It's harder to make a good pop/rock song than it is to make

File: 150195871.jpg (12KB, 300x295px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x295px

>More frogposters?

Depends on what kind of "experimental" you're making. If it's just an hour of the same note or whatever, than sure. But some "experimental" involves painstaking attention to detail and coordination of many instruments.

Know from personal experience? Show us your compositions anon

>>72087654
Your point is moot when you consider the fact that it's impossible to come up with a universally accepible definition of "good" as it applies to either pop or experimental music.

Try again next week.

>>72087679
Basically this.

>>72087654
well yeah since most pop/rock ends up shit
therefore, making a pop/rock song that actually sounds as good as the average experimental song is incredibly difficult, and even requires elements of the experimental to do. Too bad these cases are incredibly rare.
"experimental" songs, as you call them, are fully dependent on what the composer is willing to do. as long as a boundary is pushed, an experimental piece is good. problem is, nobody is willing to push.
so in the end experimental is hard to think up, but an amazing pop/rock song requires you to work within the boundaries.

>>72087654
Depends really, doesn't it? It probably took much less time to make Love Me Do than it did to make Revolution 9

>>72087679
^

>>72087692
CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!

>>72087692
>impossible to come up with a universally accepible definition of "good"
album title is bold on RYM

It's harder to make a good pop/rock song than it is to shit out nonsense and label it as experimental but it's easier to follow a template than make a good experimental song. Which is to say, it's really easy to shit something out and label it as experimental.

>>72087654

dicking around =/= experimental