I was reading the “are the Beatles overrated as musicians” thread on CS, and noticed something that I see in a lot of other music threads. Namely, that musicians that play relatively simple music are lesser musicians that those that play highly complex music. The funny thing is that you rarely see this applied to other arts; moviemakers that have lots of cuts and special effects or writers that have very florid styles are more likely to be mocked than praised. Do you agree with my premises? And if so, why do you think this is?
Isn’t it objectively harder to write complex music?
Even a schlub like me can write a tasteful adagio, but even with J.S. Bach teaching me, I can’t do fugues.
There is a convention in many arts that “difficulty” correlates to “good.” People sneer at watercolors, for instance, because they’re easy enough for kids to do. (And you know who else did watercolors!) But oils…that’s hard!
Also, with complex music you can do tricky stuff, like allusions to other motifs, or internal rhythm changes, etc.
Rossini, in “Sins of My Old Age,” has some hilarious work involving changes. He’ll change key a few times…and when you have come to expect it, he switches to changing instruments instead. He sets you up…and then fools you. Very clever! Much harder to do that kind of game with “simple” music.
When you read about some of the gimmicks Leonard Bernstein liked to employ, it staggers the imagination!
Some of my favorite songs in the world, songs that can move me to tears, have just four chords. I certainly wouldn’t call myself a musician, but even I can line up a C, a G, an F and an Am. Heck, even my potted plant could probably do that. Even so, there is no way that I, or my potted plant, could write those songs. Few people can.
Now, I love Bach as well. I could sure as hell never write (or sadly, even play) the Cello Suites. However, there’s more to Bach than just complexity. Bach can take you to emotional places you never even knew existed.
Whether complex or simple, *good *music is that which has been inspired by the muse.
I think this goes back and forth with the times, actually. Sure there’s always going to be a nice, simply 4 chord song that’s a hit somewhere, but if you look at the recent history of music you’ll see this tug of war between artistic bands with complex styles or 20 hour songs followed by some movement that decides music needs to get over itself and only needs 1 and a half chords and their singer refuses to give into the overindulgence of notes shorter than a whole beat.
Given all the charting “pretentious indie bands” lately, I think we’re getting out of it, but recently we were very much in an era of exceptionally simple poppy songs and EDM music with nothing more complex than a good driving dance beat, so the reaction was to prefer more complex melodies. Now that we’re possibly swinging the other direction, I’m sure we’ll hit some neo-punk/grunge reaction in a few years that yearns to only use two notes per song.
Agreement.
One of Vivaldi’s slow movements is simple enough, I can look at the sheet music and comprehend it. I see how it works, and I can even counterfeit something much like it.
But…how he got there in the first place! Wow. (I wish I could point to the piece in question…) It’s slow, and simple, and stately…and surpassing brilliant.
The pyrotechnics of his “Four Seasons” – all the sound effects and everything – is clever, but that one slow movement is a triumph of the soul. (And I don’t even believe in the soul!)
This isn’t just about music, either. Take painting. Malevich can create beauty with two squares. On the other hand, stuff like this is certainly a lot more complex, if you will, technically speaking, but it just makes me want to go shoot myself, and not in a good way.
Most good musicians are quite technically adept at their chosen instrument. And an easy way to show your technical prowess is to do something complicated.
I agree with that if by “music… inspired by the muse” you mean music that moves you in a powerful way. And that’s where complexity comes in. There are lots of wonderful simple songs. There are also lots of very complex music that are empty, mere showing off. But music that is both complex and emotionally powerful is ultimately more rewarding because there so many layers to discover that make the experience subtler and in the long-term “fresher”.
Bolding mine.
I’d disagree with you on that. There’s a reason why Hugo, Flaubert and Proust are considered titans of French literature. Sure, their stories and ideas are good but ultimately what makes their books great is their unique (and quite florid in all three cases) styles. In the 20th century, you had someone like Gracq who was still in that tradition as far as style was concerned (his plots were more oniric). He was one of a very select number of writers to be published by the Bibliothèque de la Pléiade in his lifetime.
I just thought I’d mention that oils are actually pretty forgiving. Yeah, you have to apply paint in the right way, and of course learn some techniques, but the long dry time makes it quite easy to work with. I think I remember some anecdote about certain masters sneering at oils back in the day, tempera was the hard way to do it!
Watercolours aren’t exactly easy to work with though, you usually have to know what to do, and you can’t just smudge it away with a cloth or paint over it. I think the reason people sneer at watercolours is because it’s kinda kitchy.
[QUOTE=Martian Bigfoot]
Whether complex or simple, good music is that which has been inspired by the muse.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Take Satie, for example.
First, this isn’t necessarily true. Second, the examples you give are complexities of style, not complexities of substance.
And, at the risk of oversimplifying, a work that is complex isn’t necessarily better, but it has more potential. If it’s simple, you can get out of it all there is to get from a single exposure to it. If it’s complex, it has many layers and nuances and may reveal new depths with many, many listens (/viewings/readings).
er, who? (I’m not familiar with paintings or art in general)
Neither am I, but I think that’s a reference to Hitler, who did indeed paint watercolours.
People are more likely to get praise for their technical skills if they make it easy for the audience to notice those skills. If you deploy those skills in a more subtle way or make something difficult sound simple, they’re more likely to say ‘anybody could play that.’
I’m not sure this comparison is on target: you have to compare good to good. Highly technical musicians are usually beloved only by people who love really complex and technical music. Their skills are respected, maybe, but they’re not adored. You could say the same thing about highly technical writers or filmmakers, although I don’t think special effects and rapid cuts are associated with lots of filmmaking technique- I think they are more likely to cover up a lack of technique.
I don’t know, i’ts like asking why people like Rush? Some things are hard to explain.
I do not rate music as good because it is more complex.
I do notice that the music that I tend to rate as good tends, on the whole, to be more complex. That’s not quite the same thing.
Maybe so, but that doesn’t really matter. What should be under discussion is “How hard is it to write good music of any kind that moves people?”
I’ll limit my comments to pop, rock and country music, styles I know a lot about. I lived through rock from the early 60s on (I had to “go back and get” 50s rock as I wasn’t paying attention back then) — every permutation of it up to rap and hip hop.
Thus, I love both the Top 40 music I grew up listening to on AM radio and the “underground” rock that came into vogue from 1967 on.
Playing off of the thought that inspired this thread, I’ve seen many who are fans of “complex” rock music (kudos to the comment upthread about Rush!) sneer at the “simple” pop or bubblegum songs of an earlier era.
My comment always is, "OK, if they’re so ‘simple’ and worthy of derision, let’s see YOU write a ‘simple’ pop song that captures the imagination and hearts of millions.
“You’re not a musician? Fine, then nominate one of your musical heroes who thinks music isn’t valid without 40 chord changes and complex arpeggios in the course of a song for the task. I’ve got $100 that says he won’t be able to do it.”
The same theory, by the way, applies to guitar playing. Technical skills are great, but it’s how you use them that counts. It should be easy to see which side I fall on for both of these issues. Guys like Steve Vai and Yngwe Whatever-His-Name-Is play mostly for other guitarists. I would rather hear Neil Young play five notes than I would hear them play 100.
In all cases, it’s what moves you emotionally that counts. I won’t say that people can’t be moved by extremely complex and densely structured music — I’ll only say that it rarely moves me.
They’re only mocked if the complexity doesn’t serve a purpose.
In art, complexity has to be the servant, not the master. It’s not good in itself, though it may require technical expertise to master. It takes a lot more than mastery of technical expertise to produce a good work of art, regardless what kind of art it is.
Well put!
“the superficial knowledge is worse ignorance”
Those that say " I don’t know anything about music" are the best critics for a song.
They hear it, and they either like it, or not.
Those that believe that they know a thing or two about music… well… they don’t.
Usually, they are the ones that like to do all these technical judgments.
As for the European classical music and its complexity…
The more difficult, the more complicated, the more wrist breaking, the faster,
the longer, the more instruments, the more expensive the instruments,
the bigger the band, the bigger the hall…
Well… them all add to the… not to the music…
but, to the prestige of the “master” (Prince, Duke, King etc)
The more elitist it sounds and looks, the more it adds to the “master’s” powerful appearance .
After all, he pays for all that.
Humans always look for proxies. Musical complexity is an easy, superficial proxy for quality for folks who can’t/don’t know how to approach music in other ways.
This is surprising?
Believe me, “complex” music DOESN’T get treated more respectfully than simple music!
I know- I was a huge fan of all the prog-rock bands of the Seventies, and those bands used to get ripped to shreds by the critics for their overly complex tunes and overly cerebral lyrics.
Critics invariably championed the punks, and applauded leaner, stripped down, simple music.