The Smiley Smile Message Board

I was just wondering if anybody knows any popular music that was musically complex but didn't really sound like it. Like the Beach Boys. They had all kinds of chords from diminished to minor seventh to major seventh to m7(b5). Yet if you listen to it without knowing that, you would really ever guess that there was something crazy going on musically. Now my question is what are some other pop bands or songs that are like this? Complex musically yet accessible to almost everyone.

I would put a lot of pre-rock pop music in that category: think musicals, Broadway, Tin Pan Alley, Gershwin, Cole Porter, etc. They tend to come either from jazz backgrounds (in terms of harmonic language) or more traditional western music for song structures, and so the relatively simple I-IV-V or I-vi-ii (or IV)-V progressions of rock aren't quite so heavily leaned upon. Don't misunderstand, the basis of all western music is more or less a combination of those progressions, but the pre-rock musics tended to build upon them by using substitutions, secondary chords, key changes, etc.

As far as pop goes no...but there's some stuff in metal that's interesting

Tool - Schism
Korn - Freak on a leash, Blind

I don't know if you've figured this one out, because it's pretty obvious, but Bacharach is the champion of this.

I also don't know how 'simple' they sound, but The High Llamas and The Heavy Blinkers both know their way around inventive chord progressions. But then they're both pretty huge Bacharach/Wilson fans, so it comes from there.

Also, and this is probably a pretty stupid one, but The Raspberries (powerpop heroes) also do cool things with key changes and odd chords in their middle eights and things.  

Oh, and Todd Rundgren. Hello It's Me is pretty ridiculous chordwise, isn't it?

Quite a few rock and pop bands stumble on unusual chord combinations or change time signatures during a song or do other "complex" things by accident.   Anyone can mess around on a piano or during a jam session and come up with something they think sounds cool, and they don't even realize that they're doing something unusual or complicated.  Even some jazz is made that way, with players who aren't well-trained but have a great ear or feel for the music. 

The verse to All You Need Is Love is odd metered and the fade is a sort of musique concréte pastiche that becomes a swirl of sound anchored by the chant. There is plenty more going on in the song, like the polyrhythms of some of string parts, but those two features immediately came to mind.  I first heard this as an exclusive on either KEWB or KYA. My aunt was throwing a luau, which was exciting in itself, but when that song came on I froze, transfixed with amazement. It seemed so simple, yet otherworldly. They were so clever.

Most of Pixies and Frank Black's first 3 solo albums offer a lot of complexity and a unique/highly individualistic approach to song writing but definitely accessible (couple of early songs are acquired tastes).

Similarly so for Kim Deal's Breeders offerings, "Last Splash" especially.

Nice call, especially if you are looking for something with a harder rock edge. Probably my favorite Pixies song: Velouria http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUm5T8uQIY

I couldn't find a really good sounding YouTube vid, they all sound really compressed, but you can still get a pretty good idea of what's going on.

Yup- first person I thought of was Burt Bacharach. Very easy to listen to, but also quite inventive and complex when you  get beneath the surface.

Well,  The Beatles! obviously, they recorded some of the catchiest yet complex songs in terms of chord structures, melody and rythm. All you have to do is listen to Rubber Soul to Abbey Road :)

Also I´m thinking of Queen as one of those few acts able to do complex but easy to listen songs (We are the champions have some odd chords in tha famous chorus, not to mention Bohemian Rhapsody or the whole Queen II)

Left Bank is another band who could do that...and Radiohead, recently i had the opportunity to see them and listen to them live, and it´s an awsome experience, they all are great musicians, and most of their material is heavily influenced by jazz (particularly Miles Davis). Their last albums contains interesting experiments with melody and odd rythmic patterns.

If you're talking about more modern bands, Oasis did some pretty complex stuff, complex in the idea of being over-produced.  Some songs would have 12 or 15 guitar tracks, for instance. 

I think Led Zeppelin's stuff was always very complex with interesting time signatures that frequently changed mid-song.  Also they would do lots of tricky things like have the song in 1 time, but have the guitar in a different signature.

So for instance, the drums/bass/lyrics might be 'resolving' or whatever on a 4/4 time signature, but the guitar would 'resolve' every 5 beats.  "Kashmir" being one of the best examples of that. 

Jimmy Webb. "MacArthur Park."  The songs he did for Glen Campbell and the 5th Dimension.

The modulation halfway through the chorus of The Who's Pictures Of Lily is a great example. Other than that, for consistency, I'd say ABBA's compositions nearly rival Wilson and Bacharach.

I haven't looked at the chords but "THE WHO DR JEKYLL & MR HYDE" sounds very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUFgqKbu2Fo

Haha, not a lot of love for britpop around here. What does anyone think of blur? I mean of course some people will be like "eh, 'Song 2' is nice". But if you look throughout their discography, and study the music, it's crazy complex. Plus the guitarist and bassist are the two most creative at their respective instruments of the last twenty years. That's a definite thing in my opinion.

I haven't heard much from them, but I've heard they're good.  I never heard they were good from Oasis, though.  They said they sucked, lol.  I do think a lot of that brit-pop stuff is complicated, though, definately. 

Haha, well I really never really got why Oasis spent so much time talking about who sucks, and who's overrated, when they really should have been looking at their own music. Noel Gallagher is still writing the same songs he was back in 1994, while Damon Albarn (from blur) already has had at least two other very successful projects (Gorillaz and the Good, the Bad, and the Queen) that were diverse and creative. He's pretty much like the modern day Bowie. Always doing something new.

It's because they 'made it' .  They had such gigantic egos, and as I'm sure you know, were signed to a major contract immediately... then had pretty good success with their first album, and unbelievable, most people would die for it-success with their second album.  So they stagnated there. 

Most musicians with egos get shown, time and time again, exactly why they suck, so they became better over time, until eventually maybe they DO get really good.  Hell even the Beatles suffered a bit before they made it big. 

Oasis though?  Straight to the top, so they believe their own press.  Noel writes the same old songs because he thinks he's the greatest songwriter alive and they're all perfect. 

Real shame, really, because they were one of the most refreshingly talented bands i'd ever heard, but real talent never stops growing and developing, sadly Oasis did. 

Because Noel Gallagher is a miserable twat?

LOL "do i really wanna get banned?" is that a threat towards me? does anyone else see that?

Yeah but it's not a threat towards you. It happens whenever you put a P and an M next to each other now. I think the warning was sufficient enough, personally. Just put an extra space between the two letters and you'll be fine.

Both him and his brother. Their parents didn't do a very good job at teaching them humility.

Meh, it was their shtick in the same way as it was for The Who and The Sex Pistols. They belong to that tradition. Hell, even Lennon -- he said some pretty brutal things about the Stones and The Hollies, etc. in his day.

Weezer- Blue Album

Grizzly Bear is a 'new' band which employ complex musical layering in the vain of BW and Spector.