What is simple?

Swiss Matthias

Swiss Matthias

Platinum Member
There's a lot of threads and posts out there on simple vs. complex, groove vs. technicality.
But really what is simple, and what is complex? Isn't it all subjective?

An intermediate beginner's hip, intricate groove is another drummer's easy warm-up.
Some people's mind-boggling rhythmic structures are other people's daily bread.
One listener's nice melody is another one's boring and predictable cliché.
One musician's well thought out and moving arrangement is another musician's mental overload.
Some people's favorite song is the same old routine of tones, chords and groove to others.

When my student yells "man that's too difficult" today, he will eat it for lunch a year from now.

I understand that some music is simple relative to other music, but that's about it, isn't it?
It's very relative and subjective. It's all in the eye of the beholder.


Disclaimer: I don't meant What is good. I'm not at all an advocate of the view that
there is no good or bad, just taste and art. And I hope there won't be any further discussion
on that!
 
Simplicity is contextual, that's for sure. As you rightly point out, what is easy to one player, is not easy for another, etc, but I think your example is less about simple, & more about relative ability.

In the context of a musical part, I think the tag simple can be applied to the minimum number of "notes" that can be played whilst still delivering a wholesome performance.
 
All very good points. I would just add another thing to the whole debate: A simple groove may be easy to learn, but you can still spend a lifetime trying to master it. We all know drummers who can play a seemingly really simple groove (e.g. kick on 1 and 3, snare on 2 and 4) and make it sound absolutely incredible, while others can play those same exact notes and not sound nearly as good.
 
keep it simple said:
In the context of a musical part, I think the tag simple can be applied to the minimum number of "notes" that can be played whilst still delivering a wholesome performance.
Click to expand...

Nicely put, Andy, although that would probably be called minimalism, which is all about clarity and purity of expression.

As you would well know, simplicity is often not the same as easy - it's harder than it looks because each element of the patterns are more critical and imperfections can't be buried by sketchy noodling.
 
To me, sometimes what is viewed by some as "simple" is extremely complex.

Many have tried to play a 2 + 4 money beat like Gadd, Porcaro, etc... Not many have made it feel like they have. Their deep pocket is extremely complex to me.

Simplicity can mean something different across different genres as well but I do think Andy describes it best with what he wrote.

keep it simple said:
Simplicity is contextual, that's for sure. As you rightly point out, what is easy to one player, is not easy for another, etc, but I think your example is less about simple, & more about relative ability.

In the context of a musical part, I think the tag simple can be applied to the minimum number of "notes" that can be played whilst still delivering a wholesome performance.
Click to expand...
 
dmacc said:
To me, sometimes what is viewed by some as "simple" is extremely complex.

Many have tried to play a 2 + 4 money beat like Gadd, Porcaro, etc... Not many have made it feel like they have. Their deep pocket is extremely complex to me.
Click to expand...

This speaks to me, dmacc. I learned what everyone else calls "complex" many years ago. It's "easy" to me now.

But what others think is simple, like that pocket, is what I find extraordinarily complex.
 
dmacc said:
To me, sometimes what is viewed by some as "simple" is extremely complex.

Many have tried to play a 2 + 4 money beat like Gadd, Porcaro, etc... Not many have made it feel like they have. Their deep pocket is extremely complex to me.

Simplicity can mean something different across different genres as well but I do think Andy describes it best with what he wrote.
Click to expand...

There's a million way to lay down a "simple" groove, using the very same pattern, there's nothing simple about it, it's all about making the song/project sound good, and that's not easy .

Yes, Andy described it really well indeed... he also invented a new Drummerworld's word, in regards to "playing simple is extremely complex" = Simplex !!!
 
The Money beat is simple is you think in terms bass 1 + 3, snare 2 + 4, 1/8 notes on the hats.
It gets very complex if you delve into micro-timing (pushing or pulling the beat) and getting the exact sound out of each part of your kit. The pulse in the slosh of your hats, the exact tone from your snare, a punchy but controlled bass drum. I'm not trying to hit my snare on 2 + 4, I'm trying to hit it just right to get that one awesome sound out EVERY time.

The great thing is you can do this way of thinking for all your beats, the money beat is just the easiest to take the time and there is enough space for every choice to matter.
 
Like so much in language, it is subjective....requiring comparison for context.

Some of the definitions of the word simple might serve to enlighten our usage...


5d. constituting a basic element : fundamental

5e. not made up of many like units

6. free from elaboration or figuration

...and my favorite...

2a. free from vanity
 
Swiss Matthias said:
There's a lot of threads and posts out there on simple vs. complex, groove vs. technicality.
But really what is simple, and what is complex? Isn't it all subjective?

An intermediate beginner's hip, intricate groove is another drummer's easy warm-up.
Some people's mind-boggling rhythmic structures are other people's daily bread.
One listener's nice melody is another one's boring and predictable cliché.
One musician's well thought out and moving arrangement is another musician's mental overload.
Some people's favorite song is the same old routine of tones, chords and groove to others.

When my student yells "man that's too difficult" today, he will eat it for lunch a year from now.

I understand that some music is simple relative to other music, but that's about it, isn't it?
It's very relative and subjective. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's kind of a hard question. I guess most people would agree that Shakti is more complex than your average Eurovision song. I think the subjective thing you're talking about kind of goes away once people are exposed to a lot of music, and develop a professional level of ability; at which point I've noticed they tend to kind of agree which are the hard, easy, boring, or fun to play tunes, for example. An exception might be players who (I think) have thrown their barometer off by spending all of their time with really dense/complex music-- I think a certain type of jazz player, and metal guys might fall under that category.
 
What is hip?

Sometimes hipness is, what it ain't.

Kind of the same thing. I think you summed it all up in your post.

Even in my short time playing, I remember playing along to records when I first started and just playing through certain fills or changing grooves to make them easier since I didn't have the independence or the chops to play them.

Now, (and I really don't practice much), a lot of that stuff just comes out so much more easily.

A lot of funk and soul and R&B grooves and parts became so much more understandable once I got into jazz. I really started to understand time and syncopation and rhythm in general, and that opened up my playing in rock and funk beyond imagination.

It really is all relative. I think Tony Williams would laugh at kids who idolize Neil Peart since Tony could have played all that stuff when he was 17 before Rush ever did it..
 
keep it simple said:
In the context of a musical part, I think the tag simple can be applied to the minimum number of "notes" that can be played whilst still delivering a wholesome performance.
Click to expand...
Good thought! Maybe you could also say simplicity is get maximum expression with
minimal content?
Naigewron said:
All very good points. I would just add another thing to the whole debate: A simple groove may be easy to learn, but you can still spend a lifetime trying to master it. We all know drummers who can play a seemingly really simple groove (e.g. kick on 1 and 3, snare on 2 and 4) and make it sound absolutely incredible, while others can play those same exact notes and not sound nearly as good.
Click to expand...
Yes! Though I don't really think of the art of how to play something as complex.
Difficult - yes!
Otto said:
Some of the definitions of the word simple might serve to enlighten our usage...


5d. constituting a basic element : fundamental

5e. not made up of many like units

6. free from elaboration or figuration

...and my favorite...

2a. free from vanity
Click to expand...
Nice!
toddbishop said:
I think the subjective thing you're talking about kind of goes away once people are exposed to a lot of music, and develop a professional level of ability; at which point I've noticed they tend to kind of agree which are the hard, easy, boring, or fun to play tunes, for example. An exception might be players who (I think) have thrown their barometer off by spending all of their time with really dense/complex music-- I think a certain type of jazz player, and metal guys might fall under that category.
Click to expand...
Very good point, I agree.
?uesto said:
I think Tony Williams would laugh at kids who idolize Neil Peart since Tony could have played all that stuff when he was 17 before Rush ever did it..
Click to expand...
On one hand, yes, but on the other hand, Tony Williams didn't write one single Rush
drum part, but Neil did :).
Many musicians can play parts others have played - but only one invented the parts.
 
So we could say that complexity lies in the deeper levels of simplicity? There won't be
anything simple anymore then, though...!

As toddbishop mentions, in the "professional" world we most probably could find an
agreement on what music is objectively simple and what is not.

Maybe in the world of everyday listeners and hobby players we could find that, too?
I don't think so though, because, as said before, every piece of music, and every
instrumental part has many levels to it, and some of them are very complex.

Maybe I should have written all this in the "random thoughts" thread - oh well....!!
 
It must be "simple" to watch a lot of TV, be fat, lazy and stupid because there are many
out there.
 
groove1 said:
It must be "simple" to watch a lot of TV, be fat, lazy and stupid because there are many
out there.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that is true. One awesome thing about music and drumming is that when we are drumming, our best is beautiful to us. It may be a simple beat to anyone else, but when we do it, it sounds as good as anything because we know that hours of hard work and practice got us to this point. Complex for us could be just an extra beat here and there, or it could be a really tough beat, but it is what we play and part of who we are. That is the awesome thing about drumming.
 
to me....the word simple when pertaining to music....or more specifically drumming ....does not mean not difficult ....or easy to play

to me it means not elaborate

there are plenty of non elaborate pieces of drumming that are very difficult to play affectively
 
Completely agree with Anthony (again) - it's reduced ornamentation.

Why be simple? Why add ornaments? One of the more interesting exercises I've seen on this site was when Bill Bachman played a Nashville type version of Rush's Tom Sawyer as a lark.

Some were having a good laugh but a few of us thought the music sounded better with Bill's much simplified part. Not that the drumming sounded better - the music. Less drums meant more melody and lyrics.

I'm not being post modern - Bill had to nail the "Nashville Sawyer" part and he did. If he - or another drummer - messed up the simplified version they'd just look silly. If you try for Neil's part and mess up, all but a few heroes would think, "Oh well. Brave try".
 
I've read this entire thread and it's deep. Unfortunately, as was already stated, what is simple is basically based on context. And even if you play 'simply' that's dependent on what fits the music. I'll continue to watch this one.
 
My ear REALLY turns to those pieces where they seem both simple AND complex.


...Jeff Porcaro and the Rosanna Shuffle...even though done by Purdie and Bonham, I still see his take on it sublimely complex with a body of simplicity.

...Sound Of Muzak by Gavin Harrison...sounds simple really...in an odd meter way...but intertwines with the tenacity of Kudzu and the elegance of smoke.

...check out Tomo's work on the Damien Rice song Grey Room....the left hand triplet work is so subtle and seemingly simple that its easy to ignore...yet try it some time..see if you can make it 'groove' like that. The song loses so much without it.


I bet Im not the only one with this observation.

What does that say about simplicity and complexity?

To me, they don't seem as diametricly opposed as they might at first glance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top