Unable to comprehend high intelligence

There are many things that are very hard to understand such as undiscovered ways in which protons can react but apart from these types of subjects that most of us don't work with in our daily lives, are there any artists out there producing music that's technically very hard to comprehend?

We have rich d james who has produced very complex tracks with equally good quality mastering and production techniques, boxcutter doing some great stuff and countless other examples. However, are these the guys producing the most technically complex music? Perhaps some people in the world are even better but their music isn't being passed on because there just aren't enough fans to understand such complexity and thus spread?

The amount of people producing these days does suggest that there's a higher chance that someone is out there is doing such a thing, but at the same time suggesting it's going to be harder to find as they'll be more people making average quality music.

Copyright © 2010 a Joshier thread.

messiaen comes to mind

terminal11?

well, define complexity.

are you talking about exploration of "music theory"? is that what defines something as being complex?

you could listen to the modulated output of a computer system. one could argue that the information contained in that is highly mathematical and complex - chances are you'll just perceive it as white noise, though.

or, perhaps, where is the line drawn between "technical" and "artistic"?

at one point do you take off the beard and plaid shirt and put on a lab coat? at what point should people stop bothering to listen unless they're trying to discern whatever science you've distilled into your "music"?

IDM is overrated prolefeed devoid of complexity, unlike Matisyahu

complexity is to good as dishwashers are to bicycles.

i know i might be wrong but i think no one tops afx on this planet, in terms of production. he's the final boss.

  On 2/21/2010 at 1:45 AM, kaini said:

complexity is to good as dishwashers are to bicycles.

i programmed my dishwasher to do snare rushes in triplets

in before sarcasm

you seem to be presuming that there are many people who are trying to understand music so that they can then enjoy it, when 99.99% of people are just enjoying music which happens to be of varying complexity. You could completely understand an incredibly complex piece of music but it says almost nothing about how much you are going to enjoy it.

edit. unless you've got a fetish or something

Autechre and Squarepusher come to mind. Specifically 'Gantz Graf' and '50 Cycles'.

Zach Hill's drumming is technically astounding.

Coltrane's later stuff is amazingly sophisticated and often impenetrable.

John Zorn's game pieces are impossible to understand unless you are present at the performance.

Stockhausen and Xenakis always had logical, yet dense, dialectics and mechanics behind their music.

Spectral music composers seem to be almost completely unknown of outside of their peers, which leads me to...

Gyorgy Ligeti, who was a proto-spectralist and whose piano etudes are highly mechanistic. This period came to him after listening to...

Conlon Nancarrow, whose pioneering use of the player piano allowed him to create super-human performances and techniques such as tempo canons.

Don't even get me started on aleatoric, serialist, or dodecaphonic composers. I don't think I know anyone who listens to that stuff to derive pleasure.

Brian Ferneyhough/New Complexity

I listen to Serialist music for pleasure.

  On 2/21/2010 at 2:12 AM, Wall Bird said:

Coltrane's later stuff is amazingly sophisticated and often impenetrable.

disagree

  On 2/21/2010 at 2:12 AM, Wall Bird said:

Gyorgy Ligeti, who was a proto-spectralist and whose piano etudes are highly mechanistic. This period came to him after listening to...

ligeti is scary. also, pendericki

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfBVYhyXU8o

it all comes down to one thing: do you like it?

I think some of you are missing the point. Complexity for the sake of complexity can be shit, but it can work well - for example rich d james' case where he's entwined it with beauty.

I also am referring to all aspects. So, for example sound design which richard professed at (as well as amon tobin). But, there's no limit to that and this has no bearing on how complex the samples are, rather how alien it could be and how good it is linked with the music.

As Wall Bird pointed out; there's been lots of great artists creating brilliant music but I think some people miss the ball on the fact that there is pretty much no limit. That's the great thing about music and life, there are many combinations and possibilities.

For example, a "super human species" could produce music that was 50x better than squarepusher (for example, better sound design, better mastering, better sampling, more emotional, etc) and you'd still enjoy it. Tom and rich pushed the boundaries from what I've heard of them in terms of mind blowing music, but there is no limit and some artist could come along and flatter both of them in terms of music ability - there is no limit.

  On 2/21/2010 at 2:36 AM, joshier said:

I think some of you are missing the point. Complexity for the sake of complexity can be shit, but it can work well - for example rich d james' case where he's entwined it with beauty.

 

I also am referring to all aspects. So, for example sound design which richard professed at (as well as amon tobin). But, there's no limit to that and this has no bearing on how complex the samples are, rather how alien it could be and how good it is linked with the music.

 

As Wall Bird pointed out; there's been lots of great artists creating brilliant music but I think some people miss the ball on the fact that there is pretty much no limit. That's the great thing about music and life, there are many combinations and possibilities.

 

For example, a "super human species" could produce music that was 50x better than squarepusher (for example, better sound design, better mastering, better sampling, more emotional, etc) and you'd still enjoy it. Tom and rich pushed the boundaries from what I've heard of them in terms of mind blowing music, but there is no limit and some artist could come along and flatter both of them in terms of music ability - there is no limit.

You can say there's no limit but it still doesn't mean it's going to be better because better to most people means more enjoyable not more complex. A superhuman could be just as likely to insist on creating something much, much simpler than AFX and squarepusher and 1000 times better for all you know.

  On 2/21/2010 at 2:36 AM, joshier said:

For example, a "super human species" could produce music that was 50x better than squarepusher (for example, better sound design, better mastering, better sampling, more emotional, etc) and you'd still enjoy it. Tom and rich pushed the boundaries from what I've heard of them in terms of mind blowing music, but there is no limit and some artist could come along and flatter both of them in terms of music ability - there is no limit.

On reading this again, you could say that a superhuman could know what you were most likely to enjoy and create that better than anyone else has so far.

  On 2/21/2010 at 2:36 AM, joshier said:

I think some of you are missing the point. Complexity for the sake of complexity can be shit, but it can work well - for example rich d james' case where he's entwined it with beauty.

 

I also am referring to all aspects. So, for example sound design which richard professed at (as well as amon tobin). But, there's no limit to that and this has no bearing on how complex the samples are, rather how alien it could be and how good it is linked with the music.

 

As Wall Bird pointed out; there's been lots of great artists creating brilliant music but I think some people miss the ball on the fact that there is pretty much no limit. That's the great thing about music and life, there are many combinations and possibilities.

 

For example, a "super human species" could produce music that was 50x better than squarepusher (for example, better sound design, better mastering, better sampling, more emotional, etc) and you'd still enjoy it. Tom and rich pushed the boundaries from what I've heard of them in terms of mind blowing music, but there is no limit and some artist could come along and flatter both of them in terms of music ability - there is no limit.

i find some very simplistic pieces of music to be mind blowing. it's all very subjective. most of my favorite songs are tons less "complex" than what afx and squarepusher make, but i think they are much more beautiful and emotional too. of course, a lot of this has to do with the memories i associate with these pieces of music. however, some songs (i'll take "happiness" by goldfrapp as an example) have never been involved in a major event in my life, but i still get a very strong vibe when i listen to them, like i'm listening to a little world with all its colors and emotions condensed into music.

this post has taken a turn for the hippy, so i'll end it here.

Ok so we have established music is subjective but we can all mostly agree aphex twin and others like him have created beautiful and complex music, with complex meaning any area in music such as production or emotionally powerful.

To make emotional music one has to translate their complex emotions they feel into a simple composion which is complex in itself in a way.

So, thus bringing it back to the original point - it could be made redundant but here's what I think:

portraying emotions into music is a complex and usually difficult process depending on how talented one is. One can also bridge the gap between audible comexity such as sound design and structure into the emotion and finally, have complexity as the sole purpose of music.

I don't think Richard does thus often as he usually puts his emotions into his songs and is able to seamlesslry tie the techy comexoties within it adding an exhilirating element to the experience.

I think there's almost no limit for both emotional portrayal and audio complexity which is why music is so exciting and I think many members ere would agree that they enjoy aphex twins music partly because his technical skill. I think technical skill in songs have a long way to go before we reach most peoples own limit.

This is why I'm wondering if others have pushed the barrier further than tom and rich

i feel in true 'geniuses' (such a subjective term) this process is automatic, and pleasurable to them

take something like alvin lucier's 'i am sitting in a room', or steve reich's 'pendulum music'. in both of those, the process or concept is simple.

what is complex is the mindset that is required to arrive at the process or concept.

let's take another example; this is an exact quote from robert hencke (monolake, and also a developer of ableton live/max for live):

  Quote

take a step sequencer - it has 16 steps and you program a pattern. now you take a second step sequencer;; each step of this sequencer is triggered by a beat from the first sequencer, and this sequencer maybe only has 15 steps. and you use it to transpose the output from the first sequencer. immediately you end up with a sequence which repeats itself after something like 15x16 steps. with max for live it takes you 15 seconds to set up a structure where you predict the beginning, but you cannot really predict what will happen after one minute. and that's totally amazing. you are listening to the result, and you say "yeah, that's obviously what comes out of this process". but you wouldn't be able to predict the result beforehand.

there are all sorts of different sorts of complexity.

excellent thread btw.

  On 2/21/2010 at 3:57 AM, joshier said:

This is why I'm wondering if others have pushed the barrier further than tom and rich

you still haven't defined "the barrier". what, exactly, are you asking about?

what is 'barrier pushing' about squarepusher, or aphex twin? you adore their music, clearly, which is your unassailable right. and you may personally feel that nothing else touches that music on some level, but what equates this with being "complex" or "boundary-pushing"?

as several have stated here, even the most simple melodies, harmonies or arrangements can be more powerful than the most thought-out compositions on the planet. and most folks tend to agree that truly "innovative" and "rule-breaking" music from a music theory-standpoint is largely unlistenable.

it seems to me that what you're really asking is "are there any other artists out there that will move me personally as much as these artists?", which is a question that nobody can answer for you.

I often wondered why these guys who program music programs and or built synth modulars often make terrible music. I realized its because its not about being a technical book smart genius and understanding all the technical shit. Its about good taste and emotion,. sprinkeld with some technical ability

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUcOaGawIW0

great thread, best actually. Lets keep talking. I think Richard, especially him, uses a bag of tricks when composing. His melodies are simple but he uses certain chords and phrases that convey certain emotions.

  On 2/21/2010 at 1:04 AM, IRARI said:

terminal11?

no doubt