(January 5, 2015 at 11:59 am)Alex K Wrote: But aren't there some absolute standards that allow us to say that say, a Bach fugue is a more intricate and complex creation than a more or less harmonically primitive I-IV-V-I pop song? It's not like all music is created equal.
More complex technically is not the same as more artistic. The Beatle's "Tomorrow Never Knows" is one C Major all the way through, but goddamn if it doesn't touch something very deep inside me with the way those marvelous lyrics are married to that hypnotic groove.
As a musician of 30+ years, formally educated in classical and jazz guitar, one of the big issues I have with music and musicians is the urge to be overly complex for no good reason. Sometimes, florid complexity is exactly what is needed to convey the emotion at hand; at other times, simplicity is the key.
They're both equally artistic, insofar as they move the listener, in my view. And in music in particular, a fetishism for technicality can often interfere with the appreciation of the listener. I've taught a couple of kids the basics of improvisational music and theory, and the point I try to make is one made first, I think, by Carlos Santana: The goal is not for you to play music; the goal is to let the music play you. What that means in the context of this conversation is that sticking a fast technical run in a song can be useful to communicate a mood -- but it can too often turn the song into a vehicle for ego, and that seems to undermine its artistic value.
