Does music have to be complicated to be good?

I like mostly complicated music, but simple music isn't bad either. there can be shitty complicated songs and shitty simple songs. it really doesn't matter all that much i think.
 
Necromunchkin said:
Damnit, LoM stop making statemens I agree entirely with.

With statements such as mine, it's hard not to agree isn't it? Not to be an elitist or anything, but seriously, what reason would there be to live?
 
Dream Theater? Strange? I have to object on this one. Their music is quite ordinary and standard. I guess it depends on who you are comparing them too...but...yeah...
 
good point LoM, why is dream theater always looked at as complex? yeah they throw in a few time changes and a few key changes in their songs, but that is far from complex in my book. they never make them well worth it.
bands like spastic ink or planet x are complex for the same genre. dream theater are the mainstream pop of their genre.
 
It's not complicated IMO. There is the music you like, and the music you don't like. I know people who like complex music (Mahavishnu Orchestra) for example, who can't stomach Dream Theatre. Music connects to an internal part of our being, and the determination is made. Time to burn one end to end. Peace.
 
the answer, simply is no.


some of the greatest composers wrote incredibly simple music. Percy Grainger for example. Irish Tune and County Derry is nothing short of amazing.
 
Freak Kitchen has personality, you can tell they're having fun at what they do (which is ripping off king's x , ha ha ha). Mahavishnu orchestra, those guys play with passion and attitude (well they did for a while, until they couldn't get along and it shows in latter days). King Crimson, same thing, emotion. But they don't play complex for the sake of playing complex (for the most part, it's not their main focus anyway)

Also, re: Dream Theater, I think complexity and technicality are being used interchangeably here, and I believe that's would make a similar yet interesting argument as well! and perhaps even more valid for the direction thoughts are heading.

Does music have to be technically proficient to be good?
 
There is a degree of proficiency required, but it's not really that great. As long as I'm not stabbing my ears out, I'll give the band the benefit of the doubt and look at other factors to see how well they deliver their music.
 
In most cases, and for most people, simplicity is the key. Creating simple, catchy melodies is actually very complex in it's own way. It's also an elusive process to nearly all musicians.

There really is no answer to the question posed. Mozart (possibly the greatest musician ever known to man) wrote both incredibly simple (Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star - at age 5 I might add) and incredibly complex compositions (Symphony 41) that not only withstood the test of time, but have also conveyed strong emotions for millions and millions of listeners across the globe.

That's the one thing about great music - regardless of whether it's simple or complex - it must speak to the listener's soul and find relevance to one's personal experiences.

BTW - Dream Theater = gay. :loco:
 
I listen to both, but when it comes down to it I prefer technical. I cant stand songs that are nothing but powerchords.

I dont think theres any balance needed, you can be a great technical musician and a great songwriter, thats what I'd consider Loomis.