# New Complexity



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

What do you think of the New Complexity movement and who are your favourite composers associated with it?


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Well, so answers to what we think about it may not have a favorite composer associated with it. Such is the case for me and such as I do not even have a favorite 'piece', if we can call it such...I surely do not have a favorite composer. I do, however, know of Jason Eckardt and a couple others just not sure of their exact names.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

What do I think of it? I find it incomprehensible, but anyone who can deal even adequately with those ridiculous rhythms is some kind of genius. I posted this somewhere before, but it really surprised me how precise a sense of the rhythm in his music Brian Ferneyhough has:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Argus said:


> What do you think of the New Complexity movement and who are your favourite composers associated with it?


New Complexity is pretty cool, though I still prefer Black Sabbath (I know, I know, I'm comparing apples with pigs).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HOLY MOTHER OF PEARL! I didnt think you would ever come back Argus! lol

Hmm Brian Ferneyhough? I like it! Just one more niche of music to explore.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

violadude said:


> HOLY MOTHER OF PEARL! I didnt think you would ever come back Argus! lol
> 
> Hmm Brian Ferneyhough? I like it! Just one more niche of music to explore.


Well I popped in to ask these questions about scordatura (maybe you can help, being a viola player) and thought I'd have a gander in this part of the forum.

I've been listening to some music from the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival and noted the label New Complexity kept popping up and wondered what the knowledgable minds here had to say about it.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

From what I can tell it produces music that is more interesting to be seen than heard.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

I'd tend to agree with that. I have hard times with this super-intellectual music that seems to be written only to be listened/studied by some other composers/musicians (not many).
In France there's a kind of contest organized by a magazine called La Lettre du Musicien, were student from all the high school classes with music as an option vote for two composers among a list of 7-8. All of them are french living composers.
Last year, in my last high school year, there was a piece by Marc André, who seems to be a New Complexity adept. It was dreadful. "De la branlette !" (sorry, I don't know how to translate this).
However, I've heard very little of "New Complexity" music. 

If anyone has a piece he/she loves and want to share it I'd be very curious. Does anyone here knows more about this movement ?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Brian Ferneyhough
Richard Barrett
Michael Finnissy
James Dillon*

All composers of great talent.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'm still waiting for someone to catch up to white noise for complexity. John Cage had his chance, but he wasted it on silence for 4'33". He could have used white noise instead and gotten this whole "New Complexity" thing off to a start in 1952.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I like how it sounds, the scores 'look cool' but complex notation for the sake of itself unnecessary limits its playability. If those guys just sold their scores as paintings but gave the musicians the music notated with more clarity for the sake of performance and study that would be great. Perhaps one can simply learn to read it like any other skill but it surely takes a lot of time and effort that could be lessened to achieve the same sounds in practise. Please ignore this post completely, as you can see, I'm very ignorant about the matter in question.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2014)

It's not for me. I guess I can admire the mind that created it, but I don't find that style enjoyable to listen to. Anyone can write music that's virtually unplayable: the trick is to make it listenable, too. I don't mind dissonance, but complexity for complexity's sake just doesn't work for me. I don't dismiss it as worthless, though.


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

One of my favourite pieces for flute is this lovely _Cassandra's dream song_, by Brian Ferneyhough, where you can find all kind of extended techniques and other telltale signals of the New Complexity group. But this is not just pyrotechnics, it is used as a powerful, and beautiful (albeit, admittedly, a little bit complicated) way to write expressive music.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I like how it sounds, the scores 'look cool' but complex notation for the sake of itself unnecessary limits its playability. If those guys just sold their scores as paintings but gave the musicians the music notated with more clarity for the sake of performance and study that would be great. Perhaps one can simply learn to read it like any other skill but it surely takes a lot of time and effort that could be lessened to achieve the same sounds in practise. Please ignore this post completely, as you can see, I'm very ignorant about the matter in question.


This seems to be the general opinion of those unfamiliar with Ferneyhough, but I recommend you watch some of this material to explain it a bit better.






Here he talks about the accuracy of scores and their interpretations:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

An accessible and humorous piece is Ferneyhough's _Flurries_.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Electro Acoustic Installation Performance by Richard Barrett & Per Inge Bjørlo*


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

*Michael Finnissy - Ének*


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Breaking barriers is all fine and good. I think it a necessary endeavor for the human condition: Exploration, finding a new way to do something, doing or creating something that has never been done before, etc.

However, I think it should serve more of a purpose than for the sake of itself as *Richannes Wrahms *noted above. I could build a house with doorways that are sideways, windows at odd and obtuse angles and not square, a door in a floor that goes nowhere, a stairway that looks like an M.C. Escher drawing. It would be "new," "complex," "revolutionary," and a bunch of other adjectives.

But... could one live in a house like that? if so, how many people would WANT to live in a house like that? One could look at that house and say, "what an ingenious creation, how clever, how intelligent to make something like that," and they would be right. Someone else could look at it and say, "How the hell do you get upstairs? How can I sit comfortably in that house when the couch is mounted onto the wall?" And they would be right as well.

My ultimate point is that I don't see music (or almost any art for that matter) as something that should be strictly for the composer and a few musicians that is basically self-serving. IMO, art should elevate, inspire, be approachable to the multitudes, and ultimately be useful for the multitudes. Not "common" mind you, but wonderfully creative, not insularly (is that a word?) creative.

It seems to me that there is this ego-driven joy in some people when they do something or enjoy something (or at least SAY they enjoy it) that they KNOW most people aren't going to like, appreciate, understand, and ultimately feel intimidated by. I think it gives them a sense of smug superiority. I'm not saying everyone is like that, because I know there are those composers and musicians who are truly trying to nobly push the envelope for all the right reasons. It just seems that in this genre of art, and a lot of other modern art, there is this smugness.

It's just my two cents on the subject for what it's worth.

V


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Varick said:


> Breaking barriers is all fine and good. I think it a necessary endeavor for the human condition: Exploration, finding a new way to do something, doing or creating something that has never been done before, etc.
> 
> However, I think it should serve more of a purpose than for the sake of itself as *Richannes Wrahms *noted above. I could build a house with doorways that are sideways, windows at odd and obtuse angles and not square, a door in a floor that goes nowhere, a stairway that looks like an M.C. Escher drawing. It would be "new," "complex," "revolutionary," and a bunch of other adjectives.
> 
> ...


Yeah I'd hate to live in a house Ferneyhough made but I enjoy his music a lot. I think the avant garde is always going to be popular among a minority of people, but that's okay.

What about cultures where music is produced just for the sake of those performing, eg. in Mongolia where herdsmen sing their khoomei to an audience of wild horses and mother nature. Not all music belongs in the vast concert halls, and likewise Mozart doesn't belong in one of those mega-stadiums built for rock music.

Just as in smaller cultures music becomes a communal project I think the avant garde can bring people together with a mutual love of that style. The problems it poses are when it becomes snobbish or elitist; as in, the niche becomes the standard for all musical study. I don't think that is necessarily to be the case with New Complexity; you get snobs in all areas of art.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Varick said:


> Breaking barriers is all fine and good. I think it a necessary endeavor for the human condition: Exploration, finding a new way to do something, doing or creating something that has never been done before, etc.
> 
> However, I think it should serve more of a purpose than for the sake of itself as *Richannes Wrahms *noted above. I could build a house with doorways that are sideways, windows at odd and obtuse angles and not square, a door in a floor that goes nowhere, a stairway that looks like an M.C. Escher drawing. It would be "new," "complex," "revolutionary," and a bunch of other adjectives.
> 
> ...


Personally, I am not interested in what a composer _thinks_ one wishes to hear. _An artist's sole aim should be to please either GOD (if he's religious) or himself_. If people like what he produces, that's merely a bonus. Imagine if Picasso and Beethoven only produced art that could be readily and easily consumed by the public? What a waste of talent and creativity.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Personally, I am not interested in what a composer _thinks_ one wishes to hear. _An artist's sole aim should be to please either GOD (if he's religious) or himself_. If people like what he produces, that's merely a bonus. Imagine if Picasso and Beethoven only produced art that could be readily and easily consumed by the public? What a waste of talent and creativity.


Not so much Picasso, but Beethoven mostly produced art that could be readily and easily consumed by the public. Most of the old great artists, whether it was in music, literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, made their art that was easily consumed, appreciated, and understood by the public. This is why they have become "works of art."

I think it was Samuel Clemons who said that it takes great deal of difficulty to write something that is easily read. I think the same could be applied to almost all mediums of art. Most of the great artists throughout history wanted their art to be transcendent, and because of that, they became "great" works of art.

Nowadays a lot of art is all about self-indulgence and the profane. Look at the the sculpture that won an international award in Germany a few years ago: A Police woman squatting and urinating. Included in the sculpture was the yellow puddle beneath her.

Look at the sculpture that is now on the side of the museum of art in (I believe) Orange County, California: A giant dog lifting it's leg and urinating on the building.

Wow, what uplifting, lofty, and inspiring themes!

I know it's almost sacrilege to "define" art, but I have always been a believer that it should be defined, at least in some part. The best definition I have ever heard was that it should embody three major attributes:

1. *Originality*. (In today's world, it seems that this is the *only* criteria for many "artists" or for those who call something art).

2. *Skill:* Not everyone can do it. Very few people could write a good Fugue, Sonata, or Symphony. Very few could write Moby Dick, and perhaps fewer could paint something like the Mona Lisa. But almost anyone can get naked, cover themselves in Hershey chocolate and yell and scream out obscenities (Karen Finley). Almost anyone can fill a room up with 3 feet of dirt and level it out (The "Earth Room" in Greenwich Village, NYC - not sure it's still there).

3. (And this is perhaps the toughest - which to me, almost makes it essential) *Longevity:* 50-100 years from now, will people still be performing it, reading it, looking at it? I forgot who said it, and they said it partially tongue-in-cheek, but I believe they made a good point: _"No book should be taught in school unless it's 100 years old."_ Will a piece of art withstand the test of time. Most of us today, will have no idea what will last or be "rediscovered" in the future.

There will probably be many who disagree with me here, and that is fine. But please just ask yourself this: Why have almost all the "great" works of art stood up to the scrutiny of those three factors. Certain Pollock paintings are some of the most valuable paintings in the world. Because of the high value of them now, they will continue to be valuable for some time to come. I may be wrong, but I predict eventually, the will hardly be worth anything.

V


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Varick said:


> Not so much Picasso, but Beethoven mostly produced art that could be readily and easily consumed by the public. Most of the old great artists, whether it was in music, literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, made their art that was easily consumed, appreciated, and understood by the public. This is why they have become "works of art."


Charles Rosen expounds the opposite view, that what survives in the long run is the more difficult. The modern audience may be able to consume most Beethoven with ease, but in the 19th century, many of his works (not all, of course) were seen as "difficult". His late works were admired, but not loved by many.

I doubt the average person understands Beethoven very well even today, outside of a few famous excerpts.

And something being able to be understood by the public does not, in itself, make a work art, much less great art. If I may venture to say so, acceptability to the public at large has absolutely no relation whatsoever to artistic quality, positive or negative.

The existence of bad art (or art that you think is bad) doesn't imply that all art is now debased and nothing will survive. Bad art has always existed, and always will. So will great art.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I've been very impressed by Richard Barrett's Dark Matter, James Dillon's Book of Elements and Matthias Pintcher's Osiris (to highlight some of the names associated with new complexity). However, I don't think new complexity is a coherent aesthetic that these composers share - just an interest in some similar techniques and perhaps a connection Ferneyhough

Oh - and it's not mathematic or primarily of technical interest or striving for originality only. Like other music, the interest is in how it sounds for the composer and listener


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Musicologists make a connection or analogy between the _New Complexity_ and _Ars Subtilior_. Ars Subtilior was a brief period in medieval music, comprising roughly the second half of the 1300s and with center in Avignon. The music was very complex, often stretching the possibilities of the notation because of its rhythmic intricacy.















Philippus de Caserta - _De ma dolour_ (it's not the piece in the score attached to the video)


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2014)

Pretty bogus title, that "New Complexity". I'd give it a try, but that tag is pretty darn off-putting.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Pretty bogus title, that "New Complexity". I'd give it a try, but that tag is pretty darn off-putting.


It's just music! Perhaps you'd prefer "New Simplicity"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Simplicity

Although this, imho, is just another term of maybe some currency to those involved at the time but little or no use to most listeners today


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Labels are just that. And more often than not, they are more related to the historical genesis of the thing rather than describing it once it has matured.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2014)

As long as it's not reflected in the music, I'm sure it's great stuff. Complexity should be a byproduct of creating good music - Not a goal in itself.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I agree that complexity just for the sake of it is certainly not guarantee of good music. But when this complexity is driven by a good ear, even if (or, I should say, particularly when) the composer 'is being complex intentionally', the result is often the music that most interest me. As Mahlerian said, that's the kind of music that tends to be remembered as 'great'. 

Art is a brain candy. It has no practical utility. Its only merit resides in entertaining this restless thing we all have in our heads and which we call brain. This entertainment can be emotional, more intellectual, etc., or all these together. So, art is an artificial product designed for that. I don't see any problem in making those products deliberately complex. I enjoy watching equilibrists at work ;-)


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

The issue of "complexity" here is a bit vexed - but I'll let Brian and Neil talk a little bit about how the "complexity" works for both composers and performers (very cool vid and a great piece!)


----------

