Not very technical --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
Pretty technical --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJWuXfiXYI0
ah...so the backing beat of that song isnt very musically complex? (I mean aside form the fact that no one is physically playing it) I guess I can kind of see that
Did you want something less drastic than that?
thats some fuckin piano playing 0_0.....
perhaps more mainstream/contemporay, when people talk about and point out bands they describe as technically complex (like dream theatre) I'm kind of wondering how it compares to the kind of stuff I generally like to listen too
I'll go the whole damn way, because that's how I roll.
Pop isn't generally very complex, usually consisting of a theme with looped backing, with the major variation being lyrical, but that's not ALWAYS true.
"Fire in Your New Shoes" is very simple. It's literally a thudding drumbeat with the same two guitar licks repeated, with the occasional blast of synth. Still a bloody good song.
"Firework" is about as complex as pop reasonably gets. It has a rhythmic drumbeat with interrupts, a melodic backing that changes with the vocals, and a counterpoint in the instrumentation vs the vocals (although it loops). The vocals themselves cover a wide range of interesting directions, and occasionally clamp up to let the backing strings through. Still not spectacular, but what do you WANT from Katy Perry?
<spoiler=RAP>Almost by definition, rap beats have to be simple The appeal of rap is in the lyrics and lyrical rhythm, after all.
When it's at its simplest, it's almost insulting.
Thuuuuud CLAP Thuuuuud CLAAAAP CLAP repeat. Except when they're playing a simple broken dominant seventh chord over. It always sets up a slow and simple rap line. (I freaking love this song.)
On the more complex side is Jay and Ye.
Fading dynamics, unusual beat, rap driven by the music rather than the other way, actual melody, oddly inserted samples. It's as complex as standard rap could be asked to be.
<spoiler=ROCK>Maaaaaan, rock is nebulous and hard to pin down.
Progressive rock is the most complex with tons of dissonance and counterpoint (insane counterpoint, really), lots of instrumental breakdowns with dozens of variations, difficult-to-play riffs spread across multiple instruments and shifting themes. It's almost too complex, really.
Then, on the other side, we have this.
No words needed, really. Excellent song, though.
<spoiler=ELECTRONIC>Electronic wins both. The variation of complexity is stupid-massive.
Hell, I'll even use examples from the same composer.
Tap - tap - tap - tap - tap - tap - tap - Huaaaaaaw HUAAAAAAAAAW Huaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw... Electronic ambient at its absolute finest.
And then a few years later he does this.
Dynamic variation, liberal use of stereo, speed-noise, finger-breaking beat speed, theme with major variations, entire changes in style, catching samples, dissonance, drums literally overwhelming the electric track, spoken word molded into wandering melody, counterpoint (the drums are playing so hard they actually make a secondary melody, which is terrifyingly impressive), sudden use of triplets, time signatures, key changes... it doesn't matter if you think it works, because it's still all there!
I haven't listened to enough metal or country to draw from a decent sampling.
Anyhow, if it turns out you like simple music and are confused by more "complex" stuff, that doesn't mean squat. If anything, it means you care more about the art versus the theory, which is arguably a much better thing. I have best of both worlds - I can appreciate a Deadmau5 dream track just as much as Fur Elise - but if you're comfortable with one level of music versus another, it really comes down to preference (again!). If anyone tries to tell you that your simple music makes you "less worthy" or something like that, please face-punch them for me.
EDIT: I accidentally a picture.
And holy carp, that took a while to type.