# A Challenge to Start off the New Year!



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

So I've been thinking about trying a certain experiment to prove/disprove a certain theory. The theory is that no matter what the piece is, after a certain number of listenings, one can overcome one's apathy or indifference and gain a serious appreciation of the work, if not a true admiration. The main factors of this experiment is the _motivation to do the experiment_ and the _quantity of individual listenings_. However, other factors may arise as I go along, such as how I listen to the piece of music, or if I do any contextualization of the work.

So here's the Challenge! Once a day, I will listen to selected piece that is unfamiliar to me, or something I know I already dislike. I will write down my impressions from day to day. How long this will go on will be up to my impressions. If I hit a point where I'm truly loving the piece and can't help but continue to listen to it more, so be it. Or, if I hit a brick wall and start hating it even more to the point I don't want to go on, so be it. But I want to stay as true to my challenge as possible, and not give up after a listening or 2. That's the factor of motivation.

So today I will begin! What have I selected?

I'm inspired to listen to the entire Symphony No. 5 of Carl Nielsen. I chose this piece because I heard people giving high praises to it recently, and it's also a completely unfamiliar piece to me. ALSO, it's a work by a composer that I've struggled to truly enjoy, save for a few works. Thus, the elements of dislike/unfamiliarity will play a role here, and I must fight my disinclination and see what happens. I might surprise myself, I may not. I make no predictions though.

I will write my impressions here as time goes on. But I also invite other TC members to do this Challenge with me! Pick a piece, any piece that you want to become familiar with, and listen to it, once a day, and write your impressions here. I don't suggest more than that unless something about it really strikes you. It's a rule of thumb that I've followed often in my life, in order to preserve the freshness of pieces of music. One's mood changes from day to day, and that can have a significant impact on how the music is perceived. I'm not trying to torture myself by forcing myself to a piece 3 times in a row, I would never do that with a piece I already enjoy myself.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> So I've been thinking about trying a certain experiment to prove/disprove a certain theory. The theory is that no matter what the piece is, after a certain number of listenings, one can overcome one's apathy or indifference and gain a serious appreciation of the work, if not a true admiration.


The question that springs to mind is: what if the piece just kind of sucks?

Nevertheless, it sounds like fun. I'll have to think of something that hasn't spoken to me yet.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Let your next piece in this experiment be _Gotterdammerung_.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Aramis said:


> Let your next piece in this experiment be _Gotterdammerung_.


Disqualified: I already love it.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

ahammel said:


> I'll have to think of something that hasn't spoken to me yet.


How about Bolero? 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Disqualified: I already love it.


Same here 

I'd probably not do a full opera for something like this, or at least span it out differently. Maybe once a week if I listen to excerpts for several days?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Well worth spending a lot of time with is Charles Ives Concord Piano Sonata. I'm glad I did. A kaleidoscopic journey of dissonance and nostalgic Christian hymns. An inspired work.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

DrKilroy said:


> How about Bolero?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

That's a kind of intense way to do it, but I have made a habit of returning at periodic intervals to pieces that have never spoken to me, but that people whose opinions I value speak highly of -- just to see if something has happened to me in the meantime (or my way of listening, or the piece itself) that will cause me to see something in it I didn't before. You will find, however, that there are pieces that just go against the grain of your musical personality, pieces where over-familiarity breeds contempt (Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, for instance) and, as has been pointed out, pieces that actually just suck.  Also pieces you once liked, but that haven't worn well over the years.

george


----------



## TitanisWalleri (Dec 30, 2012)

I have been doing this for a few works over the last year. I found that after listening to Bolero several times to attempt to attain an appreciation for it, I just shot myself in the leg, not the head. I tried it with Scheherazade and I still don't like it; I'm not really sure why.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Day 1:

I was immediately attracted to it on first impression. The string ostinato at the beginning was very refreshing, and the melodic writing reminiscent of Sibelius. As it became more intense in the first movement, its possible influence on Shostakovich became extremely apparent. The octatonicism and chromaticism was very reminiscent of Shostakovich's own symphonies, the 10th coming quickest to mind. The elements that I normally didn't like about Nielsen (notably his woodwind writing) became more apparently in the style I like most about Shostakovich. I never viewed the Nielsen Flute Concerto as a precursor to Shostakovich, but it became clear now. I wish the Flute Concerto was as beautiful as this Symphony actually, I don't know what was up with him with that piece. 

When I reached the 2nd movement, I realized that I've heard this movement already many years ago. DOH! :lol:

I give it thumbs up! Probably the closest I can get to hearing a 20th century Russian symphony as I can get outside of Russia. 

Do I even need to do a second hearing? That's the question. I'm sure I could get a ton more out of it another hearing, but I accomplished what I wanted, and I'll certainly listen to it again on my free time another day. Maybe I'll go onto _another _Nielsen Symphony tomorrow, which I'll take some time to pick out. I've heard the 4th already, so I'll check out the 2nd Symphony.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Ok, got one: I'll do _Pelléas et Méllisande_ (Debussy. And yes, this is going to be once a week, not once a day.)

I listened to it a while ago and thought it was pretty deadly, but Debussy and opera ought to be two great tastes that go great together. I'll have another go.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Unless you take in the factor of the Stockholm Syndrome, it won't work, at least most of the time with music which is either just not so great, or really antithetical to your taste.

It can get you to an appreciation of craft where you had before completely dismissed a piece, or a composer, but that is about it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Unless you take in the factor of the Stockholm Syndrome, it won't work, at least most of the time with music which is either just not so great, or really antithetical to your taste.
> 
> It can get you to an appreciation of craft where you had before completely dismissed a piece, or a composer, but that is about it.


Perhaps I shall try something avant-garde eventually. But I don't know where to start..!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Perhaps I shall try something avant-garde eventually. But I don't know where to start..!


Maybe some Johnathan Harvey: _Body Mandala,_ _Tranquil Abiding,_ or _Towards a Pure Land_. That's an "easier" listen than many other Avant-Garde I've come across, and just as sweet.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'd be interested in doing this. But I have to find a piece that I've previously had trouble getting into and still am not into.It's going to be tough to find one because I get into things pretty easily these days.

brb


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Day 1:
> 
> I was immediately attracted to it on first impression. The string ostinato at the beginning was very refreshing, and the melodic writing reminiscent of Sibelius. As it became more intense in the first movement, its possible influence on Shostakovich became extremely apparent. The octatonicism and chromaticism was very reminiscent of Shostakovich's own symphonies, the 10th coming quickest to mind. The elements that I normally didn't like about Nielsen (notably his woodwind writing) became more apparently in the style I like most about Shostakovich. I never viewed the Nielsen Flute Concerto as a precursor to Shostakovich, but it became clear now. I wish the Flute Concerto was as beautiful as this Symphony actually, I don't know what was up with him with that piece.
> 
> ...


As the 3rd symphony is one of my personal favourites by any composer I would be interested in your opinions......


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Perhaps I shall try something avant-garde eventually. But I don't know where to start..!


I was nearly as instrument-centric as you are at your age, but I urge you as quickly as possible to erase the 'flute part syndrome' from your general criteria of instrumental and orchestral pieces... it can totally skew your perspective on the overall qualities of a piece, and currently it seems you are suffering / laboring under that very conition


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Unless you take in the factor of the Stockholm Syndrome, it won't work, at least most of the time with music which is either just not so great, or really antithetical to your taste.
> 
> It can get you to an appreciation of craft where you had before completely dismissed a piece, or a composer, but that is about it.


Perhaps Stockholm Syndrome in music wouldn't be such a bad thing though? I did this when I spent 5 days in Spain, years ago. I purposely brought no music I was familiar with. Nothing I disliked, mind you. Just a few things I owned and was unfamiliar with. I ended up discovering some favorites. On the flip side, this process could expedite the breeding of contempt.

Interesting anecdote. I've been listening to 4'33" every night before bed for the last week. Every morning I wake to it's glorious sound. Such an inspiring piece. If only it was longer.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I need to do this with Carter's Piano Concerto. I've tried to listen several times and only made it through all the way once. But shucks, I really don't want to do this to myself again; there are so many other pieces I actually want to hear. 

Maybe as time goes on this thread will inspire me to take another stab at the beast.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I was nearly as instrument-centric as you are at your age, but I urge you as quickly as possible to erase the 'flute part syndrome' from your general criteria of instrumental and orchestral pieces... it can totally skew your perspective on the overall qualities of a piece, and currently it seems you are suffering / laboring under that very conition


No, I don't think I am "suffering" as you call it that. I think you are mistaking "attention" with "distraction." Because then you can say that about any element of an orchestra. I love brass inflections in symphonic music, particularly lower brass. Would it be strange if I brought that out first when I was analyzing a piece of music before I started talking about anything else, ex. the strings? I never want to _play _the brass part (lol) but I can certainly appreciate its existence! I have 2 kinds of listening experiences particularly when it comes to symphonic music, one as a listener, one as a flutist. I always study the flute parts of music because I know my potential one day to actually play it myself. When I already dislike a piece to begin with, I start there, but when I hear a piece I do like right away, I listen to the whole picture. The flute wasn't what drew me to Glazunov, btw, he almost never gives the flute solos longer than a bar, but then I REALLY draw attention to them when he does.

What instrument do/did you play, by the way?


----------



## csacks (Dec 5, 2013)

Just to say that, to me, the experiment will be a good expression of discipline and self control. I believe that you will finish being able to listen the music, but I do not believe that you will finish "loving" the symphony. For those like me, whose appreciation for music is purely emotional, with no capacity to crumble and to chop it, I think the result is "OK, after this effort, now I can listen this". The joy of discovering technical elements is out of my capacities since I do not know too much music. Is what I call to listen from the right or the left hemisphere (call it a neurological distortion of perception, but it is my bias).
Emotion like Beethoven´s 9th, Brahms first symphony or many other, to me, they come from the first experience, or they just do not came later.
It will be interesting to see how it works with you. Very good idea. I will be reading you.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Is it really about appreciating a piece, or is it really about appreciating a style a piece is in? Of course it's very possible to appreciate a style more with some effort, but that doesn't mean all pieces in that style are equally creative and so will give you more with more listening.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Okay, I'm trying Elliott Carter's Piano Concerto by the Nashville Symphony. I'm going to be completely honest.

Starting out with a piano and ensemble, three-note cells. 3 minutes in. I'm soooo bored. Okay, sucking it up. Now comes in a slower orchestral part with a different three-note cell. What is it about this that I can't stand? Two more minutes to go. They're still fiddling with those cells. Maybe it's the recording; there are sounds from the orchestra which should be interesting but aren't.

Movement 2. This is the piano playing through "brutal sonic assaults." I'm forcing myself to sit through this. 3:29 - the bass clarinet is finally doing something interesting. 5:00 - the piano is finally getting interesting. A little more interesting piano/orchestra interaction at 8:00. Another orchestral/piano dust-up at 11:00. Now a quiet ending.

The liner notes call this a "powerful and deeply moving tour-de-force." Whatever. The second movement is more compelling than the first. I know Carter has his fans around here, but personally, I really don't want to hear this again.

[Update: I just read Alex Ross' blog about this piece: "But when I listened in a more passive mode, I had the instinctive reaction that Carter has inspired in subscription audiences for decades: Please stop this crazy noise." So it isn't just me.]


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I did a similar experiment for myself a couple of years ago with Varese's "Arcana," trying to get a better appreciation for his work. I knew that I liked Ligeti probably because of the exposure and thought the same might hold true for Varese. After a few days I did in fact begin to enjoy "Arcana" and found myself humming it - sort of -- in the shower. 

But then I discovered it is one of his most accessible works. I got discouraged by the whole thing after that. :-/


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

jim prideaux said:


> As the 3rd symphony is one of my personal favourites by any composer I would be interested in your opinions......


I followed you! And you know what, unlike the 5th, I think I do need to listen to this symphony again.

Day 1:

I really liked the 1st movement (memorable beginning! ), but then my attention dragged off a little as the symphony went on. Nielsen is really good with low brass! The wordless voices in the 2nd movement were a nice touch, ethereal. The more I'm hearing this composer, the more I hear of other favorite composers within him, even a touch of Glazunov here and there. His voice changed throughout too, as he went through different levels of dissonance. The last movement had a nice anthem at the beginning and end, and interesting techniques for development. But I don't remember too much of it now afterwards, less memorable than the 5th? Actually the real reason for that because I _had _heard the 5th before and so was more memorable than this one. This is what I am seeking after in my experiment, a sense of memorability in it which will help my appreciation as time goes on.

Definitely going to try again tomorrow!


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

This is a very interesting exercise though I have my doubts whether listening in this way will make you appreciate a composer/work which you have never got into. Of course, one of the main joys of music is always discovering new things and in the context of the works we are talking about they almost demand our attention and at least a listen through. 

The snag is there are some composers whom I believe we are simply adverse to and will never get on with, rather like some people we meet in real life. I have over the years spent a considerable amount of money buying music I really thought I should listen to and however many times I tried to like the piece just knew deep down I wouldn't 'get it.' There have been exceptions though; Wagner, Sibelius, Britten, Berg, Webern and many others on first hearing or many hearings and suddenly you are there with them.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Alydon said:


> The snag is there are some composers whom I believe we are simply adverse to and will never get on with, rather like some people we meet in real life. I have over the years spent a considerable amount of money buying music I really thought I should listen to and however many times I tried to like the piece just knew deep down I wouldn't 'get it.'


Part of this experiment is to help me find what these "snag composers" are. Mahler has been one for me quite a bit. A couple of years ago, I bought his 1st symphony hoping that I would come to like it, and I did the first time. But then the 2nd time it just sorta died, and I haven't picked it up since. I've heard it plenty more times on radio and other uncontrollable musical sources, but not from my own CD player ever again. I may do another Mahler Symphony for this experiment, possibly the 3rd. But it's long, so I'll have to spread out the listenings maybe.

Read this interesting quote from a rather _discretionary _source :tiphat:


> "I listened to The Valkerie the first time, understood nothing, and didn't like it at all. I went a second time. Nothing again. And a third time--the same. How many times do you think I went to hear that opera before I understood it? Nine times. On the tenth time, finally, I understood it all. And I liked it very much."


 I don't think I can match up to this man's motivation_ or _attention span for that matter. But he inspires me! He probably was speaking of at least 10 years span when he saw all of those productions. Then again, you never know. :tiphat:


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think it boils down to more than just listening to a piece _X_ times. It is all of the stuff you listened to in the interims that have deepened your understanding, so that each time you come back to that "snag", you have already stitched it up a little, without even working on it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Nielsen Symphony No. 3 "Espansiva"

Day 2:

Same reaction as yesterday! The outer movements strike me, the middle movements don't. Interesting! I tried to figure out why, and the reason may be that those outer movements involve dance-like sections. It may be that I just like louder music or higher energy, but it may also be "stronger" material in the outer movements, whatever that means  (perhaps fellow fans would care to agree or differ on that?). I can _almost _hum the tunes to myself now the second time, at least the harmonies of parts, also a few motifs, but I figure that will take a few more tries (it took me as much as 5 times before I could hum a single tune from any Glazunov work). But I'm pretty sure that if I heard that symphony in an outside context, and someone asked me "Which movement are you listening to?" I'd probably get them _mostly _right.

Hmmm... I think I'll try this symphony _just one more time _for kicks, and see what happens. Then I'll move on. It's all an experiment after all.

I'll take suggestions!!! Throw me anything, I'll take what looks interesting.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Another shot at Carter's Piano Concerto.

The Nashville Symphony didn't do it for me, so I wondered if it wasn't so much the piece as the performance.

Today, Michael Gielen and the Cincinnati orchestra. Wow, what a difference! It doesn't even sound like the same piece. I'm catching the subtle gradations of rhythms and orchestral shadings. This is actually exciting.

So there you go. If you don't like a piece, try a different interpreter.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Day 3: Nielsen Symphony no. 2 "Espansiva"

My reaction from the last few days is now tamed. I still enjoy the outer movements most, but the middle movements are making better sense. I realized that the 2nd mvmt is harmonically static, lots of extended Tonic prolongations which is probably why I felt like it was going over my head. Today, I listen to the symphony mostly to see how it made me feel, and if I could remember any themes. I was able to recognize the theme of the 1st and 4th movements come again, and again I can almost hum them. I would describe this symphony as (yes ) _Expansive_, refreshing, reminding me of water and open spaces. Nielsen is not the gushy type, very methodical, but very energetic dramatic too. His sense of lyricism is certainly not gushy, not even like Grieg. His orchestration definitely reminds me of Russian music, but his themes and rhythms are not Russian at all, but I wouldn't say "German" either. This is probably the folk influence that I'm picking up on.

Overall, I'm glad that I got to be more familiar with Nielsen, and a side that pleases me. I'll look into him further in the future.

A friend recommended that I try Medtner for my next test! He's shown me a lot of music by Medtner that went straight over my head no matter how many times I heard it, and so I will take one of his suggestions and really delve into a Medtner work. I think I will select his Sonata in G minor, op. 22. I possibly have heard it before, but I doubt I'll be able to tell otherwise.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Alright Huli, I thought of a good one for this. I have Glazunov's symphonies laying around in my Itunes, but I haven't been able to get into them much. You have to recommend which one I should pick for this project though.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

violadude said:


> Alright Huli, I thought of a good one for this. I have Glazunov's symphonies laying around in my Itunes, but I haven't been able to get into them much. You have to recommend which one I should pick for this project though.


4th or 5th Symphony for you... 4th if you are interested in cyclic development, 5th if just a well-proportioned symphony with straightforward forms. Those are my favorite, and which I consider his strongest thematically. Go with Neeme Jarvi or Serebrier on those. Whatever you do, don't go with the Naxos label, at least not on these works.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> 4th or 5th Symphony for you... 4th if you are interested in cyclic development, 5th if just a well-proportioned symphony with straightforward forms. Those are my favorite, and which I consider his strongest thematically. Go with Neeme Jarvi or Serebrier on those. Whatever you do, don't go with the Naxos label, at least not on these works.


Ok, I'll go with the 4th first. The recording I have is the BBC National Orchestra of Wales with Otaka as the conductor.

One question, is it cheating or will it mess up your experiment if I look at the score while I listen?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

violadude said:


> Ok, I'll go with the 4th first. The recording I have is the BBC National Orchestra of Wales with Otaka as the conductor.
> 
> One question, is it cheating or will it mess up your experiment if I look at the score while I listen?


Nope! I actually recommend that highly... I've never done that with any Glazunov piece, I'm curious what can be gotten out of it. Ottaka's fine, although he's a bit on the slow side, but I think I enjoyed that recording when I heard it last.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Ok, I've got the Armin Jordan recording of _Pelléas_ and I'll listen to at least a few acts tonight. I'm not going to follow along with a libretto or the score this time, just my vague idea of what the plot is and my extremely shaky grasp of French.

Here goes nothing...


----------



## guy (Jan 4, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> *So I've been thinking about trying a certain experiment to prove/disprove a certain theory. The theory is that no matter what the piece is, after a certain number of listenings, one can overcome one's apathy or indifference and gain a serious appreciation of the work, if not a true admiration.* The main factors of this experiment is the _motivation to do the experiment_ and the _quantity of individual listenings_. However, other factors may arise as I go along, such as how I listen to the piece of music, or if I do any contextualization of the work.


For me, it's quite the opposite. Except for the Grosse Fuge. That will always be wonderful.


----------



## Copperears (Nov 10, 2013)

I went off the deep end over the holidays with repeated listenings to Deathspell Omega's "Fas- Ite, Maledicti, in Ignem Aeternam" - one of their more difficult compositions, i've found, but I've gotten past the sense that their sonic landscapes are overly imitative, repetitious and melodramatic and have begun to realize the true delicacy of the musical and rhythmic evolution of this composition over the course of the album. What seems plodding at certain moments is actually quite varied; time has to be given to hear the inner elements of what is going on, and to get past superficial impressions.

Listen carefully early on to the hints of Emerson, Lake and Palmer's "Tarkus," for instance, as well as for the melodic lines in some of the more rapid, rhythmic sections where dissonance and harmony careen towards and away from each other at seemingly light speed.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

So I took a break from the challenge yesterday and started anew today.

Medtner: "Sonata Romantica" op. 53 nr. 1

Day 1:

The piece is in 4 movements. I probably liked the 1st movement the most, it has nice melodies. The scherzo was really wild, and so was the finale, and the 3rd mvmt a respite for my ears. Overall, my impression was that it was too noisy. The textures were too thick to my liking. His hyper-chromaticism was often like Glazunov and its virtuosity was like Rachmaninoff. But its texture was Medtner through and through, and it didn't sound like any other Russian I know. I prefer more transparent textures. It's funny, because I normally like "piano-smashing," especially from Prokofiev. But this piano smashing felt... unnecessary. I got the impression that the music was trying too hard to be buff. I'd be more _annoyed _at the virtuosity than impressed, which is opposite of the way I am when I hear a Prokofiev piano sonata or concerto...

I'm really curious how this impression is going to change. I might look at the score tomorrow.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Medtner: "Sonata Romantica" op. 53 nr. 1

Day 2:

I didn't listen with a score yet, but I listened to a different recording. I definitely like the 1st movement a lot, so gentle and caressing. It main theme is very song-like, and I immediately recall pieces by Glazunov, such as the slow mvmt. of his 1st piano sonata. I liked the scherzo a lot more too! The rhythmic vitality was interesting, dance-like. The textures in the scherzos were still rather thick though, hard to hear what exactly is going on. The fourth movement's softer sections were more interesting to me than anything else. The rhythms and themes throughout the piece have become steadily more memorable, particularly the scherzo with it's 5/4 meter, and the last movement which uses syncopation. I'm glad I listened to this a second time, my original impression softened.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Debussy: _Pelléas et Mélisande_

Finally got around to the last couple of acts this evening. First impression is that the orchestral music is unbelievable: probably some of Debussy's best. I found the vocal writing a little monochromatic and boring in the first three acts, but the last two were very good indeed.

For next week I'll try with the libretto and see if that brings out any interest in the vocal score in the first half.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Anytime I'm having trouble falling asleep, 3 minutes of Debussy's opera will usually do the trick.


----------

