# everything if listened many times can become catchy



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I've heard this argument many times. Those into more traditional music tend to use it against those into avantgarde, and I don't get how the fact of being more familiar with something through repeated listenings could be a bad thing. Repeated listenings are useful to develop familiarity and an appreciation also for traditional music exactly the same way.

On the other hand I'm not sure that I would like EVERYTHING keeping listening to it even after a lot of listenings. I've tried to listen to many, many times certain pieces because they are considered my many as important and this still didn't increased my appreciation.

So what's your position on this idea?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

imho, repeated listening is absolutely essential to get not only into modern music, but into classical music in general. I certainly need repeated listening to Beethoven late quartets to fully appreciate them. When trying to get into Schoenberg, I forced myself to listen to his piano concerto maybe 20 times to get used to it. The same for Boulez piano sonata 2. I forced myself to listen to it many times, and now it is one of my favorite modern pieces. But often times, after the first listening I am simply not motivated enough to listen to a work repeatedly, because I think the investment would not be worth the returns - this is true for many modern pieces.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I put almost every recording I have on repeat at some point.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Repeated listening works to develop an appreciation and/or help decide if you like a piece. But it can also work the other way. I remember being in all of Tenth Grade when I first said to myself "I don't care if I ever hear Eine Kleine Nachtmusik again," and I still feel that way 50 years later!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I've heard this argument many times. Those into more traditional music tend to use it against those into avantgarde, and I don't get how the fact of being more familiar with something through repeated listenings could be a bad thing. Repeated listenings are useful to develop familiarity and an appreciation also for traditional music exactly the same way.
> 
> On the other hand I'm not sure that I would like EVERYTHING keeping listening to it even after a lot of listenings. I've tried to listen to many, many times certain pieces because they are considered my many as important and this still didn't increased my appreciation.
> 
> So what's your position on this idea?


If as I am listening to a new work my interest begins to flag, I turn it off and go on to another piece. I rarely go back and revisit new works that fail to hold my interest. There is too much new work being written, and I wish to listen to quantity of pieces in order to find those that hold my interest during the first listen.

I would guess my ratio of "interesting:not interesting" is something like 70:30 - but my selection process is not haphazard. I mostly choose works written for small ensembles, not orchestras, and rarely sample purely electronic music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

MarkW said:


> Repeated listening works to develop an appreciation and/or help decide if you like a piece. But it can also work the other way. I remember being in all of Tenth Grade when I first said to myself "I don't care if I ever hear Eine Kleine Nachtmusik again," and I still feel that way 50 years later!


I think there is a curve depicting apprectiation with respect to repeated listening and this curve has an apex, ie it fist goes up, then peaks and then diminishes. The more primitive the music, the quicker one gets tired of listening to it. Some people say that they are already burned out on Beethoven symphonies (not my case, I have not listened many times to those) or the more overplayed CM pieces. This must likely be the case for many performers. Pianists bored by Chopin whom they are forced to play ad nauseam, professional orchestras bored by the most famous Mozart pieces etc. Personally, I tire quite quickly of music if I am exposed to it repeatedly, and I am deliberately listening to some CM pieces only sparsely not to spoil them for myself. The only exception seems to be Bachs keyboard music. I seem not to tire of it despite dozens of listenings.


----------



## whispering (Oct 26, 2013)

I would make a couple of observations here.
1) I would not invest a great amount of time in repeatedly listening to a new to me piece of music unless at least the first couple of times it registered some limited interest for me. It gets a foothold and that might develop further so invest the time. If not why keep repeatedly listening. I have other demands on my time so when free to do so I wish to listen to a piece which will reward my attention. The comfort of old friends but new potential ones are welcome if they pass the above not very challenging threshold.
2) Rather than consider repeated listening I would suggest a time scale view of matters. My interest in classical music goes back many years. I now have firm favourites which I play regularly. However when my ears first heard them say twenty years ago they rapidly got rejected. Is it our tastes or ears which change over the years, or perhaps both. Over what time period does the repeated playing have to be to qualify?


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I've heard this argument many times. Those into more traditional music tend to use it against those into avantgarde, and I don't get how the fact of being more familiar with something through repeated listenings could be a bad thing. Repeated listenings are useful to develop familiarity and an appreciation also for traditional music exactly the same way.
> 
> On the other hand I'm not sure that I would like EVERYTHING keeping listening to it even after a lot of listenings. I've tried to listen to many, many times certain pieces because they are considered my many as important and this still didn't increased my appreciation.
> 
> So what's your position on this idea?


Not all music needs to be 'catchy', though I tend to prefer music that is, if 'catchy' means more than just 'whistleable'.

It takes several listens for me to become familiar enough with a piece to gain the additional pleasures of anticipating what comes next, and being able to hum along.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

whispering said:


> 1) I would not invest a great amount of time in repeatedly listening to a new to me piece of music unless at least the first couple of times it registered some limited interest for me. It gets a foothold and that might develop further so invest the time. If not why keep repeatedly listening. I have other demands on my time so when free to do so I wish to listen to a piece which will reward my attention. The comfort of old friends but new potential ones are welcome if they pass the above not very challenging threshold


I also have it like this. I dont have to like the piece at first listening, but it has to grab my attention and intrigue me to invest the time into repeated listening. One of the composers of this kind is for example Max Reger. He is a late romantic who wrote pretty complex music with frequent counterpoint. I did not enjoy most of his music on first listening, but his music definitely gets better with repeated listening and is worth the time investment.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

Jacck said:


> imho, repeated listening is absolutely essential to get not only into modern music, but into classical music in general. I certainly need repeated listening to Beethoven late quartets to fully appreciate them. When trying to get into Schoenberg, I forced myself to listen to his piano concerto maybe 20 times to get used to it. The same for Boulez piano sonata 2. I forced myself to listen to it many times, and now it is one of my favorite modern pieces. But often times, after the first listening I am simply not motivated enough to listen to a work repeatedly, because I think the investment would not be worth the returns - this is true for many modern pieces.


I think not only do you need to listen to something multiple times to fully appreciate it, the artists' work deserves it too. A long time ago, just like a lot of other people, I thought Bruckner wrote tedious, overwrought, uninspired music that just repeated the same boring melodies because he had nothing substantial or interesting to say. Yet for some reason I felt this need to keep revisiting him and listening to him trying to figure him out, and then with maturity and time it clicked: and I don't think anything of what I said above about him whatsoever, and he's now he's one of my favorite composers, if not my favorite.

In general, there's so much one misses on this first listen, especially if the piece is elaborate, dense in counterpoint, or just subtleties of expression or lines an instrument is playing you wouldn't have gotten the first time around. Popular music is much easier to 'get' on the first listen, which is not me detracting it all, it's just a different kind of music. I think someone could listen to Dark Side of the Moon (I don't like Pink Floyd but just using a famous, well-regarded album for sake of argument) on the first listen and be totally floored, whereas with a lot of classical music, while it can have that same effect on the first go-around, demands quality time to be spent with the music. I plan on doing this with Mozart soon, appropos the other thread, as he's a composer I need more immersion with to fully get him. The same with Mahler at some point. Quality time is so important.


----------



## Dima (Oct 3, 2016)

Honestly, compositions that I liked from the first time are not so much and could be counted on two hands.
Even if you do not like the work, after the 20th listening it will become as your own.
Ironically, that is how all classical music works. It is only important to listen "yours" performance.
And 20 performances of the same work are provided by the identical repertoure of most performers, which was defined once by one musicologist and never changed as if one person can decide what is important and what we should listen. 
"Habit to us is given from above: it is a substitute for happiness". (С)


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

"Great works" tend to support repeated listenings better than works of lesser calibre. In fact, it seems that durability and longevity (the capability of a work to support repeated hearings over years and decades and centuries) proves a major factor in determining what work is "great" and what is "lesser". I've heard the Beethoven Fifth hundreds of times. I still savor its joys and mysteries, though I can likely hum the piece from front to back and even copy out pages of the score from memory. Such practices do not apply to all music I listen to.

I suggest that experience over time instructs one in what he or she may find more worthy of repeated listenings upon a first hearing. Experience does inform one about possible merits a work (contemporary or olden) may hold. Intuition is less in-born than developed. And after over half a century of dedicated music listening I contend that the great "masterworks" of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Debussy ... etc. rightly earn their status and are not likely to lose it in the coming years and generations. There is a reason why the "big names" _are_ the big names. The quality level of masterworks is superior to run-of-the-mill compositions.

This does not mean, of course, that one need necessarily like every "masterwork" or loathe "run-of-the-mill" music, but history tends to make selections which are borne out by listeners of past, present, and future generations.

I've enjoyed contemporary music for a good many years. My personal disc collections contains hundreds of "new music" recordings, and I treasure my rather vast collection of the Col Legno/NEOS Donaueschinger Musiktage discs, the NEOS Musica Viva and Darmstadt Aural Documents collections, the WERGO edition musikFabrik series, the Vienna Modern Masters recordings (and I have a complete set of each of these series!), as well as the dozens of other new music and experimental music discs, box sets, and collections I have immediate access to in my listening room. And so I tap into new music all the time. There are new pieces that strike my fancy immediately and force me into rescheduling a second hearing (and perhaps a third, fourth, fifth, etc.) and bring me to conclude that I may well be in the presence of a masterwork (which will be better known in the future, certainly, after a long term of societal judgment), and there are pieces I hear with a sense of the ho-hum, that seem dull or repetitive or banal or derivative, and they include many many more listening experiences than do those which strike the interest-fancy. But for those few moments of "wow" derived from hearing a new contemporary work I am willing to explore through the vast mish-mash of mush. One mines tons of rock and ore before striking upon a precious gold nugget.

Likewise, there are works by "the Masters" that strike me with little interest. I seem to never tire of the Beethoven symphonies and piano concertos and most of the sonatas and string quartets ... but there are works in my several box sets of Beethoven Complete Works that I tend to avoid, having heard them once or twice before. Listening time proves precious itself, especially with the realizations that come with more advanced years. I should probably be more selective than I am, but I retain a long penchant for exploring new art (new to me, that is, whether it is newly composed or the work of a Medieval or Renaissance or Baroque or Classical master), and I will continue so with my exploration.

Part of the great joy of such exploration is that of finding a work one wishes to repeat a hearing of. And when such a work can become part of one's core being, the experience is beyond words. Which is part of the glory of music, after all.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

Some works, possibly the best ones, take a number of attempts to get under my skin, but I am usually aware quite quickly whether something will be worth the effort. 

I think I am in an unusual position with regards to Classical music, because I have come to it quite late in my musical 'journey' (if you'll excuse the terrible metaphor) and I am already completely comfortable with atonality and dissonance, which are used expertly by many of my favourite artists whose back catalogues are seared into my brain. I am just as likely to require repeated exposure to a piece by Bach as I am to something by Ligeti. 

At present I am exploring the Borodin Quartet's first recording of Shostakovich's Quartet cycle. I knew on hearing the first three pieces that it was something worth exploring deeply because it surprised me several times and demanded that I listen closely. I've now been through the lot three or so times, some the pieces a lot more than that, and it just keeps getting better. I now anticipate the 'cannons in the flowerbed' and get that little shiver of pleasure when I can anticipate a rhythmic or melodic turn.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I binge-listen all the time. Usually it's familiar works but I prefer to do it with stuff I don't know. However, if it doesn't connect, it doesn't connect. Not everything does.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I sometimes play the same opera over and over maybe 10 or even 20 times in a row. Eventually I move on to something else, but if it is a good opera I always come back to it, often to repeat it multiple times again.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I'm sure it's because my english is terrible so sorry for that, but I have the impression that many are talking about how much they listen to music, which is not exactly what I was asking for. 
The point was more: do you think that as someone say, that listening too much to something could let's say, deprive a listener of the ability of a good judgment? 
In a lot of discussions between more conservative listeners vs more progressive ones the guys who don't like modern music often say that the excess of listening is a sort of "brainwash" that instead of making someone more able to judge the music has the opposite effect, convincing the listener that there's something of value where there isn't, just because of this over exposition. I don't agree with this argument, but I was curious what people think about it.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

norman bates said:


> The point was more: do you think that as someone say, that listening too much to something could let's say, deprive a listener of the ability of a good judgment?
> In a lot of discussions between more conservative listeners vs more progressive ones the guys who don't like modern music often say that the excess of listening is a sort of "brainwash" that instead of making someone more able to judge the music has the opposite effect, convincing the listener that there's something of value where there isn't, just because of this over exposition. I don't agree with this argument, but I was curious what people think about it.


OK, this is an interesting question. To be honest, I think yes, it is possible. The more effort you invest into some task, the more need to justify it to yourself and to others. There is an example in physics. Many people have invested their whole careers into research of string theory (extremely hard mathematics and hard study), many Ph.Ds, professorships, grants, tenures were invested into this. There were string wars in physics that got extremely nasty and personal. The fact is, that despite 30 years of intesive research, string theory has not been confirmed by a single experiment. But those people who invested all that effort into the hard study, writing of the papers, Ph.D.s etc. are not going to abandon it, simply because they have already invested so much. And the echoes of the string wars last to this day. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Jacck said:


> OK, this is an interesting question. To be honest, I think yes, it is possible. The more effort you invest into some task, the more need to justify it to yourself and to others. There is an example in physics. Many people have invested their whole careers into research of string theory (extremely hard mathematics and hard study), many Ph.Ds, professorships, grants, tenures were invested into this. There were string wars in physics that got extremely nasty and personal. The fact is, that despite 30 years of intesive research, string theory has not been confirmed by a single experiment. But those people who invested all that effort into the hard study, writing of the papers, Ph.D.s etc. are not going to abandon it, simply because they have already invested so much. And the echoes of the string wars last to this day.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Physics


it seems a bit different to me. We are talking of people who invested their professional lives in the study of something.

While there could be a form of pride involved in listening to something, with music we are still talking of an activity that for simple listeners is "entertaining" (ok, there's more than that, but let's keep it simple). So the fact that I like or not a certain piece is most of the time a very private experience and the fact that I like it or not doesn't change absolutely nothing for me let alone anybody else, at least certainly not in the terms of those people you're describing. And sometimes it happened to me that I disliked something of a composer after many listening (and when I say repeated listenings I don't mean like listening obssesively to that piece, but like listening to it two or three times, than after months listening to it again, than after a year again etc) even when I had a sympathy for that composer, thinking in advance that thing was right my alley.


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

It seems to me that to use that argument, that someone else only likes x because they have brainwashed themselves into it, you would have to have a pretty severe level of egocentricity and lack of sympathy for other people. 

I think it's conceptually possible that someone could brainwash them self into enjoying something, but is that really a likely scenario?


----------



## Dima (Oct 3, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I'm sure it's because my english is terrible so sorry for that, but I have the impression that many are talking about how much they listen to music, which is not exactly what I was asking for.
> The point was more: do you think that as someone say, that listening too much to something could let's say, deprive a listener of the ability of a good judgment?
> In a lot of discussions between more conservative listeners vs more progressive ones the guys who don't like modern music often say that the excess of listening is a sort of "brainwash" that instead of making someone more able to judge the music has the opposite effect, convincing the listener that there's something of value where there isn't, just because of this over exposition. I don't agree with this argument, but I was curious what people think about it.


If you write on one work of an unknown composer that it is Mozart or Beethoven, you will get only positive reviews.
But imagine if late Beethoven's quartet was marked as written by unknown composer, no one will listen it till the end.
But if it is known that this quartet belongs to Beethoven, then fanats listen it 100 times till they can say: I like it.
So only the name of composer can make magic - that is the secret of classical music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2020)

norman bates said:


> do you think that as someone say, that listening too much to something could let's say, deprive a listener of the ability of a good judgment?
> In a lot of discussions between more conservative listeners vs more progressive ones the guys who don't like modern music often say that the excess of listening is a sort of "brainwash" that instead of making someone more able to judge the music has the opposite effect, convincing the listener that there's something of value where there isn't, just because of this over exposition. I don't agree with this argument, but I was curious what people think about it.


Well, anything is possible for an individual, I suppose, but no, I don't think that in general, the result of repeated listening is that you're brainwashed into liking something.

I mean, what is the result of my repeated listening to Beethoven's symphonies over the years? Ongoing enjoyment? Increased understanding?

Brainwashed into liking?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Dima said:


> If you write on one work of an unknown composer that it is Mozart or Beethoven, you will get only positive reviews.
> But imagine if late Beethoven's quartet was marked as written by unknown composer, no one will listen it till the end.
> But if it is known that this quartet belongs to Beethoven, then fanats listen it 100 times till they can say: I like it.
> So only the name of composer can make magic - that is the secret of classical music.


The (main) problem here is that it all had to start somewhere. How did Beethoven get a following in the first place?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> The (main) problem here is that it all had to start somewhere. How did Beethoven get a following in the first place?


I think it was a video on MTV.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

In olden days ("... a glimpse of stocking ..."), before the nearly instant, and often free, availability of anything, repeated listening was pretty much the only way to get into CM. LPs were four or five dollar a disc. That was a lot of money (think of a dollar as twenty Hershey bars). Classical radio was the same mixed bag it has always been. So if your public library had a halfway decently curated record collection, that was how you learned. You browsed, said things to yourself like "Well, I've heard of Schumann [or Brahms or whoever] and he has a good reputation, and wrote symphonies. So I'll try one." And since you only took it out for a week, if something about it piqued your interest, you played it again and again. And later you might take out that record again the same way you would re-read a book you enjoyed. Eventually, when you could afford it, you got your own record. (To be fair, major record stores back then had listening booths, so you could preview a possible purchase.} In that way I "learned" a lot of music, and had it enough drilled into my head, I could mentally play it back well enough that I knew I liked it. That, and later joining the classical dept. of my college radio station, which for reasons of responsible programming, forced you to play a wide selection of things you didn't know, caused you to develop a sense of taste to know whether something deserved further listening.

The disadvantage of today's widespread instant availability is that the embarrassment of riches encourages diving into the repertoire broadly but not necessarily deeply.

My philosophy is, as with books, if something of repute doesn't speak to you, come back to it in a few years and see if either it or you has changed.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> imho, repeated listening is absolutely essential to get not only into modern music, but into classical music in general. I certainly need repeated listening to Beethoven late quartets to fully appreciate them. When trying to get into Schoenberg, I forced myself to listen to his piano concerto maybe 20 times to get used to it. The same for Boulez piano sonata 2. I forced myself to listen to it many times, and now it is one of my favorite modern pieces. But often times, after the first listening I am simply not motivated enough to listen to a work repeatedly, because I think the investment would not be worth the returns - this is true for many modern pieces.


With Beethoven Op.131, I have childhood memories of hearing it from my dad's audio, - it sounded nostalgic when I heard it again in my adulthood, especially the first two and last two movements. Grosse fuge is one of those exciting Beethoven pieces that somehow magically gets stuck in my ears. I don't know why people say they have such a hard time getting familiar with them, compared to say Schubert's 15th string quartet. Some people talk as if they're atonal music or something; I don't get it. All of them are tonal music with common practice-style melodies and harmonies.

To be honest, I still don't know the difference when people say they say they "don't understand something", as opposed to they "don't like something" or "find something boring". I know that the Boulez sonata is about breaking up the traditional classical structures, no matter how many times I hear it, it doesn't suddenly sound different at some point. I don't think it will. Stockhausen's Luzifers Abschied sounded like horror film music to me on the first hearing, even if I listened to it a million times, it wouldn't change my view. Schoenberg's Suite for piano sounded catchy on the first listen. It doesn't sound different on even if I hear it again.
Maybe people who say "they don't get something on the first hearing", don't pay close attention or listen to a mediocre performance on their first hearing? I don't know.

With Berlioz's large requiem, I have trouble getting past somewhere around the 30-minute mark. I could listen many times over and over, but it would be too much of a chore for me. Am I not "understanding it"? Or just "not liking it"? Or just getting "bored by it"?


----------



## thejewk (Sep 13, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> With Beethoven Op.131, I have childhood memories of hearing it from my dad's audio, - it sounded nostalgic when I heard it again in my adulthood, especially the first two and last two movements. Grosse fuge is one of those exciting Beethoven pieces that somehow magically gets stuck in my ears. I don't know why people say they have such a hard time getting familiar with them, compared to say Schubert's 15th string quartet. Some people talk as if they're atonal music or something; I don't get it. All of them are tonal music with common practice-style melodies and harmonies.
> 
> To be honest, I still don't know the difference when people say they say they "don't understand something", as opposed to they "don't like something" or "find something boring". I know that the Boulez sonata is about breaking up the traditional classical structures, no matter how many times I hear it, it doesn't suddenly sound different at some point. I don't think it will. Stockhausen's Luzifers Abschied sounded like horror film music to me on the first hearing, even if I listened to it a million times, it wouldn't change my view. Schoenberg's Suite for piano sounded catchy on the first listen. It doesn't sound different on even if I hear it again.
> Maybe people who say "they don't get something on the first hearing", don't pay close attention or listen to a mediocre performance on their first hearing? I don't know.
> ...


hammeredklavier, have you never had the experience of trying to read/hear/watch something and finding it hard going, maybe not be able to see the bigger picture, and put the work down, only to pick it back up a few years later and immediately connect with it? It has happened many times for me, and my first exposure often wasn't a failure as a result of lack of concentration.

I often find that one work of art acts as a key for a number of others, and that my getting to grips with one piece helps me to more easily follow and engage in a stimulating way with another work as a result.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Merl said:


> I think it was a video on MTV.


So are you saying the poster was probably joking? I'm not sure here (and had to look up what MTV was, I don't get out much).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

thejewk said:


> hammeredklavier, have you never had the experience of trying to read/hear/watch something and finding it hard going, maybe not be able to see the bigger picture, and put the work down, only to pick it back up a few years later and immediately connect with it? It has happened many times for me, and my first exposure often wasn't a failure as a result of lack of concentration.


I usually listen to unfamiliar music while I'm doing something else, like driving, or talking with passengers in my car. So sometimes there can be some things I miss on the first listen, but 2 or 3 listens (at most) are usually enough to pick them up (I wouldn't want to miss stuff like "herr tristan", or the love duet or "liebestod" in Tristan) and determine if I'm really hooked onto the piece or not. 
I think that if you're listening to a piece over and over 20 times, I think you're just forcing yourself to a chore, and even if you "grow to like" the piece by the process, you'll still have reservations for it. I don't think there ever was a time I forced myself to listen to a piece 20 times and my perception of the piece changed 180 degrees. I think it'll happen only if my tastes change, (which I don't think will happen any time soon, considering my character).
I agree with janxharris's view that music is subjective to a large degree. 
And I think that music is supposed to be "felt", rather than "understood".
I don't like the whole idea of saying "I don't understand [a piece]" to mean "I don't like it". To me, it implies uncertainty and indecision (it's a bit like saying "I don't know what I heard. I wish I liked it though") and it's like blaming on myself for not liking it.

I also find that it's a convenient argument favored by some people who wants to unfairly elevate certain music above others. If they don't like a piece, it's because the music is uninteresting (blaming on the piece/composer). If other people don't like something they like, it's because the other people "don't understand" (blaming on the listener).

If people dislike a piece, how can we objectively prove whether it is objectively just "uninteresting", or "hard to understand".
Take Beethoven for example (since he was mentioned in this thread),
Christ on the Mount of olives Op.85 is less popular than Beethoven's own late string quartets everywhere. 
Is it because it is simply "uninteresting" compared to his late quartets?
Or because it is "harder to understand" than them?


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

It is very rare for me to listen to a piece repeatedly and come to like it. There are so many pieces which I like listening to that I haven't really got time to listen to them all anyway, so I haven't got the time to listen repeatedly to something I don't like. I still hear things I haven't heard before, and like first time, so that's plenty.

However, the original question was more about whether you could be brainwashed into liking something. I suspect that is true, and you can see that in the different traditions around the world: European classical, Indian classical, Chinese, etc. Not to say that I can't like more than one of those schools, but I think they make the point about becoming habituated to things and coming to like them. I don't see why that might not happen, say with avant garde music if studying a music degree effectively compels the student to listen repeatedly to a piece or pieces of that type.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

So in other words, the easiest music that humans tend to understand, Western tonal music, is also the most simple and superficial. People throw away popular Romantics for composers with a longer shelf-life, like Bach and Brahms, but even they are just halfway on the spectrum with more complex composers out there.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Ethereality said:


> So in other words, the easiest music that humans tend to understand, Western tonal music, is also the most simple and superficial. People throw away popular Romantics for composers with a longer shelf-life, like Bach and Brahms, but even they are just halfway on the spectrum with more complex composers out there.


My reply to this is: "[email protected]f7q0rh mq03ru0ercnwermchwer fhPW9FQERGQAG GGFHFJJJR7889Q"

Marvel at its long shelf-life, because you will be deciphering its not immediately accessible or hummable nature for a long time.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Years ago,in my days as a horn player, I played a performance of Webern's spiky and mysterious "6 Pieces for orchestra " , which is certainly not easily accessible work for those who are not familiar with it and not too familiar with music of the Second Viennese School . 
As the rehearsals progressed, it actually began to seem melodious to me and the performance was quite an experience for me and the orchestra .


----------



## Sondersdorf (Aug 5, 2020)

superhorn said:


> Years ago,in my days as a horn player, I played a performance of Webern's spiky and mysterious "6 Pieces for orchestra " , which is certainly not easily accessible work for those who are not familiar with it and not too familiar with music of the Second Viennese School .
> As the rehearsals progressed, it actually began to seem melodious to me and the performance was quite an experience for me and the orchestra .


Repeated listening is complicated. I had a brief sojourn in a youth symphony at age 16 and the pieces we played are still favorites of mine, Beethoven's First Symphony and Mozart's 35th come to mind. Other similar symphonies go past me without notice. The high school band arrangements I was playing at the same time? I probably would not recognize them, and if I did, it would be with distaste. Probably Beethoven and Mozart wrote better music.

This gets complicated because there are a lot of people who use music as just another playing card in social or political maneuvering. There are people who genuinely like music. They are the ones who tend to end up posting on forums like talkclassical. Then, there are others who profess to like something just because they think it indicates their good taste or academic superiority. They look around the room or read something and suddenly music they derided when using their own taste and powers of perception, is suddenly wonderful.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I tend not to listen to something more than once if I find it expressly unappealing on the first try. (Note that I say expressly unappealing, which is not the same as simply not being appealing.) I do not think that the title of the thread is accurate. I think there are many things that would not be catchy no matter how many times one listened to them.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

JAS said:


> I tend not to listen to something more than once if I find it expressly unappealing on the first try. (Note that I say expressly unappealing, which is not the same as simply not being appealing.) I do not think that the title of the thread is accurate. I think there are many things that would not be catchy no matter how many times one listened to them.


I agree, I think. Most of my Britten was "acquired" mentally after repeat listenings. Most of it was unappealing at first listen -but not actually ugly or seemingly designed to be off-putting. I could tell that even if I hadn't liked it, it was worth listening to. So I persisted and became the Britten bore I am today as a result.

But if I hear it as arrogantly or brazenly ugly (JAS's "expressly unappealing", I think), then after giving it a fair hearing, possibly multiple times, but not dozens, I'll give up on it.

I can't define ugly, of course. I just know it when I hear it (in passing, I remember my first hearing of Turangalila and being utterly bowled over by it. Not ugly in the slightest... so being 20th Century European isn't a passport to doom for me).

I will tell you on the other end of the spectrum, too: there's a lot of "pretty" music which just goes in one ear and out the other (Bach's organ music, I'm looking at you). For some reason, I just cannot get a handle on much of it. If you told me I'd heard the same BWV number 40 times, I doubt I would be able to confirm the fact: a lot of it just sounds exactly like every other organ piece he wrote, to me. (Me not being an organist probably has something to do with it). I exaggerate a little... but only a little! But give me his cantatas or concertos, no problem.

So, yes, the very ugly and the very same-y won't improve in my head no matter how often I repeat them.


----------



## musichal (Oct 17, 2020)

I think familiarity a two-edged sword which can cut two ways, breeding either increased appreciation, or contempt.

I have used multiple plays of many different music compositions/performances - not just CM - in order to give myself the opportunity to enjoy it. Why? (I have been asked this by several folks who held the theory that it if you don't like an artist, or even a genre, then simply move on.) I have always given the same answer: I once hated asparagus.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

There is something to motivate me to learn to love more of a composer not his music. Repeated listening improves understanding and liking to a musical work? Definitely no. As a matter of fact, I know from the very first random piece whether this composer fits me or no, if does, then I will definitely learn to love all of his work, and such process never fails me. Something tells in every piece of a composer. To me, I will never tolerate bad music more than once if possible, but I know whose music I should learn to love and will continue to love more and more. The catchiness is not the word, there are many cheap melodies which sound like flirting all the time, this is sick. Music is more than sheer melodies and harmonies, there is something human, distinctively signature of the composer that I always love to discover.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I love good music from the first listening, but when I leanr to love more of the music, not because of his good music, but of his person. Therefore, there will be no end to love good music, I can love more and more, ever more and more of JS Bach, JJ Froberger, Buxtehude, di Lasso untill my soul catch fire and burn the world to ashes.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Bad musicians do not know his music betray their own person, therefore they write bad music and do not notice. Good music is like diamond, you can see through it at once, but something just hold onto you at the moment, and then you will be drawn into it forever. In fact, music is quite physical to the eyes of intensive listeners, like faces of people, fall in love, everything of that person will be fairy tales, and what is different from love affair is that the bondage will not be wasted through repeated usage.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

There is no amount of listening to Wagner or Vivaldi, for just two examples, that will cause me to like it. Not only that, but I have no desire to listen to it further in the hope that I might change my opinion. There is just too much other music more interesting to me that requires either no work at all or less work to enjoy.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> I tend not to listen to something more than once if I find it expressly unappealing on the first try. (Note that I say expressly unappealing, which is not the same as simply not being appealing.) I do not think that the title of the thread is accurate. I think there are many things that would not be catchy no matter how many times one listened to them.


the title of the thread isn't meant to be accurate. In fact, I disagree with that idea as I said in the very first comment. But that's an opinion that I've heard a lot of times (and often in a negative tone) as if repeated listening is a way to brainwash the listener instead of a way to learn.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Ariasexta said:


> There is something to motivate me to learn to love more of a composer not his music. Repeated listening improves understanding and liking to a musical work? Definitely no.


in my experience, definitely yes. If I think of some of my very favorite music, I didn't know what to do of it at first. It was definitely an acquired taste. I think that while music can be understood by everybody, to appreciate the nuances of it requires also experience.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

norman bates said:


> in my experience, definitely yes. If I think of some of my very favorite music, I didn't know what to do of it at first. It was definitely an acquired taste. I think that while music can be understood by everybody, to appreciate the nuances of it requires also experience.


Acquired taste, true, so was JS Bach Mass in B minor, some passages just shelled me at the first time, then the whole oeuvre only came togather in my mind after I found out about his cantatas some times later. There will be something in the composition to draw you onto the whole oeuvre. Repeated listening is still the way to go for most composers but not the most important point, it is why so many people find my complete appreciation of a composer as impossible. I will not spoiler the music. I know it will be extremely hard to keep up the interest like I do while BEING stuffed with a lot of modern concepts and knowledges. It needs some retrospection, acknowledgement of the past, some doubt in modern scientific authorities, embracing some old-school ideas.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I do not know if my theory of complete appreciation of a baroque composer is purely musical or a product of old school thinking. I find many so called new philosophies repulsive, like transcendentalism, post-modernism, a lot of smug spiritualism. What a mess, Sherlock Holmes suggested Watson at their first acquaintence that people should try to clean up their brains like cleaning up their rooms. Are we unknowingly fed with too much useless informations? yes. Imagine dedicate your whole life to something choosen as true love, how many people can accept such life? Peoples mind is diluted, too rambling over the meaningless field of the information wasteland. It might be inspiring to concentrate on something today, and to resist so called the joys of life sometimes. I am starting to further distance my feelings with the music, just to love more of the music, I have set a process of come to love, and leaving, and rediscovery to my musical collection. I am not unawaring of the fact that some injustices I do onto my own music: all the sin of lavishness, hostilities toward the other music, so to distill from music the best enlightenments. I will have to harness my desire through such process. This is what I want to share with people, a long long pilgrimage of self-questioning in music. It is beyond how good the music is, it is about living with music, ideologically copulate with the music, and discover life and the world with music.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

So the starting point is with your own ideas about life, let me concede that it is true people can enjoy all kind of music if listened to for many times if not predetermined to reject. So, why is it impossible to love an entire legacy of a baroque composer?  Logically not bad at all. :tiphat: It is a double, mutual concession, nice.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

I've been listening to Monteverdi, on repeat (all of his Madrigals and Operas) trying to absorb his musical vocabulary.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

As a matter of fact, I did try some modern composers, but several disappointments hit me so hard and traumatized me: the vapid tonal games for untalented players. But some little known modern composers surprised me with fairly enticing sacred vocal pieces, let me keep their names of either sorts secret. The trauma left by those disappointments probably shows the repetitive listening can not apply for everyone. The double concession thing is more of a joke than fact. I am no joking,the musical disappointments still remain a psychological trauma in me, it really hurts, do not know why. I can not really get over it, so repetitive listening is out of the question. 

Some romantic composers did well with me are: Brahms, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, especially Beethoven could be the best of them all, I still listen to Beethovens string quartets, a guilty pleasure. But now I just found out most of my hated music can be grouped into one category: the film symphonies, most of the movie symphonies composed by professional composers even including Grammy winners fails me, no, let me say clearly, all of them failed me and traumatized me. They are sheer nightmares, my hair stands, goosebumps rise, stomach revolts, so sickening, even they smell of the most infamous chemical wastes as I am reminded of them now.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Now I understand why Monteverdi was criticized so badly by conservative critics of his time. Being dramatic from his 8th book of madrigals, it was the reason he was attacked, so being a movie theme can be even worse? Probably, lets notice being dramatic and operatic was not very welcomed untill late 18th century, even in Balletto genre which preceded the opera started in middle 16th century, people used only chansons and villanellas with interludes. I still do not know what make the movie worse than operas in symphonies, but they are definitely tonal pollutions. Grammy music award sounds more like a cesspool of maggots, sickening to no limit, all of Grammy japanese winners repulse me so far, because I am a jap rock fan.

Monteverdis dramaticality is still limited and pioneering, his dramaticality was sinspired by Giovanni Valentinis 1619 book of madrigals which pioneered concerted madrigals. Monteverdis 1638 effort was a venture in the concerted madrigals with more up tp date dramaticality, foreshadowing all later operas. Operas by its own genre is faultless, but mixing with church music had always been harshly criticized. Maybe comparing operas with the movie was wrong, music plays different roles in each, movies use music as ambient, but in opera music dominates.

The point is movie certainly diluted the musical quality, making pieces sound larger than it should be through the help of movies. Such musical pieces could never attain such renown if composed as individual works without the framework of movies. And, honestly, as independent music they sound worse than african tribal voodoo chants, the worst disgustingly music possible to be created: the movie symphonies.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I forgot to mention there is an ethical guideline in Japan for professional composers to compose for anime or movie, that is not to eclipse the attention to the movie itself. In this regard, the music previously I criticized could be understood as such and forgiven. It is clear that music was humbled to the scenes of the movie. You can try this movie sound track, I hate it.








I like none of the sound track of this movie, but neverthlessly, they serve the movie nicely. Of course, I do not like the movie also, it is a stupid movie about stupid 19th century chinese autocratic retarded emperors.


----------

