Most complex rock album of all time?

I'd probably say Behold the Arctopus
So complex its hard to listen to and enjoy

>>74180435
yeah it's probably that
though I mean complexity isn't a linear model it's more a plane: there are albums with not a lot of complexity in terms of dissonance or polyrhythms but more complexity in form and other areas

Twin Infinitives

>>74180450
No that album is just bad
A bunch of wank at one volume with no style
It's the reason most metal is complete garbage, there's no dynamic variety or anything

>>74180435
More like the shittiest piece of "music" ever taken seriously.

Ffs, This album is absolute garbage and it pisses me when psuedointellectual plebs hype this album up as some masterpiece.

>>74180492
What's your opinion on Blotted Science?

File: cover.jpg (37KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x500px

my pick for complexity in terms of symbolic lyricism and up to interp stories

fast and bulbous

what is it means by this

>>74180518
this is gemini, by wild nothing, btw

File: 15736-labirinto-dacqua.jpg (92KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x500px

This album is pretty crazy. Amazing and easily one of my favorite albums as a result. Super complex. If you want to find the most complex rock look no further than Rock In Opposition

>>74180514
haven't heard them
listening now and I mean it sounds like BTA
all at one volume, no style inflection, no variety of timbre, it's just fucking guitar/drum wank

Like here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU4XRRcTWTo

this is guitar writing that uses specific articulations, styles, dynamics to get its point across

and uses diverse timbres

>>74180492
We are not talking about "dynamic variety" here we are talking about complexity

>>74180511
But it's very obviously good, dumb idiot.
If you're baiting, anyway.

>>74180492
You post one then fag

>>74180588
If you're not* baiting I mean.

>>74180492
pleb detected

>>74180538

King Crimson I feel is in a whole different category.
I was meaning technicality and song structure complexity.
The song you referenced reminded me the beginning of "The Noose" by A Perfect Circle.
Will definitely listen to more.

>>74180588
I'm the dumb idiot, ahahahaha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvdrwRs27hE

Tell me how this is "obviously good," really, I want to hear a detailed explanation of how this is good. What I hear is an instrumental that is not tight whatsoever, put together terribly with a groove that hardly exists. With "vocals" that don't even qualify as vocals but rather as some retarded voice over. And what the fuck is this outro? They add some retarded trumpet/synth solo that sounds disgusting.The song drags on and on and is a fucking pain to listen to, this goes for almost every song on the album. So really, explain to me how this is good. I really want to hear it.

>>74180648
Agreed

This is garbage.

Some contenders that I can think of.

Encenathrakh: metal band that plays complex riffs in various time sigs that also never repeats riffs. Hits melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and structural complexity.

Henry Cow: avant rock band that does all sorts of weird progressions, and has a heavy 20th century classical/free jazz influence that makes them far more complex on some of their stuff than most rock music.

Jazz rock classified stuff like Mahavishnu Orchestra and Steely Dan is constantly changing time sigs with very technical melodic work as well. This stuff is closer to jazz than most rock that's why.

It's mostly rhythmic, but avant metal dude Jyte Gyte's approach to rhythm is batshit crazy.

>>74180435
Nope. TMR's guitars parts, and most vocal/horn sections as well, never go outside the blues scale. It's one of the most harmonically simple albums there is as rhythmically complex as it gets. Melodically it's not complex either if one pays attention to each individual part to see what each individual person is playing.
>>74180450
Pretty good contender, but that's kinda their thing. They focus exclusively on technicality rather than what I would personally call good songwriting.
>>74180492
>no dynamic variety
Glad retards like you don't listen to metal. Metal often takes one of the most interesting approaches to dynamics in that dynamics happen often through interaction between the many parts rather than the more cliche "gonna start with just bass then add everyone" or "clean guitar, then loud dirty guitar" which are probably examples you had in your head (and which metal also does as well, but it's not what makes it special.)

>>74180648
That off beat solo is the best part.

>>74180648
yeah, this was literally uncomfortable to listen to. it sounds like it was put together in bandcamp with guitar and drum samples by a 14 year old

>>74180747
you have autism. its awful.

>>74180769
>if you like things I don't like you have autism
Do the world a favor and stop posting

>>74180648
Listen to Moonlight on Vermont and seriously try and say it's bad. You can't.

>>74180435
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vygQZ9hYqyE

>>74180648
I can't hear how this is bad

>>74180733
lmao
theres no c9#5's in there so its not complex right u stupid faggot

>>74180435
Beefheart would have laughed at anyone who described this album as complex OR as rock. The only songs that resemble rock are Moonlight on Vermont and Veterans Day Poppy which were recorded well before the rest of the album. People here who don't get this album are 'can't into jazz', between ages 16 and 21, and responsible for 95+% of the Kanye and Kendrick threads on this forum.

>>74180827
I never said it's not complex at all. But outside it's rhythmic timing, everything else is very simple on TMR, and that's probably what draws people to it.

>>74180961
Do you like BadBadNotGood

>>74180435
literally any prog album

>>74180648
>having a plunger this far up your ass over a man that goes by Captain BeeFart

>>74180648
The playing is complex and very well-timed, the melodies don't follow conventions but are still cool-sounding, the lyrics are fun, the time-signatures are basic but with complicated rhythms within them, the sound is unique because of the vocals and recording techniques. What's not to like?

>a groove that hardly exists
What are you talking about.
This revolves around the groove.
Dumb idiot.

>>74180748
Nope, it sounds unique and choreographed. And the drums sound about as far away as sampled as can be as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZFG1yAxjdQ

>>74180648
>I want to hear a detailed explanation of how this is good.

https://youtu.be/-FhhB9teHqU?t=11m39s

For Frownland, the opening track.

>>74180986
see
>>74181137

>>74181137
Hi Sam!

>>74181137
>>74181175
Stop spamming this guy.
Why does /mu/ try to ruin anything good?

>>74181183
I doubt he goes on /mu/ desu

>>74181216
It's literally just an analysis of a Beefheart song by an actual composer, it's informative.

I don't understand how this ruins anything.

>>74181216
If I could find any less cringy but as thorough and helpful nalysis of anything on TMR I'd post it instead

>>74181175
Have you seen that or pay attention to what I am saying? The majority of the video he talks about how asynchronous they were, he even goes over how the music isn't actually atonal, then when he gets into the blocks he shows the tracks are doing Cmaj, Emin/Gmaj which is as standard/basic as it gets for rock music.

The video proves my point. Like, how little do you know about music to think the video says otherwise?

>>74181265
>>74181273
You guys are going to ruin him and he's going to analysis fucking memes you cunts can just leave.

File: station to station.jpg (180KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1500x1500px

An argument can be made for Station to Station. Just the intro to the title track alone is a combination of a single guitar fed through amplifier after amplifier (6 if I remember correctly.)

>>74181293
I didn't read your original post before replying, but I read

>But outside it's rhythmic timing, everything else is very simple on TMR, and that's probably what draws people to it.

And off the top of my head remembered Sam in the video mentioning the bass player playing 3rd chords.

I nominate Ruins. Probably the most complex for a two piece band anyway, in terms of the time needed to rehearse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-XDDPCu28

>>74181438
3rd chords aren't complex though. They are used a ton in all forms of rock music, and there's nothing complex about a chord that still stays in the same triad as the root.

>>74181411
An elaborate recording process isn't the same as complex music, although it counts for something

plenty of albums involved shit that was super weird or convoluted or tedious in one way or another

>>74181637
Not that guy, but recording's at this point just as much a part of the composition as anything else considering how big a difference music production makes. Just because it's not conventionally complex doesn't mean it can't be complex either.

>>74181745
yeah but you can't really even try to quantify that

With "musical" complexity you could at least count note events or look for lack of repetition. Complexity in the recording process isn't necessarily even evident to the listener, and unless it's explicitly described you have no way of knowing. It becomes kind of meaningless to try to talk about it or compare things that way.

>>74181411
well then why don't you make the argument instead of describing a pretty dull "le experimental" recording process

>>74181137
thanks for posting this, really enjoyed his analysis

>>74181797
Well we can try at least with the records we do know how they were made. Bowie, along with Beatles, Pink Floyd, and Radiohead are great examples of crazy studio work in rock music. Maybe Queen and Springsteen as well due to stupidly high sounds of layering.

File: giphy.gif (1MB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x290px

>>74182034
Springsteen is complex? Are you fucking retarded?

>>74181505
THIS

>>74182034
That kind of shit was/is really pretty common. Recording and really using a studio really isn't a straightforward process. And a lot of the weird shit is done to cover up a performer's limitations or budget constraints or whatever. Probably 10cc/Godley and Creme went the furthest in that direction.

But much of it was just laborious because of the tools that were used at the time. I mean doing stuff by splicing tape (like say John Baker) is far more involved than programming shit in Renoise, even though the end result isn't necessarily very different. As time goes by it's easier to get the same result.

>>74182126
Not as retarded as the person who hasn't noticed that we are talking recording/production techniques, in which case Springsteen's definitely up there due to layering every single instrument numerous times.

>>74182126
I like Springsteen a lot actually, but yeah, describing him as complex is misleading. The production on his "walls of sound" albums (like Born to Run, The Wild, The Innocent, and the E Street Shuffle, The River, etc.) is commendable. His band is also very tight with transitions and medleys, and his live performances have a great sense of dramatic narrative communicated via setlist, but it's more about the synthesis of simple parts than the parts themselves.

>>74182204
I know you are talking about recording techniques and no he is not up there in terms of that

>>74182204
A lot of bands do that anon Springsteen is not an exception

>>74182163
But is something like say...Timbo having 72 separate tracks (60 instrument, 12 vocal) for the song Sexyback or Brian May layering close to a hundred guitars as common as just putting a low pass filter and some compression?

>>74182229
>>74182241
He definitely is. Like May he would also do close to a hundred layers as well, and of course it gets tougher to do the more layers there are. I am not saying nobody layers, but May and Springsteen layered a lot.

Feel free to give some substantive counter examples for relative comparison.

>>74182355
how does this make the music complex? It does change the sound but all it does is make the recording process more complex not the music itself

>>74182289
> just putting a low pass filter and some compression?
why would you assume it's common to do something that simple?

The thing is, complex studio shit is generally done to get the desired result with what's available. It's not really an effort to make things complicated. If you want a brass section on a budget, hire one guy and have him overdub the fuck out of everything. If the singer sucks, record 40 takes and splice together the least shitty parts, and show down the tape and fly in the parts that are out of their range. If the budget is sufficient to begin with and the band is prepared and capable, much of this stuff isn't necessary. And if you have a computer you don't have to splice tape or bounce tracks or wait for it to rewind.

>>74182383
How do effects not make music more complex? Step out of the 1600s, because the recording/production process plays a huge part in composition itself. This is like saying composer Edgard Varese's electronic stuff wasn't complex just cuz the complexities are all effects based.
>>74182396
>why would you assume it's common to do something that simple?
Because both are common industry trends? I am kinda surprised you asked me this.

While I understand the situational aspect, again, that doesn't mean it cant be complex. Not to mention there's a difference between tedious (which entails most of your examples) and complex.

>>74180511
Why are you acting plebeian? This is a patrician board.

>>74182582
>Because both are common industry trends? I am kinda surprised you asked me this.
Okay but you're trivializing stuff just because you're not watching people actually do it. There's more to recording than that, even if there aren't a million overdubs. Even a really minimalist recording leaves a lot of room for obsessive perfectionism.

>Not to mention there's a difference between tedious (which entails most of your examples) and complex.
There's not really a workable definition for either. A convoluted recording process doesn't necessarily imply that there's any kind of artistic genius behind it.

And layering a million guitar or vocal overdubs is also just tedious. It's not more really more "complex" than hiring an orchestra or choir or whatever.

My point is that there's not really anything meaningful to discuss or compare here.

>>74181311
An actual composer who attended a conservatory analyzing memes? Not going to happen.

>>74181273
>Cringy
So, you're still scared of big words and the lack of memes? Go ahead, post Fantano's review of the album.

>>74180748
>yeah, this was literally uncomfortable to listen to. it sounds like it was put together in bandcamp with guitar and drum samples by a 14 year old
https://youtu.be/6tCLPL8otMM
Yeah, people ignorant of music theory have compositions like this all over Bandcamp.

>>74182748
complicated doesn't mean difficult to compose though

>>74182791
So, where are such examples on Bandcamp?

>>74180733
>Never go outside the blues scale
https://youtu.be/U0Bw4M-Lhuo
Drop DG tuning with a capo on the 9th fret. Is that how every blues rock song is played? Not to mention the slide.
https://youtu.be/1kTOxGpBLu0
https://youtu.be/WMVZJsGldDU
Just standard blues rock?

>>74180505
How?

>>74180648

of all songs, you choose this one?

it actually has a relatively coherent rhythm to it

there's MUCH worse ones throughout the album, like Big Joan sets up

>>74181293
Yeah, we've all listened to the album many times, but where are similar rock albums people are drawn to, since you're implying that?