|
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
Ah i knew that we would agree in the end lol.
I pretty much thought that complexity equals variation and/or "alteration" as you say, at least in music. I mean a jazz piece would inevitably have a lot of variation (if you pay attention) not? (like you are not possibly going to find repetition) How else can you say that something is complex?
I knew that the word "complex" would be confusing...(in a complicated way...lol) |
while structural complexity and variation usually cooccur in classical music and jazz (especially jazz that is famous for its harmonic, textural, and rhythmic variations), i find that such complexity is neither necessary nor sufficient in order for inlying variation to transpire. it is not necessary because, as i suggested earlier, you could have a simple piece consisting of a single part performed in multiple keys, which would yield a similar result. alternatively, you could simply alter the tempo, utilize schönberg's serial transformation technique, or make use of some other change that preserves the overall structure as well as its initial degree of intricacy (e.g. heterophony that only involves one melody throughout). it is not sufficient because it is possible to have structurally complex pieces that revolve around a single theme with very little variation in tonality, harmony, key. and even in jazz, the early dixieland as pioneered by the o.d.j.b. often relied on ensemble choruses that were rather repetitive and offered little alteration overall (though it did have a tendency to be multithemed, afaik) despite using the same instrumentation as the modern styles (piano, trumpet, trombone, tuba, sax, clarinet, drums) as well as complex syncopated rhythms. this is especially true of the o.d.j.b. itself, as the band employed hardly any improvisation at all.
___________________
|
(if such a concept actually exists because it is very relative)
