It's a random-walk of blues riffs over a stock diatonic chord progression with a slow (and predictable) harmonic rhythm.
The only conceivable surprise is a crude chromatic key change to the minor version of the raised mediant.
You'd think the precision of those dynamic envelopes and timbral games would push the artist to venture out and explore that mediant relationship to create quicker and more jarring harmonic progressions and modulations. But no-- it turns out to be less inventive than the mediant chains emanating from, say, Joni Mitchell and her acoustic guitar over fifty years ago:
Compared to the cookie-cutter harmony and melody of the music you linked, even Mitchell's augmented triad in the melody at the end of the chorus sounds like the musical equivalent of solving fast homomorphic encryption.
It's the the audio tech that is on display in the music you linked, so every other musical consideration shifts to the background to illuminate that tech. I get that. But holy shit why does that baseline have to be stuck in the fucking 1650s? While I love the "electrified Vivaldi" hack that is heavy metal from the late 70s/early 80s (Master of Puppets et al), I question whether we really need more than one musical genre based on that parlor trick.
It would be like every stand up comedian ending their set with increasingly theatrical pyrotechnic pull-my-finger jokes. I could laugh my ass off at the absurdity for a year, maybe two. But forever?
It’s possible you’re stuck on the first slope of the dunning kruger graph.
My (possibly wrong) impression of your comment is that you seem to have made the mistake of associating complexity with quality in music which is extremely common in those who’ve just started looking into music theory.
Most music needs only the smallest dash of novelty to achieve the perfect mix of the new and familiar to its target audience. If you start attempting to evaluate popular music on what about it is inventive or new, you’re likely to find yourself unable to appreciate most of what people are enjoying and cut yourself off from loving a broad spectrum of musical expression.
You might also find yourself unable to express why you enjoy the music you do like in a way that doesn’t come across as if you’re arguing an objective scientific point——an approach which might undercut your argument by making you unintentionally come across as someone who has just learned a lot of fancy theory jargon and is eager for an excuse to wield it.
The only conceivable surprise is a crude chromatic key change to the minor version of the raised mediant.
You'd think the precision of those dynamic envelopes and timbral games would push the artist to venture out and explore that mediant relationship to create quicker and more jarring harmonic progressions and modulations. But no-- it turns out to be less inventive than the mediant chains emanating from, say, Joni Mitchell and her acoustic guitar over fifty years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q2jiRUVLgI
(I find some of the lyrics apt, too.)
Compared to the cookie-cutter harmony and melody of the music you linked, even Mitchell's augmented triad in the melody at the end of the chorus sounds like the musical equivalent of solving fast homomorphic encryption.
It's the the audio tech that is on display in the music you linked, so every other musical consideration shifts to the background to illuminate that tech. I get that. But holy shit why does that baseline have to be stuck in the fucking 1650s? While I love the "electrified Vivaldi" hack that is heavy metal from the late 70s/early 80s (Master of Puppets et al), I question whether we really need more than one musical genre based on that parlor trick.
It would be like every stand up comedian ending their set with increasingly theatrical pyrotechnic pull-my-finger jokes. I could laugh my ass off at the absurdity for a year, maybe two. But forever?