You know, Grimes is actually great. Thoughts?

You know, Grimes is actually great. Thoughts?

I think she's great

I think she's great

She can't be that great, since her music is harmonically not that complex.

Complex != good. But, still...

>almost every song is 3-5 minutes long, with a standard 4/4 beat, a verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structure, 2-4 chords (oblivion is just two for the entire song), and built on traditional, natural scales.

>Again - it depends on the style of music. In small-ensemble situations (typified by the jazz and classical chamber groups) sonic interest is principally achieved through variations in scale, chord progression, time signature, and tempo (aspects known as the horizontal axis elements of music in music theory circles - since they're rendered horizontally in standard music notation) rather than through variations in sonic texture and timbre.

>In contrast to this, large ensemble situations (typified by layered/sample based music - ala Grimes - and classical orchestra/organ music) the opposite is true. Sonic interest is primarily achieved through variations of sonic texture and timbre (aspects known as the vertical axis elements of music in music theory - since they rendered vertically standard music notation) brought about by combining individual samples/instruments together in constantly changing configurations, while leaving the horizontal axis elements relatively untouched.

>One of the best classical examples of this latter method is Bach's Passacaglia in C Minor (originally written for organ, but transcribed here beautifully imo for full orchestra Johann Sebastian Bach - Passacaglia in C Minor BMV 582 (White Nights) Notice how, despite its extended running time and constantly variating sound, the horizontal axis elements described earlier are very simply defined and NEVER change (the entire song's chord progression consists of the same 4 chords repeated ad nauseum.)

>This is the sort of context in which the complexity of Grimes' music (especially regarding her earlier stuff) is based; constant, conscious variations in sound quality rather than formal structure.

I think Grimes is great and attractive but I keep that shit to myself and recognize that people like you are the reason people hate her

>Complex != good
That's not what I implied.

In fact a great musician can make both simple and complex music, while a not-great one will only be able to make simple music.

As you can see, Grimes has only made simple music, so we can infer that she is not great.

Disagreed.

>I keep that shit to myself
I didn't write that but I agree with it. What is your argument to refute that quote?

You agree with musical segregation?

>Grimes has only made simple music
I wouldn't say that her music is simple. e.g. Flesh Without Blood has 5 chords changes. It's her genius to make complex layered pieces to seem simple. Listen closely to her music and you'll discover a great deal of complexity. These little things are what make her music endlessly listenable and overplay-resistant.

I don't care. The main point of that quote was that her music is complex on the vertical axis of the elements of music ("constant, conscious variations in sound quality rather than formal structure").

>The main point of that quote was that her music is complex on the vertical axis
Then it was a non sequitur
>Flesh Without Blood has 5 chords changes
That's very simple.
>It's her genius to make complex layered pieces to seem simple.
except an actual genius could make complex layers on something complex harmonically and compositionally.
>endlessly listenable and overplay-resistant.
Not relevant

>Not relevant
Very relevant. The point of music is to be listened to. If a piece of music doesn't make you want to listen to it again and again, it's not good enough and def. not great.

>except an actual genius could make complex layers on something complex harmonically and compositionally.
An actual genius could make complex music to sound efortless or could make innovative music with simple elements. That separates the greats (Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, etc) from the rest. I'm not saying Grimes is Mozart 2, but her ability to make such great experimental pop without formal training is a sign of genius. All great artists have their own sound/style, and Grimes definitely has it.

she's ok

as the other user is arguing she doesn't push the boundaries at all but she's cute and the music is fun

>If a piece of music doesn't make you want to listen to it again and again, it's not good enough and def. not great.
I don't want to listen to it, so she's not great. Are you sure you still want to follow your own logic?
>but her ability to make such great experimental pop without formal training is a sign of genius
Incorrect see The burden of proof is on her to make something harmonically/compositionally complex in order to prove it. She has yet to do it.

Grimes is a pretentious mediocre artist that is only followed by betas who lust after her because they think she is ugly enough to be within their reach.

Incorrect.

STOP RESPONDING TO GRIMES THREADS
EVERYTHREAD IS JUST THESE FAT LONELY AUTIST THROWING OUT BUZZWORDS SAYINGS GRIMES DOES THIS HEHE

FILTER AND SAGE

>I don't want to listen to it, so she's not great.
That's right. She's not great TO YOU. Because surprise, surprise, music taste is subjective.

>Are you sure you still want to follow your own logic?
Sure.

>The burden of proof is on her to make something harmonically/compositionally complex in order to prove it. She has yet to do it.
Your starting point is wrong. Look at the definition of genius:
>an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.

This is pretty subjective. Not a single word about "something harmonically/compositionally complex". That is YOUR definition of genius.

If she's just ok and doesn't push the boundaries at all, who else is doing her kind of music? Post names.

It sometimes makes me mad how hot she is, then I see other pics of her like this and I don't care anymore about her or her shitty pop music

I can accept this. This is a fair and true criticism that most posters can't seem to put forth. Thanks for that, user.

I mean he's not wrong, she's kind of sticking to pre-established formulas in her arrangements and even her weird instrument choice sometimes isn't actually all that experimental.

her music is really fucking good, but it also really doesn't push any boundaries.

everybody she ripped off and dumbed down
grimes is just a compilation of other peoples sound repackaged to a newer audience

nothing wrong with that but nothing innovated at all in her music. her successor will be the boundary pushing artist the world is dying to hear

she was an awkward young woman who blossomed into a beautiful lady.