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

[QUOTE=Bftony;25547535]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.[/QUOTE] You did a great job, don't worry. In relation to your post, I've been playing an instrument for a year now and I don't look at music any different I had my musical revalation about six months before I started playing, and I haven't changed my views since then And wow man you've got some great stuff in there, and I agree totally with you. To be able to play music is one thing, but to have the feel is another. Thanks for posting, that was great to read [editline]22nd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25564022]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[/QUOTE] Perhaps it does. I don't think you have to make up for technicallity in music, in any way. But I think you always need something to offer, something interesting that makes it worthwhile. Not just a substitue. [editline]22nd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=DamagePoint;25563722]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.[/QUOTE] Define “simple”. It can be simple in music theory and the way that it’s executed, but like I said before that counts for absolutely nothing. It’s not about how hard something is to play, or how complex it is musically. It’s about what the music means, what sort of feeling it gives. And maybe you’re right, it could be harder to write a song with a couple chords than many jazz chords. [editline]22nd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;25563575]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.[/QUOTE] You speak the truth [editline]22nd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Fkpuz Version 1;25555048]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.[/QUOTE] Yeah both simple and complex are great. Your comparison is great, sometimes it's great for complex stuff, and sometimes it's great for simple for something to jam around too, too right. Ha, popularity. Popularity means nothing when it comes to music, it doesn't make it great if it's popular. And yeah I see what you mean. Music theory means nothing here, it's all about interpretation my friend [editline]22nd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Gmod4ever;25548336]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] A basic melody can be only a handful of notes and a rhythm, it’s not hard to do. And no, truly “melodic” music isn’t easy to create (I assume). I’m speaking from assumption here sorry, but I assume that both simple music and melodic music are based around the same fundamental facts. To a degree of course, just like you said, one is more complicated than the other. And I agree, technical music doesn’t automatically make it sound better, it’s all based on opinion and whether or not it works for you. :)

In regards to my simple v. melodic argument, I was talking about my own personal experiences. I compose songs in my own time. No musical theory or anything, just what four years of euphonium taught me in regards to reading and writing music. That being said, I can make simple songs easy. They are, as the name implies, simple. Some simple chords or note progressions to a simple rhythm. Making melodies that sound good (and original) is, for me at least, extremely difficult. Maybe one in eight attempts end up with a halfway decent-sounding melody. The difference, in my opinion, between simple and melodic music is that simple music is simply the usage of simple chords and progressions in a simple rhythm. Melodic music is using simple chords and progressions in complicated patterns that blend together to create a fluid and dynamic soundscape. Maybe if I knew music theory, melodic music would be a lot easier to do; I don't know. I'm just speaking from my own experiences. [editline]fish[/editline] I really butchered what I was trying to say. And I can't really think of a better way to say it. I guess the best I can come to is sewing: Sewing is fundamentally simple, and yet most people can't pick up a thread and needle and instantly be able to sew flamboyant hats or complex-pattern sweaters. You need practice and knowledge to master the art of sewing. Melodic music is my sewing. It's fundamentally simple, but you need a lot of practice and knowledge to master it. I still don't think I got my point across like I wanted to, though. :geno:

It really comes down to personal preference, as with anything else in music. I'm not fond of most simple music, because it's boring. Hearing the same tropes used in music, whether it be base:fifth:minor sixth:fourth, power chords doing all the work behind the singer, or never delving into more complicated patterns than a 4/4 pattern that has a few breaks for a chorus, it just bores me. I can stand repetition to a point. I've definitely had some good experiences around simple music, but it was never the music that directly impacted that; it was usually something else or someone else that had my attention. I'm a very bad composer myself, and I'd like to break my reliance on simple patterns. If I feel I could match a song in pattern, or in mood, I don't feel interested in it. When music is composed with incredible complexity, when done well, I feel it gets its emotion and mood through much more effectively.

Great musicals can say far more with less than any musician can with a lot of notes. A bad habit many musicians get into is cramming a lot of notes to make up for a lack of interest. A lot of people don't seem to realize that Pink Floyd's music is really simple, Gilmour really don't do anything too complex on the guitar and all the other parts aren't anything extraordinary. But their music definitely stands out.

I like complex and technical music because it seems to "take control" of my emotions, thoughts, and stuff. The longer technical songs always seem to paint a picture in my head, like a story or something. I enjoy simple music just as much, but "complex" and "simple" are a matter of opinions, and if you don't have that much of a creative imagination, "complex" music may be hard to understand.

[QUOTE=En-Guage V2;25565548]Define “simple”. It can be simple in music theory and the way that it’s executed, but like I said before that counts for absolutely nothing. It’s not about how hard something is to play, or how complex it is musically. It’s about what the music means, what sort of feeling it gives. And maybe you’re right, it could be harder to write a song with a couple chords than many jazz chords. [/QUOTE] Blowin' In The Wind by Bob Dylan might be the best example of this. The whole song only consists of about four chords but the song is anything but simple.

[QUOTE=Pepin;25568500]Great musicals can say far more with less than any musician can with a lot of notes. A bad habit many musicians get into is cramming a lot of notes to make up for a lack of interest. A lot of people don't seem to realize that Pink Floyd's music is really simple, Gilmour really don't do anything too complex on the guitar and all the other parts aren't anything extraordinary. But their music definitely stands out.[/QUOTE] A Gilmour guitar solo basically consists of a four-minute orgasm but it fits so well with the rest of the music

Hmm.. I think the number of notes or tempo doesn't have to do with the song's simplicity/complexity. But rather, what kind of chord sequences, scales, etc.

It's like some Punk Rock bands for example, sure, it may be easy, with the whole 3 chord thing, (May I remind you most bands that use 3 chords are shit, but some are really good) but I doubt any of you could make catchy guitar riffs/songs.

[QUOTE=Pasalaqcua;25576187]May I remind you most bands that use 3 chords are shit...[/QUOTE] What are you, crazy?

AC/DC have built their career on being masters of the 3 chord song They seem to have done quite well for themselves so I don't think that it makes bands shit

Not the mention like the whole Heavy Metal genre, Blues, and Rock.

There is more to what makes music sound complex than the amount of chords being used. I guarantee you any good jazz guitarist could make a I IV V progression sound like something out of this world.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;25576269]What are you, crazy?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvnkAtWcKYg[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ht5RZpzPqw&ob=av3e[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSRUDnw9uoc[/media] Shall I go on? :colbert: Having music with three chords is quite a risky move, cause most of the time it sounds dull or corny as hell, as the examples above show.

If the music sounds good, does it matter? I'm not a judge listening for musical techniques; I want something that makes me tap my feet, hum along, or just generally pleasing to the ear.

As Rad said. Pretty much all rock, metal etc is based around the 3 chord song.

[QUOTE=Pasalaqcua;25576583] Shall I go on? :colbert: Having music with three chords is quite a risky move, cause most of the time it sounds dull or corny as hell, as the examples above show.[/QUOTE] That proves nothing at all! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTaD9cd8hvw[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zGK1b-eODI[/media] Three chords ftw! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6tdlmx_GO4[/media] And this song is like [I]one[/I] single chord the whole time. The number of chords you use is irrelevant to how your sound is!!

[QUOTE=Pasalaqcua;25576583]Having music with three chords is quite a risky move, cause most of the time it sounds dull or corny as hell, as the examples above show.[/QUOTE] You're missing the fact that almost every song relies on a one or two chord progressions which usually have 2-4 chords in the progression. Why I say two different chord progressions because there is usually a different progression for the chorus to differentiate it from the verse, although many songs keep the same chord progression throughout (especially in a lot of jazz because they have a lot of people improvise over it). Start actually listening the the chord progressions in just about any song and you'll find it to be true. Also, you need to think beyond chords. What about the melody, the lead, the phrasing, the dynamics? If you really think that only using a few chords in a progression then you must think that The Dark Side of the Moon is a totally corny piece of crap.

[QUOTE=Pepin;25576782]You're missing the fact that almost every song relies on a one or two chord progressions which usually have 2-4 chords in the progression. Start actually listening the the chord progressions in just about any song and you'll find it to be true. Also, you need to think beyond chords. What about the melody, the lead, the phrasing, the dynamics? If you really think that only using a few chords in a progression then you must think that The Dark Side of the Moon is a totally corny piece of crap.[/QUOTE] I know, the melody, song structure, etc. Are all important. But when you look at most generic rock bands today, they all use three chords and use this song structure. Verse Chorus Verse Bridge Chorus First verse repeat Chorusx2 *end* And I'm not talking about all bands that usually rely on three chord style, it can take real creativity.

[QUOTE=Pepin;25576782]If you really think that only using a few chords in a progression then you must think that The Dark Side of the Moon is a totally corny piece of crap.[/QUOTE] Haha yes and he must only like classical and super progressive music! :3: [editline]23rd October 2010[/editline] Ehhh.. ok. So what bands do you like then?? Because the thing is, if the song ain't based around three chords, it is based on four instead like 90% of the time. With the remaining 10 % just pushing it to a 8 chord sequence. Because we all know, the more chords you use, the better the song :D!!

Generic bands use generic structure and make generic sounding material. What a surprise. Listen to your favorite band, and listen to the chord movements. 99% chance you're going to find that they are using the same commonly used chord progressions that every other artist uses.

[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img][img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img]

Well then what's the argument then? Lots of bands use similar chords, okay, now what? I'm just saying, some bands can use 3 chords well, others can't

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;25567530]In regards to my simple v. melodic argument, I was talking about my own personal experiences. I compose songs in my own time. No musical theory or anything, just what four years of euphonium taught me in regards to reading and writing music. That being said, I can make simple songs easy. They are, as the name implies, simple. Some simple chords or note progressions to a simple rhythm. Making melodies that sound good (and original) is, for me at least, extremely difficult. Maybe one in eight attempts end up with a halfway decent-sounding melody. The difference, in my opinion, between simple and melodic music is that simple music is simply the usage of simple chords and progressions in a simple rhythm. Melodic music is using simple chords and progressions in complicated patterns that blend together to create a fluid and dynamic soundscape. Maybe if I knew music theory, melodic music would be a lot easier to do; I don't know. I'm just speaking from my own experiences. [editline]fish[/editline] I really butchered what I was trying to say. And I can't really think of a better way to say it. I guess the best I can come to is sewing: Sewing is fundamentally simple, and yet most people can't pick up a thread and needle and instantly be able to sew flamboyant hats or complex-pattern sweaters. You need practice and knowledge to master the art of sewing. Melodic music is my sewing. It's fundamentally simple, but you need a lot of practice and knowledge to master it. I still don't think I got my point across like I wanted to, though. :geno:[/QUOTE] I see what you mean, I understand it’s difficult to describe. It made sense to me though. [editline]23rd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Stickly;25568686]I like complex and technical music because it seems to "take control" of my emotions, thoughts, and stuff. The longer technical songs always seem to paint a picture in my head, like a story or something. I enjoy simple music just as much, but "complex" and "simple" are a matter of opinions, and if you don't have that much of a creative imagination, "complex" music may be hard to understand.[/QUOTE] Music can only “take control” of my mind when under the influence of something, but for times like those complex music is incredible. That being said, I remember I was listening to a piece of piano music, and there was this little part where chords are being played by the piano, and that is being played at the same time as some individual notes. There’s some reverb in there, and the notes kind of blended together. Now I’d say that this piece of music would be considered “simple”, because it’s only one instrument being played and it’s following a pattern. But it was like every single note played was an explosion of colour in my mind’s eye, and it was incredible. Straight after that I listened to some tech death, and it just didn’t do it for me. I think both can have the same influence on your mind, you just have to be in the right “mood” for it to happen. [editline]23rd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=DamagePoint;25574683]Blowin' In The Wind by Bob Dylan might be the best example of this. The whole song only consists of about four chords but the song is anything but simple.[/QUOTE] I'll take your word for that one

[QUOTE=Pasalaqcua;25577164]Well then what's the argument then? Lots of bands use similar chords, okay, now what? I'm just saying, some bands can use 3 chords well, others can't[/QUOTE] Your argument was that bands that use a small amount of chords are generally not good, which implies that bands that use a lot of chords are generally good or at least generally better going along the lines that the songs aren't as simple. The rebuttal to that was basically that most all music sticks to similar chord progressions made up of a small amount of chord changes, and therefore your argument doesn't really make sense. [editline]22nd October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=En-Guage V2;25579718]Music can only “take control” of my mind when under the influence of something[/QUOTE] When I'm high instruments speak words. It's more that I interpret words, but it's pretty sweet. First time this happened was when I listened to Electrical Funeral by Black Sabbath for the first time. I was certainly amazing, and also really high.

A lot of what I feel has been said. Technicality is not required to make something good and enjoyable.

Complexity is a horrible word. It makes it sound like the music has like 500 layers and you have to try and pick out each one to enjoy it. I think the only thing that elitists care about is how much skill the song takes to play, or if the song is unique. I listen to a lot on electronic music (not stupid idm that sounds like absolute garbage other than the fact that it's "complex") I listen to a lot of ambient and aggressive stuff in a lot of genres. And I can understand how hard it is to come up with the sound they end up with. A lot of tweaking of instruments and individual sounds are done to give a complete feel. Which imo a lot of analog music lacks because of the lack of actual resources. Artists like Burial sound incredibly simple, and maybe even boring and "sleepy" to people who blast metal out their ass, but it's really quite engaging and emotional, and probably took a lot of time to master. Then there are things like dnb which could be incredibly simple, but the reason it's simple is obvious, to make people enjoy it easier on the dance floor. Overall I think all music is good just as long as the artist is doing what they want and they know what they are doing.

There's plenty of good simple music, being simple isn't what makes music bad, being badly written and unoriginal is what makes music bad. Take Wonderwall by Oasis, it's based around about 5 chords, but that doesn't stop it from being an amazing song. Or The Beatles. How simple was their stuff for the most part? It doesn't change the fact that they are arguably one of the best bands to ever exist.

That's because they were revolutionary though Nobody had seen anything like them before

Its personal affect that makes people like music. Thats why giving music more listens lets it start to grow on you and it gets better with every listen.