Does complexity make a song/band better?

[R_of_G]

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this following a conversation with one of the guys I’ve been playing with (the bass player).

We were discussing my desire to add a Rolling Stones’ song to our repetoire. I expressed my surprise that he didn’t really like them. I referred to them by their long-time nickname “The World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band” to which he replied that he’d been talking about them with another guitarist friend of his who dismissed them by saying their songs were all pretty simplistic and very easy to play.

To me, this is precisely why I think the Stones are so great (and the Ramones and James Brown and so much other music I love). I don’t think it takes a ridiculous amount of chord changes and complex time signatures to make a great song. I’m not against those things in any way as much of the music I love is fairly complex (Zappa, Phish, John Zorn, etc) but I don’t think those elements make a song any better than a three chord straight rocker, just more complex and challenging to play.

For some reason, the discussion has stuck with me, likely because I’ve been thinking a lot about whether or not I want to continue playing with these guys. I know listening to music together and talking about what we like and don’t is a good way to find common ground for songs to play, but I just find the concept that simplicty is a negative to be absurd.

I’m curious as to what you guys think and if this kind of thinking is something any of you have ever run into before.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

So, they don't like hamburgers because they aren't complex enough??? Sounds like a bit of musical snobbery to me. A steady diet of nothing but three-chord rockers is one thing, but eschewing them entirely is another. Complexity can be good or not so good, depending on how it comes off as a totality. Complexity for the sake of complexity often sounds contrived.

[sunvalleylaw]

"Does complexity make a song/band better?" No. But you know I feel that way due to my tastes. I will temper my one word sentence by saying "No, not by itself" because some bands are so good because they are complex, or their songs are complex by nature. I really enjoy a cool, well constructed complex piece, if it says something to me. Prog can be like that at times. A good symphony can also be like that.

But "complex" does not equal "good" by a long shot. As I have said many times, I would rather listen to a more simple phrase played in an expressive way that says or emotes something than a complex, very well played, highly technical phrase or series of phrases that doesn't say much. Simplicity and natural language and rhythm is what made people like Walt Whitman so good.

[Tig]

Better? Not really. Perhaps more unique. It really depends on how well the music the band makes "works".

Steve Cropper is the master of playing to serve the song, for instance. The final product simply works. Earl Slick said in a recent class that you need to leave space for the other instruments, and that no one would want to listen to 4 or 5 lead singers singing all at the same time.

On the other hand, you have 5 fingers. (sorry :D ) - Complexity works for many modern metal bands, especially math metal and prog metal, as long as they sculpt some slower, less intense passages. Same goes for prog rock. Complex interplay is a key element to some of the greatest jazz performances and compositions.

One of the turn offs about some of the shred guitar virtuosos is that the songs gets lost during the look-at-what-I-can-play solos that take up too much time and become boring (except Guthrie Govan).

To me, the bottom line is the emotion that is put into the music should be felt by the listener, regardless of complexity or simplicity. Most of the time, simple works best!

[marnold]

I don't think it's an either-or thing. I think of a recording I have of Shawn Lane playing "All Along the Watchtower." He does a great job with the song itself. He makes the solos shreddier but not overwhelmingly so. It's what I would expect his take on that song would be. Then at the end he goes into this insane vomiting of notes thing where the rest of the band stops. If he stopped at the end, it'd be great. But he kept going . . .

Conversely, I don't think I could live on a steady diet of the Ramones or CCR (four great guys, four great chords) or anything like that. It just gets tiresome. Same thing with playing the same three chords in a 12 bar blues progression ad nauseum. I get the punk attitude thing. Many of those songs are fun to play. I just find myself wanting more (I guess that's why prefer more Clash-y kind of punk). I don't, however, recall saying that about the Stones. I definitely wouldn't put them in that category.

[sunvalleylaw]

I like Tig's comment on what makes more complex songs work better, to wit: contrast between the more complex passages slower, less intense passages. Likewise interplay in jazz.

The corollary to that question is what makes a less complex song good? Surely, there are both good and poor "simple" songs. To me, a good melody of some kind is key. It might not even be a "melodic" or traditionally pleasing melody, but a strong melody is key. The emotion and skillful "story telling" involved in the performance is key too. But that is more related to the performer rather than to the song. What else makes some more simple songs better than others?


@Marnold, I think your feeling about steady diet of 4 chords is why I used to love both old rock/pop ala early Stones and Beatles, Kinks, etc, leading onto the Ramones and the Clash, and at the same time love jazz and some funk. Strange bedfellows, but there it is.


(and as I look at my cumbersome writing above, I conclude that I am no Whitman. ;))

[Spudman]

Some songs/bands are simple, some are complex. Do you like a burger with everything or a plain one?

Sometimes I like it plain and sometimes I want complex interplay between the pickles and mustard. It doesn't mean one is better. It's just what is preferred at the time. Personally, I like music with a bit more complexity, meaning changes, loud/soft passages, dynamics and note runs. Like it was composed rather than just a tossed out 2 chord idea. Now, on the other hand, I have heard some beautiful music from bands that can play and compose complex material and they just play something that has two chords and it is amazing. That to me shows mastery of craft.

On the flip side, I haven't heard a band that is known for playing simple, easy to duplicate and play material do anything complex. Maybe they can or maybe they can't. I've just never experienced the "simple" performing "complex". Still this doesn't quantify them as not being "better" by any means. I've had some simple bands really rock me hard. But I think I get a bit tired of simple after a much shorter time than what I refer to as complex.

So in conclusion, using the term "better" is of course always going to be subjective. Music is a personal expression and as long as the message gets across that's really the bottom line. Not which is better. So if you are unsure if you want to play with them just ask yourself if you'll get to express yourself the way that you want to. That should be your goal. If you can't get out what's inside you then what's the point?

[Eric]

Without reading all of the posts (I've wanted to do that at some point, but I usually can't resist), I will offer my opinion: as with most things in life, it depends.

Sometimes I like weird music, where it's doing things I don't understand, yet still works as music. However, in those instances it's the song structure that's keeping me entertained. With the Ramones, they tended to write catchy songs, and the melody was carried in the vocals. If you take every band that doesn't have something "necessary" (e.g. good tones, interesting chord progressions, catchy riffs, good lyrics, good singing voice, interesting message, artistic integrity) and combined them into the same band, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to listen to that band.

So in that way, yeah complexity does matter. Is it the only thing that matters in music? Probably not -- Nickelback has managed to have a pretty successful career. But there are some groups who lean heavily on the fact that they write innovative stuff. If you took that away from them as a band, they wouldn't have that much left to offer the listener.

Clear as mud, right? I guess my answer is "yes," with a lot of qualifiers.

[R_of_G]

Some very refreshing answers so far.

It basically makes me repeat my lament from whatever other thread that was that I wish I lived closer to some of the players here rather than the ones in my neighborhood.

[sunvalleylaw]

Some very refreshing answers so far.

It basically makes me repeat my lament from whatever other thread that was that I wish I lived closer to some of the players here rather than the ones in my neighborhood.

I am sure we would have a lot of fun exploring playing various styles. :AOK Your punk and jazz influences alone would provide a lot of material.

[Jipes]

Just my two cents on a quite similar question. I often had this discussion with temporary members of my blues trio which are usually jazz freaks (ain't many blues aficionados around) and they all think that Blues is very easy to play but they do miss the point, Complexity doesn't reside only in the harmonic structure but also with all subtile things who shaped a sound and a band ensemble. Playing b5 and 7M chords are not always very welcome in a blues because it has its own type of harmonic spectra and rather favor dominant 7th, same thing apply in some songs where 6th chord definitely don't sound right.

Simplicity is hard to reach and writing a song with few chords is a real challenge :socool

[sunvalleylaw]

Just my two cents on a quite similar question. I often had this discussion with temporary members of my blues trio which are usually jazz freaks (ain't many blues aficionados around) and they all think that Blues is very easy to play but they do miss the point, Complexity doesn't reside only in the harmonic structure but also with all subtile things who shaped a sound and a band ensemble. Playing b5 and 7M chords are not always very welcome in a blues because it has its own type of harmonic spectra and rather favor dominant 7th, same thing apply in some songs where 6th chord definitely don't sound right.

Simplicity is hard to reach and writing a song with few chords is a real challenge :socool




The corollary to that question is what makes a less complex song good? Surely, there are both good and poor "simple" songs. To me, a good melody of some kind is key. It might not even be a "melodic" or traditionally pleasing melody, but a strong melody is key. The emotion and skillful "story telling" involved in the performance is key too. But that is more related to the performer rather than to the song. What else makes some more simple songs better than others?



Jipes, you touch on what I was thinking about in regards to this question. Do you have other thoughts on this? I am also curious what others think. What do others think makes a more simply structured song great?

Your comment about simplicity being hard to reach reminds me of my first job out of law school. The appellate judge I clerked for was known for his short and direct legal opinions. My opinion "drafts" he used in aid to his writing were longer and discussed much more. He used to quote someone, I can't remember who, who said something like "If I had had more time, I would have written something shorter." Again, not always better, but an interesting thought.

[Jipes]

Hard to elaborate more on that, I'm just an amateur guy but I guess each time I was trying to compose something on the acoustic guitar I was trying to make it more complex because I was afraid people will judge it too simple. But being rudimentary this never work out well probably as you say lacking a great melody.

One day after the passing of the Father of a friend I took my resonator guitar and wrote an instrumental without thinking about any harmonic structure or so whatever and it turns out to be one of the best song that I ever recorded. So my conclusion is simplicity goes with feeling and not with brainstorming

You can listen to it there
http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=37802

[R_of_G]

Jipes, you touch on what I was thinking about in regards to this question. Do you have other thoughts on this? I am also curious what others think. What do others think makes a more simply structured song great?

Your comment about simplicity being hard to reach reminds me of my first job out of law school. The appellate judge I clerked for was known for his short and direct legal opinions. My opinion "drafts" he used in aid to his writing were longer and discussed much more. He used to quote someone, I can't remember who, who said something like "If I had had more time, I would have written something shorter." Again, not always better, but an interesting thought.

Strong melodies, memorable riffs, interesting lyrics are all elements that can make a simple song stand out to me.

I think simple song structures also allow for more advanced play within the song itself. Take most funk bands for example. Many of the great funk songs are only two or three chords but the space created by that simplicity allows the lead players to embellish the song with many flourishes that are more complex whether it's poly-rhythms from multiple percussionists or interweaving lead lines from soloists. More with less.

I also love the quote you paraphrased. There's a lot to be said for concise writing. Participating in Twitter for awhile now has taught me to value brevity and elegance in constructing jokes. I think the same can apply to songwriting.

[sunvalleylaw]

R_of_G, who gave that quote? It is a good one.

[R_of_G]

R_of_G, who gave that quote? It is a good one.

I wish I knew Steve. I hadn't heard it prior to your post but as a freelance writer it struck me as very insightful.
I'll try to do some research and see if I can pin down the origin.

[R_of_G]

Follow-up on the quote...

It would seem that versions of it have been attributed to every sardonic author from Twain to Voltaire to Pascal.
Consensus seems to be that credit goes to Blaise Pascal from his 1657 'Letters Provinciales' (Letter XVI)

The quote in the original French is...

"Mes Reverends Peres, mes lettres n'avaient pas accoutume de se suivre de si pres, ni d'etre si etendues. Le peu de temps que j'ai eu a ete cause de l'un et de l'autre. Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte."

According to Google's translation tool that reads as...

"My Reverends Pères, my letters did not have accustomed to follow themselves of so near, nor to be if wide. The little of time that I had was causes one and other. I did this one more long only because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter "

Perhaps one of our French-speaking fretters like Jipes or Blazes can provide a better translation as that Google one is lacking a bit in the grammatical department.

[sunvalleylaw]

That sounds right. I think I remember good ol' Judge Worswick telling me the full version at one point. That was over 20 years ago though.

[Tig]

One day after the passing of the Father of a friend I took my resonator guitar and wrote an instrumental without thinking about any harmonic structure or so whatever and it turns out to be one of the best song that I ever recorded. So my conclusion is simplicity goes with feeling and not with brainstorming

You can listen to it there
http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=37802

Jipes, that song is absolutely beautiful! The melody flows perfectly and the resonator expresses deep emotion. A great example of what you are talking about.

Edit: This also shows that we can over think things, especially art. When we just let something happen naturally the results can be amazing!
From The Last Samurai: "Too many minds".

[R_of_G]

Hard to elaborate more on that, I'm just an amateur guy but I guess each time I was trying to compose something on the acoustic guitar I was trying to make it more complex because I was afraid people will judge it too simple. But being rudimentary this never work out well probably as you say lacking a great melody.

One day after the passing of the Father of a friend I took my resonator guitar and wrote an instrumental without thinking about any harmonic structure or so whatever and it turns out to be one of the best song that I ever recorded. So my conclusion is simplicity goes with feeling and not with brainstorming

You can listen to it there
http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=37802

Jipes, that was beautiful and an excellent example of how much depth of feeling can come from a simple song.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

[aeolian]

"Come Together" is an example of a simple song that is absurdly good. It really just comes down to the impact of the song rather than how complex it is to play.

A song that the hobby band I'm in plays is "Struggle" by Ringside (I picked it). It is one good riff, the verse is 2 chords, the chorus is a single chord, the interlude is 4 simple chords, and together it makes a song that I really like.

A really cheesy video, but just listen to the song:

GLfDpsnSN1o

[R_of_G]

Excellent examples aeolian.

For more examples of how simplicity can lead to great songs check out pretty much anything on the Stax label. Like Tig said, Cropper was the master of letting his play serve the song. Simple playing with rich tones can emote so much.

Also, there was this band called Led Zeppelin that was pretty popular. A large percentage of their songs are built around some pretty simple riffs. There was certainly some advanced stuff going on in many of their compositions but a lot of the "classic rock" radio staples from the Zep are pretty simple. Few would argue that these aren't great songs.

[sunvalleylaw]

Good to hear from you Aeolian! I love your thoughts on stuff like this. Also, I had Beatles tunes in the back of my mind at least part of the time as I thought about this issue.

Spud brought up whether "simple" bands could be "complex". Depends on the degree, but I put Green Day up as an example. "Dookie" was very much a simple punk pop album. By the time "21st Century Breakdown" came around, they had added a lot of variety in terms of sounds, structure, tempo, volume, the way the album ties together, theme, etc. Almost a punk/pop "symphony" if you will. Granted, it is not as complex as something from "The Flower Kings" or etc. And GD fans can argue whether they liked it or not. But to me it is pretty darned good! There are Beatles influence present (one song almost calls out for a George solo but the song doesn't go there), spanish and/or some sort of russian or peasant sounding songs, stuff that recalls their straight up punk, etc. I recall Spud recognizing the music when we listened to it in fall of 2009. So there's your example Spud! ;)

[R_of_G]

Spud brought up whether "simple" bands could be "complex".

Been thinking a lot about that one since I read it yesterday.

I think the evolution of Radiohead's sound is a good example of this.

Their earliest albums were pretty much straight-forward guitar rock. As they evolved they began incorporating electronics into their play (both live and in the studio) as well as experimenting with time signatures and complexity of arrangements.

A simple song like "Fake Plastic Trees" still captivates me with how big it can sound live, but I'm also impressed with their ability to construct more complex songs as well.

[sunvalleylaw]

I suppose the Beatles' evolution from essentially early rock covers to Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, Abby Road and such is another example.

[sunvalleylaw]

Jipes, that song is absolutely beautiful! The melody perfectly and the resonator expresses emotion. A great example of what you are talking about.

Wow, I missed this earlier this AM. Great song, and great thoughts, Jipes! I was thinking about HOW does one come up with a good melody. I was theorizing along the lines of your conclusion regarding feeling rather than brainstorming. I am way more amateur than you are, and have not written songs myself (except one punky chord sheet I came up with once). I was thinking to make a melody, I would just have to allow something to come into my head and hum it, and go from there. I could come up with no other way. I hope to be able what you do sometime.

[R_of_G]

I suppose the Beatles' evolution from essentially early rock covers to Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, Abby Road and such is another example.

Without a doubt. According to my neighbors' thinking the more intricate songs later on are automatically better, though I can think of plenty of early Lennon/McCartney songs that I consider just as good, if not better than many of the later ones.

[R_of_G]

I was thinking about HOW does one come up with a good melody. I was theorizing along the lines of your conclusion regarding feeling rather than brainstorming. I am way more amateur than you are, and have not written songs myself (except one punky chord sheet I came up with once). I was thinking to make a melody, I would just have to allow something to come into my head and hum it, and go from there. I could come up with no other way. I hope to be able what you do sometime.

I'm no pro at melody construction either, but I have come up with a few of my own of which I'm proud, particularly the one around which I based the song for my friends' wedding. One of the ways I found that works for me is the "happy accident."

The combination of not being a singer and listening to a lot of horn players means a lot of my playing involves trying to replicate the vocal lines of songs with my guitar (I'm a trumpet player trapped in a guitar players' skill-set). I spend a lot of time trying to figure out by ear how to play some of the melodies from songs I want to cover. A lot of times along the way to figuring out how to play the melody correctly, I will make "mistakes" that will lead me down the path to something interesting melodically that I can explore.

[Eric]

Without a doubt. According to my neighbors' thinking the more intricate songs later on are automatically better, though I can think of plenty of early Lennon/McCartney songs that I consider just as good, if not better than many of the later ones.
To defend your neighbors a little bit, some people like very specific elements in their music, like more complicated song structures and chords. My guess is that he was just spouting off anyway, but it's really no different than jazz snobs saying rock music sucks or someone saying they don't like Captain Beefheart.

IMO, that's OK. It would be preferable if people tried to at least give credit to all music, but I don't know that I've met many people who actually tend to work that way.

[sunvalleylaw]

I'm no pro at melody construction either, but I have come up with a few of my own of which I'm proud, particularly the one around which I based the song for my friends' wedding. One of the ways I found that works for me is the "happy accident."

The combination of not being a singer and listening to a lot of horn players means a lot of my playing involves trying to replicate the vocal lines of songs with my guitar (I'm a trumpet player trapped in a guitar players' skill-set). I spend a lot of time trying to figure out by ear how to play some of the melodies from songs I want to cover. A lot of times along the way to figuring out how to play the melody correctly, I will make "mistakes" that will lead me down the path to something interesting melodically that I can explore.

With my exposure to my Dad's saxaphone and his tasty vibrato, and musical taste, the limited approach I have so far is very similar I suppose. I just need to pursue it more. The thing that is cool about developing melodies that way is that you can find different places to play them, play with alternate note locations that are easier to play or possess a different timbre or sound, and follow the melody rather than the scales and patterns we learn as road maps on the fretboard. Like I said, I want to do more of that.

[Perfect Stranger]

Nope, melody does....

[R_of_G]

To defend your neighbors a little bit, some people like very specific elements in their music, like more complicated song structures and chords. My guess is that he was just spouting off anyway, but it's really no different than jazz snobs saying rock music sucks or someone saying they don't like Captain Beefheart.

IMO, that's OK. It would be preferable if people tried to at least give credit to all music, but I don't know that I've met many people who actually tend to work that way.

Of course I'd contend that those people are confusing subjectivity with objectivity.

If they said they didn't like the Stones because they prefer more complex music there's really little for me to do besides accept that opinions vary and at least they have reasons for theirs.

However, the statement was that the Stones weren't that great because they're songs are simple seems a bit more of an objective statement that complexity trumps simplicity.

In other words, you're more diplomatic in your phrasing than my neighbor. :)

[Eric]

In other words, you're more diplomatic in your phrasing than my neighbor. :)
Apparently he just left out the "I think."

You know, back on topic (sort of), I think complexity does trump simplicity. Not in listenability (pretty sure I just invented that word), but more as an isolated concept. If you give me two songs that are equal in all aspects (equally catchy, etc.), but one is more complicated than the other, I'll probably pick the one that has more going on. Not always, but most of the time. Since that situation does not, has not, and will not ever exist, it's kind of a moot point. But if we're examining the merits of twists and turns in music and songs, I do think it's a good thing.

Considering most of the music you listen to, I'd wager to say you agree in theory. As mentioned, in practice it doesn't matter even a little bit, which is more the point you and everyone else in this thread have been driving at. The thing we get hung up on when it comes to complexity is not the assertion that complexity trumps simplicity, but that complexity trumps thoughtful lyrics, good hooks, etc.

I'm done.

[R_of_G]

Considering most of the music you listen to, I'd wager to say you agree in theory. As mentioned, in practice it doesn't matter even a little bit, which is more the point you and everyone else in this thread have been driving at.

In some sense, yes, though really, I'd suspect if I did a full accounting of my library and sorted all the songs as either "Simple" or "Complex" that simple would be the greater by a wide margin.

Interesting to think about which I'd prefer with two songs of all else being equal.
Part of me likes to think that I'd prefer the simpler one for achieving the same catchiness in a more elegant fashion (back to the "shorter letter" discussion earlier).
Part of me likes to think I'd prefer the more complex because I'd appreciate the challenge of the musicianship required to pull it off.
How's that for a non-answer? I'd be great at politics.

Take a band like Phish or example. Two of my favorite songs of theirs range from the very complex "Divided Sky" to the very simple "Sand" (which is essentially a funk jam in Am, and note I'm speaking of the live versions, not the studio version which I'm not particularly a fan of).
The latter is obviously not the illustration of just how magical the band can be in terms of tempo changes and playing through complex patterns, but it features some of Tom Marshall's best lyrics and allows the band to explore quite a bit of improvisational territory in a slow funk jam (something at which they excel).



The thing we get hung up on when it comes to complexity is not the assertion that complexity trumps simplicity, but that complexity trumps thoughtful lyrics, good hooks, etc.


There's the most insightful statement so far on this topic, in line with Bookkeeper's Son's thoughts on complexity to serve the song or complexity for the sake of being complex. In a vacuum, complexity is just another tool a composer/arranger can use. If it's the only tool used it can make a song seem sterile. If it's used in conjunction with some of the other elements discussed in this thread it can make for an extremely compelling song.

So yeah, to answer the question, I prefer both. :)

[jpfeifer]

I agree with others here that complexity versus simplicity doesn't define good music at all. It's a completely silly argument in my opinion.
Good art in general (whether it's a painting, music, poetry, or whatever) is only defined by how it moves you.

I can't explain why a certain tune by "The Clash" or "The Kinks" move me, even though these songs may have only 2 or 3 chords, for the same reason that I can't explain why I'm moved when I hear someone like Wes Montgomery play such cool solos over complex chord changes. Complexity on it's own doesn't make good music, otherwise I would love everything that Frank Zappa ever recorded. (with all due respect to any Zappa fans!)

Music is not a science. It's an art form. You don't need to justify to anyone why you like songs that are supposed be simple. It only matters that those songs move you. Sometimes it's the honesty of a song that gets you and other times it's something cool about the song structure, the tones, or some memory attached to the song itself that makes some connection to you personally.

I hate it when people argue about music, and what people are "supposed" to like. It's like arguing about good food. Sometimes I'm in the mood for a hamburger, and other times I want a gourmet meals, but each have their place. Variety is the spice of life, as they say. Enjoy it all!

--Jim

[deeaa]

IMO, simple but truthful kicks the butt of complex 9 times out of ten.

Sure, there are great, great, complex songs...but my view is:

Most anybody can learn and practice to perform, say, a very complex prog-rock song _exactly_ as it's played originally, down to so much detail and accuracy it's hard to tell if it's the original or copy. (on instruments, of course nobody can exactly duplicate a certain vocalist).

But...I claim that almost _nobody_ can take a song like, say some old AC/DC tune and perform it with even a resemblance of the intensity of the original.

So, most of the time...it's the simple things that are hard to make good. That I tend to respect more than pure skill and dexterity. Not a lot of people can play a song using just A and D chords and make it sound incredible. I just think it takes more skill than being able to pour a thousand notes in a minute and use five different scales cleverly intertwined, even though that commands respect as well.

It took me a bunch of hours to learn 'Hallowed Be Thy Name' despite it was one of the most complex songs to learn on guitar ever for me, and a few more hours and notes to remember where each part actually is played...but it's taken me 15 years or so to be able to play 'Shotdown In Flames' with even a resemblance of the original..and still the Hallowed song sounds closer to the original.

[deeaa]

IMO, simple but truthful kicks the butt of complex 9 times out of ten.

Sure, there are great, great, complex songs...but my view is:

Most anybody can learn and practice to perform, say, a very complex prog-rock song _exactly_ as it's played originally, down to so much detail and accuracy it's hard to tell if it's the original or copy. (on instruments, of course nobody can exactly duplicate a certain vocalist).

But...I claim that almost _nobody_ can take a song like, say some old AC/DC tune and perform it with even a resemblance of the intensity of the original.

So, most of the time...it's the simple things that are hard to make good. That I tend to respect more than pure skill and dexterity. Not a lot of people can play a song using just A and D chords and make it sound incredible. I just think it takes more skill than being able to pour a thousand notes in a minute and use five different scales cleverly intertwined, even though that commands respect as well.

It took me a bunch of hours to learn 'Hallowed Be Thy Name' despite it was one of the most complex songs to learn on guitar ever for me, and a few more hours and notes to remember where each part actually is played...but it's taken me 15 years or so to be able to play 'Shotdown In Flames' with even a resemblance of the original..and still the Hallowed song sounds closer to the original.

[Jipes]

Jipes, that was beautiful and an excellent example of how much depth of feeling can come from a simple song.

Thanks for sharing it with us.

Thanks to you to have taken the time to listen to it :AOK

[Jipes]

Wow, I missed this earlier this AM. Great song, and great thoughts, Jipes! I was thinking about HOW does one come up with a good melody. I was theorizing along the lines of your conclusion regarding feeling rather than brainstorming. I am way more amateur than you are, and have not written songs myself (except one punky chord sheet I came up with once). I was thinking to make a melody, I would just have to allow something to come into my head and hum it, and go from there. I could come up with no other way. I hope to be able what you do sometime.

Thanks Man I appreciate !