>>127428331
>Clearly in the background
Personal incredulity fallacy.
>It isn't false, that's the point.
There's nothing inherently fallacious about comparing Brahms to Yes. If you disagree, use rhetoric and logic correctly and name the fallacy.
>Your point is that you want to look impressive to people.
Cool theory, any evidence? Because I can't help but notice it's mainly in rock threads were people with intellectual inferiority complexes keep making this argument, as opposed to jazz or latin music or ambient threads or whatever.
>Calling Brahms simple in any capacity betrays the fact that you have no understanding of his music
I think he's simple by classical music standards. Note that doesn't mean he's bad or simplistic, he simply wasn't a master at harmony or counterpoint or whatever. He still wrote gorgeous stuff for violin and piano especially imo, and even in pieces that were designed to be, for lack of a better word, "simple", it's still far more complex than any prog album. Maybe he's more moderate when it comes to complexity, rather than simple, but either way your autism is making you miss the forest for the trees as far as my reasoning is concerned.
