# Familiarity & Appreciation



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

I'm somewhat of a newcomer to symphony but have had decades of exposure to opera, and in that time I've found one universal truth: learning new works can involve lots of repeated listening to arrive at full appreciation. In fact, the pieces that demand the most time (or that are even repellent on initial exposure) often yield the greatest long-term personal satisfaction. Which leads me to my question - how long do you give new works before rendering judgement?


----------



## Samael420 (Nov 8, 2017)

I guess it really depends on the work.
Sometimes I hear a piece for the first time and I know already that I am going to like it: there is a catchy melody here or there, a nice movement or motive that I enjoy. Although of course I know that it would take my untrained ear significantly more than one listen to actually appreciate a great part of the piece.

On the other end of the spectrum I remember listening to Mahler 1 for the first time and going "naaah". I haven't touched that piece for a couple of months after that. Luckily my friend insisted that I listen to it again a couple of times, highlighting things to pay attention to. After that I fell in love with the third movement and enjoying the piece ever since.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Prokofiev falls into this cathegory. I listened to his 2nd symphony at least 4-5 times before I started liking it and now it one of my most favorite symphonies. Bruckner too. I liked his music from the beginning, but I like it much more after 3-4 hearings. 
Mahler I like but do not love yet. I am lukewarm. The music seems somehow disjointed, frequently changing pace, melody. I may need to give him more listenings.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

for me - a work has to appeal to me on at least two levels - the first is immediate - more "emotional" - it's exciting, it's triumphant,it's sad-sounding, it's "beautiful", it's dark, mysterious, or whatever - something that attracts me at first or 2nd hearing.... 
the 2nd level is intellectual, or analytical - this can take some time to explore - but there is something about the form, the melodic/harmonic, rhythmic content that I find intriguing, and worth exploring more fully....repeated listening will reveal more and more of these aspects and will greatly enhance my enjoyment of the work....even after hundreds, and hundreds of listenings, I will hear new things in these great works...

but - something had to attract me, lure me in on the first couple of hearings, otherwise, I move on to something else...however,I do often come back to these passed-over works and give them further hearings, very often to more positive reception...
IOW - for me - there is no set time limit, no set number of hearings to be strictly allotted to any work...I just follow my ears.......


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

Many of the pieces that I warm up to very quickly are also the ones that I lose interest in very quickly. Okay, well, perhaps "lose interest" is a strong way to put it, but it's typically true that the elusive pieces are the ones that most captivate me in the long run.

However, I don't force myself to listen to music that I dislike. The pieces that I initially "dislike" and find myself liking later usually have some catch/curiosity to them that signals a deeper side to the work, which prompts me to explore them further.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Jacred, insightful comments! In evaluating music, later judgement often has more value than the first impression. Yet musicians or critics have to deliver reviews overnight, adjudicate pieces after one hearing, choose quickly from a very large number of submissions. The way I try to deal with tight deadlines is to deliberately give room for works that haven't yet revealed all their secrets. At the same time, I don't dismiss works that have immediate appeal: they have their own excellence and perhaps further levels of significance. Regardless, some reflection is always needed and one thing is certain: snap judgements thrown on the internet instantaneously are worthless.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll listen to a work new to me about 8 times before junking it temporarily. Then I listen again a few months or years later and just keep repeating the process which will not end until I'm dead.


----------



## wagner4evr (Jul 10, 2010)

Jacred said:


> Many of the pieces that I warm up to very quickly are also the ones that I lose interest in very quickly. Okay, well, perhaps "lose interest" is a strong way to put it, but it's typically true that the elusive pieces are the ones that most captivate me in the long run.
> 
> However, I don't force myself to listen to music that I dislike. The pieces that I initially "dislike" and find myself liking later usually have some catch/curiosity to them that signals a deeper side to the work, which prompts me to explore them further.


Pretty much my experience right there.

@Jacck - I had one of the biggest wtf moments ever going from Prokofiev's 1st to 2nd lol. Half a dozen listens later...it's one of my favs. Similar experience with Shostakovich's 4th.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

wagner4evr said:


> How long do you give new works before rendering judgement?


That's a good question. I've appreciated the answers given so far.

Since music is nonessential to my livelihood and more for personal enrichment, I don't have a compelling need to put up with music I don't like, which is freeing. (When I was studying music, it was different; I had to put up and even play a lot of music I personally didn't care about.)

So I usually try for five encounters. By that time, I will have hit something in the piece that will be compelling enough to launch further study. If not, it goes to the bottom of the CD stack to be resurrected occasionally to see if my ears have become more discerning.

Further thoughts which don't relate to the question but are more thinking out loud:

Sometimes a piece grabs me or resonates with me immediately, and then I grab the score or books on musical analysis to find out why. That's what happened with Erik Satie; I heard Gnoissienne No. 5, and I had to find out who this Erik Satie was, which led to a ton of subsequent recordings, books, scores, and his approach to music was an introduction to a lot of other composers. So that was a piece I accepted, and my initial impression was validated with time.

Other times I hate a piece on first listening but hang with it because it has achieved enough status that it bothers me that I don't hear what others with more discernment than me hear. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis was that way; it took five listens, but then the light went on, again resulting in several recordings, books, and a marked-up score. So that one took time but was worth the effort to hang with it.

Then there are pieces which I like for no apparent reason than I like them. Morton Feldman and Gerard Grisey are two composers who I connect with, and I don't know why, and I haven't gone in depth with their music to find out why because I haven't really needed to. With the passage of time, they still connect with me.

Finally, there are pieces that I hack away at and finally give up on, usually with a sense of frustration and sorrow and usually because I don't have the time I used to have to go to the university music library and study the score and tje analytical works to figure it out. I have an Elliott Carter orchestral recording with a piano in it; that's all I remember about it. It was too complicated and not compelling enough to warrant the time I needed to put into it to understand it.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I just know, after a few listens that I'm not going to like a piece. I've tried Tchaikovsky" Mannfred lots of times as I love all the other symphonies but it just bores me rigid. I'm less tolerant with other pieces, as I said, usually giving them only a couple of tries to pique my interest.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Sometimes it takes years - decades even for the music to finally make sense to your brain. There are two composers who immediately come to mind for me: Sibelius and Elgar. I picked up their complete symphonies nearly 50 years ago in what are now considered superb recordings: Maazel/Vienna in Sibelius, Solti/London Phil in Elgar. Try as I could, only the 2nd and 5th of Sibelius made an impression and stuck in the brain. Elgar - nothing. Just couldn't figure out what the fuss was about. Every now and then I might pull one of the symphonies out and give it a spin, but it just didn't compute. Beethoven, Mahler, Tchaikovsky were much more accessible for me. Then, about 25 years ago I turned on the radio late at night and was mesmerized by some incredibly beautiful, powerful work - surprise of surprises; it was the Elgar 2nd. I had listened to it several times, but finally for the first time I "heard" it. Now I love it dearly and can't listen to it enough, it seems. The rest of Elgar's output fell into place quickly. Sibelius took a bit longer, and it was while playing in an orchestra doing the first symphony that I fell under that work's spell. I look back at my inability to appreciate some music with great curiosity. There's a time for everything, and some music just takes time. Now, there are some composers and works that having heard, played and studied for over 50 years I still do not appreciate or enjoy: most Mozart, Bach, Verdi and Schubert. I just don't respond to their music.


----------



## snowyflow (Jul 30, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> ...Other times I hate a piece on first listening but hang with it because it has achieved enough status that it bothers me that I don't hear what others with more discernment than me hear. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis was that way; it took five listens, but then the light went on, again resulting in several recordings, books, and a marked-up score. So that one took time but was worth the effort to hang with it.


That's what I often experience as well. If a piece has been revered so much throughout history, there's got to be something in there that's worth trying to understand and appreciate; that's the sense of curiosity I think often drives me to approach a piece, or hang on to it a bit longer even though I don't seem to be intrigued on the first few listens. I had this experience with Liszt's Sonata in B minor, and some Brahms symphonies.


----------

