Complexity and enjoyment

moshkito wrote: Actually, you I would like to suggest that you are not reading my post. I, at least, made an effort to appreciate your comments and ideas, which you are not affording me, and not even asking!

I did read your post. But it was so incoherent that I wasn't able to make any sense of it. Same with this post. If you want to participate in a discussion, you have to communicate in such a way that the other side understands what you're saying.

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: I would like to give an in-depth answer to your post, but quite frankly I'm not sure if I correctly understood a single word you said. A little, uh, coherence would be appreciated. So let me just say this: When I say "song", I mean it colloquially, in the broadest possible (and admittedly inaccurate) sense. The definition of a "song" requires that it have vocals, but like many other people I incorrectly refer to all types of compositions in rock music as "songs". A bad habit, if you will. By the way, this also disproves your claim that a song is a simplistic form of music: It's not a form at all. Any composition with vocals is a song, regardless of its content or complexity. What I meant with "as long as it still makes sense in the context of the song" is that complexity should always be in service of the composition. Subverting expectations is good as long as the composition still follows an internal logic. A bunch of non-sequiturs make for a very complex composition, but also a very incoherent one. I'm not saying that something is only complex when it's enjoyable. I'm saying that complexity is only good when it's enjoyable. Complexity is not a virtue by itself, it is a tool like any other that can be employed to good or bad effect. And that rock music reversed or set back the development of music is an odd thing to say in a progressive rock forum. If that is indeed so, the music we all enjoy must be a futile exercise is developing a genre that is degenerated and useless to begin with.

A complex good song for me has to have a good balance between predictability and unpredictability. The listener needs to be surprised but not always. Our brain can anticipate what comes next once a structure is perceived, but if it happens throughout all the song you are listening to the quack-quack-dance. On the other side, with absolutely no structure the risk is that one gets tired and loose interest before the song ends. 

I would like to give an in-depth answer to your post, but quite frankly I'm not sure if I correctly understood a single word you said. A little, uh, coherence would be appreciated. So let me just say this: When I say "song", I mean it colloquially, in the broadest possible (and admittedly inaccurate) sense. The definition of a "song" requires that it have vocals, but like many other people I incorrectly refer to all types of compositions in rock music as "songs". A bad habit, if you will. By the way, this also disproves your claim that a song is a simplistic form of music: It's not a form at all. Any composition with vocals is a song, regardless of its content or complexity.

What I meant with "as long as it still makes sense in the context of the song" is that complexity should always be in service of the composition. Subverting expectations is good as long as the composition still follows an internal logic. A bunch of non-sequiturs make for a very complex composition, but also a very incoherent one. I'm not saying that something is only complex when it's enjoyable. I'm saying that complexity is only good when it's enjoyable. Complexity is not a virtue by itself, it is a tool like any other that can be employed to good or bad effect.

And that rock music reversed or set back the development of music is an odd thing to say in a progressive rock forum. If that is indeed so, the music we all enjoy must be a futile exercise is developing a genre that is degenerated and useless to begin with.

I don't think music should strive to be complicated exactly, when it does that it gets kinda over the top and without a point. I think most prog is complex simply because the musicians were trying to make interesting music and it ended up complex. I also think it can be complex in many different ways. Some music I made might just be a jam centered around two chords but I would layer so many different parts that I still think it is complex music to take in, even if the structure isn't as complicated as something like Yes or Gentle Giant

Manuel wrote: for me, complexities is mainly a factor product of orchestration ad arrangements. Sometimes musicians get to entangled in complexity, making their music a little dull. complexity is good, provided it conveys the emotions and the ideas the music is meant to express.

Music that is imitative is no longer complex.

For me, I get bored if a composition stays mainly in 4/4 or some other common meter - I'm always looking for changing rhythms and compound time, so that's a big factor for my own personal enjoyment.

I'm in agreement about rhythmical complexity.  I think that is the first thing that draws me into music.  After that though, I look for melodic complexity.  However, I find even fairly simple songs can become quite interesting if the arrangement is complex. 

What makes me enjoy a song, or album, is when it moves me emotionally.  If it manages to move me through multiple different ones, great. I think creating a song/album that can do this very well is, to me, the fundamental of musical complexity, and this makes some songs/albums in a different class to others (to me). I feel there are alot of tools that can be used to create this complexity. I like what ambient hurricane posted regarding the fact that there are many aspects that can be complex in music. I understand that alot of this is subjective, but there does seem to be certain songs/albums/artists that succeed in reaching out to more people than others (even within prog).
One example I can quickly think of is the opening track of The Wall (In the flesh?).  When you hear the first 15 seconds of that track for the first time, you are expecting another space rock standard opener, as on earlier albums like WYWH, and then Gilmore and Mason knocks you out of your seat with a riff that basically sets the tone for the rest of the album.
Fantastic element of surprise, almost fear.  Then the song starts to morph into beauty close to the 1 minute mark with that absolute peach of a riff by Gilmore.  And then at the 1min30sec mark, when the vocals come in, the song starts to take on the space atmospere that the floyd is so well known for, but with more of a mad twist this time around. Absolutely brilliant!  I am not surprised this album had the effect on people that it had. It was so huge, it is almost uncool :)
Most of the albums I enjoy happen to be from the progressive rock era of the late 60s and early 70s, and I feel it is for this reason mostly. The fact that alot of recordings from that time could move me so fantastically.  Artists like Pink Floyd, Caravan, Harmonium, PFM, Rush etc... Absolute masters!