These are really interesting comments on complexity, mathis.
I think a point that deserves to be added to this discussion is that of the temporal arrangement of harmony. Because whether the chords, or harmonic structures (or whatever you want to call them), are complex in and of themselves really means very little to me. What concerns me is how they are arranged in time. This is where I find the vast majority of contemporary music, whether written for the concert hall or cinema, to be dreadfully dull. I don't think that two alternate spellings of a twelve-note chord following one another in succession are necessarily any more complex than a perfect cadence, except perhaps acoustically...
Maybe what I mean to say is that there's a difference between complexity and complication(?)
In "tonal" works, or works using functional harmony, I think the least sufficiently explored area is that of harmonic rhythm. In non-tonal works it's the fear of cadential gestures arising from the inherent narrowness implied by the task of trying to avoid functional relations between adjacent harmonic structures. In the former, every question seems to be answered with a "yes", while in the latter the same question must be answered with a "no" (if that makes any sense). But I think that in both cases the solution lies in the way a composers extends harmony over time. This, to me, is one of the most difficult aspects of composition. And I think the problem is being felt in all walks of musical life, from hip-hop to "high art" (very much in quotes). Not coincidentally, the result seems to have become a rejuvinated interest in drone. I hear drone everywhere, lately, and it's really quite exciting to me! Mind you, I don't think it's a solution, so much as an escape, but it is interesting that this form, which is perhaps the oldest of musical structures, has made such a triumphant return. Anyway, my position is that harmonic progression ("chord progression") needs a *serious* revision, or perhaps a serious visionary, to make it a productive form for contemporary expression again.
Evan. I hear what you're saying about "it not being about the music". This was also the case with much of what Cage did... Conceptual Art was big at the time, so it makes sense that there would be extra-musical interests and ideas involved. But, at least with Glass, it's the above ideas around harmony that render his music painfully dull to me... it's not the repetition, or any simplistic notion of complexity. The harmony, it's temporal structure as a sequence of chords, is totally banal, to me. And I understand that this is part of the (original) point, but I think that "point" only had power in the time that it was first made. Today, it's lost its relevance, and it needs something more -- something strictly musical to rejuvinate its power. I mean, I love a good deal of contemporary "electronica", and find it much more interesting, though it is largely drone-based, and tends to have a focus on colour, not harmony or melody. This music could even be said to be formally inspired by Glass, though i would argue that its form is tied much more closely to its mode of production (synthesis, software sequencing programs, etc.), than to the work of any particular school of composition.
Anyway, that's enough from me...
J.
I think a point that deserves to be added to this discussion is that of the temporal arrangement of harmony. Because whether the chords, or harmonic structures (or whatever you want to call them), are complex in and of themselves really means very little to me. What concerns me is how they are arranged in time. This is where I find the vast majority of contemporary music, whether written for the concert hall or cinema, to be dreadfully dull. I don't think that two alternate spellings of a twelve-note chord following one another in succession are necessarily any more complex than a perfect cadence, except perhaps acoustically...
Maybe what I mean to say is that there's a difference between complexity and complication(?)
In "tonal" works, or works using functional harmony, I think the least sufficiently explored area is that of harmonic rhythm. In non-tonal works it's the fear of cadential gestures arising from the inherent narrowness implied by the task of trying to avoid functional relations between adjacent harmonic structures. In the former, every question seems to be answered with a "yes", while in the latter the same question must be answered with a "no" (if that makes any sense). But I think that in both cases the solution lies in the way a composers extends harmony over time. This, to me, is one of the most difficult aspects of composition. And I think the problem is being felt in all walks of musical life, from hip-hop to "high art" (very much in quotes). Not coincidentally, the result seems to have become a rejuvinated interest in drone. I hear drone everywhere, lately, and it's really quite exciting to me! Mind you, I don't think it's a solution, so much as an escape, but it is interesting that this form, which is perhaps the oldest of musical structures, has made such a triumphant return. Anyway, my position is that harmonic progression ("chord progression") needs a *serious* revision, or perhaps a serious visionary, to make it a productive form for contemporary expression again.
Evan. I hear what you're saying about "it not being about the music". This was also the case with much of what Cage did... Conceptual Art was big at the time, so it makes sense that there would be extra-musical interests and ideas involved. But, at least with Glass, it's the above ideas around harmony that render his music painfully dull to me... it's not the repetition, or any simplistic notion of complexity. The harmony, it's temporal structure as a sequence of chords, is totally banal, to me. And I understand that this is part of the (original) point, but I think that "point" only had power in the time that it was first made. Today, it's lost its relevance, and it needs something more -- something strictly musical to rejuvinate its power. I mean, I love a good deal of contemporary "electronica", and find it much more interesting, though it is largely drone-based, and tends to have a focus on colour, not harmony or melody. This music could even be said to be formally inspired by Glass, though i would argue that its form is tied much more closely to its mode of production (synthesis, software sequencing programs, etc.), than to the work of any particular school of composition.
Anyway, that's enough from me...
J.