# Simplicity and Complexity



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

A great deal of guff is spoken on this forum about the two concepts mentioned in this thread title. People oversimplify, and made crude and simple-minded generalisations: classical music is officially 'complex', apparently, and this is what separates it from various vernacular genres.

Truth is, there is a great deal of classical music which is actually quite simple, but remarkably beautiful. This is what's mysterious about a lot of great music. The means with which Beethoven worked were often remarkably simple but extremely effective, and developed with a supreme musical logic of great affective import. And yet someone like Mozart (despite being a contrapuntist almost _nonpareil_) isn't renowned for his ability to develop material like a Bach or a Beethoven - it's just that his themes, harmonies and tonal language are just so _right_ and so brilliant.

Also, I believe that before popular music was turned into a commodity - i.e. when it really was the music of 'the people' it was much more unique, with its own organic aesthetic, and its own type of complexity which may have eluded the uninitiated or prejudiced listener. I say this from my experience listening to various folk and indigenous musics featuring asymmetrical rhythms, microtones and elaborate heterophony, like some (authentic) indigenous Bulgarian music.

Although commentators may make cursory observations on a certain repertoire's complexity - the _Ars Subtilior_, for example, or intellectual feats of great artistic worth like Ockeghem's _Missa Prolationum_ or Bach's _Das musikalische Opfer_ - it is generally understood that to make value-judgements on such a basis is foolish.

Anyway, I'd much rather listen to an ostensibly simple piece by Mozart, moving around with such wonderful ease in the language of tonality, than listen to the crude notion of complexity embraced in certain subgenres or underground types of popular music* - this is a literalistic and (ironically) dim kind of complexity - it is complexity fetishised.

*Guess what I'm referring to.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical (Mar 15, 2008)

Classical music, even its simple pieces are most of the time more complex than most forms of music. There is simple classical music out there, but most of it is more complex than like, lets say, 50 Cent, or Brittney Spears. You get the idea. That is why people call it officially complex, at least for me. Simplicity is indeed a beautiful thing when used in the right way, just like complexity. Like I mention earlier, Cantus by Arvo Part is a brilliant piece. I recommend it to anyone looking for minimalist classical. 

As for your *, you know exactly what I am thinking.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Classical music, even its simple pieces are most of the time more complex than most forms of music. There is simple classical music out there, but most of it is more complex than like, lets say, 50 Cent, or Brittney Spears.


How is classical music more complex? I know a piece by Kuhnau which makes exclusive use of tonics and dominants (don't think ill of him - it was on purpose, but I forget what he was meant to be depicting). Certain forms of popular music use jazz-like harmonies featuring added ninths and elevenths, and diminished chords (I'm thinking Michael Jackson's _Thriller_).

Besides which, you missed my point - which was that we oughtn't categorise music according to whether it is 'simple' or 'complex', and that such issues more often than not are irrelevant. There are other, far more reasonable forms of criteria, based around a particular work's concinnity.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical (Mar 15, 2008)

Herzeleide said:


> How is classical music more complex? I know a piece by Kuhnau which makes exclusive use of tonics and dominants (don't think ill of him - it was on purpose, but I forget what he was meant to be depicting). Certain forms of popular music use jazz-like harmonies featuring added ninths and elevenths, and diminished chords (I'm thinking Michael Jackson's _Thriller_).
> 
> Besides which, you missed my point - which was that we oughtn't categorise music according to whether it is 'simple' or 'complex', and that such issues more often than not are irrelevant. There are other, far more reasonable forms of criteria, based around a particular work's concinnity.


When comparing classical music to pop or rap, you will see rap and pop have (most of the time) the same beat repeated over and over again, and melodies that never really change. Classical on the other hand is constantly changing. Time signature changes in classical music are much more sophisticated, there is a lot to it. But yes, I got your point, I was only mentioning why I and several other people think that.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

There is simple and complex music in every genre. I think the issue of simple and complex is almost non-existent in my opinion. You either "get" something or you do not. You are either born with the ability to hear music or you are not. Being born with musical ability I can hear all of the nuances in a piece of music. I can hear what the cellos are doing, what the violins are doing, the brass section, etc. and how all of these parts help form a big picture. The only way, in my opinion, a piece gets more complicated is when more instruments are involved like the instrumentation in an orchestra for example, but this has nothing to do with the music itself just the physical aspect of the music. In chamber music, the instrumentation is much more intimate, but it requires less room for errors, because there are less musicians.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> When comparing classical music to pop or rap, you will see rap and pop have (most of the time) the same beat repeated over and over again, and melodies that never really change.


A bit like this video you posted: 






Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Classical on the other hand is constantly changing.


Did you read my previous post about Kuhnau? 

How is this, for example, 'constantly changing'? :






It'd probably be sensible to discontinue making generalisations on classical music...



Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> Time signature changes in classical music are much more sophisticated, there is a lot to it.


Some time signature changes may warrant the description of 'sophisticated' - the proportional relationships involved in Elliott Carter's 'metric modulation', for example. Many other instances of time signature changes are less cerebral, however. So what? Our understanding of various types of music cannot grow if we apply inappropriate or prejudiced criteria in our judgement of it.

Compared to Stravinsky, Beethoven's rhythmic language is naive. Haydn's textures are primitive compared to those of Ligeti. But of course, no one (of any importance) is idiotic enough to criticise either Beethoven or Haydn for this.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think that classical music has only been labelled as 'too complex' by some because they don't get off their backsides & make an effort to, say, read a bit about it or hear it before going to a concert. About a decade ago, I was at a concert where they played Richard Strauss' _Metamorphosen_. At it's conclusion, I heard a guy sitting next to me say to his wife that 'it had no point' or something like that. Basically, I think that to understand classical music, you have to make an effort to really get into the music on many different levels. It's no use blaming the composer, for example, if you don't get it the first time you hear it.

In my case, it sometimes takes quite a few listens to a cd that I haven't listened to before to appreciate it more fully. I think that classical (& some jazz) really challenges & changes the listener. So called 'complexity' can be understood better the more you get involved with, read about, talk to others about (like here), and of course sit down & listen to the music. The ball's really in your court, so to speak...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I'm sure I used to think in terms of simple/complex, but now I despise the idea. It just doesn't make much sense. You like the music or you don't. Categorizing is the same thing people did when it came to slavery and racism in general. It doesn't serve a purpose; it's just what people do to make things seem more orderly and such.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Andre said:


> I think that classical music has only been labelled as 'too complex' by some because they don't get off their backsides & make an effort to, say, read a bit about it or hear it before going to a concert. About a decade ago, I was at a concert where they played Richard Strauss' _Metamorphosen_. At it's conclusion, I heard a guy sitting next to me say to his wife that 'it had no point' or something like that. Basically, I think that to understand classical music, you have to make an effort to really get into the music on many different levels. It's no use blaming the composer, for example, if you don't get it the first time you hear it.
> 
> In my case, it sometimes takes quite a few listens to a cd that I haven't listened to before to appreciate it more fully. I think that classical (& some jazz) really challenges & changes the listener. So called 'complexity' can be understood better the more you get involved with, read about, talk to others about (like here), and of course sit down & listen to the music. The ball's really in your court, so to speak...


Bingo! That's it, Andre. You hit the nail on the head with this statements, especially this one:



Andre said:


> I think that classical music has only been labelled as 'too complex' by some because they don't get off their backsides & make an effort to, say, read a bit about it or hear it before going to a concert.


I also like this:



Andre said:


> Basically, I think that to understand classical music, you have to make an effort to really get into the music on many different levels. It's no use blaming the composer, for example, if you don't get it the first time you hear it.


I think this is true. It takes effort to understand something. Music doesn't come to you, you go to it.

I played a piece of music one time for a friend that I just wrote for solo electric guitar and after I performed it he said "I don't get it." I told him very plainly "How is that my problem?"

Like I said, with music you either get it or you don't. If you don't get it, then I think if you want to try to understand it, you should go back and listen again. If I had that kind of dismissive attitude towards say composers like Bruckner and Hindemith, then they wouldn't have become two of my favorite composers.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Take a look at this piece by Satie:






How simple, and yet how beautiful! Plus, the composer finds he way into books on classical music and classical music sections in shops. Why is that I wonder? How much more preferable is this than arcane forms of 'complex' (read: convoluted) popular music...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I got my own definition of complexity. It says: music is complex when I can't figure out what's going on. I mean, when I listen to a piece of music I put it intro little pieces in my mind - sometimes I can hear clearly how the piece is constructed and sometimes I can't. And that's the difference. 

I wouldn't say that classical music is ultimate complex. Many chamber music, solo piano pieces, unisono parts are quite simple and it's easy to replay it on your instrument basing only on your memory. At the other hand, there is a lot of music like jazz, rock or even pure pop where it would be really hard to work everything out.


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

*On topic: *In my opinion music is art, not a science. It's all subjective; complexity adds more colors in a musician's palette which is good when used tastefully but also increases the chances of making the music worse. The greatest composers are those who pushed the envelope like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. For example, Bach pieces are much more technical then Handel's. Why is Bach the greatest baroque composer?

Not because of his complexity but because of his tasteful use of harmony which was unique and was more complex than others. Note here tasteful is subjective. People in his time didn't think so. He was considered "old-fashioned". And I actually know people who think Handel was the better composer. Now there is nothing I can do to prove it otherwise; I'll just have to respect their opinion because it is a subjective matter.

And a piece being in classical genre doesn't mean that it'll be good automatically. Every genre has good and bad pieces.

The point here is complexity by itself doesn't mean anything; but if it is well-thought out, it adds something unique. And another thing is subjectivity, sometimes people get too much influenced by others and don't keep an open mind towards music like someone in this forum. *COUGH*

*Off-topic:* I don't know why you act like this, Herzeleide. I am aware of the fact that you don't like metal and I respect your opinion (beside the banter we have between ourselves). This forum has hundreds of threads; I don't see why are you so upset that some people on this site have a different taste in music than yours and they have a single thread running for it. I'm sure that Krummhorn and Margaret don't care for metal either, but we don't see them acting like immature crybabies and making disguised threads about it how metal is worst music genre ever and whatever they like is the best. Nobody is forcing you to like it.

*GROW UP.*


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Metalheadwholovesclasical said:


> When comparing classical music to pop or rap, you will see rap and pop have (most of the time) the same beat repeated over and over again, and melodies that never really change. Classical on the other hand is constantly changing. Time signature changes in classical music are much more sophisticated, there is a lot to it.


Yes, but even though they probably wouldn't be interested - just for arguments sake, would many modern classical composers be able to write a top 5 hit with a catchy tune for, say, Michael Jackson?


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> The point here is complexity by itself doesn't mean anything; but if it is well-thought out, it adds something unique.


So how does one go about 'adding' complexity to a piece of music? 



sam richards said:


> And another thing is subjectivity, sometimes people get too much influenced by others and don't keep an open mind towards music like someone in this forum. *COUGH*


Ah yes. The accusation of parochialism. My sympathies are vast: over a thousand years' worth of western classical music, a great deal of music from a myriad of cultures from around the world (folk and classical of these cultures) lots of jazz, and various subgenres of jazz, and, believe it or not, some popular music.



sam richards said:


> *Off-topic:* I don't know why you act like this, Herzeleide. I am aware of the fact that you don't like metal and I respect your opinion (beside the banter we have between ourselves). This forum has hundreds of threads; I don't see why are you so upset that some people on this site have a different taste in music than yours and they have a single thread running for it. I'm sure that Krummhorn and Margaret don't care for metal either, but we don't see them acting like immature crybabies and making disguised threads about it how metal is worst music genre ever and whatever they like is the best. Nobody is forcing you to like it.
> 
> *GROW UP.*


Oh dear. I feel thoroughly chastened by such devastating objurgation. 

Your homily is rife with clichés and platitudinous imagery.

FYI, the either false and/or irrelevant dichotomy of simplicity and complexity has arisen in various places on this forum.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Aramis said:


> I got my own definition of complexity. It says: music is complex when I can't figure out what's going on. I mean, when I listen to a piece of music I put it intro little pieces in my mind - sometimes I can hear clearly how the piece is constructed and sometimes I can't. And that's the difference.


But there's an issue of time.

Some pieces take longer to unravel themselves.* This is a kind of technical elusiveness or opacity that doesn't deserve the blunt ascription of complexity.

*But then there's the issue with great music - one can analyse the hell out of it, but the _Grundgestalt_ is irreducible.


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

Herzeleide said:


> So how does one go about 'adding' complexity to a piece of music?
> 
> Ah yes. The accusation of parochialism. My sympathies are vast: over a thousand years' worth of western classical music, a great deal of music from a myriad of cultures from around the world (folk and classical of these cultures) lots of jazz, and various subgenres of jazz, and, believe it or not, some popular music.
> 
> ...


As I said, music is subjective; we can simply agree to disagree here. I hate the popular music you like but I don't go on crying about it. 
"lololol the music i like is the best evar and what i don't like is musical murder"
"those who like metal are idiots just because i don't like it lolololol"

And it's funny when people use bombastic thesaurus-heavy language in order to prove to themselves that they are very intellectual but fail at simple grammar and spelling.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> As I said, music is subjective; we can simply agree to disagree here. I hate the popular music you like but I don't go on crying about it.
> "lololol the music i like is the best evar and what i don't like is musical murder"
> "those who like metal are idiots just because i don't like it lolololol"


I'm not a fan of subjectivism. Here's a post I've made elsewhere on this forum:



> Ooo subjectivism. A philosophical slippery-slope.
> 
> Here's the thing: philosophers have tried for thousands' of years to prove that the world exists, to try and prove various things to be either true or false. They question all the things we take for granted, because the things we take for granted, when scrutinised, actually appear to be questionable. Now, when questioning fundamental aspects of the world, almost all philosophers presuppose that some kind of truth is available, whether it's only empirical or whether it's universal truth.
> 
> ...





sam richards said:


> And it's funny when people use bombastic thesaurus-heavy language in order to prove to themselves that they are very intellectual but fail at simple grammar and spelling.


I'm under no illusion that I'm free from orthographical or grammatical errata any more than anyone else here. I make no pretence at being infallible. Your criticism is irrelevant.


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

Then I wouldn't bother arguing with someone who is deluded. I thought you were intelligent; *sigh* I'm disappointed.

Basically you and contrapunctus666 were saying the same thing. Art is subjective; that is what makes it a art.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> Basically you and contrapunctus666 were saying the same thing. Art is subjective; that is what makes it a art.


You ought to read my previous post and look up the definition of 'art'.


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

This is laughable. So we all who like metal are out of touch with reality and you are only the master of reality? Your opinion means nothing.

You need to rethink over this.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Why are you guys arguing over music? I mean this is really a pointless task isn't it? Why can't you guys just agree to disagree and be respectful of each other?

Whatever the case may be, I'm here to tell you that arguing over music gets you nowhere. What does it prove? Absolutely nothing. What it does, however, is leaves both of you feeling totally bitter and agitated with each other.

Let's all try and act like adults here and be a little bit more respectful of each other's opinions.


----------



## MEDIEVAL MIAMI (May 10, 2009)

Typiccal bass metal player:






Yes, only idiots follow metal.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> So we all who like metal are out of touch with reality and you are only the master of reality?


Pretty much. Anyone whose critical faculty has been informed by years' worth of study of great music will be in a greater position to judge the quality of music.

Coincidence that no contemporary classical composers are influenced by metal?


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

Well, to put it subtly, you're an idiot.

Classical doesn't mean good. In fact most of the western classical now-a-days just sucks. 


> Anyone whose critical faculty has been informed by years' worth of study of great music will be in a greater position to judge the quality of music


Yes, but I don't think you are in this position.

Close minded retards never learn. You're like those Jehovah's witnesses.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> In fact most of the western classical now-a-days just sucks.


Your ignorance is astonishing. The following composers are excellent:

Carter, Dutilleux, Ligeti, Boulez, Berio, Takemitsu, Birtwistle, Maw, Ferneyhough, Holloway, Grisey, Murail, Dillon, Knussen, Saariaho, Saxton, Lindberg, Benjamin, Anderson, Adès...

Unless of course you _literally_ mean most classical music 'nowadays' sucks, which has always been true of every art form; there are thousands of crappy poets out there, for instance, but only a few good ones.

This is irrelevant: those who gain any kind of reputation in their genre represent it: thus the best contemporary and recently deceased composers are extremely good at what they do, and I love a lot of their music.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Herzeleide said:


> Holloway


Yes, he also plays Sawyer in LOST.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

The thing is, classical music tries to explore all possibilities and boundaries. Complete simplicity can be found in minimalism and mind-mangling complexity can be found in serialism or indeed a Bach fugue.

Popular music only explores one possibility, the possibility that the general popuation will empty their pockets to eagerly consume the latest generic ditty. The sad thing is that they do.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Yes, he also plays Sawyer in LOST.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Holloway


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

Edward Elgar said:


> The thing is, classical music tries to explore all possibilities and boundaries. Complete simplicity can be found in minimalism and mind-mangling complexity can be found in serialism or indeed a Bach fugue.
> 
> Popular music only explores one possibility, the possibility that the general popuation will empty their pockets to eagerly consume the latest generic ditty. The sad thing is that they do.


True but this doesn't apply to all popular musicians, e.g., jazz.
If you are talking about Bubblegum-Pop and the genreic wannabe Hip-hop, I agree.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> True but this doesn't apply to all popular musicians, e.g., jazz.


It's not really popular music any more. It stopped being popular music after the advent of bebop.



sam richards said:


> If you are talking about Bubblegum-Pop and the genreic wannabe Hip-hop, I agree.


You forgot rock and metal.


----------



## sam richards (Apr 8, 2009)

Jazz is still considered popular music. And metal and some rock isn't really commercial.
Anyways the line between art and popular music shall continue to fade.

edit: And even some hip-hop is good, stuff like Immortal technique. He doesn't talk about bling and the hoes but his songs have very good social commentary in them. And he's isn't exactly commercial.

MTV is the reason for the condition of today's popular music.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Popular music only explores one possibility, the possibility that the general popuation will empty their pockets to eagerly consume the latest generic ditty.


Millions of people like to listen to pop. It would be quite illogical to assume that only the fans like it but that all those that create it only do it for the money involved but actually hate the music. It's kinda like a kid who takes up soccer. He probably doesn't think, "I wanna play soccer so that I'll become a millionaire", but rather "maybe I'll play like my favorite players for Manchester United or Barcelona one day."


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

sam richards said:


> Jazz is still considered popular music.


Peculiar how there are separate entries for jazz and popular music in the Grove dictionary.



sam richards said:


> Anyways the line between art and popular music shall continue to fade.


How so? What makes you think this?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

sam richards said:


> Jazz is still considered popular music. And metal and some rock isn't really commercial.


All music except for the music that people play in their own living room is commercial. Nobody releases an album in the hope that nobody will buy it - nobody gives a concert and hopes that the venue will be empty.


> MTV is the reason for the condition of today's popular music.


Yes, I agree with that.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Thing is, popular music and jazz *used* to be more closely related, to the benefit of popular music. Back in the sixties and seventies its routes in blues, jazz, folk and rock and roll were still apparent - it was fresh, and there were some genuinely talented writers, like the Beatles, amongst others. But these exceptions are not great enough to counteract the cynical money-making that has always been involved and is intrinsic to popular music (with a few exceptions, yes).

Unfortunately these tendencies make for the pitiful state of popular music today. Jazz, like classical music, progressed - bebop, modal jazz and so on. Popular music lives in a vacuum.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

sam richards said:


> Jazz is still considered popular music.


Nooo! Since when did a proper jazz piece with proper improvisation appear on the popularity charts? No-one but me in my family can stand jazz! To them it's worse than Shoenberg!



sam richards said:


> And metal and some rock isn't really commercial.


You say this because you don't want to believe that this isn't the case. Let me assure you that it is.



sam richards said:


> Anyways the line between art and popular music shall continue to fade.


No it won't! Not if todays composers have anything to say about it. Mind you, who listens to them these days? You don't listen to classicfm by any chance do you?



sam richards said:


> MTV is the reason for the condition of today's popular music.


People have only themselves to blame. MTV was created to cater for the mindless masses and they alone let it think and appraise art for them.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

jhar26 said:


> I'll play like my favorite players for Manchester United or Barcelona one day."


Indeed, my favourites because they have the largest number of fans, all the players are ridiculously wealthy, famous and get treated like gods.

Hey, this sounds familiar! In which other form of entertainment are the players ridiculously wealthy and famous and get treated like gods?


----------



## MEDIEVAL MIAMI (May 10, 2009)

None of you guys are backing up your statements with credible sources. Everything here is just passionate assumptions of what you think is real.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think that all music has some level of complexity. Anything from a Schonberg work down to a rap tune or top 40 pop ditty. Music is by no means a "simple" art form, any way you slice it.

Unless you are playing Mary Had a Little Lamb with one finger on the piano, I think any piece of music that employs multiple time signatures, varying harmonic textures, etc. should be thought of as with some amount of complexity. And yes, even popular music.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

MEDIEVAL MIAMI said:


> None of you guys are backing up your statements with credible sources. Everything here is just passionate assumptions of what you think is real.


You better get used to that in this forum!


----------



## danae (Jan 7, 2009)

Herzeleide said:


> You forgot rock and metal.


I don't know about metal, since I don't listen to it, but rock certainly doesn't stay in one place. There is rock music that's extremely popular and then there are bands like The Doors, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, Radiohead and numerous others who were and are popular but that doesn't mean they are artistically or intellectually inferior.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Indeed, my favourites because they have the largest number of fans, all the players are ridiculously wealthy, famous and get treated like gods.


Well, they probably have the largest number of fans because they are the best teams. If we could play soccer like Messi or Ronaldo we'd be ridiculously wealthy and famous too. But I don't have a problem with them being rich. If soccer generates that much money most of it should go to the players. If not it only goes to the suits with the fat cigars. Not that I'm much of a soccer fan really, I'm more into tennis. 


> Hey, this sounds familiar! In which other form of entertainment are the players ridiculously wealthy and famous and get treated like gods?


No problem. If it was up to me classical musicians would sell as many records and make as much money as people in popular music. But it's a bit of.....let's put it like this: On the one hand we all want classical music to be more popular with the masses. On the other hand, if a contemporary composer or musician were ever to achieve anything like that half of the members here would immediately say that he is overrated or a sell out, even though they might have liked him before those 'dumb masses' started to like him as well.


----------



## vavaving (Apr 20, 2009)

The great advantage of classical music being more popular would be that most works would finally be recorded, and the albums wouldn't go out of print in two years or less. What complicates music is the business of making it.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> I think any piece of music that employs multiple time signatures, varying harmonic textures, etc. should be thought of as with some amount of complexity.


How is that a satisfactory definition of complexity? I'm not sure what you mean by 'harmonic textures' but I know a fair few pieces which contain no time signature changes and no textural changes that might be considered 'complex': the six-part fugue from _Das musikalische Opfer_, for instance: undeviating contrapuntal texture, no time signature changes.

Lots of different types of music offer different points of interest: different 'complexities'; though my point is that 'complexity' in itself is a useless word that ought to be eschewed from any discourse on music, because it can mean absolutely anything, and isn't really relevant.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Herzeleide said:


> How is that a satisfactory definition of complexity? I'm not sure what you mean by 'harmonic textures' but I know a fair few pieces which contain no time signature changes and no textural changes that might be considered 'complex': the six-part fugue from _Das musikalische Opfer_, for instance: undeviating contrapuntal texture, no time signature changes.
> 
> Lots of different types of music offer different points of interest: different 'complexities'; though my point is that 'complexity' in itself is a useless word that ought to be eschewed from any discourse on music, because it can mean absolutely anything, and isn't really relevant.


Well, you actually sum up my point well. ALL MUSIC, I think, regardless of how deceptively simple it may seem...say a rock tune with a steady beat, is still going to be complex by virute of the fact it is music and there are all sort of componant happining at the same time at different levels to make a greater whole. Music is a complex art form, any way you look at it.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> Well, you actually sum up my point well. ALL MUSIC, I think, regardless of how deceptively simple it may seem...say a rock tune with a steady beat, is still going to be complex by virute of the fact it is music and there are all sort of componant happining at the same time at different levels to make a greater whole. Music is a complex art form, any way you look at it.


Then why did you specify music with changing time signatures and and varying harmonic textures?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Herzeleide said:


> Then why did you specify music with changing time signatures and and varying harmonic textures?


I was just mentioniong some examples. There would be some who would try to say that music with scattered time and all that is not complex, but my point was that if that is your criteria, it exists in other forms of music besides classical.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

What's 'scattered time'?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Scattered time signatures throughout a work. 6/8 here, 2/4 there...I think I coined a new term!


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

Tapkaara said:


> but my point was that if that is your criteria


Well, it shouldn't be anyone's criteria.


----------



## bdelykleon (May 21, 2009)

Hi, I'm new here.

i think complexity is sometimes misunderstood as only harmonic complexity, which would lead to the conclusion (and, unfortunately I have met people who would say that) that Michael Jackson's Thriller is more complex than Mozart piano sonata in A minor K. 310. But I think that at least two things must be said even in this aspect: harmonic complexity means not only the presence of chromaticism but its funcionality, just as an example the flattened ii may be intensely chromatic, but since it is mostly used as a substitution for the normal minor second, I can't see any complex funcionality here. A faked start in another tonality, even if mostly diatonic, in a Haydn quartet sounds to me more interesting harmonicaly than most of strange harmonies in folk music or later classical music. I mean Debussy may have incredible strange quasi bitonal pages, the way he dissolves the tonic center is something fascinating, but perhaps Haydn's much more simple tonality with its clear cut definition of tonic and dominant has a working tonality of more meaning.

And the most important is that there is not only harmonic or rythmical complexity, but there is also formal mastery, and in such a case I can't see anthing greater than Mozart, he is able to master a large form sonata movement in which every bar has its meaning with the whole, only a very few are able to do that. Most folk and even the most complex jazz can't do that, for this music is rhapsodic in its core.


----------



## Herzeleide (Feb 25, 2008)

bdelykleon said:


> Most folk and even the most complex jazz can't do that, for this music is rhapsodic in its core.


Yeah, it's stupid applying criteria which may be applicable for one type of music to another. Each period of history/genre/type of music does its own thing. Some composers are wide-ranging with their modulations but relatively limited in their microscale, contextual harmonic useage, whilst other composers are the opposite. Liszt's Rhapsodies may sound more exotic, but Brahms's feature more extensive modulations.


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

bdelykleon said:


> Hi, I'm new here.
> 
> i think complexity is sometimes misunderstood as only harmonic complexity, which would lead to the conclusion (and, unfortunately I have met people who would say that) that Michael Jackson's Thriller is more complex than Mozart piano sonata in A minor K. 310. But I think that at least two things must be said even in this aspect: harmonic complexity means not only the presence of chromaticism but its funcionality, just as an example the flattened ii may be intensely chromatic, but since it is mostly used as a substitution for the normal minor second, I can't see any complex funcionality here. A faked start in another tonality, even if mostly diatonic, in a Haydn quartet sounds to me more interesting harmonicaly than most of strange harmonies in folk music or later classical music. I mean Debussy may have incredible strange quasi bitonal pages, the way he dissolves the tonic center is something fascinating, but perhaps Haydn's much more simple tonality with its clear cut definition of tonic and dominant has a working tonality of more meaning.
> 
> And the most important is that there is not only harmonic or rythmical complexity, but there is also formal mastery, and in such a case I can't see anthing greater than Mozart, he is able to master a large form sonata movement in which every bar has its meaning with the whole, only a very few are able to do that. Most folk and even the most complex jazz can't do that, for this music is rhapsodic in its core.




This post should be heading a "Fame of Hall TC posts" thread. It's about the best I've ever read here, and I've read for much longer, than from the date when I registered. If I may add something totally different - although in a sense bdelykleon had said the most important thing - classical music have certain things that TOGETHER makes it the real master of music:

1. Polyphonia, counterpoint. Bach got it, Mozart and Beethoven sooo ELEGANT, Wagners is rather a little 'obvious'. (Most 'folk music' is only homophonic, not all though.)

2. Form (When Mozart plays with his notes WITHIN the form, it makes one sigh happily.)

3. A 'beautiful melody' that is 'rounded', the masters here being Mozart, Schubert and Beethoven. Schönberg, Berg or Webern for example hasn't got it really.

4. Movement, the music moves on, one note has a sense of being on it's way to somewhere, and the next will follow, perhaps not in the way you thought, but still...Here Schönberg and Berg got it, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, all the great ones really, even Delius, but he is not making it important.

5. Nostalgic mood (Delius CERTAINLY got it, Debussy has it, Ravel, and Mahler, and Mzt has only a little but precisely enough. In my view it's the least important ingredient.)

6. Sense of humour (Mozart has it, although not in his last year, Beethoven in many pieces, but not Brahms really - Please I LOVE Brahms - Haydn has it perhaps, but too rough for my liking.

7. Orchestral magnificense (Many have it, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky not the least, Wagner is unbeatable)

Rock/pop has sometimes quite much of 3 and almost always 5 (although with different instruments creating it), and it has also MUCH MONOTONOUS RYTHM (not important in classical) and COOLNESS. (Wow it's so RIGHT, of none importance whatsoever in classical...)

This is only MY view, what I MYSELF think, I DON'T despise etc etc etc ad nauseam...)


----------



## ggalvao (May 27, 2009)

There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

Pop music and popular music. Some people merge the concepts of pop and popular and try to make a big fuzz and depict jazz music as not being pop music and not being classical music (or maybe trying to join it in some kind of supergroup of superior music).

It is really a fact that there are a lot of good (and BAD too!) jazz that are MUCH MORE COMPLEX than the average classical ouvre. Does it really matter? Do we listen to it mathematically? Are we interested only in reaping in the complexity?

Another reasoning goes the following way: if you restrict the possibilities and make art with a smaller subset of possibilities, thus, making it, in an absolute manner, less complex, but still manage to create a masterpiece, which is 'best'? 

Again, does it matter? In the end it seems like a psicho-analytical argument regarding 'the music I listen to is much more complex than yours, therefore I am better than you'.


----------



## Bach (Jun 2, 2008)

wolf said:


> This post should be heading a "Fame of Hall TC posts" thread. It's about the best I've ever read here, and I've read for much longer, than from the date when I registered. If I may add something totally different - although in a sense bdelykleon had said the most important thing - classical music have certain things that TOGETHER makes it the real master of music:
> 
> 1. Polyphonia, counterpoint. Bach got it, Mozart and Beethoven sooo ELEGANT, Wagners is rather a little 'obvious'. (Most 'folk music' is only homophonic, not all though.)
> 
> ...


What? This is philistinisticalised rot. Nostalgic mood? Are you drunk?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

ggalvao said:


> There seems to be a misunderstanding here.
> 
> Pop music and popular music. Some people merge the concepts of pop and popular and try to make a big fuzz and depict jazz music as not being pop music and not being classical music (or maybe trying to join it in some kind of supergroup of superior music).
> 
> ...


Another astute post. Things are looking up in this forum!

All music has SOME level of complexity. Yes, some music is more complex than others either harmonically, rhythmically, structurally, etc. But more complex does not ever mean better.


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

Bach said:


> What? This is philistinisticalised rot. Nostalgic mood? Are you drunk?


Well perhaps i shouldn't have taken this in the list - it was mostly because Debussyy fans shouldn't get angry, actually Mozart hasn't got it at all. Almost none classical somposer has it BUT Delius, Satie, Debussy, Ravel, the first being the worst. As for pop/rock I mean the 'popular' variety that comes out mostly of loudspeakers in shops AND the ones I was listening to when I listened to rock:Yes, BarclJHarvest, 10cc, ELO, Beatles etetc You must remember that I have no idea of all the metal undergroups existing today that maybe is devoid of it.

Anyhow what do you mean? Are you meaning that I am drunk because you HATE nostalgia and it is nowhere in classical? (OK but it IS in impressionists)

Or you HATE it and it's nowhere in the kind of rocksorts you are listening to? (OK but I don't know all about that)

Or do you mean that you LOVE Debussy and that he HAS NOT the ability to produce 'nostalgic feelings'? With nostalgic I do not mean that you should run around in ancient clothes, but rather the kind where you are staring into the sunset....)

Or do you mean that you LOVE nostalgic feelings and that it's an insult to state that it should be 'inferior'?


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

ggalvao said:


> ...Again, does it matter? In the end it seems like a psicho-analytical argument regarding 'the music I listen to is much more complex than yours, therefore I am better than you'.


In the post I admired, the writer wrote that classical music was better even if it was NOT more complicated technically. It was the POINT of the post. And where in my post do I say that it's the better sort because it is "complicated"?


----------

