# How many times should you listen to a work of music?



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

You can answer this with an actual numeral ("once") if you want, or you can suggest a general principle: "until you understand it," "as many as you want," or whatever.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

When I first heard a work I thought I liked, I would get the recording and listen multiple times until either a) I "knew" it, b) I tired of it, or c) I got into something else and it became just another work on my play list. No specific number of times.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It depends (no surprise there). The greatest works we can and do listen to through our whole lives. Others we listen to similarly, but with decreasing frequency. Others we tire of and they fade away. And yet others, well, they are consigned at some point to the dust heap of the ages.

Others never make it out of the gate!


----------



## Gouldanian (Nov 19, 2015)

Even when I hear a piece for the hundredth time I often notice something new, a note that seemed hidden before and that strikes me deep in my soul now that it's there. Sometimes I hear a different interpretation and it impacts my entire understanding of the piece.

I'll give you an example, my favorite Piano Concerto of all time is Bach's D minor played by GG (obviously). I must have heard it... I can't even imagine how many times. Not too long ago I discovered something new while I was distracted with something else. That distraction brought the subtlety to my attention...

So in short, many times (if you really care about the piece).


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Once.

If I don't feel impressed, then shelve it for a while, until it comes up in discussion again. Then, listen again. Keep doing this as long as my interest is piqued enough to give it another try.

If I like it, then, keep on listening until I feel somewhat familiar, then shelve it for a while. Then, listen again, give it a break, and listen again, ad infinitum. What's the point of denying myself the pleasure of enjoying something that I enjoy? There is no limit, as long as I am enjoying it.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I would dearly love to know how many times I've listened to various works. Some must be over 100, and I have a long way to go in life. I don't think there's any "should" involved, although I'd caution people to reject a work completely after just one listen.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I listen to a work as much as I want to. For a while I listened to nothing but Beethoven's Ninth (I had 20+ performances on CD) for days on end. I have listened to Fidelio over and over and over (have 20+ sets) and just this week I listened to nothing but Der fliegende Hollender for about 5 days or more straight. I don't try to understand anything except operas. For opera I like to get very familiar with a good performance on DVD with subtitles, then when I listen to the opera on CD I have a nice mental picture of what is going on. I don't need to understand instrumental music, just enjoy it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

250 times. My first CM purchase was the vinyl of Eugene Istomin/Ormandy/Philadelphia playing Rach 2. Assuming 4-5 listens a year times, say, 60 years yields about 250. Could be more. There was a year when I listened to Hovhaness _Lousadzak_ almost every night before falling asleep; couldn't get enough of it. I think it depends.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> Once.
> 
> If I don't feel impressed, then shelve it for a while, until it comes up in discussion again. Then, listen again. Keep doing this as long as my interest is piqued enough to give it another try.
> 
> If I like it, then, keep on listening until I feel somewhat familiar, then shelve it for a while. Then, listen again, give it a break, and listen again, ad infinitum. What's the point of denying myself the pleasure of enjoying something that I enjoy? There is no limit, as long as I am enjoying it.


Wise word spoken. 
I salute you :tiphat:


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

However many times you *want* to. There's no "should" about it.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

MarkW said:


> When I first heard a work I thought I liked, I would get the recording and listen multiple times until either a) I "knew" it, b) I tired of it, or c) I got into something else and it became just another work on my play list. No specific number of times.


Hmmm... how many works are just on your play list?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

As many times as it gives you enough pleasure to make you choose it over something else.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2015)

science said:


> You can answer this with an actual numeral ("once") if you want, or you can suggest a general principle: "until you understand it," "as many as you want," or whatever.





Lukecash12 said:


> However many times you *want* to. There's no "should" about it.


So the pedantic answer is 0.
If the question is, "How many times should you listen to a piece before your dismissal of its greatness would be accepted of it by a discerning member of TC?" I'd say the answer depends on the member!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Music is meant to give pleasure so as many times as you like if you enjoy it!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Depends. If you just want to enjoy yourself, as many times as you want. If you want to enter an intelligent discussion about the piece? enough times to understand it. If you want to know it so intimately you could "listen" to the whole thing in your head, hm probably about 20-70 times or so, depending on the length.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

violadude said:


> Depends. If you just want to enjoy yourself, as many times as you want. If you want to enter an intelligent discussion about the piece? enough times to understand it. If you want to know it so intimately you could "listen" to the whole thing in your head, hm probably about 20-70 times or so, depending on the length.


I mostly agree. However, to understand, say, Feldman String Quartet 2 it is much more important to maybe "only" listen to it 5 times but read to the score and understand the cells, patterns, and development through independent reading in order to fully master and understand it. Actually, most important is to just pay attention as much as possible during those 6 hours.

(Well, I suppose you could just listen to an hour at a time for educational purposes if you want to learn it well, if you were inclined.)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

At least zero.

Fortunately nobody's under obligation to listen to anything ever, but of course if one wants to keep one's side up in a conversation about music, it helps to have heard the piece in question.

And generally it depends on your goals in life. Some of us feel a desire to hear as wide a range of music as possible, and some of us don't. Some of us feel a desire to _understand_ as much music as possible; some of us want to _like_ as much music as possible.

If on an Internet forum you want to explain why you don't like a particular piece of music, then you need to have heard the piece often enough to understand it well enough to be able to come up with realistic-sounding after-the-fact rationalisations. Of course the people who like the piece will have their own, much more powerful, after-the-fact rationalisations for why they like it, and you'll never stand a chance. So you might as well lie and say you like it and leave it at that. Even if you've never heard it! They usually don't question your sincerity if you like the stuff they like.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

If it hurts, leave it alone.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

If I'm trying to appreciate something that doesn't appeal to me immediately:

1) If it's in a style or genre new or relatively new to me, I prefer to listen to more of similar pieces before going back to it.

2) If it's something like a Bach organ piece, I may listen to it two or three times if for some reason I'm interested in appreciating it. If that fails, I forget about it, or perhaps go back to it in a year or so.

If it's something I like:

1) Depends on how complex it is and how difficult it is to remember. I can listen to some Renaissance vocal pieces dozens of times and feel like I haven't gotten much closer to exhausting them. But then I have a rather poor musical memory.

2) Depends on how much I like it, though there's this funny phenomenon that I tend to enjoy some relatively catchy stuff more but I also grow bored of such pieces a lot more quickly.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> 1) Depends on how complex it is and how difficult it is to remember. I can listen to some Renaissance vocal pieces dozens of times and feel like I haven't gotten much closer to exhausting them. But then I have a rather poor musical memory.


Oh, I can listen to Perotin and his kind until the end of time. It's like one endless, fantastic prayer, and I'm always disappointed when it ends. Over the last two months I've been delving more and more into modal music, and aside from my daily doses of Buxtehude, Reinecker, Graupner, and Bach (seriously, I can't live a single day without hearing one of their cantatas), I think I may end up diving in head first for the better part of a year.

How many times am I going to listen to Perotin's Viderunt Omnes and the rest of his organ triplums and quadruplums? I've lost count already. What's more, I've found a fresh love for Gombert and de Prez.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Exactly the number of times you want to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> I mostly agree. However, to understand, say, *Feldman String Quartet 2 *it is much more important to maybe "only" *listen to it 5 times* but read to the score and understand the cells, patterns, and development through independent reading in order to fully master and understand it. Actually, most important is to *just pay attention as much as possible during those 6 hours.*


In other words, we should listen to a work until there's peace in the Middle East, the earth's population has stabilized, sea levels have receded and the glaciers reformed, and the word "atonal" does not have to be changed into "non-tonal," "post-tonal," or "having local, constantly shifting, nonfunctional tonal centers imperceptible to 99.99% of human brains," because in the state of Nirvana, which all humankind will have attained, all will be One, discrimination will have dissolved into the Void, ego will have undergone the Four-fold Negation, and music will at last be understood to be everything which is heard as well as everything which is not heard.

OK, maybe it will require a sixth hearing for that last bit.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Many careful double-blind studies indicate that one should listen to the work 343.785 times. A problem arises if the work is Wagner's Ring Cycle rather than Brahms' Lullaby...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Many careful double-blind studies indicate that one should listen to the work 343.785 times. A problem arises if the work is Wagner's Ring Cycle rather than Brahms' Lullaby...


I'm bothered by that .785. If I can't finish a thing I'd rather not start it. And don't tell me that after 343 hearings I should have it memorized.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> In other words, we should listen to a work until there's peace in the Middle east, the earth's population has stabilized, sea levels have receded and the glaciers reformed, and the word "atonal" does not have to be changed into "non-tonal," "post-tonal," or "having local, constantly shifting, nonfunctional tonal centers imperceptible to 99.99% of human brains," because in the state of Nirvana, which all humankind will have attained, all will be One, discrimination will have dissolved into the Void, ego will have undergone the Four-fold Negation, and music will at last be understood to be everything which is heard as well as everything which is not heard.
> 
> OK, maybe it will require a sixth hearing for that last bit.


If only the Mysterium had been completed...



Woodduck said:


> I'm bothered by that .785. If I can't finish a thing I'd rather not start it. And don't tell me that after 343 hearings I should have it memorized.


Heh, I think your age is showing, my friend. Any smart enough chap should have something memorized after that many hearings.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

-1. Then it will always be waiting to be discovered.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Heh, I think your age is showing, my friend. Any smart enough chap should have something memorized after that many hearings.


Yeah, rub it in, why dontcha!


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> In other words, we should listen to a work until there's peace in the Middle east, the earth's population has stabilized, sea levels have receded and the glaciers reformed, and the word "atonal" does not have to be changed into "non-tonal," "post-tonal," or "having local, constantly shifting, nonfunctional tonal centers imperceptible to 99.99% of human brains," because in the state of Nirvana, which all humankind will have attained, all will be One, discrimination will have dissolved into the Void, ego will have undergone the Four-fold Negation, and music will at last be understood to be everything which is heard as well as everything which is not heard.
> 
> OK, maybe it will require a sixth hearing for that last bit.


Bravo, Woodduck! Bravo!


----------



## EDaddy (Nov 16, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, rub it in, why dontcha!


I dunno. Looking quite the strapping lad in your mug shot!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> In other words, we should listen to a work until there's peace in the Middle East, the earth's population has stabilized, sea levels have receded and the glaciers reformed, and the word "atonal" does not have to be changed into "non-tonal," "post-tonal," or "having local, constantly shifting, nonfunctional tonal centers imperceptible to 99.99% of human brains," because in the state of Nirvana, which all humankind will have attained, all will be One, discrimination will have dissolved into the Void, ego will have undergone the Four-fold Negation, and music will at last be understood to be everything which is heard as well as everything which is not heard.
> 
> OK, maybe it will require a sixth hearing for that last bit.


...or to put it mathematically ... SQRT(-1)


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Seems like everyone loves to be told they don't have to do something. Let's all give each other a big huge pat on the back for not "forcing" each other to listen to things, I mean, as if that were possible.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> Yeah, rub it in, why dontcha!


Much obliged, milord.



EDaddy said:


> Bravo, Woodduck! Bravo!


Let's not do too much butt kissing, friend. I'm afraid it's been going to his head, waxing so much lately.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

violadude said:


> Seems like everyone loves to be told they don't have to do something. Let's all give each other a big huge pat on the back for not "forcing" each other to listen to things, I mean, as if that were possible.


Agreed. It's good to see the 'should' business and missionary zeal dampened for the moment.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Let's not do too much butt kissing, friend. I'm afraid it's been going to his head, waxing so much lately.


Making ends meet is a perennial problem for pensionless retirees. Butt-kissing going to our heads just may be the solution we've been searching for.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Honestly though, I think it's weird that people join music discussion forms and then complain about being told they should listen to music. I kind of understand a defensive reflex that people have or like the "DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO SON" mindset. But really, when people tell me I "should" listen to some piece of music more, I take it in good faith that there is something they get from it that I don't and I want to find out what that is. Maybe that's just my naive young idealism though...


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't just listen to the same work hundreds of times, I listen to the same passage in the same work thousands of times...no joke.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

No amount is ever enough, if you have a body or a personality; music is the punishment inflicted by the general unto the particular.

When you've lost your body and personality, you don't have to be punished any more.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

violadude said:


> Honestly though, I think it's weird that people join music discussion forms and then complain about being told they should listen to music. I kind of understand a defensive reflex that people have or like the "DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO SON" mindset. But really, when people tell me I "should" listen to some piece of music more, I take it in good faith that there is something they get from it that I don't and I want to find out what that is. Maybe that's just my naive young idealism though...


You should listen to more Karl Jenkins.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

science said:


> You can answer this with an actual numeral ("once") if you want, or you can suggest a general principle: "until you understand it," "as many as you want," or whatever.


Challenging pieces I give it three listens. Three is the magic number.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

If you are still able to enjoy a piece after listening so many times that it's completely etched on your memory, you know it's great music.


----------



## Aecio (Jul 27, 2012)

When I'm listening to a new piece I try to heard it at least three times. If I don't have a reaction after three times I may consider getting another recording of it or just forget it. 
That being said sometimes you crack a piece way after 3 hearings, the other day I was thinking that it's funny that I don't like Sibelius 6th since I like all of Sibelius Symphonies, I gave it another try and I had some kind of epiphany. I suppose it was the seventh or eight time that I listened to the 6th and finally I got it, so it's true that every rule has its exceptions !


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> You should listen to more Karl Jenkins.


Which piece?

..............


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Challenging pieces I give it three listens. Three is the magic number.


Except when it's not.


----------



## Agricola (Dec 3, 2015)

There is no right answer and no wrong answer.

If something totally offends you and makes you turn off after 1 minute then so be it.

Most music you will need a few listens to, I can see potential in liking a peice of music, if I like what I hear I will give a number of recordings a try and find that perfect interpretation. 

Some music is so great that its a no brainier that it goes on to favourite list before its even finished playing through first time.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DeepR said:


> If you are still able to enjoy a piece after listening so many times that it's completely etched on your memory, you know it's great music.


Except when you're very young and you do what all youngsters do, which is to play every piece of crap that strikes your fancy a gazillion times until your parents want to pretend they've never heard of you when it's time to come home from summer camp.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

The answer to the Aecio's thread question is, as often as you like.

The beauty and the complexity in music appreciation is repeated listening, that ever so evolving and involving ingredient, with us defining and re-defining a certain work upon subsequent listening. It is often revealing and even satisfying how a piece sounds and feels differently when listening to it again, with some of the details, lurking in the background initially, spring up in full(er) forces. Differences in performances and recordings of a certain work are crucially important in that regard, needless to say.

Cases in point: 

Bax's Third Symphony (compare Handley's with Thomson with Barbirolli)
Bruckner's Ninth (compare Giulini with Wand, with Karajan)
Glazunov's Sixth (compare Fedoseyev's Melodiya recording with Serebrier)
Tchaikovsky's Sixth (compare Mikko Franck's album with, say Mravinsky or Svetlanov)
John Ireland's The Almond Tree (examine John Lenehan's absorbing take against Eric Parkin)
Wagner's Tristan und Isode (compare Bohm with Bernstein).


----------



## afterpostjack (May 2, 2010)

Quite fitting of this thread to appear at this moment, as I have recently been thinking about this. My feeling is that the number of times that I can listen to a work seems to increase as the duration of the work increases. I have given the symphonies of Beethoven, Bruckner and Mahler a huge number of listens, while almost all short works of only a few minutes in duration have been given far fewer listens, regardless of their supposed merit. 
Of course, the rich counterpoint exhibited in the works of the aforementioned composers increases the number of listens I can tolerate exponentially. One could think of this combinatorially, and conclude that the number of relationships that one could think of within the musical structure is far greater for longer works, hence there is always something left to discover, increasing the desire for repeated listens. Notably, the works that are the most listenable in the long run are commonly those that need quite a few listens in order to appreciate in the first place. I think some Russian composer made a suiting remark regarding one of Wagner's operas here (I think it was either Rimsky-Korsakov or Glazunov who said that he needed something like 14 listens to get an opera, subsequently he fell in love with the work).


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2015)

Some people think that if you don't like a piece of music you should keep listening to it until you love it. 

I believe if you love a piece of music you should keep listening to it until you don't like it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Jerome;984858Some people think that if you don't like a piece of music you should keep listening to it until you love it. [/QUOTE said:


> There are things one can never get used to, for me a unpleasant voice stays unpleasant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Jerome said:


> Some people think that if you don't like a piece of music you should keep listening to it until you love it.
> 
> I believe if you love a piece of music you should keep listening to it until you don't like it.


I agree. If you dislike a piece, then there is nothing wrong in giving it up. Think of the amount of time you could use instead to discover and listen to music that you DO LIKE.


----------

