Complexity

[mke]

I've been wondering about what makes music seem complex (independently from what makes it complex to play).

In the liner notes to Lee Konitz's "Motion," Nat Hentoff says:

"Konitz's playing, in any case, is so clear and coherently developed on its own musical terms that it presents no esoteric difficulties for even an apprentice listener."

I think that this is completely false. Of course, familiarity comes into play (cf. Kenny Werner, to paraphrase "There are no difficult things, only unfamiliar ones."), but I find Ornette Coleman's "Live at the Golden Circle, Vol. 1" far less complex to listen to. Or, to compare "Motion" with something I am equally unfamiliar with, David S. Ware's "Surrendered" (I listened to both for the first time today).

Some things I think make "Motion" complex: information is presented in long, somewhat undifferentiated chunks (the regularity of the rhythm section combined with the relative lack of dynamics, a certain self-containedness (apparently, people remember beginnings and endings, rather than middles)), the lack of (to use another term from the liner notes, this time Paul Desmond's) easily-identifiable "emotionalism."

I guess most musics have their complex bits and their simpler ones, but I often find that the more "avant-garde" are often simpler, in many respects, than the mainstream. Compare, say, "Surrendered" (not that I really consider that to be ag, but in the liner notes Ware reluctantly accepts the term) to Branford Marsalis's "Requiem."

Take another example, Ellery's music. Is it simple or complex? A lot of the melodies, structures and rhythms on "Arcanum Moderne" seem simple and immediate (even catchy) enough to me. Perhaps in general the most complicated element of freer music is the sound and the lesser formality of it rather than the musical elements themselves?

And what makes complex music seem less so? Melody? Groove? Gusto?

Or is it all completely subjective, a mere matter of familiarity?

[Tom Storer]

I don't think complexity is subjective. I'd say it has to do with structure or system. Tonal harmony can be used in ways that are simple or complex, and jazz of the non-ag variety strikes me as going from the relatively simple to the esoterically complex. Similarly, rhythms can be simple or complex, and jazz's use of polyrhythms adds a layer of complexity. When you've got Lee Konitz and Elvin Jones going at it together, I agree you're looking at some pretty complex music.

Avant-garde music often eschews harmonic sophistication and metric complexity and can indeed be quite simple in those respects. It nonetheless often uses other compositional systems or devices, or improvisational methods, that can be very complex. Think of Braxton or Steve Coleman--my impression from reading interviews and so on is that you have to work as hard to understand and perform their music correctly as any bebop addict at a Barry Harris workshop, or Berklee student sweating over a harmony course.

But I don't think the things you mentioned for "Motion" have to do with its complexity. Simple music can be presented in long, undifferentiated chunks, lack dynamics, be "self-contained" and lack emotionalism. I think "Motion" is complex because of the involved, interrelated and conceptualized relationships at play in the musicians' improvisations, rather than because of its affect.

If the affect of a piece of music can't be easily grasped because there's no clear or affecting melody or harmony or no beat, one might mistake that for complexity, but "hard to figure out" doesn't necessarily mean "complex." Come to think of it, affect or "emotionalism" can also be very complex, whether it's heart-on-the-sleeve emotional or coolly introverted emotional. Or, another way of looking at it, simple gestures can have complex meaning or produce complex effects. Maybe an unstructured AG blowout or a simple blues, apparently lacking in structural complexity, can be complex in other ways--in what they imply but don't state, in what they evoke in an experienced listener, in the feelings they somehow get across. Is subtlety a part of complexity or are they separate parameters?

[mke]

Think of Braxton or Steve Coleman--my impression from reading interviews and so on is that you have to work as hard to understand and perform their music correctly as any bebop addict at a Barry Harris workshop, or Berklee student sweating over a harmony course.

Definitely. Some thoughts on Coleman from an NEC student:

This was the first time i've been actually engaged by a theoretical discussion since i got here. people are typically such theory idiots that normal college level theory is really suited to an 8th grade level mind and that's where it stops. it's pathetic. But this stuff really requires some thought
(http://jazzthinks.blogspot.com/2004/...well-rudd.html)

But I don't think the things you mentioned for "Motion" have to do with its complexity.

I'm talking mostly about complex to the listener. Things can be complex/difficult to play but much easier to listen to, and vice-versa.

Thus,

Simple music can be presented in long, undifferentiated chunks, lack dynamics, be "self-contained" and lack emotionalism.

I think think that this music would actually be rather difficult to listen to.

I think "Motion" is complex because of the involved, interrelated and conceptualized relationships at play in the musicians' improvisations, rather than because of its affect.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Another element that makes "Motion" complex, IMO, is the lack of overt repetition, either at the micro-level (Konitz re-inforcing a point or breaking up the flow) or at a macro-level (eg. the head of "I'll Remember April" coming only at the end, which not only eschews the usual thematic repetition, but also eliminates a handy beginning, dropping you directly into the middle). And I don't mean repetition in a hip hop sense: to take an extreme example, how many times do you hear the same thing (or a slight variation thereof) in Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata"?

If the affect of a piece of music can't be easily grasped because there's no clear or affecting melody or harmony or no beat, one might mistake that for complexity, but "hard to figure out" doesn't necessarily mean "complex."

Can the affect of a piece be "figured out"? I would have thought that it could only be grasped intuitively (not necessarily immediately, but in a more affable way than "figuring out" suggests to me).

gestures can have complex meaning or produce complex effects. (...) Is subtlety a part of complexity or are they separate parameters?

Yes, but I think that that's in the "simple to play/difficult to play" relationship. As I said in the first post, I'm discounting the playing end of things (but feel free to bring it in).

[mke]

This thread is probably doomed due to its "isn't this why you have a blog?" nature, but I'll carry on.

My main interrogation relates to listener perception: what objective and subjective elements lead the listener to describe something as simple or complex?

[Jon Abbey]

I think a lot of it is familiarity with the style of music, and even more specifically, the musicians. if you immediately grasp the internal logic of the piece and the way the musician/s think, then you're much less likely to describe something as "complex".

to be honest, I don't usually use terms like simple or complex when describing music, so I'm more trying to guess for you to help your thread along.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Jon Abbey

I think a lot of it is familiarity with the style of music, and even more specifically, the musicians. if you immediately grasp the internal logic of the piece and the way the musician/s think, then you're much less likely to describe something as "complex".

to be honest, I don't usually use terms like simple or complex when describing music, so I'm more trying to guess for you to help your thread along.

AGREE!

This may not be pertinent, but I remember a “blindfold test” in Downbeat with Monk? And they played him Art Pepper’s take on “Rhythm a ning”. Monk complains about the (added) tag line, and then he’s asked about Art’s solo – is it too fast? Monk says “that’s not a fast solo, it’s just slow phrases played fast !”. So “complexity” is maybe in the eye/ear of the listener? …..I find Interstellar Space very easy to listen to!

RC..

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by mke

This thread is probably doomed due to its "isn't this why you have a blog?" nature, but I'll carry on.

My main interrogation relates to listener perception: what objective and subjective elements lead the listener to describe something as simple or complex?

Sometimes I'll be reading a novel or a short story, say by Kafka, Beckett, Sartre, etc. and afterI'm done or half-way through I'll say "What the hell is this about?" I know what the words I'm reading mean. I even know what the sentences and whole paragraphs or pages mean, but I don't know what the whole thing is about or where it's going. I can't tie the different thoughts or ideas or events described in words into a coherent whole. If I can transfer the concept to music, that's the ultimate in complexity.

When that happens (and it happens quite a bit to me), I'll either find something that moves or intrigues me enough to commit me to delve deeper or I won't. Sometimes, I'll just say 'ah, fuck it' and just enjoy it for what it is without attempting to understand it. Sometimes, I'll just lose interest.

[Enforcer]

mke,

I think the label "complex" is used when the listener hears something unexpected, frankly. And of course, that's heavily dependent on the listener and degree of listening experience, including familiarity with various different styles of music that may have influenced the piece in question. If a chord change or choice of notes or rhythmic phrase come unexpectedly, the music will sound "complex."

For instance, if you've never heard Latin rhythms, they sound very complex at first. But after you've been exposed to them, over time, the distinguishing patterns no longer seem unusual or difficult. There is, in fact, a great deal of repetition involved in the grooves. And once the listener picks up on that, the rhythms no longer sound complex. So I think it's all relative.

And now that I've said this, I think it's sort of what Jon just wrote, above.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

I don't think complexity is subjective. I'd say it has to do with structure or system. Tonal harmony can be used in ways that are simple or complex, and jazz of the non-ag variety strikes me as going from the relatively simple to the esoterically complex. Similarly, rhythms can be simple or complex, and jazz's use of polyrhythms adds a layer of complexity. When you've got Lee Konitz and Elvin Jones going at it together, I agree you're looking at some pretty complex music.

I tend to agree with Tom here ..to a point:

"complexity" ( or "complex music" ) can be seen as being objectively defined only to the limits which you've been either educated or, through repeated listening, become accustomed to whatever musical features might be considered "complex by less trained/exposed ears.

Whether or not you respond positively to the "complexity" is a matter of personal subjective taste.
For example, I might listen to a Elliot Carter chamber piece , and while I find it interesting from a technical standpoint, may not actually "like " it to the extent of rehearing it any number of times. OTOH, I might listen to a Boulez piece thats just as "complex" ( read technically/structuarally/harmonically different )and emotinally ( subjectively ) respond to it and want to rehear it more often.

My basic point is, no matter at what level you "understand" the combination of sounds at hand, your tolerance threshold where the "sounds" become
"inpleasant noise" ( based upon the assumption that some "noise " is pleasing to you ) remains a subjective choice.

does that make any sense ..or was I just making a bloviating "noise" ?

[mke]

Some ideas:

Since a musical performance comprises a variety of aspects, a multidimensional layout of the complexity descriptor is reasonable. We propose a set of six dimensions to be addressed individually. These are melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, structure, and acoustic properties. The latter are meant to incorporate aspects of the spatial and dynamical comprehensiveness, which are, strictly speaking, not so much attributes of
the music as of the recording.

(http://www.iua.upf.es/mtg/ismir2004/...Streich/21.pdf)

Somewhat tangential, as aimed at the composing end:

Complexity is not really an ‘aesthetic’ issue, but a logical or rhetorical question. Complexity necessarily interferes with clarity... The greater the volume of information, the less that is actually communicated — the more you try to say, the less the hearer is going to get out of what you’re saying.

(http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_He...omplexity.html)

Scholarly:

2 The expectancy-based model of melodic complexity

Existing research on music cognition and particularly melodic expectancies has already offered considerable insight into the processes by which human listeners perceive musical stimuli and translate these perceptions into judgements of melodic complexity. The expectancy-based model (EBM) of melodic complexity comprises a series of contributory factors, which are divided into tonal, intervallic, and rhythmic factors. Tonal factors include tonal stability (Krumhansl & Kessler, 1982), which is modified by metrical position (as established by Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; empirically
supported by Palmer & Krumhansl, 1990; Thompson, 1994) and duration of tones (e.g. Castellano, Bharucha & Krumhansl, 1984; Monahan & Carterette, 1985). These modifications are made since they emphasise tones that occur in more prominent locations or possess longer durations: These factors both lead to the increased perceptual saliency of tones.

Intervallic factors consist of principles derived from Narmour's (1990) implication-realization model. The principles are proximity, registral return, registral direction, closure, intervallic difference, and consonance. These principles are hypothesised to be innate and are based on a variety of Gestalt laws applied to tone-to-tone continuations. Here the principles are used to measure the extent to which these implied patterns are violated. The coding of the model is derived from Krumhansl (1995).

Rhythmic factors include rhythmic variability, which accounts for changes in the duration of notes, syncopation, which measures the amount of deviation from the regular beat pattern, and rhythmic
activity, which is simply the number of tones per second. All three rhythmic principles have been found to increase the difficulty of perceiving or producing melodies (e.g. Clarke, 1985; Povel & Essens, 1985; Conley, 1981, respectively.).

In short, melodies which create expectancies that are clearly structured in terms of their tonal, intervallic, and rhythmic properties tend to be easier to reproduce and recognise, and are also judged by listeners as being less complex.

(http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~ptee/publications/3_2000.pdf)

some researchers have adopted an archival approach. This approach considers large samples of data and correlates findings with a range of popularity indices. Notable in this area is work by Simonton (1984; 1994; 1995) who analysed the melodic complexity of 15618 classical music themes and found clear relationships between the melodic complexity of the themes and their popularity.

And so on.

[Sergio Zamora]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

For instance, if you've never heard Latin rhythms, they sound very complex at first. But after you've been exposed to them, over time, the distinguishing patterns no longer seem unusual or difficult. There is, in fact, a great deal of repetition involved in the grooves. And once the listener picks up on that, the rhythms no longer sound complex. So I think it's all relative.

That may be true from a musician's perspective, but the thing about latin rhythms is they got a beat and you can dance to them. The shake-a-booty factor kinda makes up for any complexity.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

That may be true from a musician's perspective, but the thing about latin rhythms is they got a beat and you can dance to them. The shake-a-booty factor kinda makes up for any complexity.

Oh, no question about it. If what I wrote suggested that I'm not enthralled with Latin grooves anymore, then I f**ked up. That's not what I intended at all. There's nothing like 'em, I love 'em.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

.... but the thing about latin rhythms is they got a beat and you can dance to them. The shake-a-booty factor kinda makes up for any complexity.

RC.

[groover]

If a piece of music is hard to play for the average competent musician, that's because it's more complex, either rhythmically or harmonically. For instance, if a song changes key every few bars, the soloist has to be much more aware of where they are in the tune's structure then they would if they can simply blow through the whole thing in one key.

Similarly, if the song changes time signature several times, or has several sudden stops and starts, the musicians have to be more cognizant of where they are in the structure of the piece in order to play it successfully.

Even an untutored listener can usually detect that there's a different level of harmonic complexity between "All of Me" and "Giant Steps", for example. Just try whistling through the melody of "Giant Steps" by ear!

[mke]

I think everyone is more or less in a agreement as to the subjective side of complexity (familiarity, expectations, education). Still, I have the nagging feeling that a lot of complexity goes unnoticed, because the complex part is overwhelmed by simpler, clearer (to use Karl P. Henning's dichotomy) bits.

Another piece that brought this topic to mind was a Chopin étude (op. 25 no. 9, if you don't know it, you may be able to listen to it at naxos.com) to which my blunt reaction was "A relatively simple melody or two, oft-repeated, surrounded by frilly bits to make it sound complex." (note that, as graypencil stated, complexity and subjective value are independent) Which made me think of Dave Holland's statements about complexity and simplicity in his Quintet (rhythms & interplay vs. singable melody). So, how complexity and simplicity interact and which one triumphs and why. Back to Steve Coleman, I am told that his pieces are often very simple harmonically, but that's not necessarily easily perceived, is it?, so the complexity tends to win out.

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by groover

If a piece of music is hard to play for the average competent musician, that's because it's more complex, either rhythmically or harmonically. For instance, if a song changes key every few bars, the soloist has to be much more aware of where they are in the tune's structure then they would if they can simply blow through the whole thing in one key. Similarly, if the song changes time signature several times, or has several sudden stops and starts, the musicians have to be more cognizant of where they are in the structure of the piece. Even an untutored listener can usually detect that there's a different level of harmonic complexity between "All of Me" and "Giant Steps", for example. Just try whistling through the melody "Giant Steps" by ear!

Hey, I was just going to cite "Giant Steps"...when it came out, no-one could play it because of the speed and run of the changes...now it is standard "college" fare?

What is "complex" becomes less so with familiarity/exposure? Maybe!

RC. NB. No-one has ever played Giant Steps like Trane!

[mke]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

That may be true from a musician's perspective, but the thing about latin rhythms is they got a beat and you can dance to them. The shake-a-booty factor kinda makes up for any complexity.

Depends. Merengue is easy to follow, salsa tends to be a lot more difficult, at least for me. Of course, I'm not very familiar with it, so I have to work hard, and still end up lost anyway. I'm still not sure what beats the bass tends to emphasise and generally get suckered into following it, then the clave or cowbell comes back in and shows me that I'm hopelessly out of it.

[groover]

Once you grasp the higher organizing concept of a piece that initially seems complex, it should become easier to play because you're anticipating the changes.

For instance, a song that changes key every eight bars might not seem as complicated once you grasp that it's moving through the circle of fifths in a logical and predictable fashion. Still, you have to pay attention to where you are in the structure. You can't just blow through it on autopilot, unless you're the drummer.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by groover

Still, you have to pay attention to where you are in the structure. You can't just blow through it on autopilot, unless you're the drummer.

You're kidding, right, groover? Just in case you're not, let me assure you that losing your place in the changes is disastrous for drummers, too!

[groover]

Just testing your reflex reponse, Larry!

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by groover

Just testing your reflex reponse, Larry!

[mke]

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

mke,

For instance, if you've never heard Latin rhythms, they sound very complex at first. But after you've been exposed to them, over time, the distinguishing patterns no longer seem unusual or difficult. There is, in fact, a great deal of repetition involved in the grooves. And once the listener picks up on that, the rhythms no longer sound complex. So I think it's all relative.

And now that I've said this, I think it's sort of what Jon just wrote, above.

This same complexity ( along with the Booty factor cited later on ) goes into the construction of good R&B /Funk rhythm patterns as well..

just stating the obvious ..

[Gentle Giant]

"I don't think jazz always has to be difficult. In some of the music that I have been associated with, lay people will often say, 'Oh, that sounds difficult.' And I'm always unhappy when people say that to me because to me it isn't difficult, but the fact that it sounded difficult is a fault in the music, I think. I want things to sound easy. They may or not be, that's my problem. But they should rub off on the listener as being a breeze."

- Bill Bruford, in the liner notes to If Summer Had Its Ghosts, Bill Bruford with Ralph Towner and Eddie Gomez (1997)

[sonic1]

I hope I don't just repeat what is said above.

Complexity is relative to what music you are already familiar with, and how accepting you are to new music.

We can separate each aspect of the music; tonality, rhythm, structure, tone, etc. etc. but you will find exceptions in every aspect. For example notes outside of our more familiar sense of western tonality are used all the time in popular music, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose. But if the intention of those notes are known to the listener, even if unconsciously, they won't jar the listener. Sometimes they are meant to jar the listener, as in much current rock music. That is probably acceptible to many listeners, maybe not to older or more "sensitive" listeners. Some people like their music to be background music and are distracted by music that requires some attention.

I agree with what Jon said, and would add that not only is it about if you are familiar with, but what you are willing to allow yourself to become familiar with. Some people are so afraid they are being duped or something they refuse to let themselves get into something. I remember one of my reactions when I picked up some Japanese Onkyo artist, don't remember who it was now, and thought, is this person trying to just get away with doing nothing and make money off of it. I realized later that for one, those guys didn't make any money making that music anyway, and two, depending on my mood I can hear the music differently. I can resist it or I can yield to it.

I am a total slut now (mostly I always was), I yield to most music-with a few exceptions. I tend myself to seek out music that will surprise me, if possible. I look for new territory. But some people like more familiarity with their music.

Off track, sorry.

I do think that there is a difference between music that requires more attention and music that one can grasp pretty easily. But is complexity the right word? It is not necessarily true that requiring more attention means the music is "harder to get" or "less familiar". Only that it doesn't use short riffs or shorter patterns that one can grasp lazily. Also some music goes places and other music is not meant to "go" anywhere, but requires you to just listen without anticipating the next place, or even picturing the intent of the player.

[Tom Storer]

When you're familiar with something that's complex, it's more accessible to you and sounds less "difficult." That doesn't mean it's any less complex.

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

.... but the thing about latin rhythms is they got a beat and you can dance to them. The shake-a-booty factor kinda makes up for any complexity.

Ha ha ha! That may be true for just getting up and vaguely wiggling around. My wife and I take a ballroom dancing course where you learn actual steps. We're barely starting salsa, but the number of beginners who actually don't hear the beat at all (at least in any way they can coordinate with their feet) is a large percentage. Mind you, there are those who don't hear the beat in rock'n'roll, either, I kid you not. They learn the steps and perform them independently of the rhythm of the music that is playing. (Please don't mistake this for a claim that I can dance worth a damn.)

[walto]

When I use "complex" or "complexity" it's usually to indicate that there's a lot of "stuff" going on (e.g., counterpoint, rhythms, etc.) and that there's not too much literal repetition. I think grayp's mention of Elliott Carter is right on. He's almost the paradigm case. The more a piece is like a mature Carter piece, the more complex it is. And I think that's true whether one likes (or is very familiar with) Carter or not.

Recently, Santa Gokhan sent me a burn of a duo between Schweitzer and Crispell, and while there are tons of notes, so many of them are 16th notes and so much is in 4/4 that, by my lights, it's not very complex at all.

OTOH, GMGN seems very complex to me though, in one sense it is considerably sparser. I guess uneven pulses and scritches are Carterian in the sense of "rhythmic modulation" rather than "lots of stuff." So, I think for me, "simple" means something like "Mary Had a Little Lamb" as arranged for first year piano student (two chords, simple rhythm, repetition) & "complex" means something like mature Carter [or GMGN]). IMO, Konitz's "Motion" is in the middle somewhere.
BTW, I think the contemporary composer Fred Lerdahl has a book that discusses this issue at some length.

[sonic1]

This conversation can also be more confusing if we consider the point of view of the instrumentalist. There is much music out there that is nearly impossible to play just by reading the staff alone-especially what comes to mind are modern compositions. For example as a listener I have no trouble enjoying Luigi Nono's Fragmente-Stille, An Diotima pour quatuor à cordes. But if I were to have to play it, I would go insane!

[mke]

Nate emailed me an interesting idea: that familiarity (he calls it "interpretive frameworks") doesn't necessarily reduce the perception of complexity, but can also bring it out. The more experienced listener will be able to latch on to complexities that the novice would gloss over, observing more general, or simply other, events.

[Nate Dorward]

Oh, I might as well post the email here:

I think complexity = (a lot of) information. Thus two ways to perceive complexity (to perceive something as complex):

1) lacking the larger framework to digest information (e.g. if you've never heard free jazz before & then hear Ascension it sounds chaotic). More acquaintance with the music might put more of an interpretive/aesthetic framework in place to reduce complexity.

2) but also interpretive frameworks can bring complexity out. For instance, a casual listener might listen to a disc & go "bleah, a crooner with syrupy string arrangements"; but a knowledgable musician will listen & go "jeez, that's a smart string arrangement: listen to that modulation for instance, & the voice leading there, &c...."