Would you say that technical knowledge/perfection determines the enjoyability of a work of music? Does a song with complex layers of harmony and melody intertwined with unique chords and beats trump a simple 4 chord song with a chromatic melody?
How important is attention to music theory and practice to your enjoyment of a piece? Does a song have to be very complex for you to enjoy it?
Discuss.
So why when we review musical work (whether it is on the AP here or anywhere) do we always downplay simpler songs. Works of greater complexity always seem to garner more praise from musical minds, but they don't seem to be listened to as much.
Example (with blatant self-whoring):
My song "Shards of Heaven" has gotten so-so reviews, with a lot of talk about it being repetitive, weakly orchestrated, and basically just a half-assed job. Yet it has 88 downloads in a little less that a month. Meanwhile my song "Stratathereal", which has gotten much better reviews, has only 54 downloads.
Why is this?
But if you are a musically talented person, how heavily does the complexity of a song weigh on what you think of it? Do you like songs less because they are simplistic?
At 9/1/06 04:15 PM, Chronamut wrote:
Only the most dedicated of people sit down and analyse all the subleties you put in a song.
I must be dedicated. >_>
To me, I like a song that has a nice full melody or a nice beat. I don't really base things off how simple they are, but really how well done they are. I don't look for how many instruments are in a song or how diverse they are, but how appealling they are. Something like that.
At 9/1/06 03:10 PM, Chronamut wrote: its because the general public likes simpler songs - they d/l but dont review - while someone that reviews prolly enjoys more complexity and sicne those ppl are fewer in number you will get less downloads..
Spot on.
I´ve learned to appreciate and even like techno and electronic music, i was totally anti like 12 years ago... of course things changes, but making music myself have really opened up my eyes for what the artist behind the song is trying to say.
There are two different kinds of complexity leves that youre touching here too;
one is clarity, to get a song to sound clear is an artform+mathematical knowledge in one big apple.
another kind of complexity youll find in the music itself, are there many layers, is this "musically" correct and challanging etc.
you can have one, you can have both and you can have none.
Many of the artists on NG AP are new, and many of them have none. HOWEVER, it doesnt take that long to evolve and learn. ive seen artists on here that started out with "none" that qquickly learned both things im talking about here.
Basicly, its more difficult to achieve the "musically" part, this is often based on how you feel and how artistic you are. If youre not that artstic, its more difficult to become that i would say, if not even damn near impossible.
The maths and the theory anyone can learn, but to make somehting that appeals to other people, e it a simple melody or a complex orchester... now THAT´s more of a challange!
Wakka wakka
Among listeners, simplicity is best because simplicity ensures that the emotion being conveyed is conveyed with a simple structure and a certain level of repetition for extended enjoyment, that is, it's short and to the point, and not over the top.
Among musicians, complex music is best because the more elements are added the more they have to configure to the main premise, and add on to it.
I spread them into two seperate groups because listeners are often electronic music illiterate and are easily taken by anything, and musicians are taken by new, elaborate works.
Take for instance, Aphex Twin's Xtal (Simplistic expression of loneliness) to Amon Tobin's Proper Hoodidge (Complex expression of something ugly).
Beautiful, Erkie :)
I see it this way: a song can only stand to be complex if being complex is not its goal.
Someone who is trying to show off his time changes and diminished subdominants will probably lose all coherence - it will not be focused on the content, just on the package.
The exact same goes for someone who can only copy other people's ideas, not because they want to take credit for them, but simply because the imagination stops beyond that when one has no idea what particular music-theoritical element causes the effect he copies.
I bet I frased that too awkward.
At 9/1/06 07:34 PM, Erkie wrote: Among listeners, simplicity is best because simplicity ensures that the emotion being conveyed is conveyed with a simple structure and a certain level of repetition for extended enjoyment, that is, it's short and to the point, and not over the top.
Among musicians, complex music is best because the more elements are added the more they have to configure to the main premise, and add on to it.
I spread them into two seperate groups because listeners are often electronic music illiterate and are easily taken by anything, and musicians are taken by new, elaborate works.
Take for instance, Aphex Twin's Xtal (Simplistic expression of loneliness) to Amon Tobin's Proper Hoodidge (Complex expression of something ugly).
Exactly. I was going to say the exact same thing until I read Erkie's post, and then saw no need :). Enjoyability and Technicality don't necessarily have a direct correlation, because different audiences are going to be looking at different qualities of a piece.
I bet I frased that too awkward.
No, but I can help Mr. Tang.
Translation: Being complex if the song calls for it and not for the sake of being complex, and not copying works because your mind doesn't have the ability to formulate your own.
Another thing, too, is prestige. Artists shouldn't base themselves on what people think of them.
Seriously.
A simple piano score will captivate me for hours. If it was good.
At 9/1/06 08:11 PM, Erkie wrote:I bet I frased that too awkward.No, but I can help Mr. Tang.
Translation: Being complex if the song calls for it and not for the sake of being complex, and not copying works because your mind doesn't have the ability to formulate your own.
Yeah, that :)
Another thing, too, is prestige. Artists shouldn't base themselves on what people think of them.
Seriously.
Yes and that's exactly what determines an artist in my opinion. Audience is always a factor, but artists want the people to pay them attention, while the rest of the music industry want people to pay them money.
Its all down to personal taste. I like to listen to simple generic music and also people just pissing about and/or showing off (aphex twin, squarepusher, dave w (bet no ones heard of HIM before)
I like complex music that sounds simple, i also like simple music that sounds like it is more complex.
Erkies right tho about the distinction, as a musician i have far more interest in outlandish things than someone who doesnt even try to make music.
As for businesses, its a bit , well, dunno. Stuff that sounds simple could make you money but could either be well complex, or not well complex, etc. but generally the simpler the style the more sucessful.
But then again, everyone goes for simple which is why we want to make complex.
in conclusion, fuck this, i'm goin for a smoke.
well here's my two cents.
I have nearly no musical theory training, everything I do I base purely on creativity and what I personally think sounds good. In my eyes creativity is the bane of an artists existence, simple beats are a sure way to get people listening, but I would rather hold 5 intelligent fans, then hundreds of simple minded ones.
Erkie spoke well when he said artists should never base themselves on that audience. Seeing as I had no musical theory at that point, I fell into that trap. It's not a pleasent place let me tell you, you begin to hate what you make, and hating what you make is a sure way to die horribly and slowely.
So yes, I just wanted to say what was said ample times already ;).
Good day.
At 9/1/06 10:24 PM, MaestroRage wrote: well here's my two cents.
I have nearly no musical theory training, everything I do I base purely on creativity and what I personally think sounds good. In my eyes creativity is the bane of an artists existence, simple beats are a sure way to get people listening, but I would rather hold 5 intelligent fans, then hundreds of simple minded ones.
Erkie spoke well when he said artists should never base themselves on that audience. Seeing as I had no musical theory at that point, I fell into that trap. It's not a pleasent place let me tell you, you begin to hate what you make, and hating what you make is a sure way to die horribly and slowely.
So yes, I just wanted to say what was said ample times already ;).
Good day.
I think thats the problem I'm having. I have no formal musical training, so when I ask these people about my songs, they hate them and I feel like a failure. Then I show them to other people and they like them. Then when I sit down to actually write something, I'm so worried about how its going to turn out that I just freeze up and get nothing done.
You can learn as much technical information you want, but if you're not personally enjoying the creation of your own music, then it's not worth the effort, as your mind will close up with anxieties and nervous tension and clouded thoughts and headaches because your mind is supposed to use those areas to actually think clearly on what music to create.
If you are personally ready and prepared to make music, and you enjoy the entire process, and generally like the production you make, then it'll be just as enjoyable to the listener.
