# Good for 10 (or 20, or 30 or ...) listens?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

A few posts I read this morning make reference to getting bored with even very major works after listening to them several times. But I find there is quite a lot of music I never seem to tire of. I may go through a spell of not wanting to hear a composer or a work but with many composers/works I know the mood will come again. This is partly to do with the way that some works seem to "respond afresh" (in my mind) to so many different performances but this is not the only way some music stays forever fresh for me. So, I never tire of the Beethoven and the Brahms symphonies or of the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart or the piano concertos of Bartok or ... but it seems that some do. How about you?


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2018)

For me, I guess operas of Mozart and Wagner as well as most music by Ligeti and Boulez


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

There are many composers whose music I never tire of and would say that I appreciate more with each new listen. I've been listening to Beethoven for almost 50 years and still delight in his works. I can never tire of Sibelius' symphonies or Shostakovich. If I am bored with any classical music at all it would probably be much of the Baroque period but even there I can never tire of JS Bach.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I don't think of it as getting bored as much as taking a little time to cleanse the palate, and to return to the music in a different context of other works or a different mood. I am not as obsessed as some with the idea of newness as a quality of its own merit, although I recognize the special joy of first discovery for something that really touches me (and I will never quite be able to achieve that state again for most of my current favorites).


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

shirime said:


> For me, I guess operas of Mozart and Wagner as well as most music by Ligeti and Boulez


That you _don't_ tire of these works?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

So far, about everything I have listened incessantly to has burned out for me (Beethoven's Ninth, Third, piano sonatas, and Fidelio). Not that I don't like them, but now when I listen it is once only, then a long break. 

Today I enter the 22nd day of listing almost exclusively to Bellini's La Sonnambula at the rate of several times per day and am not tiring of it. Last night I tried a different opera and quickly came back to La Sonnambula. I sure don't want to burn this one out, but I can't stop listening to it. One thing that helps is having multiple good recordings so there is some variation in performances.


----------



## steph01 (Dec 21, 2016)

I ration my listening probably more than is necessary, because I am scared of having to assign great works to the scrapheap through overuse and association with a particular time in my life.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

After my Beethoven cycle reviews i was burned out on the Beethoven symphonies but that was just temporary and i played Giulini's LvB 9 the other day. Currently my listening is heavily on Brahms, Schumann and some Sibelius symphonies. The joy is that i have so many recordings of these its hard to burn them out. Also i rotate stuff on a very regular basis to stop me getting bored. I never seem to get burned out with orchestral music in the same way i have with rock music but even there if i have a good break i can still even listen to Stairway to Heaven without groaning.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I never overplayed anything in my life, so what I liked earlier I still like now. I don't think I played any CD in my vast collection more than 30 times over the years, and I tend not to go for many different versions of the same piece either (with a few exceptions).


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Merl said:


> After my Beethoven cycle reviews i was burned out on the Beethoven symphonies but that was just temporary and i played Giulini's LvB 9 the other day. Currently my listening is heavily on Brahms, Schumann and some Sibelius symphonies. The joy is that i have so many recordings of these its hard to burn them out. Also i rotate stuff on a very regular basis to stop me getting bored. I never seem to get burned out with orchestral music in the same way i have with rock music but even there if i have a good break i can still even listen to Stairway to Heaven without groaning.


Burn out on Beethoven symphonies? Go over to Mahler for a while!


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I've never tired of any work that I enjoy , but perhaps I listen less often to works than others. I spend much of my time listening to new works - works I have not previously heard or perhaps heard once awhile ago. Still, based on my experiences with certain works by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and others, repeated listening does not diminish my enjoyment and perhaps increases it somewhat.


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

A thousand listens, a million rehearsals, years of dubious analysis, and my faves remain undimmed. Elation never gets old. Or maybe I'm just a hidebound obdurate.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The personal "worth" of a piece of music for me depends upon whether or not I eventually (later or sooner) put it away and don't really have much desire to put it on again when I'm looking for something to listen to. Some pieces you simply outplay their quality.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I never tire of works because I only listen to them when I am in the mood, so it's always a rewarding experience when I put that CD on. But I never feel 'obligated' to listen to Beethoven's 5th for example, if I haven't for a while.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

D Smith said:


> I never tire of works because I only listen to them when I am in the mood, so it's always a rewarding experience when I put that CD on. But I never feel 'obligated' to listen to Beethoven's 5th for example, if I haven't for a while.


That's the best way to do it. Follow your inspiration/intuition!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Enthusiast said:


> A few posts I read this morning make reference to getting bored with even very major works after listening to them several times. But I find there is quite a lot of music I never seem to tire of. I may go through a spell of not wanting to hear a composer or a work but with many composers/works I know the mood will come again. This is partly to do with the way that some works seem to "respond afresh" (in my mind) to so many different performances but this is not the only way some music stays forever fresh for me. So, I never tire of the Beethoven and the Brahms symphonies or of the symphonies of Haydn and Mozart or the piano concertos of Bartok or ... but it seems that some do. How about you?


The bulk of my listening is symphonies, concertos, string quartets and choral music. I also like film music and light classical. On the whole I'm happy inhabiting the mainstream of classical.

Basically I've burnt out of heavy, dark and psychopathic music. Previously it provided a sense of catharsis, but now I'm largely over it. So that reduces my listening of the late Romantics and 20th century (in particular atonal). A similar burnout has happened regarding avant-garde. On the opposite side of that, I'm easily bored with music which is too formulaic, so that reduces Baroque and Classical era. Generally speaking I don't like classical with vocals (although choral is an exception).

Having said that, there are are exceptions to all this, and there is still healthy variety in my listening.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Works I never tire of:

Beethoven 9th
Brahms Hungarian Dances 
Holst the planets 
Chopin Nocturnes 
Bach cello suites


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

I get very tired of Brahms played slowly. But I have no need to hear the Brahms Violin Concerto ever again. Same to be honest with the Bruch G Minor. Or the Sibelius. Or the Saint-Saens concertante violin works (something against the violin?). And the Tchaikovsky. Pretty well every large scale Saint-Saens or Sibelius work to be honest. By listening to Ravel's Bolero 100 times, I've really listened to it 10,000 times considering the level of repetition. Mendelssohn can tire very quickly. 

On the other hand, I've probably listened to the 9th a few thousand times, and I never really tire of it. I couldn't imagine tiring of the great operas of Mozart, or (by any means) the great works of Bach. I never tire of Schumann, and the great song cycles of Schubert. I've played through all of the Beethoven piano sonatas probably 20 times at least.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think the various posts and posters show that musical fatigue is very much a matter of personal chemistry. There are a host of warhorses that I will rarely to never listen to again voluntarily, yet others that someone else would find equally hackneyed that I can hear with every degree of my original enthusiasm--anything by Rachmaninoff, for example. With some pieces, it's down to loving certain movements only, or only certain parts of certain movements and wishing the composer had developed the material in some other direction. All very human.....


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I've listened to Bruckner's 9th probably 50 times in the last 6 months. And the best part is, I decide when it's time to move on to another symphony. And when to go back. Where do I go after this anyway?


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Sid James said:


> The bulk of my listening is symphonies, concertos, string quartets and choral music. I also like film music and light classical. On the whole I'm happy inhabiting the mainstream of classical.
> 
> Basically I've burnt out of heavy, dark and psychopathic music. Previously it provided a sense of catharsis, but now I'm largely over it. So that reduces my listening of the late Romantics and 20th century (in particular atonal). A similar burnout has happened regarding avant-garde. On the opposite side of that, I'm easily bored with music which is too formulaic, so that reduces Baroque and Classical era. Generally speaking I don't like classical with vocals (although choral is an exception).


So Mahler and Bruckner are out, then. Who do you consider formulaic in the classical and baroque eras?

I recently discovered a Symphony in E minor by Anton Zimmermann. Quite surprising, very little rococo cliche (no trills at all  ), as one might've expected.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Sid James said:


> Basically I've burnt out of *heavy, dark and psychopathic music*. Previously it provided a sense of catharsis, but now I'm largely over it. So that reduces my listening of the late Romantics and 20th century (in particular atonal).


Could it be that your interpretation of those works in that way is done for you rather than that the music itself is?


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Could it be that your interpretation of those works in that way is done for you rather than that the music itself is?


Please rephrase 

I wonder if that interpretation is shared, makes it valid? Or whether say, 95% might detect a certain psychopathy in say, Mahler 6 then that interpretation might be validated? Perhaps psychopathy is the wrong word. Maybe neurosis, wallowing in emotional self-flagellation, egomania, might be better descriptors.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The complete Beethoven Piano Sonatas with Annie Fischer.

The complete Mozart Piano Concertos with Jos van Immerseel, fortepiano.

The complete Haydn String Quartets with the Auryn Quartet.

The complete Haydn Piano Sonatas with Ronald Brautigam, fortepiano.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

After a half-century as a buyer, seller and collectors of music in all formats and a performer of vocal music there is a long list of music I'll never again buy because I don't have interest in programming it at home. This would include all famous piano concertos, most famous violin concertos, and most famous symphonies and chamber works. I've heard many of these hundreds of times in dozens on interpretations. Like everyone I have some favorites I keep with me at home and play off and on.

I have far more refined taste today than I did in 1970, 1990 or even 2000. I'm more open to listening to anybody's chamber woodwind music than I am anyone's piano music, symphony or concerto. I am far more likely to go to a lieder concert than to listen to or attend an opera. I attended a performance of Mendelssohn's Elijah this spring but haven't listened to the recording I own in a couple years. It was a thrill to be there for music made in front of me but not so much for any recording.

I'm not saying I'm immune to great music but the desire to seek it out and hear it is diminished to great extent. I still enjoy Beethoven's 7th symphony so I play it once a year. If I never hear the 9th again I don't think I will miss anything I don't already know. Ditto Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony, Mozart's 21st piano concerto and a great deal of the rest of top 250 repertory.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Cage's 4'33".
Every night in repetition mode while in bed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eusebius12 said:


> Please rephrase
> 
> I wonder if that interpretation is shared, makes it valid? Or whether say, 95% might detect a certain psychopathy in say, Mahler 6 then that interpretation might be validated? Perhaps psychopathy is the wrong word. Maybe neurosis, wallowing in emotional self-flagellation, egomania, might be better descriptors.


Oh yes - Mahler 6 can be a grim work but there is quite a wide margin between interpretations that bring our the grimness and those who favour a more cool or balanced approach. But whether any of them present us with "neurosis, wallowing in emotional self-flagellation" I'm not so sure. Even _if _the work _is _a picture of such emotional states that doesn't mean it can be reduced to being a product of them. Neurosis in itself is unattractive and unappealing. Whatever its subject, great art is satisfying and even uplifting. This isn't to say that artists cannot be neurotic (or even psychotic), but perhaps the great ones use their art to process such unpleasant characteristics? Anthony Storr has written much from a psychiatrist's side on this subject.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Eusebius12 said:


> So Mahler and Bruckner are out, then.


Almost, but not completely. Still have music by them which I like a lot, eg. Bruckner's 6th, his String Quintet and Mahler's 4th have remained firm favourites.



> Who do you consider formulaic in the classical and baroque eras?


Put it this way, I've culled a lot of Telemann and Boccherini. Still retained the former's Alster Overture and a couple of pieces by the latter - namely the 'Fandango' guitar quintet and one of the many string quintets, as well as the famous minuet on a Baroque favourites album. Sometimes its a case of favouring one thing over the other, eg. I wouldn't be without Corelli's Concerti Grossi, but found Albinoni's Concerti a cinque too much generic Baroque, for want of a better description.



> I recently discovered a Symphony in E minor by Anton Zimmermann. Quite surprising, very little rococo cliche (no trills at all  ), as one might've expected.


I also listen to some rarities, also have a few in my collection but more often come across them on radio.



Enthusiast said:


> Could it be that your interpretation of those works in that way is done for you rather than that the music itself is?


As I said, music of this type has served its purpose for me, on the whole though due to its high level of introspection has a tendency to get me down so I largely avoid it these days. Apart from many heavy Late Romantic works, I've entirely culled Schnittke, Gubaidulina, Crumb and kept some of what I had by Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Ligeti, but largely eschew this type of thing now. In terms of the Second Viennese School, there's also been fairly heavy attrition (even Berg's Wozzeck, one of the pieces which served as my gateway to atonal music decades ago) but still retained things by them that I wouldn't be without (eg. in Berg's case, String Quartets, Violin Concerto and Piano Sonata).

There's other music like this and its not atonal by any means, like Shostakovich, but I can tolerate him somewhat better. I think that there is still a need within me to connect with some music which mirrors those aspects of humanity which are not easy to face. If composers lived in and reacted to the most tragic events of the 20th century, I see no need to entirely tune out as a listener. Classical music isn't all about uplifting the spirit, it can also do the opposite, even plumb the darkest depths imaginable.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

larold said:


> I'm not saying I'm immune to great music but the desire to seek it out and hear it is diminished to great extent. I still enjoy Beethoven's 7th symphony so I play it once a year. If I never hear the 9th again I don't think I will miss anything I don't already know. Ditto Berlioz's Fantastic Symphony, Mozart's 21st piano concerto and a great deal of the rest of top 250 repertory.


Interesting, and I must have heard an awful lot of music (although, generally speaking, not a lot of awful music, on the whole) but certain works are just necessary in my life. Certain pieces of Beethoven and Bach, f'rinstance. I am not so sick of the old and white hot for the new, just because it is new. There is an awful lot of Renaissance and baroque stuff with which I am unacquainted, so I happily explore those waters. But I still need to come 'home', as it were.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Oh yes - Mahler 6 can be a grim work but there is quite a wide margin between interpretations that bring our the grimness and those who favour a more cool or balanced approach. But whether any of them present us with "neurosis, wallowing in emotional self-flagellation" I'm not so sure. Even _if _the work _is _a picture of such emotional states that doesn't mean it can be reduced to being a product of them. Neurosis in itself is unattractive and unappealing. Whatever its subject, great art is satisfying and even uplifting. This isn't to say that artists cannot be neurotic (or even psychotic), but perhaps the great ones use their art to process such unpleasant characteristics? Anthony Storr has written much from a psychiatrist's side on this subject.


Yet many monographs on Mahler note his neurotic tendencies, not just as a person, but within the music. The obsession with death, the spiritual agonies, the endless angst and irony which tend to feed on each other. Enough; I don't _deride_ the music as such but recognize its unhealthy aspects, this is why after my decades-ago Mahler binge I've significantly reduced my interactions with the works of this composer.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Almost, but not completely. Still have music by them which I like a lot, eg. Bruckner's 6th, his String Quintet and Mahler's 4th have remained firm favourites.
> 
> Put it this way, I've culled a lot of Telemann and Boccherini. Still retained the former's Alster Overture and a couple of pieces by the latter - namely the 'Fandango' guitar quintet and one of the many string quintets, as well as the famous minuet on a Baroque favourites album. Sometimes its a case of favouring one thing over the other, eg. I wouldn't be without Corelli's Concerti Grossi, but found Albinoni's Concerti a cinque too much generic Baroque, for want of a better description.


Telemann, Albinoni and Boccherini all have their autopilot moments. I don't actively seek them out, however when I encounter them I generally find it diverting. Boccherini can wig me out at times, there is something annoying in some of his work, however it is never less than musicianly. I think Veracini is underplayed, he is not far from being the best of his era and country, and Reinhard Keiser was the greatest opera composer in Germany of his era. Telemann is endlessly inventive; he seems to thrash about looking for a style, but amazingly his work is not formulaic in terms of idiom at least, whilst not having the cut through of Bach or Handel. Not that Handel can't be formulaic and a little muzak at times.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Just as a side note, I (as an interpreter and a listener) always seek the work as itself, the echt truth of the living-work-of-art. Interpretations that try to water down the emotional wormwood of Mahler 6 don't do any service to it or to the truth. Although I agree that a million interpretative flowers should bloom, yet we don't seek to negate or invert the truth of any artwork or any work of any kind.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Eusebius12 said:


> Just as a side note, I (as an interpreter and a listener) always seek the work as itself, the echt truth of the living-work-of-art. Interpretations that try to water down the emotional wormwood of Mahler 6 don't do any service to it or to the truth.


You're such a radical! This could be why I can't bear early music on piano.



Eusebius12 said:


> . . . echt truth of the living-work-of-art. . . invert the truth . . .


I wish it had access to the world of echt, is it like what Plato glimpsed beyond the shadows on the wall of the cave? I suspect it's conceited hokum. And that moralising word _inverted_, it must be good to see things the right way up! The word made me think of the word Proust used for people like Charlus.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eusebius12 said:


> Just as a side note, I (as an interpreter and a listener) always seek the work as itself, the echt truth of the living-work-of-art. Interpretations that try to water down the emotional wormwood of Mahler 6 don't do any service to it or to the truth. Although I agree that a million interpretative flowers should bloom, yet we don't seek to negate or invert the truth of any artwork or any work of any kind.


A composer let's the work go and if it is "alive" it may take on a number of guises in the public domain. Some works, some composers' music, seem to be able to show a nearly infinite number of different faces all of which can seem to get to a heart in the work. Even composers' recordings of their music can sometimes seem to present works differently to what we might expect. But if one element is removed (or "watered down") the question is whether a different and equally worthwhile/true element replaces it. I could never be one for saying that this or that great work is _meant _to sound in a certain way.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

I find Mozart and Bruckner virtually impossible to tire of, and I don't exactly know why. There's something joyous and life-giving in both that never bores me and offers ecstasy in heaps. Beethoven I find I have to take weeks/months apart from sometimes, love him though I do. It almost goes without saying that Bach's best music is impossible to tire of due to its complexity (I'm especially thinking of WTC and Kunst der Fuge).


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> You're such a radical! This could be why I can't bear early music on piano.
> 
> I wish it had access to the world of echt, is it like what Plato glimpsed beyond the shadows on the wall of the cave? I suspect it's conceited hokum. And that moralising word _inverted_, it must be good to see things the right way up! The word made me think of the word Proust used for people like Charlus.


Seeking it is different from _finding_ it...HIP is limited because it seeks to straightjacket itself regarding performance in relation to textual knowledge of old instrumentation and performance fashion. A lot of interesting interpretative detail has emerged. But seeking the soul of a work of art is a noble goal, one could perform the Tristan prelude as a funeral march, but wouldn't one then be perverting the true message of the music? Whatever one was doing, it would be wrong.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> A composer let's the work go and if it is "alive" it may take on a number of guises in the public domain. Some works, some composers' music, seem to be able to show a nearly infinite number of different faces all of which can seem to get to a heart in the work. Even composers' recordings of their music can sometimes seem to present works differently to what we might expect. But if one element is removed (or "watered down") the question is whether a different and equally worthwhile/true element replaces it. I could never be one for saying that this or that great work is _meant _to sound in a certain way.


I believe that great works of art exist as entities within themselves, and their creators have a sense of the artwork-as-independent-being. That leaves scope for almost endless variety without doing violence to the original conception, or perhaps the living artwork as an entity. Great art as they say takes on a life of its own. For example, it would be difficult, but not impossible to project Mahler's funeral marches as klezmer party tunes, but I don't think that anybody would be enhanced by the experience.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Eusebius12 said:


> Just as a side note, I (as an interpreter and a listener) always seek the work as itself, the echt truth of the living-work-of-art. Interpretations that try to water down the emotional wormwood of Mahler 6 don't do any service to it or to the truth. Although I agree that a million interpretative flowers should bloom, yet we don't seek to negate or invert the truth of any artwork or any work of any kind.


Bernstein generally provides what I consider to be the ur-recording of each of Mahler's symphonies. Mahler's music is not cool and detached. However I prefer Karajanized Mahler to _Mahler_ Mahler :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Eusebius12 said:


> Telemann, Albinoni and Boccherini all have their autopilot moments. I don't actively seek them out, however when I encounter them I generally find it diverting. Boccherini can wig me out at times, there is something annoying in some of his work, however it is never less than musicianly. ...Telemann is endlessly inventive; he seems to thrash about looking for a style, but amazingly his work is not formulaic in terms of idiom at least, whilst not having the cut through of Bach or Handel. Not that Handel can't be formulaic and a little muzak at times.


They where significant composers of their respective eras, Telemann still holding ground as the third most important of the Baroque's German-speaking composers, while Boccherini has been seen as a successor to Vivaldi. As far as I am concerned there is nothing wrong with so-called sewing machine music, particularly when I am doing something which needs focus like reading. What they composed also has its quirks, Telemann has a few and the reason I like Boccherini's 'Fandango' quintet is the use of castanets, surely unique in that kind of piece. As I said there's still variety in my listening, but these composers music has merely become less important to me.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Tallisman said:


> Bernstein generally provides what I consider to be the ur-recording of each of Mahler's symphonies. Mahler's music is not cool and detached. However I prefer Karajanized Mahler to _Mahler_ Mahler :lol:


Yes I understand this. But perhaps Mahler is not really your thing, and over the years I've grown away from Mahler.


----------

