What does everyone think about "complex" verses "simple" music - General

I've noticed that a lotta people put the hate on music which is really sophisticated or simple to play, and seem to regard it as a lesser form of music. I'd like to see what you guys think, and I want to chuck in my two cents as well. I think it's a stupid attitude to have honestly, you're limiting your music taste for a reason so trivial it's almost painful to comprehend. Let's think for a sec, AC/DC, hm, one of the [B]GREATEST[/B] balls out rock and roll bands ever to roam the earth, and for what? Open note bass, open chords and bar chords for rhythm guitar and some tight (but undeniably simple) drums Throw in sex, drugs, badass guitar solos and tight jeans and you've got yourself a goddamn super power. I've seen recently (by a troll obviously) somebody saying that Tool are 'simple' musically, which is a lie I know, and that made them a shit band. Why does it matter if a band is technically amazing or not? Yeah sure it leads to more complex music, but does that make it a better? I personally don't think so I love both, I mean I had my fascination with old rock (I'm wearing my high voltage T shirt now even) and I have my enjoyment now of bands like Animals As Leaders, or All Shall Perish, or Opeth which I'm sure you'd agree are musically competent But I also enjoy incredibly simple music, just stuff which I love the sound of, because it's simple. I don't say "oh this band is shit" because they're playing with the bare basics required to make a song. What does everybody else think?

The reasons to give for why music is bad, in this section/"that" thread it has been complete bullshit. I am able to acknowledge that I like some bad music. I can explain why it is bad and why I still enjoy it. Greatness on the other hand, is a different matter. Its a lot more about personal effect. Bandwagons can make you think that it is more of a cult to like a certain musical group and it happens, but truly sometimes its just people discussing details and in that fact it isn't bad at all, its when they get arsy and disregard whatever else they can to make their cult look better.

So you're saying that some people say that simple music is "bad" is because everyone is jumping on a bandwagon I don't think that's always true, when I complain about something music related I like to think that I'm speaking my mind, not following a cult

Feeling and energy is worth more than technicality in my opinion. Look at the white stripes for example, only two people - drums and guitar - their melodies and playing isnt brilliantly complex but they have so much passion and heart it works extremely well. Sometimes electronic artists struggle to create emotional, more human music, and even though they can create dense and complex masterpieces they can lack humanity and emotion.

That's very true I agree with you You can have all the skill in the world, but if your music has no emotion, it's empty and is missing it's reason for existing

[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;25545801]So you're saying that some people say that simple music is "bad" is because everyone is jumping on a bandwagon I don't think that's always true, when I complain about something music related I like to think that I'm speaking my mind, not following a cult[/QUOTE] No, I was making two different unassociated points :v:

I see, forgive me

I enjoy simple music more than advanced music, because it's just easier to sing along to, easier to get it stuck in your head... Easier to enjoy, I guess. Just look at Johnny Cash, not the best singer nor the best guitarist really, and his songs are quite simple but he's amazing. This is typical in folk. Just because it's advanced doesn't mean it's bad though, just look at jazz, that's a typical genre where it gets better the more advanced it gets (doesn't apply to everything, but alot).

I don't think how complicated and technical the music is influences how good it is at all, a guitarist could play the same chord over and over again for 3 and a half minutes, but if he somehow did it in a way which sounded good and put a lot of emotion into the song, I would still like it. Even though most of my music library consists of complicated and hard to play stuff, some of my favourite songs are the simple ones with very basic guitar/drum work.

Nirvana. /closed

I could never dig Nirvana aside from Nevermind but I can see your point Everyone tells me that their stuff is really amazing, I just don't feel it like they do [editline]21st October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Wyvers;25546062]I don't think how complicated and technical the music is influences how good it is at all, a guitarist could play the same chord over and over again for 3 and a half minutes, but if he somehow did it in a way which sounded good and put a lot of emotion into the song, I would still like it. Even though most of my music library consists of complicated and hard to play stuff, some of my favourite songs are the simple ones with very basic guitar/drum work.[/QUOTE] I think maybe if they were playing one chord you might get a little bored but I see your point It's feel, not abillity, but you need both I guess

It depends on how you look at music, if you have a musical background yourself (singing, playing an instrument etc.) you look differently to music than most people. Simplistic songs can be good and worthwhile to listen to, what's crucial here is the interpretation of the musician and the emotion that's put into it. I've seen some of those video's where you see young talented children playing sophisticated songs that makes you 'Wow!', but I don't like listening too long to it because most of those kids are just technically trained in what they do; they just play what's on the paper, there is no to little emotion into it. You may disagree with me as this is just my personal experience, but I, as a musician myself playing classical guitar for almost ten years now, know it takes a lot of time and listening to music before you can 'feel' and 'understand' the music and at that point you really start to appreciate music. PS: Sorry if I was unable to properly express myself in a comprehensive way, but English isn't my mother tongue. I do my best though.

Simple is for easy listening and just to relax Complex is more for (well for me anyway) being energized and encouraged to do stuff. Both sides make really good music so you can't compare them in which sounds better. It's comparing Meshuggah to Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Iron Maiden are a nice example of this. Their first few albums were basically "WAAARGH WAR AND PROSTITUTES AND CRIME" and they're becoming inreasingly more progressive and complex. I personally love both of their styles.

[QUOTE=Eluveitie;25547871]Simple is for easy listening and just to relax Complex is more for (well for me anyway) being energized and encouraged to do stuff. Both sides make really good music so you can't compare them in which sounds better. It's comparing Meshuggah to Red Hot Chili Peppers.[/QUOTE] On a huge scale, Meshuggah isn't that complex.

[QUOTE=whitespace;25548011]On a huge scale, Meshuggah isn't that complex.[/QUOTE] How so?

I read up to AC/DC. I'm rating and clicking my back button in disgust now. Rated Tool.

In my opinion, degrees of complexity is an irrelevant issue. For example, a lot of melodic music is simple. In fact, as a general rule, a principle of melody [i]is[/i] simplicity. While it [i]is[/i] possible to create melody with complex structure, it's a lot more common to create melody with simple structure. Most people enjoy melody to some degree, and to me, melodic is the most enjoyable form of music (hence why I listen to mostly [b]melodic[/b] death metal). Note that this is not to say that melodic music is easy to create; there is a difference between composing simple music, and composing melodic music. While they are both fundamentally simple, one has a lot more semantics and such to deal with, while the other is... well... simple. Adversely, genres such as technical metal often rely on complexity, intentionally creating complex drum patterns over complex leads over complex rhythms, all over complex time signatures and tempo changes. Does this implicitly mean that such technical music is greater than the simpler melodic counterpart? In my opinion, no. In many cases, I don't find technical metal that enjoyable to listen to at all. Obviously, there are exceptions to these rules. Not [b]all[/b] melodic music is simple, and not [b]all[/b] technical metal is complex. There are varying degrees of these, creating a proper spectrum (ever heard of technical melodic metal? I have.) All in my opinion, of course.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;25548336]In my opinion, degrees of complexity is an irrelevant issue. -Long Snip-.[/QUOTE] Well said.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;25548336]All in my opinion, of course.[/QUOTE] I wholeheartedly agree with you. Melodic music is the shit.

Simple music and complex music can both be bloody brilliant. One is not simply better than the other. Let's take a song like Reckoner and Weird Fishes/Arpeggi by Radiohead or Get Innocuous! by LCD Soundsystem. All of them are complex songs in their own way. Now let's compare them to some simple songs like Benny and the Jets and Saturday Night is Alright for Fighting by Elton John or Rock and Roll All Night by KISS. All of these simple songs are just songs that you let your mind go and rock out, not even paying too much attention to the lyrics. Both have their times and places. Complex songs usually aren't "radio" songs so they don't gain as much popularity amongst the public but that doesn't make them worse. On the same note, just because simple song's lyrics usually lack depth and are just catchy for the radio, that does not make them bad. Some days I like to listen to the lyrics of deep complex songs and seriously think about them, other times I just like to slap on some catchy tunes and play some video games. I should note that when I'm talking about "complex" music I'm more-or-less talking about lyrics and the atmosphere of the song; I have zero instrumental knowledge so I won't pretend like I know what I'm talking about in that sense.

Simple but effective. Better than over-produced trying too hard albums. Actually this statement may spark an outrage :saddowns:

[QUOTE=Akayz;25555187]Simple but effective. Better than over-produced trying too hard albums. Actually this statement may spark an outrage :saddowns:[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/45054.gif[/img] Probably THE over-produced rock album. But it's still amazing.

I love simple music, and will always love stuff like AC/DC, Bon Jovi and a lot of simple rock n roll, but my favourite genre is still technical death metal, hell if i know why v:v:v

Complexity Schcomplexity. I love the Ramones.

The White Stripes are a great and popular example of how simple music can be good.

Even simple sounding songs usually take a lot of time and thought to put together. Especially if the artist is looking to bring out a certain kind of emotion from the listeners.

Some of my favorite songs have only three or four chords, it's can be a lot harder to write a song with that that's good than to write a song with a bunch of fancy jazz chords, in my opinion. Also, I dunno if a song being musically simple means the song is necessarily simple.

If I can tell what chords the song is just by listening to it, I probably won't like it. But some of my faveourite songs use only the major triads, but hide it so well that I don't notice.

To me, technical musicianship is a plus that I appreciate a lot, but not a necessity. A band has to make up for it in some other way. It's weird that Scarbo would say that because that's how I feel sometimes. Often I will get into new music, and once I've figured it out on an instrument it often loses my interest. Maybe complex music brings back some nostalgic musical mystery. v:v:v