complex simplicity - Page 3

We have had a lot of threads recently about the complexity of music. The problem is that we don't have a standard definition of the complexity of music, and I don't think everyone involved in such threads would view it in nearly the same way. Which is more complex: a single melody on a piano which produces several overtones, or that same melody plus a counter-melody on a synth that produces basic sine waves? How do you compare the complexity of a drum set part against the tuned instruments in a song with no percussion? How do you compare a Rachmaninoff piano piece with a two extremely simple melodies, but 8-part chords moving with them, against a Bach keyboard piece with 4 interacting melodies that only create harmony through their interaction? Is a key change more complex than a mode change or a tempo change or a meter change?

It may be that the complexity of music can be objectively quantified. But if the people discussing it are not quantifying it by the same criteria, then the discussion becomes one of subjective value comparisons.

In other words, I think that when someone says something like e.g. "Bach is too simple" it is too vague of a comment to be useful. Nobody else knows where you are coming from if you make a statement like that. Now if someone says "I don't like X because it is so repetitive" or "I don't like Y because the chord progression is so simple" then you start to narrow down the type of complexity you are referring to in that particular case, and other people might understand what you are talking about.

no. the impetus is on you to show me music that doesn't involve math.

why not?

but he DIDN'T say that... he said, and i quote: "Complexity has nothing to do with the value of a piece of music. The simplest piece of music that could ever be written (aside from silence, which has been done) would be a single note played using an unmodulated sine wave. If I composed such a piece, no-one would pay any attention (quite rightly), but if it was to be discovered that Beethoven had written it, suddenly the "piece" gathers an infinite amount of complexity it never had before."

i disagree with that statement. my point is that complexity (a measurable trait) CAN and DOES have something to do with the value of a piece of music... because value is subjective. you cannot equate complexity with value, but you likewise can't automatically divorce one from the other. sometimes complexity does involve value and vice versa.

also, contrary to the author's assumption, no one would give a rat's **** if Beethoven had written a single-note composition.

no. i didn't say that anywhere. i said randomness and complexity are not related. something can be random without being complex. it might END UP being complex... or it might END UP being simple... it's entirely random.

once again, you're putting words in my mouth. you seem to be assigning statements to both myself and the original author that aren't there. i said nothing about validity.

by valid, i will assume you mean value. and yes it is arguable. music has value on the listener's terms, as well as the composer's... but not it's own. if a certain music has no value TO ME, then it has no value TO ME. but again, that's not what the original author said... he said complexity has nothing to do with value.

yes.. and it can add value to music, the same way the color purple adds value to van gogh's "Starry Night."

again, you're distorting the argument. the original author said that "music exists entirely in the mind of the listener." you're saying that they're "as much a part of the work of art." you, apparently without realizing it, also disagree with the original author.

as for the quantum mechanics stuff... show me a single scientist who believes "objective" is becoming an arcahic term.

I think Dr. Art is partially correct in hypothesizing that intellect is related to the enjoyment of more complex forms of music.

HOWEVER.

It is important to point out that this is merely due to a combination of two skills, as it seems:

1. Mathematics
2. Analytical Ability

Mathematics comes into music because, of course, music is a mathematical endeavor. Time signitures keep a steady beat (rule) as to how and when notes can be played. No matter how often the time signitures change, no matter if whether or not they are even taken into consideration when writing/performing music, there is no question that time signitures are a real thing that indeed exist in every musical work. This is the proof alone that music is completely math-based. The more complex and abnormal these time signitures become, the more complex and abnormal the music itself becomes, because, while a musician could technically do anything within the bounds of ANY time signiture, only certain ones will allow the musician to formally perform them. For example, if I'm in 5/4 (which means that there are five quarter notes in each measure) and want to do a crazy accent or something on beat five, or something like that, it would be relatively easy. However, if I were to translate that exact instrumentation to 4/4, where there are four quarter notes in each measure, it would become increasingly difficult to do that, since the accent would actually be on a new measure, on beat one, but next time, it would be on beat 2, and so on and so on. Therefore, if things like this happen, it is the accepted practice to alter the time signature to allow for more complex events. And to conclude, altered time signatures which play more or less than a FULL measure (full meaning not 2/2 or 4/4 or 8/8, which are all in reality the same signatures anyway) are more complex. And normally, you find these kinds of time signatures in progressive rock, jazz music, classical music, and the like. You NEVER find it in pop, rap, or other lowly forms of music like that. This is because they just want an easy beat to dance to, mainly. It would be hard to dance to the 1st movement of Close to the Edge

And then we have bands like Rush, who are complex because they make the very most out of what three men alone can do. Geddy Lee can sing, play bass, and play the keyboard with his feet all at the same time. Neil Pert has hands that act as if they were lit on fire -- he can do amazing things with his drum kit. Characteristics like these are what give bands like Rush, Yes, Jethro Tull, and Gentle Giant "complex" labels. In addition to this, all of these groups were very well-known for performing and recording very unique fusions of different genres and also very abstract solos.

The point is, that there are accepted ideas of what makes music complex or not, but it is mainly in the idea of mathematics. One thing that all music shares with one another is that it has a beat. That in my mind should be the basis of complexity of music - the technical stuff. The math (the beat), the actual physical virtuosity that the artist must have to perform it, the ability/gift/tallent it takes to construct the piece -- these are the only ways in my mind that EVERY form of music out there can be judged in terms of complexity.

And yes, this post is long and the constant rambling will not allow for most people to truly understand what I mean, but at least try

But honestly, sbudiek, what are you on? You talk all about time signatures, but cannot agree that music is completely formulated by mathematics? That's ridiculous...

Wow! You even like Shostakovich's string quartet #8 also.

Are you that promiscuous in areas other than music?




LOL



I should restate my position:

No doubt there is value in some music of any genre.

High IQ does not mean you dislike simple or more popular music, nor does it guarantee that you will like more complex and less popular music. Low IQ does limit your ability to enjoy complex, less popular, music and high IQ does enhance your ability to enjoy complex, less popular, music.

The correlation between IQ and level of complexity of music of music enjoyed is significant but weak. Factors other than IQ mediate here - most notably emotional development and creative-evaluative ability to assess stimuli emotionally and not just logically/objectively.

he said, and i quote:

" music is a mathematical endeavor"

Vic speaks in terms of absolutes and then tries to cover his tracks by acting like he spoke casually.

Music CAN be formulated in SOME ways by math, but music is not "a mathematical endeavor". That's such a sweeping statement that it has to be wrong. What about a bird's tune? I call that music. But the bird isn't tapping out 4/4 in their heads when they make the call There's thousands if not millions of examples of what a certain person would call music where the point is not rythym at all, but emotion. Or something else entirely. It may have UTILIZED math in some way, but maybe the person wasn't consciously thinking about math at all during any portion of the creative and/or listening process. Is it still then a "mathematical endeavor"?

When I debate, I use what people said, not what I think they might have been trying to say. If you want to be understood, then explain yourself correctly

I'll get to the rest of this later.

Excellent post. I excerpted the paragraph above in order to ask you to recommend something of Rush, Gentle Giant or other such music that shares the complexity of instrumental/voice complexity that is found in some of Jethro Tull (one of my favorite groups). PM or post if you will. I am not familar with Rush or GG. Thanks.

There has been some interesting computer generated music based on mathematics. Check out this link and click in the bottom right corner for music:

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/notebook.html

Thank you!

Gentle Giant shares the vocal complexity of Jethro Tull greatly. "In a Glass House" contains some of the most interesting vocals I've ever heard from a concept album -- essentially, the band is playing really smooth and hardcore prog rock, but the vocals are sung as if it were an opera. The results are outstanding. It can be powerful and emotional, just like Ian Anderson's, but it can be also very unique and out of this world, a quality which Ian Anderson also possessed in his vocals. Gentle Giant's "Octopus" share Jethro Tull's amazing abilities of story-telling. They also are like Tull in the way that they play very non-rock type of instruments but make it work really well. You'll hear Gentle Giant playing a lot of Viola/Violin, and the keyboard player also plays the flute.

Rush, on the other hand, is a bit different because they normally are a lot more "electronic" than Jethro Tull and do not bank on story telling as much. Instrumentally, however, you'll find a lot of the music from the album 'Moving Pictures' very complex. Most notably, Geddy Lee, the bass/keyboard player and vocalist, does an amazing keyboard solo in the song "Tom Sawyer", and YYZ is by-far one of the best rock instrumentals of all time. It's even more impressive to see Rush perform their music live, because then you see Geddy Lee playing the bass, singing, and stomping on his keyboard with his feet -- all at the same time. A trully incredible site. Oh yeah, and if you are a fan of the Barlowe-style drumming found in Tull, you'll love Neil Pert's style in Rush.

Sbudiek:
I am going to quote myself if you don't mind.
It doesn't matter if they are taking into CONSIDERATION time signatures. The truth is that ANY noise can be heard/played with/to a time signature. Whether you like it or not, every form of music, even if it's the "bird chirping" (and I detest the fact that this is considered a form of "music") works. ANY music or noise can WORK to SOME SORT of time signiture. Music is a mathematic endeavor. He was being truthful and accurate.

music is a mathematical endeavor. show me where i try to cover my tracks by acting like i spoke casually. once again, you put words in my mouth.

what aman says. music is math. plain and simple.

it's music in the sense only that human speech is music. but if you want to analyze the notes of a bird's chirp, they will have mathematical correlations.

if it's music, yes.

i've highlighted at least four instances in which you attribute statements to people which they didn't say.

Have to agree with this one. A lot of the time, he wins his battles because other people have to respond to things that they think they didn't say.

Well then what you are getting into is the philosophy of language. I use the words I see on the screen to formulate what they've said, using the definitions I understand of said words. If that's attributing things they haven't said to them, then you are opening a big can of worms. Now if you said "perhaps you don't understand correctly the definition of the word endeavor", now that's a different thing entirely isn't it?

EDIT: Also, the short sentence - "Music is a mathematical endeavor" - to me implied that you were saying that music is only math and nothing more. It seemed you were ignoring the rest. (Which isn't too shabby of an assumption, considering almost all you've talked about in this thread is math and how math relates to music) Don't blame me for finding fault in your faulty phrasing, you could have easily corrected yourself and moved on.

If, however, you do believe music is just math, then you are wrong

Exactly.

by the way...

If you come to the table with a predetermined value judgement, your opinion on the matter will be just a tad bit biased, no? Of course you're going to think intellect is related to enjoyment/understanding/whatever of complex forms of music, because you think the other forms of music aren't as good. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that doesn't prove anything.

Yes. I like pretty much everything. Actually were it in my ability to, I would experience everything humanly possible. Well, minus the experiences involving stuff I have allergies to