# Multiple Listens To Comprehend Art



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Do you think it is a necessity to have multiple listens to enjoy a work? I don't mean understanding it from different perspectives, or breaking apart its form and such, just mere enjoyment.

Have you heard the argument, that you see in the rock world a lot, that the best Art takes a few listens before you can enjoy it?

My opinion is no, it doesn't take multiple listens. I believe if we like something the first time we hear it, we are drawn to it to keep coming back and new things are revealed which may deepen our appreciation, but I don't buy that whole malarky that it takes multiple listens to "get it" and enjoy it at a base level.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I personally don't believe it's one way or another. A lot of times I can listen to music and not think much of it, then months or years later I have something stuck in my head, and dying to figure out what it was.

And then with some music, sometimes you have to hear it multiple times before understanding its purpose. In fact there are composers who write music intended to be heard over and over before grasping it. But just applying this phenomenon to any music is worthy, ime.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> I personally don't believe it's one way or another. I can listen to music and not think much of it, then months later I have something stuck in my head and dying to figure out what it was.


I think if we don't like it the first time we hear it, but keep listening, we are forcing it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> I personally don't believe it's one way or another. A lot of times I can listen to music and not think much of it, then months or years later I have something stuck in my head, and dying to figure out what it was.
> 
> And for every individual, some music is just made to be heard multiple times before understanding it well.


I think if you are craving it at a later time, it has affected you, just not in the immediate future. You can gain deeper understanding, but there has to be something compelling about it on that first listen that draws you back, otherwise you are forcing it, I believe.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I find it very difficult, sometimes, to tell if a work deserves a second listen. Usually, if there’s some actual dislike, I just move on. Otherwise, if a second listen still doesn’t register, I’ll put it aside and maybe revisit it in a year or two.

There’s so much music and so little time!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Otherwise, if a second listen still doesn't register, I'll put it aside and maybe revisit it in a year or two.


This gets into context. Perhaps you just weren't in the right mindset (age, life circumstances and/or job issues) to make you enjoy the work. So putting it aside for a later date way down the road sounds rational to me!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> I find it very difficult, sometimes, to tell if a work deserves a second listen


I think it's easier, for the most part, than we make it out to be as fanatics.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

How about looking at an attractive girl? Can a repeated experience sometimes increase one's enjoyment with the delight of making a new discovery after the first look? Or is everything experienced all at once at the first meeting?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> How about looking at an attractive girl? Does that sometimes increase one's enjoyment with the delight of making a new discovery after the first look?


Associations do play a big role in music appreciation!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> How about looking at an attractive girl? Can a repeated experience sometimes increase one's enjoyment with the delight of making a new discovery after the first look? Or is everything experienced all at once at the first meeting?


It's probably strengthened by repeated exposure to the pleasant association, though I think the first meeting could be enough. I don't think all associations lead to positive feelings towards whatever music is playing, though. If the person has a strong aversion to the work (genre) in question, it could just be forgotten.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

You're making two assertions here: 1. that "base level" enjoyment of a piece comes on the first listen or not at all; 2. that if we do "base level" enjoy a piece on the first listen, then we will listen to it again so that "new things are revealed." 

Your first assertion may or may not be true depending on how you define base level, or "mere", enjoyment. Frankly, I don't know what you mean by that phrase. As for the second assertion, I find it strange that you invoke base level enjoyment for first listens but invoke enjoyment in the sense of "understanding" for subsequent listens. You're clearly indicating a connection between the two senses of the word, even though you renounce such a connection at the top of your first post. Also, I have a hunch that the second assertion is false. That is, whatever you choose as your meaning of "base enjoyment", I can probably find a piece I listened to once, enjoyed it in this sense, and then ceased to listen to it thereafter.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's possible to enjoy a work one day and be indifferent to it the next, or the other way around. I can often tell when I'm hearing something I might enjoy more at another time. It's harder to guess whether my present pleasure will be replicated next time I listen.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

calvinpv said:


> You're making two assertions here: 1. that "base level" enjoyment of a piece comes on the first listen or not at all; 2. that if we do "base level" enjoy a piece on the first listen, then we will listen to it again so that "new things are revealed."
> 
> Your first assertion may or may not be true depending on how you define base level, or "mere", enjoyment. Frankly, I don't know what you mean by that phrase. As for the second assertion, I find it strange that you invoke base level enjoyment for first listens but invoke enjoyment in the sense of "understanding" for subsequent listens. You're clearly indicating a connection between the two senses of the word, even though you renounce such a connection at the top of your first post. Also, I have a hunch that the second assertion is false. That is, whatever you choose as your meaning of "base enjoyment", I can probably find a piece I listened to once, enjoyed it in this sense, and then ceased to listen to it thereafter.


If you ceased to listen to it again, it means you didn't enjoy it on a "base level". Base level enjoyment simply means you liked it after the first listen and want to hear it again. The more you hear it, the more you learn about it so your enjoyment deepens.

I can think of several times I liked a work and found it catchy (lots of pop), but wasn't interested in future listens. I think that is what you are referring to.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

There are works I've taken an instatnt liking to, that at a later time I have found there's no there there. There have been others it's taken me years to "get." And still others I haven't gotten yet, even though people whose opinions I respect say they are worthwhle. No hard and fast rule, and looking for one is silly.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I might add that I consider posts on this forum when deciding which works to listen to, and maybe give second chances. Not posts from _all _the members, of course!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> There are works I've taken an instatnt liking to, that at a later time I have found there's no there there. There have been others it's taken me years to "get." And still others I haven't gotten yet, even though people whose opinions I respect say they are worthwhle. No hard and fast rule, and looking for one is silly.


The thread was really more motivated by those that force themselves to like something, but I agree with your assertion.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> If you ceased to listen to it again, it means you didn't enjoy it on a "base level". Base level enjoyment simply means you liked it after the first listen and want to hear it again. The more you hear it, the more you learn about it so your enjoyment deepens.


Your reasoning is circular. So I enjoy a piece and want to listen to it again for some base (or "fundamental" or whatever term you want to use) reason, but I enjoy the piece in the base sense of the term because I like it the first time and want to listen again?



Captainnumber36 said:


> I can think of several times I liked a work and found it catchy (lots of pop), but wasn't interested in future listens. I think that is what you are referring to.


And you just gave me a counterexample to the second assertion you made.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think MarkW helped me understand my position better: 

- I think you can like a piece after first listen and go on to dislike it later. 
- I think you can like a piece after first listen and learn about it and thus deepen appreciation of it.
- I think you can dislike a work on first listen but find appreciation later.
- I think you can dislike a work on first listen and go on to never hear it again.

I just don't like when folks pretend to like something, the pretentious side of Art. "It's so abstract and genius".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

edited and deleted.


----------



## calvinpv (Apr 20, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think MarkW helped me understand my position better:
> 
> - I think you can like a piece after first listen and go on to dislike it later.
> - I think you can like a piece after first listen and go on to keep learning more about it and thus deepen appreciation of it.
> ...


I would agree with this. We can find plenty of pieces that satisfy any one of these four statements, which shows that the relationship between number of listens and "liking" a piece (in whatever sense of "like" you want to use) is more complicated than it seems. I can also sympathize with your dislike of those who may like a work of art or music for pretentious reasons. The thing is, though, I think we can all be guilty of this to some degree. Maybe I have never used the words "abstract" or "genius" to describe why I liked a piece, but I'm sure there were plenty of times where I liked a piece and I either couldn't give a reason why I liked it or I did give a reason but it lacked "conviction", so to speak.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Depends if I was familiar with the style. If I am, one listen is enough. Even in Beethoven I had trouble in getting his later works by casual listening since I wasn't familiar with the style. Liszt, Schoenberg and Mahler also took a while.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I think MarkW helped me understand my position better:
> 
> - I think you can like a piece after first listen and go on to dislike it later.
> - I think you can like a piece after first listen and learn about it and thus deepen appreciation of it.
> ...


How do you know they pretend? I also feel the same about some people I've come across.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think MarkW helped me understand my position better:
> 
> - I think you can like a piece after first listen and go on to dislike it later.
> - I think you can like a piece after first listen and learn about it and thus deepen appreciation of it.
> ...


Does the third possibility include disliking a work on first listen (and maybe second, third, etc.) and later liking the work. Or only appreciating it later.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I just don't like when folks pretend to like something...


How can you tell?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Depends if I was familiar with the style. If I am, one listen is enough. Even in Beethoven I had trouble in getting his later works by casual listening since I wasn't familiar with the style. Liszt, Schoenberg and Mahler also took a while.
> 
> How do you know they pretend? I also feel the same about some people I've come across.


You can't know for certain, unless they tell you, but some people just rub you the wrong way.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

mmsbls: Feel free to interject whatever numbered listen in that first listen spot, and they still hold up as true statements.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You can't know for certain, but some people just rub you the wrong way.


I sense it when they try to belittle you. Also when you question them, all they give is the run-around that sounds good but says little in actuality and is non-specific, but act as if it's obvious.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2019)

Here's an example of how I feel about it. I'm certainly not going to pretend that I like Beethoven's late string quartets just to be pretentious - or for any other reason, for that matter. I've got two versions of them, and have listened fitfully to them over the last 3-4 years. I don't dislike them, but I'm perservering because I've been rewarded by perservering with Beethoven in the past. I have to say that at the moment, there's not much to go on in terms of 'base enjoyment' - no instant appeal or understanding.

There's plenty of music I've listened to and liked at first hearing, and plenty I've listened to and only 'got' after several hearings, so working at listening is valuable to me.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Let's assume a scale: love - like - impartial - dislike - loath 

Works that I've loved at first hearing never went down to like or below.

Works that I've liked at first hearing never went down to impartial or below, some went to love.

Works that I've been impartial to at first hearing have stayed that way or moved up or down, even to love (e.g. Stravinsky's Sacre) or loath (e.g. Beethoven 9).

Works that I disliked on first hearing may have moved to impartial, but not higher.

Works that I loathed on first hearing usually did not get a second chance.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Very few of my favourites were really enjoyable on a first listen, and some took very many listens indeed. Most first listens I find there to be way too much to take in.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

As a child and young listener I would generally try to hear works that were programmed in a concert I was going to attend. I found the concert much more enjoyable for that. These days I can listen to music of composers (and to a lesser extent whole periods) who I already know well and get a lot out of my first listen. But even now it is on repeated hearings that I really get to _enjoy_ the music.

With composers I am less familiar with, and particularly with contemporary music, my first hearing can be a very poor guide to what I will go on to enjoy. For music that challenges me this can take a long time. I do listen to music that comes recommended by people whose taste I feel could be reliable for me, too, and sometimes find myself just thinking "oh, that is going to need work". But I don't do the work. I wait - it can take a year or more - until I feel it calling to me (that really is how it seems and it is a feeling that seems to come out of nowhere). I listen again and maybe find it begins to "talk to me". But it can still take several hearings before it really clicks.

Sometimes the rewards - in terms of enjoyment, an emotional response, a visceral response - can far outweigh those I get from listening to something new that communicates to me first time. Meanwhile the first time music often becomes tedious or worse (to me) on repeated listens. What I know is that music that I am inclined to think of as great will give me a lifetime's pleasure. And music that comes to bore me - after a couple of listens or after years of listens - is music that I tend to think of as less great or not great at all.

Then there is music that I just dislike from the outset. I may never listen to that again. Why would I? But sometimes that can be a mistake. Until really recently I really disliked Messiaen. I got dragged back in by my liking of George Benjamin's music (Benjamin was a student of Messiaen). So I went back and found an almost instant and shattering response in myself. It was just amazing! I don't know where that came from but I have spent quite a lot of time since then listening to Messiaen - multiple times for many pieces - and the experience has been ... deeply enriching.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think it is a necessity to have multiple listens to enjoy a work? I don't mean understanding it from different perspectives, or breaking apart its form and such, just mere enjoyment.
> 
> Have you heard the argument, that you see in the rock world a lot, that the best Art takes a few listens before you can enjoy it?
> 
> My opinion is no, it doesn't take multiple listens. I believe if we like something the first time we hear it, we are drawn to it to keep coming back and new things are revealed which may deepen our appreciation, but I don't buy that whole malarky that it takes multiple listens to "get it" and enjoy it at a base level.


Each time you go back to listen, you have changed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think if we don't like it the first time we hear it, but keep listening, we are forcing it.


There are several of your posts in this thread that surprise me a bit. This is one. It is your reason for starting this thread.



> The thread was really more motivated by those that force themselves to like something, but I agree with your assertion.


That seems said with some feeling! But what is this forcing? Why would anyone force themselves to listen to something they don't like? If it is because they seek a reward (music that comes to mean a lot to them in the end, music that might eventually move or transport them whenever they listen to it) then it is hardly forcing. Great music is for life and a little "work" to get at the rewards it offers is a small sacrifice. Not that I work at music myself. Not consciously, anyway. I wait for it to "call me" back.

One thing I really don't want to waste my time with is music that I quite like at first but will quickly become a bore to me. Why bother with it? It isn't worthy to stand beside music that has come to mean so much more to me.

I read something in your posts that suggests you feel that those who do take time to like something that doesn't do a lot for them at first are faking it or trying to go one up on you? I suppose there are people who use classical music for bolstering their credibility or image but it is usually quite easy to spot them because they don't know the music as much as they seem to claim. I do not think many (even any) members of this forum do this, though. In a variety of ways and with a variety of tastes and listening styles, it seems to me we are enthusiasts!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Thread title and OP seem to be asking two different questions. I think multiple experience (and probably study/analysis) is required to fully comprehend any complex (and even some seemingly-simple) works of art, as comprehension implies something more conscious and intellectual than just our enjoyment, or emotional reactions, or feelings of like/dislike/indifference/etc.

Multiple experiences to _enjoy_ is entirely dependent upon the work and the individual, and there's no one-size-fits-all answer to that. I know plenty of works that I didn't care for on my first experience, but grew to like later; others I loved on my first experience but not so much later; others I was indifferent to and came to like and/or dislike; and there are works that I've liked/disliked from day one and my opinion didn't change with later experiences. In regards to the idea of listening to something multiple times that you don't like, I don't think it's necessarily "forcing." When it comes to works with great reputations, it's often just an attempt to try to see and/or sympathize with whatever qualities have lead people to love it/praise it so much. Sometimes I can understand those qualities immediately and still say "it's not for me," but other times works leave me rather confused and I need multiple experiences to better process my own reaction.

It's also just a fundamental truth that we experience art very differently when we know what to expect going in, and the lack of "surprise" allows us to better process other aspects that often escape our first (or even second) experiences. Often times we go back and find there wasn't much else to see/hear, but other times we go back and find all kinds of things there we missed.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> How about looking at an attractive girl? Can a repeated experience sometimes increase one's enjoyment with the delight of making a new discovery after the first look? *Or is everything experienced all at once at the first meeting? ;*)


Doesn't that depend on the girl...:devil:

Seriously though, another factor to perhaps consider is the composer themselves. One can't help be swayed sometimes by the cult of personality and previous track record. A well known composer is probably worth putting extra time in for, but I do always try to listen to lesser names too as there are gems and fabulous talent out there. The measure of fame as a yardstick isn't necessarily appropriate for art music I feel, given the neglect that accrues.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Thread title and OP seem to be asking two different questions. I think multiple experience (and probably study/analysis) is required to fully comprehend any complex (and even some seemingly-simple) works of art, as comprehension implies something more conscious and intellectual than just our enjoyment, or emotional reactions, or feelings of like/dislike/indifference/etc.
> 
> Multiple experiences to _enjoy_ is entirely dependent upon the work and the individual, and there's no one-size-fits-all answer to that.


I do have difficulty with the term "comprehend". I'm not sure what it means wrt music. I have always assumed that enjoyment of music must be preceded by comprehending it so if I am enjoying music I assume I do to some extent comprehend it. Over time, though, I will find new things in it (an experience you explore well later in your post). To me music is all about "enjoyment". But that is a feeble word. It is a convenient catch all for all sorts of emotions and rewards. At no point in my listening do I study or analyse music. I have no problem that others do, of course, and if they come up with interesting or useful insights I welcome them. But I do object very strongly when people (I don't think you one but you may be?) claim that to "understand music" you have to study and analyse it. I don't. I really don't. If I do study and analyse music (or even work at it) then I am doing that unconsciously. I have assumed that this is why some music that I have put aside "calls to me" to listen again after a time. I do certainly agree that we all differ in our listening style as well as tastes and that no one of us is right.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I do have difficulty with the term "comprehend". I'm not sure what it means wrt music. I have always assumed that enjoyment of music must be preceded by comprehending it so if I am enjoying music I assume I do to some extent comprehend it. Over time, though, I will find new things in it (an experience you explore well later in your post). To me music is all about "enjoyment". But that is a feeble word. It is a convenient catch all for all sorts of emotions and rewards. At no point in my listening do I study or analyse music. I have no problem that others do, of course, and if they come up with interesting or useful insights I welcome them. But I do object very strongly when people (I don't think you one but you may be?) claim that to "understand music" you have to study and analyse it. I don't. I really don't. If I do study and analyse music (or even work at it) then I am doing that unconsciously. I have assumed that this is why some music that I have put aside "calls to me" to listen again after a time. I do certainly agree that we all differ in our listening style as well as tastes and that no one of us is right.


"To some extent comprehend it" perhaps, at least on an intuitive level, but this doesn't mean you comprehend all (or even much) of it. It's absolutely true that we can feel and react to things without the things that provoked those feelings/reactions making it to our conscious awareness. I would think comprehension would require being able to explain how a piece works consciously, not just the ability to respond to it emotionally/intuitively/etc.

This is really more about semantics than anything, but there's absolutely a kind of understanding that comes from studying analyzing music that you don't get when you just listen to it without that knowledge. Knowing that a key change has happened, or that you're hearing a development of the first theme, is different than just having an emotional/intuitive response to when those things happen. We generally say that people "understand" something when they're able to explain how it works. The ability to drive a car doesn't mean you understand the car. You understand one aspect of it, and the experience of using it, but you understand nothing (or little) of what goes into creating that experience.

Personally, my knowledge of music is 101 basic--I can follow a score and usually figure out what's going on as long as it's not too complex and I'm given enough time--but in general I'm more with you in that my primary interest in music is just in the listening and appreciation, which is odd given how technical and analytical I am with film and literature.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "To some extent comprehend it" perhaps, at least on an intuitive level, but this doesn't mean you comprehend all (or even much) of it. It's absolutely true that we can feel and react to things without the things that provoked those feelings/reactions making it to our conscious awareness. I would think comprehension would require being able to explain how a piece works consciously, not just the ability to respond to it emotionally/intuitively/etc.


As I say, comprehending is a mysterious term for me and I am uncertain it refers to something I need to do to enjoy it in one of a hundred ways, some of which seem full of "meaning". I am not sure what I miss by failing to undertake an analysis or what would be involved in explaining how it works. With a greater facility with words I could probably do that for some music but my explanation would not be technical. Other than that, why do I need to explain how a piece works technically? Those I have know who can attempt this (no noted scholars among them) have seemed to have little to tell me that is interesting or useful using this ability. Often, it seems to me, the enjoyment of music is less central for them than it is for me. It may even be that their technical knowledge obstructs their enjoyment or gets in the way of allowing the music to speak to them.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> This is really more about semantics than anything, but there's absolutely a kind of understanding that comes from studying analyzing music that you don't get when you just listen to it without that knowledge. Knowing that a key change has happened, or that you're hearing a development of the first theme, is different than just having an emotional/intuitive response to when those things happen. We generally say that people "understand" something when they're able to explain how it works. The ability to drive a car doesn't mean you understand the car. You understand one aspect of it, and the experience of using it, but you understand nothing (or little) of what goes into creating that experience.
> 
> Personally, my knowledge of music is 101 basic--I can follow a score and usually figure out what's going on as long as it's not too complex and I'm given enough time--but in general I'm more with you in that my primary interest in music is just in the listening and appreciation, which is odd given how technical and analytical I am with film and literature.


But you haven't told me what the value (to me) of gaining the knowledge and skills to analyse music in the way you describe. What would it add to my taste and enjoyment? I have already suggested that it may act as an obstruction!


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> the lack of "surprise" allows us to better process other aspects that often escape our first (or even second) experiences.


Yes.

But also, because we now know what to expect, and can anticipate and follow the contours of the music better, the rewards can be greater.

As for the semantics of "understand" or "comprehend" or "get", I don't think of music as a puzzle to solve, or a mystery to unravel, or an intellectual search for meaning which, if I'm successful in my listening, I can use to show how clever I am.

It's simply that (assuming we're talking about something substantial) each listen enables me to apprehend better, the shape, the direction, the flow of a piece so that I can be better rewarded emotionally and spiritually. It's not about spotting or naming this or that technical aspect.

Currently obsessed with _Symphonie Fantastique_, I'm trying to improve my "understanding" of the third movement. It's got the call and response bit at the beginning, and the rolls of thunder at the end, but I've not yet mapped the contours of what happens in between. I need to listen to it some more - and I've already listened to it twice this week, seen it twice in concert live and on TV in the last month, and have owned and enjoyed listening to three versions on my PC/smartphone over the past two years.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> It's possible to enjoy a work one day and be indifferent to it the next, or the other way around. I can often tell when I'm hearing something I might enjoy more at another time. It's harder to guess whether my present pleasure will be replicated next time I listen.


A neatly expressed sentiment which I share almost to the letter.

I'd add that I sometimes really like the sensation of listening to something at first and not getting it, not knowing if I like it or not .. feeling some kind of reveal may be just around the corner. The neutrality of feeling can somehow enhance listening for me, and the state of not knowing can seem a kind of tabula rasa. An experience I enjoy.
It doesn't happen that often, it depends on alignment of my mood and the piece.

I also like to know as little as possible about a new piece of music, my senses too seem galvanised in these conditions.

Not sure if I'm due a stint in Pseud's Corner for the above admission, but I'll try and take it like a man.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think it is a necessity to have multiple listens to enjoy a work? I don't mean understanding it from different perspectives, or breaking apart its form and such, just mere enjoyment.
> 
> Have you heard the argument, that you see in the rock world a lot, that the best Art takes a few listens before you can enjoy it?
> 
> My opinion is no, it doesn't take multiple listens. I believe if we like something the first time we hear it, we are drawn to it to keep coming back and new things are revealed which may deepen our appreciation, but I don't buy that whole malarky that it takes multiple listens to "get it" and enjoy it at a base level.


It's strange how your title is about _understanding_ (Multiple Listens To Comprehend Art) and your post is about _enjoyment_. How did that happen?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> It's strange how your title is about _understanding_ (Multiple Listens To Comprehend Art) and your post is about _enjoyment_. How did that happen?


Good point, ha! :lol:


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

It tends to depend on the work. 

One could spend a lifetime with Tristan & Isolde, Mahler's 9th, Beethoven's 9th and so forth -- and works of such emotional/conceptual depth would still seem an "infinite reservoir". One only need a moment to do the same with "Jingle Bells" or "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and they would not offer anything further after that.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Do you think it is a necessity to have multiple listens to enjoy a work? I don't mean understanding it from different perspectives, or breaking apart its form and such, just mere enjoyment._

I don't think it is necessary but I think it is important to hear anything complex in any way more than once before making any judgment on it. Sometimes I don't know if I like or dislike something the first time I hear it.

In other forms of art, such s film, I think it probably is necessary.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

There are things that I don't get on first listen but I can come back to them a lot later and it all falls into place. It's not cos I've 'forced' them. It's just it can take longer to appreciate some performances. I can be just the same with other genres of music too (especially some of the Post-rock I listen to).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think if we don't like it the first time we hear it, but keep listening, we are forcing it.


I can tell you that I didn't like some of my very favorite artists at first, and I needed time to really get their music. 
And if you want to say that it's forcing: I have had also the opposite experience, listening music that I didn't like at first for many, many times, and still didn't enjoying it at all.

And there's also music that I liked A LOT at first, and after multiple listenings it bored me.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

MarkW said:


> There are works I've taken an instatnt liking to, that at a later time I have found there's no there there. There have been others it's taken me years to "get." And still others I haven't gotten yet, even though people whose opinions I respect say they are worthwhle. No hard and fast rule, and looking for one is silly.


What he said. Perfect.

One addition: sometimes it took my actually playing a work before its greatness or whatever sunk in. I never really cared for the Beethoven 8th. Couldn't care less. Then when I actually got to play it (1st bassoon - lots of solos) all the sudden the skies opened, the blinds came off and suddenly it popped. It's a great symphony. That's happened more times that I can remember.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you think it is a necessity to have multiple listens to enjoy a work? I don't mean understanding it from different perspectives, or breaking apart its form and such, just mere enjoyment.
> 
> Have you heard the argument, that you see in the rock world a lot, that the best Art takes a few listens before you can enjoy it?


I prefer to spend some time with a few compositions than to listen to many pieces only once when I'm discovering new music (sometimes I even make some sketches and lists of the parts I like most in a first moment for a reference in future listenings), and I must say that for me at least this method has been quite rewarding, as some of the music which I now gives most pleasure to listen to I actually didn't "get" in a first hearing and needed several listenings to properly enjoy.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sometimes I can't get or like a composer or work, no matter how much I tried to listen, but listened to something else similar in style, and got to comprehend it, then it helped on the return to the original one. It's like a journey (or a university exam ), when you're stuck, just go around it, and return later.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> But you haven't told me what the value (to me) of gaining the knowledge and skills to analyse music in the way you describe. What would it add to my taste and enjoyment? I have already suggested that it may act as an obstruction!


The value is in the knowledge itself. If you don't find such a thing valuable, then don't pursue it; it's as simple as that. One certainly doesn't need such technical, analytical knowledge to enjoy music, but possessing it allows one a new and different way of hearing and (perhaps) enjoying it. For many, there is absolutely an added enjoyment in being able to intellectually understand art as opposed to just feeling and reacting to it. Trying to explain what that enjoyment is to one who doesn't share it is as useless as trying to explain to someone why you react to music emotionally/aesthetically if they don't feel it.

I could, perhaps, provide an example that might illustrate the point. A composer like Haydn loved playing with form, especially subverting audience's expectations based on that form. If you don't possess the technical knowledge to understand how sonata form works, and don't understand what you're hearing when you're hearing it (first theme, second theme, development, recapitulation, etc.), then you're not going to actually "expect" anything, and thus will be incapable of grasping Haydn's intended surprises and playfulness. Of course, this won't necessarily prevent you from enjoying his music, but you won't be enjoying certain aspects that he put there for audiences who hear music very differently than you do.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If you don't possess the technical knowledge to understand how sonata form works, and don't understand what you're hearing when you're hearing it (first theme, second theme, development, recapitulation, etc.), then you're not going to actually "expect" anything, and thus will be incapable of grasping Haydn's intended surprises and playfulness.


Yes but you can get that understanding and the resulting expectations from listening alone. You fairly quickly "learn" the conventions of a period and recognise when these are played with or subverted. Your learning may not need to be conscious but it could be. Even if it is unconscious and you cannot say to yourself "oh clever, he led to expect x and then gave me that lovely y" it is still there. In fact, I am not sure it would be possible to spend several years appreciatively listening to classical music without developing this ability.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There are maybe two types of questions implied in the OP. The first concerns whether you get more enjoyment or knowledge of a piece by listening to it several times. The other concerns music that you don't get at first and whether or not it is worth persevering (and even how you might know whether or not it will be worthwhile to persevere). 

We have perhaps mostly answered the second type of question. But what about the first? When I think back to my early days of listening I would play the record of a new-to-me work several times until it was really doing something to me. If it didn't deliver after a while I would think of it as a lesser piece. In that way I fell in love with a lot of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and (eventually) Brahms. In that way I also fell in love with Prokofiev, Bartok, Stravinsky and some other moderns. I might "understand" the music after the first one or two hearings but the enjoyment grew mostly in further hearings. Especially with the benefit of being able to hear numerous different recordings, I find that my experience in much of that music continues to reward me greatly. 

More recently my approach has changed a little and with familiar composers I am much quicker to know how much I like a piece. But it still takes me several hearings to really really enjoy the music or to get out of it as much as I do. And I am not in the slightest bit interested in music that can't continue to reward me on repeated hearings.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> *Yes but you can get that understanding and the resulting expectations from listening alone. *You fairly quickly "learn" the conventions of a period and recognise when these are played with or subverted. Your learning may not need to be conscious but it could be. Even if it is unconscious and you cannot say to yourself "oh clever, he led to expect x and then gave me that lovely y" it is still there. In fact, I am not sure it would be possible to spend several years appreciatively listening to classical music without developing this ability.


Possibly yes, but I'd say it's far from guaranteed. I started listening to classical music in my early teens and it was an entirely foreign language to me at first. It took years before I was able to understand certain things just by hearing it, even after having read about/studied different forms. Certainly those qualities are still there either way, but whether one hears them and thus reacts to them as the composer intended is another matter entirely.

Ultimately, I wouldn't worry about it. If you feel you're getting the fullest out of classical music just by hearing it and without knowing anything technical or analytical, then that's fine. I'm not one to say that you or anyone is wrong for not listening/hearing a certain way.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> There are maybe two types of questions implied in the OP. The first concerns whether you get more enjoyment or knowledge of a piece by listening to it several times. The other concerns music that you don't get at first and whether or not it is worth persevering (and even how you might know whether or not it will be worthwhile to persevere).
> 
> *We have perhaps mostly answered the second type of question. But what about the first?*


I think I addressed this earlier (perhaps my first post?), but for me it just depends on the work in question. I'd say with most pieces there's a certain number of listens that it takes before I get to "peak enjoyment, but that number can vary drastically. The "typical" number would probably be somewhere around 4 or 5. Past that point I either enjoy it the same, or start enjoying it less because it's become TOO familiar, or because I start to hear things I consider to be flaws.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

For some reason we didn't have a record of Beethoven's Choral at home when I was growing up. I think my parents felt it was inferior to the others and for quite a while I avoided it, too. When I got around to filling that gap it actually took me quite a few hearings to even like the piece.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think I addressed this earlier (perhaps my first post?), but for me it just depends on the work in question. I'd say with most pieces there's a certain number of listens that it takes before I get to "peak enjoyment, but that number can vary drastically. The "typical" number would probably be somewhere around 4 or 5. Past that point I either enjoy it the same, or start enjoying it less because it's become TOO familiar, or because I start to hear things I consider to be flaws.


Yes, 4 or 5 sounds right. But having a piece become too familiar is a different matter. Often that just means for me giving it a rest (perhaps for a year or more) and then returning to it .. often giving it several new hearings (perhaps comparing recordings or listening to a very different new one). But I do find that some music repays revisits much less than others. I can always return with great pleasure to Beethoven, Brahms, Bach, Mozart - that's one of the reasons I am happy with "the judgment of the canon" - but have found returning to some others with pleasure much more difficult. Berlioz is one example and Sibelius another. I do enjoy returning to those but when I do the buzz (the desire to spend a good amount of time with the composer again) is less. There are others who I don't return to easily at all (a lot of Shostakovich is like this) and, of course, lots of pieces that never deliver that peak experience to me even after several hearings. If I were to attempt a ranking of composers it would be how well returning to them still excites me that I would base my subjective judgments on.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Possibly yes, but I'd say it's far from guaranteed. I started listening to classical music in my early teens and it was an entirely foreign language to me at first. *It took years before I was able to understand certain things just by hearing it*, even after having read about/studied different forms. Certainly those qualities are still there either way, but whether one hears them and thus reacts to them as the composer intended is another matter entirely.


I wonder if you mean being able to _name _what is happening? Of course, as you listen to a piece again and again you can hear more and more. And different performances can show you different things. But if you are responding to the music - if it is rewarding you - you are surely hearing some of the clever stuff that the composer is doing. You don't hear it as "clever". You hear it as inspired and I think that is the point to the whole matter of enjoying classical music.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I wonder if you mean being able to _name _what is happening? Of course, as you listen to a piece again and again you can hear more and more. And different performances can show you different things. But if you are responding to the music - if it is rewarding you - you are surely hearing some of the clever stuff that the composer is doing. You don't hear it as "clever". You hear it as inspired and I think that is the point to the whole matter of enjoying classical music.


No, I knew the names of many techniques long before I could hear them. I could listen to a work, I could look up on Wikipedia and read about sonata form, but actually hearing where the first theme/second theme/development/etc. was took time and experience. Had I never even read about sonata form I don't know if I ever would've "heard" it at all. Sure, I might've heard that "this part is different," but hearing a difference is different than knowing what kind of difference it is, since there can even be differences within a single theme. I think our responses to music are complex enough that we can respond positively without hearing the "clever stuff" that a composer is doing. When we watch a magic trick we are often all the more bedazzled the less we know of the cleverness and skill that went into executing it and, if anything, our wonderment is directly proportionate to our ignorance. There may be a similar factor at play in the arts with many/most audiences.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes but you can get that understanding and the resulting expectations from listening alone. You fairly quickly "learn" the conventions of a period and recognise when these are played with or subverted. Your learning may not need to be conscious but it could be. Even if it is unconscious and you cannot say to yourself "oh clever, he led to expect x and then gave me that lovely y" it is still there. In fact, I am not sure it would be possible to spend several years appreciatively listening to classical music without developing this ability.


Agree you can hear basically to the effect of what the composer is doing most of the time in common practice. I believe it does get a lot more difficult with weaker tonality like Prokofiev to atonal like Webern, speaking from experience. The ear has to be trained over time to get accustomed. Relative pitch sensitivity becomes more important and central as in this piece. You get less out of it just by listening to colors, rhythms.


----------

