If you notice a weird cut in the video around the 5 min mark, it's because I had to unfortunately remove a scene from a BBC documentary with Roger Scruton. The video was going to be blocked worldwide for including 10 seconds from the documentary "Why Beauty Matters". To be honest this is the first time since starting this channel that I have experienced such aggressive behavior regarding copyright. It's almost as if BBC doesn't want you to see anything having to do with that documentary. I guess it's fine to argue that "the value of art is subjective" until you argue that it should be beautiful.

"Simplicity is the final achievement. After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art" -Frédéric Chopin

The greatest musical complexity is not in the music itself, rather in the thought process behind it. A simple Beethoven motif could be developed in a million ways, yet Beethoven chooses a path which makes all others seem inferior. His development of an idea sounds immediately like it was the only true option, the perfect piece in what grows into the perfect puzzle. The immense skill in making this right choice time and time again, the trail and error of a lifetime imbedded in each work gives an inherent complexity. Even if the final music is simple, the genius of choosing the perfect option gives a sincere complexity which distinguishes all great composers.

Finally UKposts recommendations led me to a channel that gives valuable and vital advice for composers. As a bonus, it also indirectly shows who we have to thank, to a certain extent, for the fact that the genre of Classical Music is in crisis and that permanent and dedicated listeners/fans of this genre can be put in the red book. Thank you for your work!

Great video, thank you very much for opening this subject! If you don't mind, I will put these Mozart's words here: "These concertos [Nos. 11, 12, and 13] are a happy medium between what is too easy and too difficult; they are very brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural, without being vapid. There are passages here and there from which the connoisseurs alone can derive satisfaction; but these passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to be pleased, though without knowing why...."

Whenever you think that the theme is too simple to produce complex material, remember Beethoven pulled off the whole first movement of the 6th symphony based of only and ONLY the first 4 bars of intro, and NOTHING else from outside that.

Thank God I'm not alone in this world! I love your work. Keep it up.

As much as I agree on the value of old forms and starting from simplicity and moving to complexity, I think that the Clifton Cathedral is a really really beautiful piece of architecture, and a good example of something thoroughly away from tradition and achieving a striking and meditative space. It definitely maintains a great sense of order, simplicity, and frankness that you're misrepresenting a bit.

Oh my gosh, man! You just described me. I have been hooked by this complexity thing and since then I've only been trying to compose "complex things" but I can never finish 'cause I don't how to develop and it never sounds nice, as I thought it would. Basically, the only thing I'm trying when writing those things to my channel, is if it's going to be perceived as complex. Never a deeper meaning behind it. That's exactly what I needed to hear, thanks.

Glad to see someone finally not falling down at the feet of Collier.

As a self taught musical composer heavily influenced by media showcasing complex theory from not only pop music but classical music (Stravinsky, Bartok and Strauss come to mind), this video essay helped me to realize that much of the music I write relies heavily on harmonies that abstract the source material of my compositions almost dangerously and harmfully. While I strive not to make music that is very simple in it's theory, I think I've been striving for stranger, more 'ambiguous' theory, to quote Leonard Bernstein. Thank you for reminding me of an element of music I have so often overlooked for far too long.

I’m a pedal steel player. The best lines are simple, solid, and intensional. Control and clarity are the final signs of a master musician.

Brilliant video. I've had similar thoughts regarding architecture and music for a long time. Now, I must get back to learning Jazz harmony and which notes to avoid!

You speak for many of us who feel the same way, but are not always able to really describe it !!

This point is universal. It a much needed lesson in most disciplines. Great job.

I feel that modern art and artists have become obsessed with technical skill and theory. Classical music used to also be about entertainment. They're difficult to play, but you can hum the song by yourself because they're so catchy. I can't feel anything for a song that is just a complex mess of notes but never achieves the harmony and pull of a song that careens toward a musical climax that you expect even though you never heard the song before.

This is one of the best things i've heard on the topic. It is easy to find beauty in simple things than to find it in complex mazes. The moment you need to explain the whole rationale behind a piece of art and why it should be considered art, thats the moment where that thing belongs to the realm of philosophy and not art itself.

For a long time i were very obsessed with orchestral complexity, everytime i learned more and more about the different instruments, sections and families. But when i finally sat down and tried to compose an idea, just my mind turn in blank. The storytelling, structure and related stuff is so important to support ideas. I know is too obvious for some but when you're starting, just thunk that music needs more and more. And when finally knows close enough, you forget what to say...

Very well said. great example with the Cathedrals. I watched a 24-part video lecture series on Cathedrals on Wondrium. As you mentioned here, the basic idea is very simple - to be in the shape of a Cross. But when we study each one, each has its own uniqueness. Great art is simple and complex - at once. Thanks for the video essay. Insightful.

Man I am so glad that your video showed up on my recommended feed. I have classical background in violin since I did strings in my school years but watching videos like these help the fire that is in me to keep burning for music. This has greatly enriched my perspective of what simplicity does and what complexity does and how they can function individually and how they both correlate to one another. While I am not into classical music as much as I used to be, I am still in the realm of what I consider to be good music. I have been studying a math rock band by the name of CHON and a lot of their composition and music theory that is prevalent in their works is something to be admired for... can actually be dissected. And I believe your videos will help me understand what it is like to be a composer and the thought processes when constructing music. Genius video and I really hope what I said made sense... lol.

Thank you for this thought-provoking presentation. Here is an excerpt from the writings of Marshall Vian Summers regarding truth and simplicity. "Simplicity allows you to gain access to life and to enjoy its beneficence in every moment. Complexity is a state of self-disassociation which renders you incapable of enjoying life and perceiving your role within it. This is the source of all great poverty... the sense of isolation and destitution that accompanies such a disassociation... If you are considering yourself to be complex, or your problems to be complex, it is because you are viewing yourself and your problems without Knowledge and are thus lost in your evaluations. [Knowledge being foundational to understanding] .... Truth must always bring simplicity for simplicity brings right resolution and right understanding and establishes peace and confidence in those who can receive it." (MVS, Steps to Knowledge)

I completely agree with you with whatyou say about complexity and some artists like Jacob collier, having said that you could find a bad artist in any genre to use as an example. In contrast to Jacob Collier if you listen to a bands like King Gizzard/Radiohead/Black Midi you will see how they use micro-tonality, odd time signatures, modes and many more complex techniques with great success. So while I think it's true that over complicated works of art can fall flat, I also think that building a work of art around a complex idea can yield original and amazing art as well, in the hands of a good artist. And I think it to be pretty strait-forward to say that being good at complex ideas of music theory doesn't make you a good artist and in reverse to that a great artist could be very bad at music theory and still make great art.

I forgot to mention it in the video. But if you want to get into microtonality, look into Indian and Middle Eastern music where it’s used effectively.

Great video, although I found it funny that Berg’s piano sonata underscored the discussion of his serialist music.

THANK YOU!!! Well said. I was dying for someone to articulate it on UKposts... Loved the Scruton reference... Would've appreciated if you elaborated on the importance of form...

I would say as musician we might be attracted by more technical stuffs or complexity during our learning process. Its also exciting and a way to improve our own music. But its true that at the end a good melody will always win over complexity. The best if when you can use your technical level and a bit of complexity to help you achieve a great melody!

Fantastic video essay. Very much agree. I also think film music shows this, whether that is John Williams who has admitted that he agonises over those short motifs, but will also then use complex harmony, but the motif will hold it all together. Or Hans Zimmer, and other modern media composers that often layer sounds on too, what is often very basic harmony.

Love the cathedral analogy, well played.

Althouth you have some good points, I think you miss the fact that complexity IS a valid goal of its own! The concept of virtuosity has been around for quite a long time and lives to the day on in e.g. complex contemporary music or also Jacob Collier. To narrow music down to the idea of developing simple motifs into more complex ideas is biased because it refers to a specific tradition of 16th-to 19th century music, which was (partly) deliberatetly dismissed by experimental generations in the 20th century, especially after WWII. The idea of "collage music" itself is also not just a flaw (it can be one!) but a musical concept! So it seems your promoting a too traditional and too narrow concept of art: neither beauty nor symmetry nor comprehensibilty are mandatory for modern art, because the deliberaty disregard of those led to aethetic experiences not possible otherwise! You are judging things with standards of beauty that are not universal but have to limited to the time of their origin! Your advice for younger composers not to seek complexity where it is not mastered yet is good , however reading the comments I feel that this advice may be misunderstood as a excuse for someones not being talented or dedicated enough to master complex composition techniques.

Excellent video. I like to point out how dead simple the main theme of the last movement of Beethoven's 9th is, compared to the extravagant glory of the arrangement of the piece as a whole. That simple statement is the foundation that the whole structure is built upon, and yet that theme is so uncomplex as to be almost childlike.

Finally, someone agrees with me regarding Jacob. Highly talented but unmoving musically, he's young, maybe the best is yet to come. Enjoyed the video.

Excellent video. This is how I have always felt. I attended a lecture by Milton Babbitt. I even looked at some of his piano pieces. I first became a concert pianist with Bach, Beethoven and so on. Shostakovitch is nice. I like 'some' of his work and play some. But most 20th Century stuff is overly complex for the sake of being so. Atonality is wonderful if you view tonality as gravity as do I. Lost it for a moment or two but regain it and you'll see the difference. Live in atonality and you're downtown nowhere. Thus Ravel, Stravinsky and HIndemith can all speak to me. But I also love the Beatles. Just simply nice. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is an eternal example of simplicity gone wild! Grand! I still adore it as much as the first time I heard it. AND it "moves". It drives you forward to the next thought. And it builds. So exciting! This is how music should run in my opinion. I also have seen all of your references and I do admire them all. And I seem to fall in line with every opinion that you have! Spectacular! (I'm struggling now too). Thank you for this. I am a skilled musician (Jacob Collier? Cameron Carpenter? Keith Emerson? etc) of 62 years experience. I have written SO MUCH. Bla bla. I can be simple. I LOVE simplicity. I can be complex! I LOVE complexity! This video WILL push me to a better place. Thank you!!

THANK YOU! ❤ - Amazing video!

Thank you… multiplied by a million. So needed. Subbed.

Totally agree. P.S You don't have to practice complex things to become a great musician and composer, but you do have to make simple things sound great, and things that appear complex are usually many simple things all joined together in a long sequence just like the links in a chain.

This is what I needed to hear a few years ago. I always tried to make things complex for the sake of complexity, but I could never finish pieces in a satisfying way. Often, I barely made any progress on ideas. Then I changed my thought process and started pursuing more basic ideas, which then developed into more complicated ones that I had originally wanted to use. I used to love composing with modes, but I often did it in a vacuum. Instead of the modes arising as the answer to a question I had, they were treated as the question itself. “How can I use this mode in a piece?” became “If I want to make this piece modal, what mode benefits the overall vision?” I recently wrote a string quartet that employed Dorian, Lydian, Mixolydian b6, and Double Harmonic (alongside the normal major and minor). But my thought process behind them was “how do I make this piece alternate between and blend minor and major tonalities to convey sadness and hope?” A dissonant chord that arises and resolves with normal voiceleading will sound a lot better than one haphazardly thrown into a piece. Understanding this has made my compositions a lot more mature and accessible.

Excellent video bro! Thank you.

This is so relevant! Thank you.

The beauty of the Law is in simplicity. And, since you mentioned Newton, he himself claimed that Truth is to be found in simplicity. He really did!

This is actually what made me most interested in quite specifically film music and video game music, and then trying to unravel the romantic inspiration for a lot of those Golden age film composers. Which was a massive departure from my younger self, I was always most interested in the most technical death metal and found the simplicity of black metal to be quite boring. Then over the course of a decade I gradually reached a point where I had almost no interest in anything that wasn't unapologetically trying to create an emotion, trying to create a connection, time to create an idea. The best film music is an absolute slave to the picture it serves, telling part of the story Open but nobody is talking. As a result I have completely shut myself off from the world of virtuosity and focus primarily on symphonies, ballets, and operas. I earlier compositions were always restricted to very few parts, and while I thought maybe this was simply a sign that I wasn't a mature composer because I couldn't handle more, and eventually wrapped back around to the idea of saying what needs to be said in the most efficient way possible to reserve as many colors as I can. Likewise it's come to the point where I look at music as two components and the Masters are simply perfect at balancing the two, and that is patterns and contrast. Too much contrast and not enough patterns would be the collage composer as mentioned, there's nothing really to hook onto and nothing is effectively communicated. The opposite would be too many patterns and not enough contrast, this results in beating an idea to death and boring the listener.... This would be your generic pond five or electronic music composers. Although this isn't always a detriment, some folk music is extremely repetitive, but the best use of this is simply to create a vibe that you don't have to pay attention to, so you can focus your attention on other things. It is also not music because of the lack change. In fact the older I get, despite not thinking my ideas come off that way they get simpler in how I think about them which is just odd. I've learned so many complex systems of Harmony only to reduce harmony to the idea that it simply adds context to Melody, and where once I thought people who scuffed traditional theory in favor of calling random notes jazz likewise I will often time pick harmonic choices simply based on how they make that melodic note feel

Great video!! You are clearly more knowledgeable than I am (a 18 year old amateur musician) about music history/composition and I definitely agree with most of the ideas conveyed in the video however I think there may be a part of compositions that are "complex for complexities sake" that directly benefit a composer and indirectly benefit the audience. I absolutely agree that "postmodern" music such as 12 tone and avant-garde often sound outright terrible, but it seems to me that the composers that greatly find the balance of simplicity/complexity and achieve a innovative beauty often have to delve into this so called "bad" sounding music in order to make those decisions, let me elaborate. As I mostly play and listen to jazz I am going to use Chick Corea as an example. When we look at some of Corea's most famous compositions such as "Spain" it is seen that a simple harmonic progression is used and very clear/ beautiful melodies are composed upon them. However with their improvisations and usage of extended techniques Corea and his bandmates achieve to turn this somewhat simple piece to something that often might sound quite "out" , complex and beautiful. This approach is seen in his even more modern pieces such as "Matrix" and "Steps". These pieces sound very much modern and might sound disturbing to some but they have an underlying blues structure which provides a certain grounding. However in the late sixties and later in his career Corea often was involved in projects such as his band Circle which was very avant-garde and often unlistenable in my opinion. This can be seen in different jazz composers such as Herbie, Miles, Wayne Shorter etc. who all delved into the deepnes, and roughness of the avant-garde yet still their greatest works often found the balance of complexity and simplicity. What I'm getting here is that, maybe in order to be able to achieve the balance that you root for (and I definitely agree with) a composer should spend some time in that postmodern area, because although that music may be very out there for most listeners the knowledge and the intuition acquired after dealing with that sort of music as a composer may create a new perspective that I believe enables those composers to achieve what we call innovative, which both has grounding in tradition but also is able to explore new areas. I think just being exposed to extended techniques may not be enough to actually grasp them and that's why I believe delving into that mindset of "complex for complexities sake" may actually benefit the composer. Maybe a complete loss of form and paradigm creates a new outlook that enables these individuals to think so differently when they return to form. Anyways thanks for the great education, you got a new subscriber :)

I'm loving your videos.

The idea of an "over arching structure" for an entire work or, even more, multiple movements only started in the second half of the 18th and cemented itself only in the 19th (in fact it is precisely what led to compositions such as Milton Babbitt's). Music doesn't need an "over arching structure" that is a ridiculous idea. A Monteverdi madrigal has no over arching structure, it simply follows the text, in a way, it is a collage of musical word painting : but it's beautiful. Most musical traditions would laugh at the idea of an "over arching structure". Look no further than the school of "Ars Subtilior" and the example of the motet where all 4 voices read the same part but in a different rhythmic mode : a composition that stems purely from a complex idea, yet the result is beautiful. The whole point of complexity in Bach's music, for example, is to reach the "transcendental" (that which is too complex to understand but beautiful to the ear). And what about Liszt's "atonal bagatelle" ? Is that "pure complexity for the sake of it" ? If all that matters is complexity then you'd just write a book about complex stuff, not make a piece with a clear artistic project. By trying to dissect elitism in classical and jazz music, i'm afraid you've gone full circle. This video sounds very Schenkerian...

excellent video! i think you bring up a lot of points worth discussing in a very cohesive and interesting way, i especially like the link to architecture. however i do have a few viewpoints which may differ from yours which i'd like to share: it seems to me that your essay dangerously teeters on the edge of calling all atonal music overtly complex and deprived of beauty where that clearly is not the case! beauty is a combination of qualities that pleases the aesthetic senses. to me something that is grotesque or even shocks me can be something beautiful - on the other hand, something that elicits indifference or boredom wouldn't have beauty. we need to realise that composers have continuously tried to find different ways to express themselves, to not be tied down by traditional forms and harmonies. for beethoven that was expanding the sonata form and the use of groundbreaking harmonic shifts. for schoenberg that was atonality and the twelve tone system. for new complexity composers like finnissy that would be the dense harmonic textures and saturation of sonorities. what's amazing is being able to create something radically different from the past and yet still eliciting certain emotions from a listener! my main issue with your video would be the constant reference to traditional forms and harmonies as a sort of pedestal without reference to any classical contemporary composers who have indeed achieved "beauty" with simplistic means. (i'd recommend Sciarrino as an excellent example) it almost veers your argument of simplicity against complexity towards an argument of tonal against atonal music which i think are two completely separate arguments. i think that every good composer would've had the ideal of beauty in their mind when composing. complexity for complexity's sake is simply a fool's game.

I’ve always sought to create beauty and drama in my music. I feel like complexities lend themselves well to drama, as things like polyrhythms, microtones, dissonances etc. tend to be quite jarring to the ear. That’s always been my approach, but I am still you and still a student.

I think we should view the main problem as a sort of one-sidedness, in a dialectical sense. Art that is only concerned with beauty is stale and derivative, while art that embodies complexity for its own sake is inaccessible and pretentious. One sacrifices innovation, the other affect, and both are liable to commit the worst sin of all-being boring. The synthesis of simplicity and complexity is the tightrope the creator must walk in order to hold the active appreciation of an audience.

Fantastic video!

A breath of fresh air

Good for you. Simplicity is key. You have elucidated in words my own struggle with Collier. I always wondered what I was missing about his music. It's his lack of coherence of form! Wonderful video.

Thank you for this video, and might I add that the timing is impeccable. This concept has been weighing heavily on my mind as a young composer, given the current state of contemporary classical music and what is worthy of being deemed 'contemporary.'

Whenever i try complex, it just becomes a mess. But i have hardly any theory; I just develop horizontally, and then write one line beginning with a bass line and filling in other voices between. ; I never really use chords. The sonata Allegro structure is a liberating device, and I am glad i learnt about that.

The fact that you picked Berg out as the listenable serialist made me a fan because I was just thinking that he was actually listenable and was wondering why when you brought serialism up. You're vibin with me

I am completely certain that this is the antithesis towards what was the antithesis of the classical & baroque tradition, and that culture will develop in this direction for a good century from now.

You are literally the first person who managed to express my concerns with Collier. I admire his passion with music itself, but personally cannot really enjoy his pieces. All around, a lot of happening, cool tricks etc... His music is like perfect example of musician music, not the listener music. Anyway, thanks for the great video.

10:30 this isn’t actually a 12 tone piece lol. Okay but seriously, 12 tone and atonal music can be very beautiful. In Schönbergs works where he is a bit more free with his 12 tone system he created beautiful melodies, just check out the piano concerto :) Overall I do agree with most of your points tho, I like modern some modern music but a lot of it just seems so emotionless. I think complexity is very cool in theory and I love learning about it. But I feel like complexity should never be the primary objective of a piece of music or any other type of art.

The Berg example you picked - the Piano Sonata op. 1 - is not a serial work of his but a late romantic one. And maybe I'm just weird but I find the first movement of the thoroughly serialist and "atonal" Symphony op. 21 of Webern extremely beautiful and, well, simple.

Thank you! I've been trying to explain what's wrong with Collier for years now. You have summarized it perfectly. I can't stand complexity in music for complexity's sake because it's usually superficial. It speaks of some deep set uncertainty of music's own merit as an intellectual endeavor compared to math and science in the people engaging in such behavior. Their aesthetics are technology-based and I mean technology in the broad sense including technique and apparent complexity. Collier's music (not just his) to me sounds like something an AI algorithm would generate. It lacks the human input.

Everyone who is interested in music theory and composition should watch this. Also, this should have been said long ago but nobody had the courage. Thank you so much. I really enjoy the format of your videos + your thought are brilliantly articulated and good in nature.

I was literally baffled when I saw that this level of production only had 20.6k subscribers? Is there another way I could support your chanel, perhaps via paypal, or gofundme or something along those lines?

Hii may I ask what is the name of the piano solo in 5:30 thank you great video

Well said. I will make a response video to this someday soon.

Wonderful video

Great video, and I also agree with the sentiment of complexly beautiful over beautiful complexity, but disagree with the idea that art must reach a form of unambiguous beauty (both positive and negative depictions). For example, artistically crafted “non-art” can be equally pleasurable. Art without refinement can be more viscerally related to real life than ideas filtered through a shared cultural underpinning, a shared logic. I feel like art should be able to explore dead ends, missteps and incorrectness freely, obsessively even! Considerations should always be made toward the foundations of composition, especially with regard to formal plan, but, in addition, a composition shouldn’t be immediately chastised for breaking those conventions into a quivering mess!

A great example of a “collage” piece and complexity is “Sound and Smoke” by Viet Cuong. Where the many different musical ideas that come and go do so in order to represent the fluidly of humanities own thoughts and how are existence isn’t static, but constantly in motion and ever changing. However, this doesn’t mean that there are not sources of stability in life, as in Cuong’s work, each movement has persistent themes and motif’s. This constant ideas are the “simplicity” you so feverishly argue for.

Finally someone said it. This is something I have been thinking myself over the years during my composition journey. As the great Konnakol master BC Manjunath said: "Complexity is the combination of many simple things put together".

“It’s always better to write something complexly beautiful than beautifully complex” An absolutely perfect final line to the video.

Hmm. I don't think that the sort of hypercomplex music you describe in the first arc is necessarily 'detrimental' to music in general, although it might suppress the kind of narrative music you like and I agree all forms should be explored in parallel.

Thank you for making this video. This needed to be said a long time ago.

Disconserting to listen to a very valid criticism of Collier based on an ostensibly extremely limited reading of his process.

Intricacy > Complexity Complexity may give unique feels but intricacy is much more important, intricacy being the development of the piece.

I guess my thing with the music theory channels is they seem mainly care about the math of the thing rather than the art of the process. Maybe its do go learning by ear initially, and coming to sheet music later, but I find overly complicated pieces off putting. As I still somewhat learn by sound.

Great discussion. I totally agree. There is a reason why Schoenberg's serial atonal music never took off: it's too theoretical, complex, and, at the end of the day, unable to express the myriad of emotions that other of his contemporaries, such as Bartok, could tease out by using simpler folk melodies as building blocks. Using simplicity in complex ways is one of the keys to Beethoven's success, IMHO. I mean, listen to Eroica. Many of the themes are folk music inspired. I can imagine a 19th-century street musician busking this on a Vienna street corner playing the tunes on their button-box, with maybe some lyrics about drinking, love, etc. thrown in.

I am a big complexity fan, studying historical music, I really admire Étienne Nicolas Méhul and Francisco Correa de Arauxo for their crazy ideas. And I have to admit that complexity should be based on on some simplicity, otherwise it is just nonsense instead of creativity And I have to mention a fact that trends are always like this no need to worry, Ars subtilior, Seconda Prattica, and the Revolution era were all periods of complexification because music got boring, and in response there were the early Rennaissance and Galant styles who simplified music because it got quite crazy, it is always coming and going in both directions, even tjough the general tendency is towards complexity And I even thought about it a bit, when it gets very complex, music gets so good that it is almost as it was bad, it gets almost atonal and you have almost no stability and parallel fifths and octaves everywhere, these beginner errors, and it needs a lot of skill to make them sound nice instead of chaoyic or dumb

beautiful

But 12-tone serialism music sounds amazing!

Eroica's first movements 1st subject is an Eb major arpeggio. For 18 minutes, the music develops through a complex web of ideas. But you don't hear complexity. It sounds organic, almost improvised. This is the difference between the masters and the pretenders. The pretenders consider complexity to be objective while the masters consider that sophistication is the vehicle for expression.

For whom it may concern. Beauty is not to be confused with prettiness. Beauty is something deeper and more comprehensive. Beauty is the sense of seeing something perfect in its own way. It is something that is experienced both externally and internally, as a perfect state, hence why the grotesque and disturbing can be beautiful if done right. But it's difficult to produce and not many achieve it. And therefore not many will pursue it.

Constraints stifle creativity and that's why they're good. Unrestrained creativity loses focus, that's why it isn't relatable or useful. Both complexity and simplicity are useful and we shouldn't frame the conversation around them.

I think you bring up some good points, and I certainly agree that complexity for complexity's sake is a bad thing. However, I don't like that these kind of videos always devolve into "modern music = bad". You seem put the lable of complexity on stuff you don't seem to enjoy, like 12-tone music. I would argue that 12-tone rows are actually an incredibly simple and intuitive idea and system. Use all 12 notes equally, and you can't repeat them until you've used them all. An oversimplification to be sure but it is certainly a hundred times "simpler" than tonality which probably is the single most complex system we have in music. You can't sum up the rules of tonality in one sentence. I'm of course not saying that then you should suddenly like Webern's music because it's "simple". You can of course like or dislike any kind of music you want, but claiming that the reason is that it's just too complex, or whatever, is a moot point. Microtonality is also a very simple concept. It's just different form what we're used to. A lot of people always say that "music is supposed to be beautiful" or "beauty for beauty's sake" as someone wrote in the comments here; but who the hell decided that? And what does that even mean? Beauty is 100% subjective, and in any case music can also be scary, or sad, or funky, or anything. If by "beauty" people mean consonance, then some of the best music ever written is not beautiful. If people only wanna listen Haydn every day, then be my guest; but you cannot claim that 20th or 21st century music is bad just because you don't like it. Thousands upon thousands of people enjoy it, and it's not some kind of emperor's new clothes situation. People genuinely love it (myself included). By saying it's "objectively" bad you are dismissing all those people's experience in favour of your own subjective opinion. Just to make things clear, I am not defending bad composers who try to write as complicated music as possible just for the sake of it, and I really agree with most of what you're saying. I just think you are twisting your own arguments to something that really has little to do with "simplicity vs. complexity".

Superb video thank you. Beauty arises in nature. I believe the most affecting compositions utilise form and harmony rooted in natural laws. The same principles arose in music of disconnected ancient civilisations worldwide and we reveal our flawed conceits when we abandon these.

Wow. You beat me to it. Those opening statements in the first 2 minutes were exactly what I planned to write my dissertation about. Great video.

Whatd the choir piece on the intro

The Internet in general, and UKposts in particular, have spawned a rather ugly cult of the "badass" musician. Nobody can deny the musical talent and performing capabilities of Adam Neely or Jacob Collier, of course, but I share your doubts about the deeper aesthetic value of their endeavours, and therefore their value as role models, mentors or arbiters of taste.

Wonderful video. Liked and sub’d. Thanks for sharing!

Sorry, i don't know much about music or art in general, but idk but the few pieces you presented as examples of "obviously hideous" complex pieces (like the tango or the cathedral) I find naturally appealing. So you kinda proved the opposite point for me. But I'm not educated enough about it, maybe you need academic lessons to learn to dislike these pieces, idk

Good music possesses 1/f noise characteristics. That means complexity should modulate proportionally to time scale.

Finally someone is saying the truth about composition..!!

The fact that a fugue is much easier to write based on a simple subject only makes The Musical Offering more impressive: Bach takes an incredibly unwieldy, awkward and chromatic theme and manages to build complex counterpoint on it anyway. An extraordinary testament to his skill as a contrapuntist.

c3.30. Only point I disagree with. Do not deny that Collier talks about complexity, perhaps obsessively, entitled to that opinion for sure. You are listening to different interviews if you do not hear him talking about storytelling and most ither things you list. So glad you didnt like many critics mention emotion hear as he frequently talks about that

I would like to defend Jacob Collier by saying that it is not adequate to judge a jazz (or jazz-influenced) song/piece based off of its resemblance to its source. A large part of the tradition of jazz music is to use songs (in popular media or otherwise) as a vehicle for artistic expression. It would not make sense to dismiss, say Miles Davis's rendition of "Someday My Prince Will Come" for not resembling Snow White. Perhaps an apt metaphor in classical music would be to say Chopin's nocturnes are un-nocturne-ish, or that Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" evokes not of spring. That being said, I do agree that a lot of Jacob's material is very advanced and is most definitely not fundamental. The video also enlightened me on the flaws I hadn't noticed in Jacob's music.

i think it's an overstatement to say that collier doesn't serve the pieces he covers, or that there's no sonic value in complexity- and even if his pieces are "a bunch of miniatures next to each other," i think there's genuine listening value in that. you don't have to necessarily understand the complexity of pieces to enjoy them, and i'm not going to make any claims about being able to understand everything he or snarky puppy, etc. do. that being said, sometimes it's fun to become lost in music- sticking to archaic ideas about form and simplicity serve composers well, but not someone who is interested in making more dynamic pieces.

Hi, interesting premise of your video. I think I don’t fully agree with the idea of simplicity as the foundation of complexity. In your example of the cathedrals, the foundation would be akin to a sonata or in more abstract terms as a set of axion upon which one develops ideas. Part of the complexification of music was, in my view, a way to change the initial set of ideas and see what are the consequences of them. This is similar process that happened in mathematics, an example of this was how wildly complex non euclidean geometries are with compared to euclidean geometry ( all it took was changing the foundation of the theory by one axiom). I think music in the 20th century has undergone a similar path to mathematics, where people are more interested in relations and interconnections of concepts (microtonality, atonality, negative harmony comes to mind in music and p-adic numbers or functional analysis in mathematics). The outcome of this is a more abstract landscape that has a steeper learning curve.

Jacob says he has “creative infinity syndrome”

While I agree that musical form is underrepresented in discussions around what you call (as if separate from form) music theory, to me, your emphasis on 'producing beauty' being the ultimate goal of music is reductive. That may be your goal, but it's not the case for everyone. Expression takes many forms, and assuming 'beauty' was the aim of early twentieth century composers strikes me as naive. I imagine living during the set of circumstances which produced the first nuclear weapons and saw their use certainly has to bound up in the zeitgeist, and I can't imagine the expression of that emotional impact would take the form of beauty. Thanks for the video and discussion though!

Dang man, excellent video so far, lowkey read my mind, been wanting to comment on this for a while

right on.

I generally agree with you. However... ultimately the proof is in the hearing. Sometimes experimentation, based on complex theories driven by negating the past, simply works. I'd compare it to mutation in biology, or a search technique called generate and test. That's how Deep Learning mastered Go and chess, and the results are stunningly beautiful. Of course most mutations don't survive. In art, either because they are boring, ignored, or no one can be bothered spending time searching for a pot of gold that might not be, I'd say is unlikely to be, there. The problem is we live in a Romantic age, where affectation is mistaken for genius.

Great video! Can you tell me what is the background piece starting at around 9:30?

I think there are some worthwhile arguments here, but the video ultimately falls into the traps the usual classical types fall into. To much black-and-white thinking and appeals to universals without any grounds for it. Collier and Babbitt both have surfaces that are a bit grating, but the more you dig in to the work of both of them the more beauty you find. This video is more so criticizing the image of these musicians that media and musicologists create, not their actual music.

The problem with the 'Complexity for complexity's sake' criticism is pretty much everyone agrees that it's bad and yet no one admits that they themselves are doing it, or in music they particularly admire. I mean, even if you were to ask that poster boy for overrated theory brilliance Jacob Collier if he felt his own music was that way, he'd probably categorically deny it. What you leave out from his interviews is how sincerely he seems to believe in his music, even as it is so obviously contrived and self-impressed. Occasionally, you'll get an artist who is reflective and humble enough to admit past works were that way. But it seems that most somewhat adept artists see themselves as Goldilocks who found just the right level of complexity in their music at any given moment. Which is all to say that: Your thesis is unobjectionable, but it's also the sort of thing that everyone just accuses everyone else of doing anyway. So what ground are you breaking here? You present this as some bold countercultural perspective but you're making the same horary point that most people do anyway about music they don't like or understand, rightly or wrongly.