>I haven't heard analysed enough classical music, not do I have the ability to, to determine if there is any value in complex music other than coincidental. If you are a musician I'd appreciate your view.
I'm a musician (though not professional), but isn't the question moot?
There already exist thousands of exquisite complex music pieces, from classical, to jazz, to rock, latin, etc -- pieces so powerful they can bring people to tears.
We we saytThat they're not needed because they're complex? That they're not really good because they're complex? Or that their complex/difficult to play nature, as emerged from the composers, is "coincidental" (and they should/could e.g. have made them be much slower, have simple chords, and simpler melodies)?
>If you'd like to nominate some complex (in your view) music you like I'd be very interested indeed.
This is a very beautiful piece (picked a random video of it) and not simple play:
Music I prefer, is usually also quite complex, but
"pieces so powerful they can bring people to tears."
... do really not need to be complex. There are very simple folk songs, chants, gospels, or mantras, which can invoke very strong emotions as well.
Even simple drumming can introduce a trance state and people dancing till extase (without drugs).
Our ancestors did not had a full orchester at hand, yet they still enjoyed music and as far as I know it was part of every culture. And I suspect they feeled it even more intense, than the ordinary person consuming some playlists on spotify or youtube today.
>Music I prefer, is usually also quite complex, but
"pieces so powerful they can bring people to tears."
... do really not need to be complex.
Sure, but that [that it needs to be complex] was never asserted here though.
The thread started from a comment made by tempguy9999 saying that they are bothered by the article saying: [the classical musicians] "who achieve such heights are capable of playing the most complex, technically difficult music on equally complex instruments that take decades to master".
And he added "Complexity just isn't of value in software and I don't know if it is in music".
My response to which was, and I quote: "Nobody said that music has to be complex to be good. But a good classical musician should be able to play the complex pieces too" and that: "You don't get to be a concert pianist or violinist if you only play the simple pieces...".
tempguy9999 further that they don't have the ability "to determine if there is any value in complex music other than coincidental. If you are a musician I'd appreciate your view."
To which I replied basically that many pieces (classical and otherwise) are both inherently complex and good, and gave some examples.
This whole thread revolves around its tail, but nobody said music has to be complex to be good.
What was said was, to recap:
A: Hmm, the article saying "you need to play complex difficult music on complex instruments that take decades to master" bothers me.
B: It says so for classical musicians. There are lots of difficult classical pieces, and to be a classical musician you need to be able to play them
A: But do they have to be complex? Or do they have just accidental complexity? Whaddaya think?
B: That's another question, but since you've asked, sure, there are classical (and rock, jazz, etc) pieces, that are difficult to play and highly technical, and are nonetheless masterpieces, and one would be hard pressed to take anything away from them. It's up to the artist how they want to express themselves, and a pieces can be very difficult/technical and equally beautiful.
Ah ok, I did not read carefully enough then, I got the impression, that you were implying, that powerful music, needs to be complex. But it seems, we agree, complex music can also be very powerful ..
Thanks for these, I appreciate the effort you put in.
I can't do them justice right now as it's late but I've had a quick listen, and will have a proper bash at them tomorrow.
But I'm beginning to doubt my original post; it asked if good music related to complex music. But if 'good' is so personal, my question becomes void because it's personal to each. (Edit: that was craply put, but I hope YSWIM)
I'm a musician (though not professional), but isn't the question moot?
There already exist thousands of exquisite complex music pieces, from classical, to jazz, to rock, latin, etc -- pieces so powerful they can bring people to tears.
We we saytThat they're not needed because they're complex? That they're not really good because they're complex? Or that their complex/difficult to play nature, as emerged from the composers, is "coincidental" (and they should/could e.g. have made them be much slower, have simple chords, and simpler melodies)?
>If you'd like to nominate some complex (in your view) music you like I'd be very interested indeed.
This is a very beautiful piece (picked a random video of it) and not simple play:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6cbCWzHXkg
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PukuQPUKfyU
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvMM3jIkDGk
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KaYzgofHjc
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOKn33-q4Ao
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXAhNul1z0I
Heck, this is quite complex from a totally different genre, it takes tons of practice and years to master the flow and speed required:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbGs_qK2PQA