The most musically complex prog band(s)?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 BaldJean wrote:

 avalanchemaster wrote:

 BaldJean wrote:

 avalanchemaster wrote:

 BaldJean wrote:

 avalanchemaster wrote:

 presdoug wrote:

 avalanchemaster wrote:

 presdoug wrote:

 avalanchemaster wrote:

It is correct that some classical is more complex than a lot of prog.  For instance, Iannis Xenakis used fractal math and other advanced mathematics for his compositions.  Plus they usually aren't as rigid in their song structures.... way more "free" than a lot of prog with more shifting rhythms... well that is at least most 20th century avant garde composers.  Once I got into them, prog took a backseat...
complexity is pretty important to me, in terms of appreciating music-i very much love complex classical music, the best for me being the world of the symphony, the most complex symphonic music being that of the late romantics Mahler and Bruckner-the ultimate in musical depth-to quote the late conductor Bruno Walter-"I could not live my life without the music of Bruckner and Mahler"

well then, give me some recommendations of which compositions/conductors/cd companies to start with(for these two composers)... Do they have any of those super cheap Naxos discs?
there are Mahler and Bruckner symphonies on Naxos-stay away from the Naxos Bruckner-they are not worth it-as far as Mahler symphonies on Naxos-go for the 5th Symphony conducted by Bruno Walter-(historical Naxos)-also would recommend Mahler's 4th Symphony also conducted by Bruno Walter with singer Kathleen Ferrier(historical Naxos)
    As far as the best performances of Bruckner and Mahler symphonies-conductor Bruno Walter is at the top of both mountain peaks-essential Bruckner from him are symphonies 4,7, and 9 with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra, sym. 8 with the New York Phil. from 1941-(Music and Arts CD), and his Mahler sym. 1 and 2 with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra and New York Philharmonic Orchestras respectively, and his stereo recording of Mahler's 9th with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.
              Also great Bruckner is available from conductor Oswald Kabasta (sym. 4,7 and 9-Munich Phil.)
          the  Bruckner's are on Sony (Walter) and Music and Arts(Walter sym. 8)and Music and Arts(Kabasta)
            the non Naxos Mahler's are on Sony

Thanks!  That is a very lengthy list to choose from.. 

I consider Johann Sebastian Bach to be a lot more complex than Mahler and definitely more complex than Bruckner with his quite simple triads. I love Mahler, but Bruckner leaves me absolutely cold

I don't consider Bach to be all that complex.  Yes there is nice counterpoint going on, but overall his material is pretty straight time (never heard much metric variation within a song) flurry-of-notes type classical with way, way, way too much symmetry.  Nice for people with OCD, but for those of us who like a little more adventure, less predictability, and more novelty, there are other "complex" composers.  But that's just me.  Don't get me wrong, I understand the historical impact and relevance of Bach, and his mastery of music theory, but when the dadaists and 20th century (experimental/avant garde) composers came along, Bach seemed relegated to a sort of classed-up vanilla flavor.

excuse me, but that "little bit of counterpoint" is extremely complex. and you are doing Bach an injustice; he was, like everybody, caught in his time. no-one fiddled with meters at his time.  he may not have fiddled with metric asymmetries,  but he fiddled around with the tempo a lot, playing a melody at half speed while at the same time playing it at normal speed, playing it backwards, upside down, and sometimes all of this at once, in several voices.  you sound like someone who complains that Newton is not the genius he is because he never discovered the theory of relativity.
try writing a fugue,,then you will see with what difficulties you are being faced and how complex it really is. . and else take Einstein's advice when it comes to the music of Bach: " Hören, spielen, lieben, verehren und - das Maul halten!" ("Listening, playing, loving, revering and - shutting up".
Interesting you mention Einstein-a famous quote from him about Mozart-"Mozart did not create music greater than anyone else, just music that was like others in a greater way"
    I also read that sometimes in the earlier part of the 20th Century, conductor Bruno Walter would sometimes see Einstein sitting in one of the front rows of his concerts.

Wow.  you act like I pissed in your mother's mouth.
It is an opinion.  I do NOT find him complex.  You are acting rather trollish and need to settle down.  Threads like this are worthless anyway, because sooner or later, someone gets all butt-hurt about someone else's opinion and responds like you just did.  in fact, most forums are only as useful as the factual information you can gleen from them, otherwise they usually consist of just a bunch of huffing, puffing, and egotistical showboating.  I'm happy for you that you find Bach so complex.  Different minds think differently.  That, my friend is a FACT.   

wow, now I am really amazed. why do you react that offended? actually Western music is laughably simple when it comes to meters and rhythms, compared to Indian musidc. Western music is harmonically very complex, and Bach was the king of complexity there (ask any classical musician, and 90% of them will say so).
but Western music is rhythmically extremely simple. listen to Indian music - it is rhythmically as complexas Western music is harmonically so. harmonically though  Indian music is quite simple, as Western music is rhythmically.
I have composed myself, and I don't find it difficult at all to throw in odd meters. I have tried writing a fugue too, but failed. and I would not even dare to start with the rhythmic complexities of Indian music; you need years of training for that