wrong with it! There are so many pieces that involve counterpoint that aren't just fugues, but they incorporate brief fugues into the work. Then there are things such as double fugues. If you ask most writers of pop music now days to try and write one of these, they probably wouldn't know where to start! Chord progression are one of the most annoying things for me when it comes to modern music. So much of it is simply I IV V, I IV V, I IV V. If we're lucky they'll throw in a ii, a Isus4, or maybe a V7. (I will say though, there are some bands that experimented, like the Beach Boys, and I respect them for that.) And structure is another thing. Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus, Chorus, Outro. What ever happened to Modulating?! And not the simple "up a semitone to add spice towards the end." What happened to modulating from one theme to another, and developing themes? Then orchestration instead of writing lead sheet symbols. Most songs now days simply play chords so you don't have to worry about dissonance. Sorry for the rant, it just makes me a little depressed that so many people think modern pop is so great, when music from centuries ago took so much more effort. Until you try to write a classic style piece, you don't fully grasp the difference in complexity. And to further show a complexity, Mozart's Sonata for Two Pianos is the only piece proven to help those with Epilepsy. (I have Epilepsy, so I've researched this). Just things to think about.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> Yes I agree with this, but also, not all classical music is complex and some of the simplest pieces are important parts of the repertoire - how complex is Bartok's Mikrokosmos Book I?


Mikrokosmos Book I was my introduction to the piano as a little tyke, and to me it stands on Mount Everest with Bach's Anna Magdalena Notebook when it comes to children's piano music (yes, I know there are a few other great examples).  The way Bartok so gradually introduces rhythmic, harmonic, and structural complexity to those charming central European folk melodies is pure genius. The student hardly knows he's learning anything. But what this really shows, for me anyway, is that there can be subtlety and nuance, i.e., art, even in children's music. What great good fortune that a music education publisher wanted to work with Bartok, and that Mikrokosmos was the eventual result.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> Is classical music really about complexity?


Well if by 'about', you mean not its meaning, but its main distinguishing characteristic, you can certainly point to many pieces of CM that are 'complex'. But since some are less so (Satie already cited for example), you'd also have to define the boundaries of CM to know what is included and what isn't. That could be circular, of course, ruling out Satie as CM if it is asserted that CM is about complexity.



isorhythm said:


> Is greater complexity the salient difference between classical music and other genres?


I'd say that 'complexity' could mean 'length' or 'development' or 'layered' - more useful than just 'complex'.



isorhythm said:


> Is complexity good, anyway?


Well it's sometimes good and sometimes not. It rather depends on the taste of the listener and the purpose of the composer.

As for comparison with other genres, there seems to be no merit in doing this. I see no value whatsoever in comparing CM with pop - though I'm willing to consider an instance or purpose when it does have value - and especially not to claim the superiority of one over another.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Larkenfield said:


> I doubt if Erik Satie would have said that music is about "complexity"; I believe he would probably have said that it's more about honesty, simplicity and purity, at least for him.


Satie is a good example, because he wrote both art music and popular music. Comparing Je Te Veux with Gymnopedie No. 1, the first uses song form, though he does add a trio section to it, so he expanded song form to ABA(CDC)ABA. That adds a layer of complexity, but other than that, it is a pretty standard popular song.

However, Gymnopedie No. 1 uses nonstandard chords (for that time) which obscure the tonal center, and instead of contrasts of dynamics or key, and without a sense of forward motion, it instead uses a single, modally inflected line which doesn't develop but extends or turns back on itself, and it is these small variations which give the piece its charm. It may not be outwardly complex, but there is more going on under the surface on closer inspection.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Classical music tends to be complex because it tends to say complex things. That doesn't make complexity good in itself. Nothing is easier than cluttering up your home when you have no sense of interior design, or cluttering up your music when you don't really know what you want to say or how to say it. A good artist seeks to know those things, and does no more than is necessary to achieve them. Simplicity - clarity and economy - is the end, no matter how complex the means.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Classical music tends to be complex because it tends to say complex things. That doesn't make complexity good in itself. Nothing is easier than cluttering up your home when you have no sense of interior design, or cluttering up your music when you don't really know what you want to say or how to say it. A good artist seeks to know those things, and does no more than is necessary to achieve them. Simplicity - clarity and economy - is the end, no matter how complex the means.


CM says complex things? I think I disagree but I might just misunderstand.

As for the idea that what is really being sought is simplicity, (another member said something similar above)I don't buy it at all


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think it's time for another denunciation of popular music; we get so few of them nowadays .


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> CM says complex things? I think I disagree but I might just misunderstand.
> 
> As for the idea that what is really being sought is simplicity, (another member said something similar above)I don't buy it at all


Justifying my first statement close to adequately would require discussing the nature of musical meaning. I don't feel up to that. I'll just say that the subtle meanings and fascinating places classical music opens up to me constitute a principal reason why I was drawn to it and why I've listened to it far more than to any other musical genre. The reason is not just that I "like the way it sounds." Sounds, and the shapes into which composers press sounds, communicate to me; they evoke things, infinitely varied things, emotional, visual, philosophical. They penetrate the deeper levels of my consciousness to unconscious levels, the level of dreams and levels beneath dreams. Obviously I can't say what music means to you. But I consider it my first language, and English but a poor translation; musical meaning, like the life of the emotions and everything else interesting, is too complex, and we don't have enough words.

As to your doubts about simplicity, it's synonymous with economy. An artist strives to find what's necessary, and to eliminate all that isn't. In composing a symphony, much more is rejected than is used. We have sketches of Beethoven's which show him refining his conceptions by paring them down.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> As to your doubts about simplicity, it's synonymous with economy. *An artist strives to find what's necessary, and to eliminate all that isn't.* In composing a symphony, much more is rejected than is used. We have sketches of Beethoven's which show him refining his conceptions by paring them down.


How about those times when what's necessary is outrageous excess?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> How about those times when what's necessary is outrageous excess?


You know the answer as well as I do, Edward.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> Yes I agree with this, but also, not all classical music is complex and some of the simplest pieces are important parts of the repertoire - how complex is Bartok's Mikrokosmos Book I?
> 
> I think many people when discussing pop music ignore the recording aspect of the trade, the producers and sound engineers. If one thinks making a professional sounding pop _recording_ is way less complicated than composing a piece of classical music, I would say not necessarily.
> 
> The way some pop (ie- The Beatles) is recorded makes the recording equipment act as another instrument. It is not the same way that a Bach or Mozart piece is recorded - it is way more complex.


Mikrokosmos vol. 1 is certainly simple technically, but I think to appreciate it is much harder. Most pop fans would find it boring, ironically. Classical is generally more complex than pop and other genres, and I think there is some Classical that strives for complex relationships, as to test the limits in harmony and tonality. Which pop and jazz rarely ever go, even a lot of avant garde ones sound like elementary experiments (just relistened to Sonic Youth and Coltrane's Ascension recently and was struck how pedestrian it sounds harmonically compared to the more adventurous Classical). To me a lot of Classical is a sort of distillment of catchy hooks in some cases, or an expansion of a lot of possible hooks as in a theme and variations. It generally goes beyond just sounding pleasant and catchy.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> As for the idea that what is really being sought is simplicity, (another member said something similar above)I don't buy it at all


"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art."
-Chopin


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

violadude said:


> I think classical music composers consistently take more into consideration when writing music. Or they use a fuller gamut of music techniques in order to create effective music, if that makes sense.


Your response comes closest to my esthetics. I have answered this before but because the search is messed up I can not recover it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Mikrokosmos vol. 1 is certainly simple technically, but I think to appreciate it is much harder. Most pop fans would find it boring, ironically. Classical is generally more complex than pop and other genres, and I think there is some *Classical that strives for complex relationships, as to test the limits in harmony and tonality. Which pop and jazz rarely ever go, even a lot of avant garde ones sound like elementary experiments (just relistened to Sonic Youth and Coltrane's Ascension recently and was struck how pedestrian it sounds harmonically compared to the more adventurous Classical).* To me a lot of Classical is a sort of distillment of catchy hooks in some cases, or an expansion of a lot of possible hooks as in a theme and variations. It generally goes beyond just sounding pleasant and catchy.


I think it is good to 'switch gears' so to speak when listening to different forms of music because they aren't trying to do the same things. If you are approaching a piece of pop music in a 'classical state of mind' it is likely you will perceive short comings in the music and it may seem too simple, pedestrian etc.

It is the same discrimination in reverse classical music often faces as a result of people being brought up with pop music. They don't understand it and approach it in a 'pop music mentality' so it often comes across as being too complex, stuffy, pretentious etc.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Justifying my first statement close to adequately would require discussing the nature of musical meaning. I don't feel up to that. I'll just say that the subtle meanings and fascinating places classical music opens up to me constitute a principal reason why I was drawn to it and why I've listened to it far more than to any other musical genre. The reason is not just that I "like the way it sounds." Sounds, and the shapes into which composers press sounds, communicate to me; they evoke things, infinitely varied things, emotional, visual, philosophical. They penetrate the deeper levels of my consciousness to unconscious levels, the level of dreams and levels beneath dreams. *Obviously I can't say what music means to you.* But I consider it my first language, and English but a poor translation; musical meaning, like the life of the emotions and everything else interesting, is too complex, and we don't have enough words.
> 
> As to your doubts about *simplicity, it's synonymous with economy*. An artist strives to find what's necessary, and to eliminate all that isn't. In composing a symphony, much more is rejected than is used. We have sketches of Beethoven's which show him refining his conceptions by paring them down.


To your first point, I would say that your description of what it means to you might suffice as a description of what it means to me: it's important, and I couldn't do without it. But that isn't the same thing as what you seemed to imply which is that regardless of its significance to individuals, CM carries complex (perhaps 'deep' or 'multiple') meanings.

On your second point, I can't accept simplicity as synonymous with economy. Simplicity is much too closely allied to 'uncomplicated' to be satisfied with suggesting that complexity can really be simple when its economical. I do accept however, that an artist strives to find what's necessary and reject what isn't.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2017)

tdc said:


> "Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art."
> -Chopin


I may have to accept that he was a great composer, but l don't have to accept his reflections on art. He's talking nonsense. Unless, of course, he was referring to dawning realisation that after all his excess of notes, the 3 minute pop song is the perfect musical form after all!



tdc said:


> I think it is good to 'switch gears' so to speak when listening to *different forms of music because they aren't trying to do the same things*. If you are approaching a piece of pop music in a 'classical state of mind' it is likely you will perceive short comings in the music and it may seem too simple, pedestrian etc.


Exactly so!


----------



## Gouldanian (Nov 19, 2015)

No, it's not a question of complexity, it's a question of misconception, and wrong assumptions.

On misconception, my ex used to tell me: "classical music is like a bunch of instruments making random annoying sounds together." I'd try explaining to her that classical music should be treated like a novel. There's a story, the music is a voice and the instruments are speaking to you. You can't drop into the middle of a novel, inattentive to top it all off, and expect to appreciate it completely. You have to start from the beginning and be attentive.

On wrong assumptions, young people are under the impression that classical music was written by old people for old people. What they don't realize is that most classical pieces were written by teenagers barely in their 20's. Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, and others, didn't live to see 35! They were a bunch of brilliant kids trying to express their feelings through music.

So yeah, the source of lack of popularity of classical music is misconception, and wrong assumptions.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I may have to accept that he was a great composer, but l don't have to accept his reflections on art. He's talking nonsense. Unless, of course, he was referring to dawning realisation that after all his excess of notes, the 3 minute pop song is the perfect musical form after all!


I agree that because one was a great composer doesn't necessarily make them correct on their reflections on art, however in the case of Chopin his art was music and I think he had a fairly good understanding of it (though no one is omniscient in such things). But I think I understand what he was getting at and I absolutely agree.

If you agree with my above comment that classical music and pop are generally trying to do different things then I think it is false to believe that Chopin would think the 3 minute pop song the ideal musical form.

If one were to take Chopin's comment too literally then we could say that the ideal form is just to play one note and be done with it. But Chopin was not saying that the simplest possible thing one could do with music is best, but that an underlying simplicity is the goal. I think this relates to a couple of things, the first is understanding. To brilliant people complex things can seem simple and these realizations can be profound, I think this is part of what Chopin is referring to, for the essence of the music to become simple and clear to people because they have a clear understanding of it.

Secondly, in classical music simple things sound amazing, but only in the right context. For example the repeating bass line in a passacaglia allows for much harmonic complexity over top of it, but it is the simple familiar repeating drone of notes that keeps it anchored in a powerful and simplistic way.

Further it is so often just a couple of notes (or just the space between notes) that are the most powerful moments in a piece of music, but those simple moments are meaningless on their own, it is the context they are in that makes them powerful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> To your first point, I would say that your description of what it means to you might suffice as a description of what it means to me: it's important, and I couldn't do without it. But that isn't the same thing as what you seemed to imply which is that regardles of its significance to individuals, CM carries complex (perhaps 'deep' or 'multiple') meanings.
> 
> On your second point, I can't accept simplicity as synonymous with economy. Simplicity is much too closely allied to 'uncomplicated' to be satisfied with suggesting that complexity can really be simple when its economical. I do accept however, that an artist strives to find what's necessary and reject what isn't.


On the second point, you are missing two things: 1.) words have more than one meaning; 2.) a thing may, simultaneously, be complex at one level or in one dimension, and simple in another. A piece of music may be "simple" in its underlying concept or design while being complex in detail. In fact, in most cases, the more complex the surface of a work, the more important that its basic structure be simple in order to avoid an effect of confusion and clutter, a tiresome accumulation of detail, or a random succession of events. A common way of describing this principle in art is "unity in diversity."

On the first point, classical music's tendency to embody more complex meaning is typically shown by the fact that people return to a work and get more out of it each time. This might occur partly because of the richness of relationships between the music's facets, and partly because life experience brings new ways of perceiving those facets. The music accompanies us through life, and its meanings evolve as we live and change. I think this is less likely to happen with popular music, which is generally pretty self-explanatory and is more likely to "take us back" when we hear it later in life than to reveal new things.


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> On the second point, you are missing two things: 1.) words have more than one meaning; 2.) a thing may, simultaneously, be complex at one level or in one dimension, and simple in another. A piece of music may be "simple" in its underlying concept or design while being complex in detail. In fact, in most cases, the more complex the surface of a work, the more important that its basic structure be simple in order to avoid an effect of confusion and clutter, a tiresome accumulation of detail, or a random succession of events. A common way of describing this principle in art is "unity in diversity."
> 
> On the first point, classical music's tendency to embody more complex meaning is typically shown by the fact that people return to a work and get more out of it each time. This might occur partly because of the richness of relationships between the music's facets, and partly because life experience brings new ways of perceiving those facets. The music accompanies us through life, and its meanings evolve as we live and change. I think this is less likely to happen with popular music, which is generally pretty self-explanatory and is more likely to "take us back" when we hear it later in life than to reveal new things.


I accept that words can have more than one meaning (d'uh!) and that sometimes those meanings are opposite ("cleave" being the usual example). But it's also true that unless we inhabit the world of Humpty Dumpty, words can't just mean what we might want them to mean, or we lose all common ground.

As for a notion of 'underlying' simplicity, I don't get it. Music is what it is, or at least, how the listener perceives it, regardless of the intent of the composer.

Pop music might take us back - suggesting that it is much more disposable than CM, though not inferior because of it. But it's also true that some 'pop' has a greater longevity for the listener than you allow. I leave alone some of my pop/rock CDs as I do my CM, and return later to find something different about them.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

tdc said:


> "Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art."
> -Chopin


Of course, what Chopin meant by "simplicity" is a very long way away from what most of the posters in this thread mean by that word. It was good of you to include his second sentence, which begins to give a bit of context to his comment. As Charles Rosen's detailed discussion in his fine book The Romantic Generation makes rather obvious, Chopin's music is anything but simple.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The average piece of classical music is written in sonata format and has multiple movements. That has a whole bunch of parts including a beginning (exposition), movement to another theme or thematic material (development, there can be several sections of development in a movement) and in the end a return to the main theme or thematic material (recapitulation or recap.) 

All these parts can be repeated within a movement, also. Repeating an exposition theme in a symphony or concerto ensures the crowd goes home humming it.

Most popular music is strophic -- four stanzas with the first, second and fourth being the same and sometimes the third having a variant. The only rock musicians I ever heard that played in sonata format were Cream on their longer tunes -- 7 to 15 minutes. Just about all popular songs are strophes.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

It's just about as hard to write a pop hit as it is to write a 15 minute baroque concerto. The lyrics are so important in pop. Also, the music must reflect the lyrics, mood.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> As for a notion of 'underlying' simplicity, I don't get it. Music is what it is, or at least, how the listener perceives it, regardless of the intent of the composer


It isn't true that music is only what the listener perceives. A piece is either constructed (by the "intent of the composer") over a ground bass or it isn't, whether we can hear that or not. If it is, we have the opportunity of understanding the complexities of its melodies, harmonies and rhythms in the context of a simple underlying principle of organization, the regularly repeated figure in the bass.

Musical forms, in general, perform this simplifying function: a song, for example, may have numerous melodic twists and turns as well as complex harmonies, but the complex whole may fall into a simple pattern of alternating verses and refrain, a "bow" structure of ABA, or the "bar" form of AAB. The simple underlying pattern gives the mind something readily comprehensible to rely on, a context in which the song's details acquire purpose, and a "norm" which makes meaningful any departures from the expected pattern. This is the way musical form works - and, not coincidentally, it's the way thinking works: ideas are comprehensible in terms of simpler ideas, without which we are forever awash in a sea of incoherent impressions and stimuli.

The mind cannot deal fully with complex perceptions and concepts unless it can trace them back to simpler ones and, in turn, organize them into easily comprehended patterns or "gestalts." The mind works this way automatically. Art, science, philosophy, all cognitive functions, and even our emotions, work this way. We are in search of simplicity, and the more successful we are at finding it the more complexity we can handle.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> We are in search of simplicity, and the more successful we are at finding it the more complexity we can handle.


I agree with that. The great artists develop a logical, efficient and coherent, yet flexible, language that allows them to express a wide range of ideas with subtlety and nuance. Once the listener learns that language, which may take repeated careful listening, it sounds simple, natural and inevitable. However, if you do a lot of thorough analysis, as Charles Rosen does, you see it's anything but simple, rather it's the product of a great deal of meticulous work by someone with immense skill.

Unlike a former poster here who ruffled a lot of feathers, I don't think it necessary to look in the kitchen and learn the master chef's techniques to enjoy a great meal, if you follow my metaphor. But the other side of the coin is, it's pointless to endlessly ask why today's composer's don't write more music like that of Mozart or Chopin.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> It isn't true that music is only what the listener perceives.


Well, I suppose if we're going to get into what 'is' means, I take your point, but to the lay listener (and by 'lay' I mean not into philosophy, not ignorant about music) music is what the listener perceives (and by 'perceives' I mean the entirety of the listening, processing, evaluating, understading and attaching meaning experience. I won't necessarily perceive what the composer intended, whether I can 'hear' (and I assume you didn't just mean either 'notice' or 'my hearing apparatus was working and discerned it in amongst the tinnitus') a ground bass or not.

The logic of what you're suggesting is that we can comprehend nothing complex; everything must be reduced to the simple. This surely can't be true. I accept that we might break into bited sized chunks, but we build back up a whole of complexity. If we didn't, we couldn't cope with the whole of anything longer than the 3 minute pop song.

A crude analogy. I know my way from home to work as a series of moves shorter than the whole, which I recall sequentially, not in their entirety. When I'm asked for directions, I have to mentally step through those moves, and anyone listening would hear my faltering as I try to make sure I get the moves right and in the right sequence. But my total sense of the journey is nevertheless preserved - I know when I am just beginning, half way, nearly there, and arrived. Without an impression of the whole, I could never know where I was going. So it is with a painting, or a piece of music. I break it into pieces, but maintain a sense of the whole, and in the case of art, a whole greater than the sum of its parts.

I should add that it is the 'whole' over which the composer can have no control, becasue he has no control over what I bring to the listening experience. It's one of the reasons why, in the Mozart/genius thread (amongst others), people get so cross when their cherished favourite is dissed, and setting out the pieces of Mozart's (or Wagner's) genius is an incomplete rebuttal to those who don't perceive it - whose 'whole' is different than the fan's.


----------



## Larry (Oct 5, 2017)

Classical music is like Rembrandt, multiple layers that build the anatomy of the subject. Pop music is Any Warhol, cartoonish soup cans. (But there's nothing wrong with that).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> *The logic of what you're suggesting is that we can comprehend nothing complex; *everything must be reduced to the simple. This surely can't be true. I accept that we might break into bited sized chunks, but we build back up a whole of complexity. If we didn't, we couldn't cope with the whole of anything longer than the 3 minute pop song.
> 
> A crude analogy. I know my way from home to work as a series of moves shorter than the whole, which I recall sequentially, not in their entirety. When I'm asked for directions, I have to mentally step through those moves, and anyone listening would hear my faltering as I try to make sure I get the moves right and in the right sequence. But my total sense of the journey is nevertheless preserved - I know when I am just beginning, half way, nearly there, and arrived. Without an impression of the whole, I could never know where I was going. So it is with a painting, or a piece of music. I break it into pieces, but maintain a sense of the whole, and in the case of art, a whole greater than the sum of its parts.
> 
> I should add that *it is the 'whole' over which the composer can have no control, becasue he has no control over what I bring to the listening experience.* It's one of the reasons why, in the Mozart/genius thread (amongst others), people get so cross when their cherished favourite is dissed, and setting out the pieces of Mozart's (or Wagner's) genius is an incomplete rebuttal to those who don't perceive it - whose 'whole' is different than the fan's.


You're making this too complicated, Macleod. Simplicity! Simplicity!

I'm not saying that we can't comprehend complexities. I'm saying that we "com-prehend" them - we "take them together" into a simpler whole, a "gestalt" which the mind can hold without having to refer constantly to all the parts.

As far as the applicability of this to musical form is concerned, how is it relevant what you or anyone else brings to the listening experience? The ground bass or the rondo or sonata-allegro structure is there, and the composer has given our brains the possibility of a satisfying experience of "com-prehension," a marvelous ready-made gestalt. What's marvelous is that he has done for us, in arranging the sounds in advance of our hearing them, what we normally have to do ourselves when confronted with stimuli. It's an epistemic freebie, and one of the reasons we turn to music for pleasure.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> That's implied in a number of recent threads, like the one about whether pop music makes us too dumb to like more complex music. I'm not sure about this at all. How consistently is classical music more complex than other genres? Is greater complexity the salient difference between classical music and other genres? Is complexity good, anyway?
> 
> Thoughts?


Bach's music was about as technically complicated as it could get during his day and maybe even today, but the striking difference is his music has great emotional depth, and we all love it. On the other hand, atonal music is also just as complicated but to many listeners the depth of emotion is missing. So music is not just about complexity and it would never really flourish if that is all it's about.


----------



## GAJ (Oct 15, 2016)

Music is a language. Language is full of complexities and simplicities. If we master a language haven't we simplified it's complexities? Have the greatest masters of music already accomplished the same in their masterpieces?

I'm reminded of the famous exchange between two giants of the symphonic repertoire. ( Based on the widespread acceptance that symphonic works are the most 'complex'.) Sibelius remarked that he admired the style of the symphony and severity of its form along with the profound logic creating an inner connection between all the motives. Complex? Was Mahler's reply simple? No! The symphony is like a world and it must embrace everything! Two examples of how to successfully combine complexity and simplicity from completely different musical standpoints. It's fair to say they were both so good at it that it almost defies analysis. One can do just the same with the apparently 'simple' utterances of early Mozart.

I feel the more we understand any piece of music, however 'complex', the more simple it has become.

All the replies on this thread never really answer the original question on musical complexities. They only confirm how much we are all lovers of musical language. Absolutely right to ask for "thoughts" not "answers.

I'm impelled to thank everyone who has contributed their thoughts. This is a brilliant thread and long may it continue.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> how is it relevant what you or anyone else brings to the listening experience?


Well you've got me there. If it isn't obvious, I don't see how I can explain it, except to observe that your gestalt won't be the same as my gestalt as we com-prehend Mozart's 40th. Surely, attitudes differ towards the same composition because of what we bring to the listening experience? (And I don't mean competent listening, though that _can _play a part.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Well you've got me there. If it isn't obvious, I don't see how I can explain it, except to observe that your gestalt won't be the same as my gestalt as we com-prehend Mozart's 40th. Surely, attitudes differ towards the same composition because of what we bring to the listening experience? (And I don't mean competent listening, though that _can _play a part.)


I do understand what you're saying, but I don't see why you're saying it. I thought the issue was the nature of complexity and simplicity in music - in _music,_ not in listeners' variable ability to perceive them. Obviously people may hear a piece in all sorts of ways, but complexity and simplicity are aesthetic principles I've been trying to define. You didn't understand, or want to accept, my ideas on that, and so I've tried to expand and clarify them. But you're throwing this "different people hear things differently" at me as if it invalidated my observations. It doesn't. It's a different issue.

Complexity and simplicity exist in music whether you perceive them or not, and there are structural techniques composers employ to create them. When the OP asks whether classical music is defined by complexity, I don't think it wants to know whether you or I can hear the complexity that's there. But as far as that's concerned, your gestalt of Mozart's 40th and mine will be more similar than you might think. Mozart's construction of that work is crystal-clear, and no one with normal ability to process aural data and some listening experience needs training in theory and composition to "get" it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I do understand what you're saying, but I don't see why you're saying it. I thought the issue was the nature of complexity and simplicity in music - in _music,_ not in listeners' variable ability to perceive them.


Well as often happens, the twists and turns of a conversation can take us away from the OP. The issue _is _the nature of complexity and simplicity in music, but for me, music is something that only exists when the listener engages with it. It doesn't exist in real form until someone is listening to it. So my reaction to the music has an impact on whether I comprehend something as simple or complex. It just isn't all down to Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Well as often happens, the twists and turns of a conversation can take us away from the OP. The issue _is _the nature of complexity and simplicity in music, but for me, music is something that only exists when the listener engages with it. It doesn't exist in real form until someone is listening to it. So my reaction to the music has an impact on whether I comprehend something as simple or complex. It just isn't all down to Mozart.


So we're talking about two different things. Glad that's settled. Now I can go back to defending myself against the anti-Wagner militia, and wondering what I ever did to deserve such a fate.


----------

