# For the rest of your life, you can either...



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Note: if you choose "listen only to works you've never heard before", you can still re-listen to works you discover in the future.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

I have listened to most of Mozart's compositions and they are pretty much to my taste. I am also very fastly developing my interests in Beethoven and Mahler and Brahms but I am uncertain about whether I will like them more than Mozart. So better choose the safer option.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think I've listened to a wide variety of stuff and have a good roadmap on the essentials and good-to-haves, so I strongly believe I'm missing out way, way more if I listen only to stuff I've never heard before at this point. There might be some more gold nuggets out there, but pushed to it, I'd make that sacrifice for sure.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I'd choose 'listen only to works I've heard before' on the grounds that it takes time to appreciate a good work and it's nearly always possible to discover something new in it at each listening. Listening to new stuff all the time would keep the brain on the constant qui-vive & be like dying of a rose in aromatic pain. 

It's also a fact that when I joined TC, there were loads of composers I'd never listened to so, as I knew I was an ignoramus, I dutifully listened to quite a lot and then never returned to it. So I'd have the chance to 'consolidate' my impressions of Mahler, for example.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

I can't live without Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Dvorak, Grieg, Bruch and Mendelssohn, but will happily live without the works of most 20th century composers (Jazz excepted), so I would much rather stick with the music I love.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

After 35+ years of exploring I'm afraid that most gems are in the stack I already listened to - so the first option for me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Like many TC polls the question is totally unrealistic. 

But since the poll seems to be wanting to gauge what TC members value - I would prefer discovering music I'd never heard before. I do that a lot anyway.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Sibelius, Cubase, Yamaha, Future of music, Expression, Creativity, Deep Learning/Deep Mind...


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

There is enough music that I know but don't know well enough to keep me entertained for as long as I can expect myself to remain interested in music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm really divided on this one.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm split down the middle. I do like a new discovery.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I have been listening to classical music for almost 35 years. If I live to my grandfather's age, I'll have more than 40 more years to live, if to my father's age only 10, splitting the difference gets me to 25-27 more years which would amount roughly to the age of my other grandfather but still be less time (and probably at some stage with poorer hearing etc.) than I have had for listening until now. I'll stick with what I know, or more precisely have heard at least once because there are many pieces I have heard a few times but do not know well at all.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

In 55+ years of listening and collecting, I've learned that the odds of a work new to me will be outstanding and memorable are quite slim. On the other hand, there's a ton of stuff I love - so much so that it will take a long time to get through it all again. And again. First choice a no-brainer.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Go without Bach, Mahler, Shostakovich, Weinberg, and host of others? I'll pass.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

After enjoying so much for so long, I look forward to continue enjoying it.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm surprised the results are so skewed. I guess most people know what they like, and like what they know.

Keep in mind the poll applies to all music, not just classical.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

At first I thought it would be a tough decision, but with a bit of thought, the decision became easier.

As long as I can listen to music I never heard before the imaginary starting date of the poll limitations, I would choose only music that I have never heard before.

First of all, almost every one of my favorite composers has many more pieces than I have heard so far. Eillott Carter lived until he was 102, and was composing up until he died. He has mush more for me to discover. I have only heard a fraction of the music by: Charles Wuorinen, Joan Tower, Bruno Maderna, Harrison Birtwistle, George Perle, etc, etc, etc..., so a good percentage of their compositions are available to me. 

So, even though I would not be able to listen to the music I already discovered by these composers and more, there is still plenty more to discover.

Also, I am constantly discovering new composers. I just started listening to Unsuk Chin, so, her entire catalog of recorded music is almost completely opened to me.

And finally, all those pre 20th century, common practice composers I have unable to get into so far, would have plenty of music I have never heard, that I may get in the future. 

So, 'only music that I have never heard' has quite a bit more upside for me.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I have liked discovering new composers but I admit to having slowed up on this particular front in recent years. The main reason for that is that after over 20 years my collection is both big and diverse enough to keep me sated, and so I would choose the first option as there is still so much that I already have but don't know at all well.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Simon Moon, have you tried early music (pre-CP)? I feel like you might find something there for you.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

voted listened to. i suppose 30 years ago my answer might've differed


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

The results dont surprise me - why do most of us we re listen to works we have heard many many times already instead of new pieces? Although I like a lot of new pieces I hear - I very rarely find a Beethoven 5 or Der Fresichutz or Schubert Piano trio - something that completely turns me upside down - not rarely - never. I can only assume that in 35 years of listening to classical music I have unearthed more or less all the treasure that is out there. If I have missed a gem or two - I can live with that.


----------



## adinfinitum (Apr 5, 2021)

This was an easy poll for me; I chose the second option. While there is a ton of music that I really love that I've (obviously) heard before, there is just so much music out there still left to listen to and absorb that I see no real point in limiting myself with the first option, as nice as it is.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

adinfinitum said:


> This was an easy poll for me;


Was very easy


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

adinfinitum said:


> This was an easy poll for me; I chose the second option. While there is a ton of music that I really love that I've (obviously) heard before, there is just so much music out there still left to listen to and absorb that I see no real point in limiting myself with the first option, as nice as it is.


Yes, the easiest poll at TC so far.

Option ONE of course.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I voted : listen only to works you've heard before.


----------



## FrankinUsa (Aug 3, 2021)

Neither….nor. Keep on doing both.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

FrankinUsa said:


> Neither….nor. Keep on doing both.


Alas that was no option.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Brahmsian Colors said:


> After enjoying so much for so long, I look forward to continue enjoying it.


And here's my _longer_ version of Brahmsian Colors's post:

Though I thoroughly enjoy exploring new and previously unheard (by me) musical works, I've spent several decades listening to music of all sorts (styles, genres, eras...) and have amassed a vast collection of recordings over those decades. I doubt I could live long enough to repeat the listening experiences I have had, but I know I have heard music which I never want to be without as long as I'm alive. So, I would readily choose rather to re-hear music I've already listened to than to take on only "new" music, if only to have the opportunity to hear one of the Beethoven symphonies one more time, or the Mozart piano concertos, or the Bach Preludes and Fugues, or the Beatles _Revolver_, or Miles Davis's _Kind of Blue_, or ....


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I've listened to most of the standard repertoire, and I doubt that there are many works I haven't listened to that are as good as the Schubert String Quintet, Mahler Symphony no. 9, Bach's St. Matthew Passion, etc. And I can spend many years noticing new details in many of the works I have listened to.

So, like almost everyone else, I would choose to only listen to the works I've already listened to.

The only way the second choice would be wise is if the person has only listened to a limited number of works so far. Like me when I was a young teenager. Giving up Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's 40th, Mendelssohn's Wedding March, Tchaikovsky Pathetique, Vivaldi's Concerto Alla Rustica, etc. would be a good trade for the rest of classical music.

Edit: However, I still have a good amount of discovering to do.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Ingélou said:


> I'd choose 'listen only to works I've heard before' on the grounds that it takes time to appreciate a good work and it's nearly always possible to discover something new in it at each listening. Listening to new stuff all the time would keep the brain on the constant qui-vive & be like dying of a rose in aromatic pain.


I think you misunderstood the OP, which says:

"you can still re-listen to works you discover in the future. "


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Keep in mind that this includes your own compositions and improvisation.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

ORigel said:


> Like me when I was a young teenager. Giving up Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's 40th, Mendelssohn's Wedding March, Tchaikovsky Pathetique, Vivaldi's Concerto Alla Rustica, etc. would be a good trade for the rest of classical music.


Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's 40th and Tchaikovsky's _Pathetique_ are awesome masterpieces of the classical music repertoire and I guess I would have much more doubts concerning not hearing them for the rest of my life to hear music that's new to me than you have.

The fact that a piece of music is extremely popular doesn't mean that it is not great.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

That's a no brainer, for me. As much as I enjoy discovering new works--which is an ongoing pursuit of mine--I wouldn't want to be without all the masterworks that I already know. While I am excited about the direction that music is presently headed, my value & appreciation for what has been is stronger. & in regards to discovering new works from the past, by great, neglected composers, surprisingly, that can still occasionally happen: such as, in recent years, with the unearthing of music by a number of major, yet previously obscure Franco Flemish composers that I'd never heard of before (for example, Guillaume Faugues, Firminus Caron, Marbrianus de Orto, etc.), as well as with the odd Baroque composer, now & then, but those experiences are becoming more rare. Plus, most of the time, obscure composers are obscure for a reason, and while I might enjoy hearing their music, once or twice, their gifts rarely ever compare to the giants.

So, thanks partly to the early music revival or period movement of the past half century, I've heard most everything that is most worth hearing in the history of music--works by an incredible array of composers spanning from the Middle Ages up to today. & I wouldn't trade those experiences or that immense amount of amazing music for just about anything, at least not within the arts; except for possibly the works of Shakespeare & the other great dramatists, such as Moliere, Euripedes, Marlowe, Chekhov, etc., who, at another time in my life, held as much importance to me as music does today.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I'd probably pick the second option. It would mean not hearing a Sibelius or Beethoven symphony again, but there's still so much by both of those composers and dozens of others to listen to that I'm sure I'd find new works to be dazzled by and come to love.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> Beethoven's Ninth, Mozart's 40th and Tchaikovsky's _Pathetique_ are awesome masterpieces of the classical music repertoire and I guess I would have much more doubts concerning not hearing them for the rest of my life to hear music that's new to me than you have.
> 
> The fact that a piece of music is extremely popular doesn't mean that it is not great.


I would give up those masterpieces if forced to, to listen to the masterpieces I've listened to since then. That's the only way in which I would choose music I haven't heard before-- though with the knowledge I had then, it would be an educated guess not an informed choice if it really happened when I was young.

It just goes to show why almost everyone picked the first option and not the second-- even a novice giving up the first several works they know would be painful-- the first works we listen to are usually popular, and popular for a reason.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Forster said:


> I'd probably pick the second option. It would mean not hearing a Sibelius or Beethoven symphony again, but there's still so much by both of those composers and dozens of others to listen to that I'm sure I'd find new works to be dazzled by and come to love.


IMO, you can _like_ a good portion of classical music you haven't listened to yet, but you won't _love_ the vast majority of them. Nor would the works you come to love replace the works you already know.

Unless, of course, you haven't listened to most of the standard repertoire yet.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ORigel said:


> IMO, you can _like_ a good portion of classical music you haven't listened to yet, but you won't _love_ the vast majority of them. Nor would the works you come to love replace the works you already know.
> 
> Unless, of course, you haven't listened to most of the standard repertoire yet.


I don't want to listen to the standard repertory - anymore. For me, there is hardly anything less interesting than a Beethoven symphony, for example.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Unless, of course, you haven't listened to most of the standard repertoire yet.


The "standard repertoire" is an indefinable beast, but it's obvious that someone who has made a considerable dent in it is giving up more than someone who has made only a minor foray.

I'd have all of Mozart's and Wagner's operas to get to know, most of Bach, 60+ Haydn symphonies, most of the non-symphonic output of Beethoven...

Of course, there's a reason - two reasons - why I've not tried some of these already: time and taste.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I don't want to listen to the standard repertory - anymore. For me, there is hardly anything less interesting than a Beethoven symphony, for example.


But you're a strong advocate of Cage and his 4'33", aren't you? I guess that some traffic noise may be more interesting to you than some legendary work of the standard repertory.

"When i hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking. And talking about his feelings or about his ideas, of relationships. But when I hear traffic, the sound of traffic here on sixth avenue for instance, I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking, I have the feeling that a sound is acting, and I love the activity of sound. What it does, is it gets louder and quieter, and it gets higher and lower. And it gets longer and shorter. I'm completely satisfied with that, I don't need sound to talk to me.

We don't see much difference between time and space, we don't know where one begins and the other stops. (…) People expect listening to be more than listening. And sometimes they speak of inner listening, or the meaning of sound. When I talk about music, it finally comes to peoples minds that I'm talking about sound that doesn't mean anything. That is not inner, but is just outer. And they say, these people who finally understand that say, you mean it's just sounds? To mean that for something to just be a sound is to be useless. Whereas I love sounds, just as they are, and I have no need for them to be anything more. I don't want sound to be psychological. I don't want a sound to pretend that it's a bucket, or that it's a president, or that it's in love with another sound. I just want it to be a sound. And I'm not so stupid either. There was a german philosopher who is very well known, his name was Emmanuel Kant, and he said there are two things that don't have to mean anything, one is music and the other is laughter. Don't have to mean anything that is, in order to give us deep pleasure. The sound experience which i prefer to all others, is the experience of silence. And this silence, almost anywhere in the world today, is traffic. If you listen to Beethoven, it's always the same, but if you listen to traffic, it's always different." - John Cage.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> But you're a strong advocate of Cage and his 4'33", aren't you? I guess that some traffic noise may be more interesting to you than some legendary work of the standard repertory.
> 
> "When i hear what we call music, it seems to me that someone is talking. And talking about his feelings or about his ideas, of relationships. But when I hear traffic, the sound of traffic here on sixth avenue for instance, I don't have the feeling that anyone is talking, I have the feeling that a sound is acting, and I love the activity of sound. What it does, is it gets louder and quieter, and it gets higher and lower. And it gets longer and shorter. I'm completely satisfied with that, I don't need sound to talk to me.
> 
> We don't see much difference between time and space, we don't know where one begins and the other stops. (…) People expect listening to be more than listening. And sometimes they speak of inner listening, or the meaning of sound. When I talk about music, it finally comes to peoples minds that I'm talking about sound that doesn't mean anything. That is not inner, but is just outer. And they say, these people who finally understand that say, you mean it's just sounds? To mean that for something to just be a sound is to be useless. Whereas I love sounds, just as they are, and I have no need for them to be anything more. I don't want sound to be psychological. I don't want a sound to pretend that it's a bucket, or that it's a president, or that it's in love with another sound. I just want it to be a sound. And I'm not so stupid either. There was a german philosopher who is very well known, his name was Emmanuel Kant, and he said there are two things that don't have to mean anything, one is music and the other is laughter. Don't have to mean anything that is, in order to give us deep pleasure. The sound experience which i prefer to all others, is the experience of silence. And this silence, almost anywhere in the world today, is traffic. If you listen to Beethoven, it's always the same, but if you listen to traffic, it's always different." - John Cage.


I wouldn't call myself a "strong" advocate of Cage or 4'33"- just someone thrust into the role of defender of his music and aesthetic philosophy because of some strong attacks against him waged here.

But I am currently more interested in Classical music other than the CP repertory.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I'm going with the first option only in that I continue to find so much richness in works that I already know well (or that I, at least, think I know well). I know A LOT of works, but through the years I've been able to refine my favorites. This isn't to say that I don't like to explore new music, too, because there's always something out there that'll spark my interest, but to completely abandon what I already know and love would be detrimental to my own well-being.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

terrible choice...neither option is any good.


----------

