Simple is often better

Ever notice that some of the most profound music in history has some of the most simplistic harmonies, simplistic melodies, simplistic orchestration that often puts more complex blown-out works to shame?

I remember looking at the score to Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring, the section concerned with "Simple Gifts." When performed, each choir of strings, brass, and woodwinds create a richness that is I believe unprecedented in American musical literature of that style, yet very few of the instruments are doubled, there is seldom any percussion, and there are no 7 chords, no 9th chords, no "modern" techniques, but is in fact very basic in its structure.

Folk songs of most cultures seem to have the most profound effect on me, when I hear them orchestrated. Like in Dvorak's New World Symphony, or in several pieces by Holst. Yet they often have very few notes in them, and often rely on various pentatonic scales.

Sometimes, a piece indeed needs much orchestration and colors and harmonies to get its message across. But other times, such use is inapropriate and unnecessary. I guess the maxime, "Say it in simple terms," or "Get on with it," can work as well for music. For example, the statement, "I am dehydrated", is unecessary, when all you need to say is, "I'm thirsty."

But then again, sometimes you want your music to be specific, and include several VERY subtle motifs that can hardly be heard in your orchestration. Ask yourself, though, before you insert these: "Do these motifs accomplish anything?" You don't want your music to sound redundant. That is something that many composers risk doing. That's why rules of voice leading and harmony exist, so none of your sounds become "redundant sounding". It all depends on what you want to accomplish.

Some simple yet effective examples of simple yet profound pieces I consider:

Appalachian Spring, by Copland

Nimrod Enigma Variations, by Elgar

Adagio for Strings, by Barber

the soundtrack to Rudy, by Goldsmith

several traditional folksongs from around the world, particularly Western European, Subsaharan African, East Asian, and Native American.

Ironically, musical minimalism also has a tendency to get redundant, though not because of using "too many words," but because it's constantly repetitive and pointless.

A composition does not even have to be five minutes to be great. I wrote this string quartet that lasted for seven minutes, but then I desided that much of the middle section just rambled on, so I cut like three minutes or so. As long as everything has a purpose, and there aren't any wasted notes, but everything is said succinctly, and it's not unecessarily cluttered with pointless material, then you'll have a good piece. This is not to say that highly complex compositions are pointless, they just have a lot more important stuff to say. Never waste a note. To paraphrase Monty Python, "Every note is sacred."

Any thoughts?

just a quick "correction".

I think you might be confusing "musical directness" with "simplicity.

the Barber Adagio for Strings is far from being a "simple" work.

it's a very highly evolved use of quite strict contrapuntal technique... nothing "simple" there.

As a matter of fact, the same applies to the Copland work - it's very direct expression, but it's far from "simple". there is actually a great deal of complexity in the writing.

Thank you qccowbow. That's what I meant. Musical directness. Not simplicity. Forgive me, I just did not know the word.

Wherever you have seen the word simplicity, what I mean is musical directness. Thank you.

you actually bring up a very interesting issue.

for anyone who works as a composer of concert music, the issue of accessibility is constantly nagging.

on the one hand there are various organizations and people who promote the idea that only "avant garde" new music has validity. these people can be seen on competition juries, in governmental organizations, on the boards of various performing groups, etc...

on the other hand, there is the general public which is uncomfortable with extreme avant garde music, and there are also people on the boards of those various performing groups who feel this way.

So a composer finds himself (my apologies to any ladies in the group, but it's easier than always writing "he/she") constantly battling the need to refresh his own work adn to challenge himself to go beyond his own limits, and on the other hand, the desire to communicate to the largest possible audience.

You can see how this can create a terrible conflict, and i can assure you that there is no easy answer. It remains a life-long concern.

The composers you cite were able to create wonderfully accessible music without compromising their musical ethics, but this isn't always easy. The proof is that Copland and Barber both went through terribly difficult times with their music, being considered "populists", and being labelled failed avant-gardes.

As a matter of fact, Samuel Barber's last years were terribly sad. His last works were rejected by critics and the public alike, he was denounced as "pass

Monkeysinfezzes, while you have noble intentions, some of your points I disagree with.

A little matter of no importance really, but if someone said to me "I am dehydrated" instead of "I'm thirsty" I would likely be utterly fascinated by that person. "I am dehydrated" is so much more interesting, so much more musical sounding even, that it is a far more beautiful statement, even if it be slightly more complex. True, you don't NEED to say it that way, when you can just say "I'm thirsty", but art - and artistic music - isn't just about doing the bare minimum to get by. It's about doing something beautiful.

And secondly, minimalism is not pointless and good minimalist music is never redundant to my ears. Music for 18 muscians is one of the most profound musical statements I can think of - no other work creates its unique, otherworldly soundscape. When Steve Riech or John Adams write something and use minimalistic techniques, something tells me that they are not trying to be pointless with thier music - and it really doesn't come off as pointless either. It says its message quite clearly and succinctly to everyone who wishes to hear it.

I think several of you have each used completely different definitions of the word simple. Music truly is almost impossible to talk about!

But, giving monkeyinfezzes the benefit of the doubt (as we should always do in discussions about music) I agree with you. I think you have happened upon a very deep truth about music. Why IS it that simple folk melodies can often be the most moving (ever listen to Chopin's 3rd etude for the piano in E-major? or his first scherzo in b minor?)?

Personally, I think it has to do with timing and rhythm. Folk musicians of old never concerned themselves too much with music theory, they usually would just support their music with chords and forget about part writing and so forth. This is obviously because much of it was improvised. But out of that improvisation grew all of these sublime folk melodies which have been arranged in so many beloved classical works. It seems to me since folk musicians didn't bother with all that extra nonsense they spent the vast majority of their time exploring the vast, vast landscape of simple, beautiful melodies, and how the contours and focal points of them could be timed in striking ways. No theory can tell you how to do that---it just takes experience. And folk musicians would just play...and play...and play.