What is Complexity?

If Minimalism is Absolute-Chaos and Post-Minimalism is Controlled Chaos, then Totalism is...um, well...it’s so bizarre that I have to make a new word for it. It’s...it’s…

...Biz-ang-od-eird. This is some of the most Bizangodeird music I’ve ever heard. It’s music, but at the same time it’s not. I know I’ve used this analogy before, but it seems to occur anew with almost every blog post. Half the time, I always seem to question what I’m listen to. And here’s no exception. The chaos is both controlled and uncontrolled. It knows what it wants to be and at the same time it doesn’t.

Though, I should probably start by explaining the connection between this type of music and the forms of minimalism.

The term “Totalism” was first coined during the 1990s, with its roots going back into the 1980s. During that time, many young composers were writing Minimal Music. Which makes sense to the biased ear, Minimal Music contains very few ideas that can be repeated over and over again and with a context, it can be the next great American Masterpiece.

However, these young composers weren’t content in staying within the compounds of normal Minimalism. I mentioned many times before that music needs to evolve if it is to stay relevant. In this case, these composers used rhythmic complexity. The most common of these involved seemingly utilizing two or more tempos on the same piece at the same time.

This raises an important question: what makes something complex? The answer is: there is no answer. I’m saying this now because this is not opinion, this is outright fact. In his lecture On Complexity, Richard Toop notes the debate on what’s complex or not:

“With the notion of "complexity," however, real disagreements, real incompatibilities of judgements can arise. I might say that I find a work by Composer X complex (though that too does not necessarily involve a judgement about worth), and you may very possibly disagree completely. You may say, "No, it's not complex at all; it's just complicated." This disagreement, I think, would really be one about personal perception, not material substance. Accordingly, it is unlikely in the short term that we could do more than agree to differ. “

Not even the dictionary gives a precise answer to this question, simply saying that complexity is “...something that’s complex”. So, for the rest of the blog post, I’ll do the sane and sensible thing and shoehorn my own feelings of complexity down your throats. Of course, I invite you to take my findings with a grain of salt. Still, what follows are my personal findings.

Let’s start with John Luther Adams’ (not to be confused with the composer of Nixon in China, thank you very much) piece for String Orchestra, Dreaming in White-on-White. The piece begins similarly to Charles Ives’ The Unanswered Question in that both pieces begin with a simple Monorhythmic chant, although Adams is significantly more dissonant, so Dreaming in White-on-White may be a better representation of what would have been if Ives was a Satanist. Actually, I’d like to talk about Ives for a minute. I’d like to take a good listen to The Unanswered Question:

The Ensemble’s split up into three groups here: Strings (representing the Druids), the Trumpet (representing the Question) and the Flute Quartet (representing the elders struggling in vain to come up with an answer.) The key here is that the piece is intended to be portraying a naturally flowing conversation. To get that right, each separate group plays at completely different tempos.

That’s right: The Unanswered Question is a totalist piece 80 years before the term was even conceived. That is how ahead of his time Ives was.

But the question still remains: is it complex? Well, I think so. Three groups of instruments playing at different tempos at the same time is by no means an easy matter (Though I might be confusing the term “Complexity” with “Complicated” here. More on that later.) Going back to White-on-White for a minute, at around 7:15, we hear the solo harp playing seemingly at different times with the non-solo strings. “Seemingly”, because we hear later that things are more mechanized, as they are playing on off beats with the Harp on On-beats. But still, I feel that making the connection at all still makes this piece complex.

Now, let’s talk about the difference between “Complex” and “Complicated”. “Complex” means something composed of many intricate parts. “Complicated” means something that is difficult. Works can be both “Complex” and “Complicated”, but from what I understand from listening to these pieces, it’s tough for these types of pieces to have one without the other. With that said, let’s look at Michael Gordon’s Four Kings Fight Five.

One of the most Minimal pieces of the repertoire this week, it’s certainly one of the most jarring examples I’ve heard so far. And its instrumentation (Oboe, Clarinet, Bass Clarinet, Electric Keyboard, Percussion, Scordatura Violin, Niola, Cello, and Electric Guitar) makes the piece very bizarre considering its rock-roots apparent.

The biggest feature of this piece is the syncopation. In the composers notes, Gordon says “I often use syncopation as a way to not only make rhythm intense and jagged, but also to find out how far away musicians can get from each other rhythmically while still staying connected to the beat.” To use an early example, here’s part of page 24 of the score:

As you can see, the Strings really have their work cut out for them, playing complex Duple rhythms against the Wind’s simple Quarter Notes. But as to whether I think this piece is Complex or simply Complicated, I’d say this piece is Complicated, for as I said before, this piece is the most minimal of the pieces in this week’s repertoire. And Minimal Music isn’t known to be very complex at all.

I rest my case.

Now, let’s go to the last piece I want to talk about: Soul Train.

NO, NOT THAT SOUL TRAIN, YOU IDIOT! I’m talking about the Mikel Rouse composition.

Actually, the piece is part of a larger work called Dennis Cleveland. It’s notable because (and this is true) it’s the first Talk-Show Opera. The inspiration for this piece of theater came from a show called The Richard Bey Show. Rouse described Rouse as much crazier than Jerry Springer. It was pretty much a precursor. In fact, he even compared the show to Avant-Garde Theater, it was so wild.

So, naturally, this led to an epiphany that led him to turn the concept into actual Avant-Garde Theater, and this is where Dennis Cleveland comes in.

Rouse stated that he was interested in making music with an interesting beat and a melody with extremely layered formal composition. And in listening to Soul Train, Rouse seems to succeed in doing just that. The piece is incredibly complex because it combines three types of music at once:

1.) Formal Operatic storytelling

2.) Traditional Minimalist hypnotism

3.) Cheesy 1990s goodness.

To be able to combine all that effectively is a feat for any composer. This piece is so dense in so many good ways, that’s to even begin to dissect it would be a monumental task in and of itself. What else is there to say?...Talk-Show Opera.

But none of these points answer the initial question: what is complexity? What makes a piece complex? All I did was give my own opinions of what was complex or not and...kind of explained in vague detail why. Then again, I guess, like most things, there really isn’t an answer. There will be findings, but they may just reinforce the author’s own ideas and perspectives. Perhaps, just like with beauty, it’s all a matter of opinion. I’m not wrong, you’re not wrong. I’m not right, you’re not right. Nothing’s complex and nothing’s not complex. It all depends on how you look at it.

Huh...I just realized this is the penultimate blog post. I’M FREE!!

You still have the review and the final project coming up.

I’M ALMOST FREE!!