# Is a lifetime enough for music?



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Rachmaninov once said, “Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music.” So I have a question. Do ya'll think that if one lived a reasonably long life, there is enough time to become pretty familiar with almost all of the repertoire from every period? I'm talking about from around 1500 or 1600 to modern day and not necessarily every composer but every composer of note. I have no idea how many this would be I'd guess easily 200 or 300 plus, if not way more. And for each composer, I'm not talking about knowing EVERY single work but maybe 80 to 90% of them. Maybe this is only really possible for professional musicians? And how close do you think one could get?

I'm curious because I've been listening pretty heavily for about 4 years and sometimes it doesn't even seem like I've put a dent in the repertoire. I'm obviously not worried about achieving this goal and I enjoy my listening plenty enough but I was just curious.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nope. ........................


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Since one lifetime is all I have, I will succeed.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't share the feeling that there is too much music to discover for a lifetime. Unless someone belongs to those people who see listening as challenge of extending their tastes through blood, sweat and tears in order to finally get equally interested and enamoured with all styles, genres and stuff from earliest known examples of music to XXIst century and the very recent composers. I don't. I have the comfort of not-caring. If somebody doesn't, then lifetime isn't enough for anything. Not enough for tasting all kinds of wine, not enough to read all the novels, not enough to pet all kinds of furry animals... why say "lifetime is not enough for music", you can simply say "lifetime is not enough... generally".


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Overall, I think that dwelling on what can't be accomplished in a lifetime is rather self-defeating.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Of course! Its just a matter of how you organize your life


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I've been listening most of my life and I realize I am running short on time, relatively speaking, so I refuse to keep listening to the same Beethoven over and over and am engaged in listening to a lot of music, especially 20th century music which I have previously been unfamiliar with.

I am now pretty well acquainted with Schuman, Ives, Persichetti and Mennin; with a smattering of Schönberg and Webern thrown in.

I want to experience as much unfamiliar classical music of quality that I can.

A lifetime is definitely not enough time!!!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Maybe, maybe not. I think some people act as if they are building up a collection of accomplishments that are going to prolong their life, or something of the sort, after death.... and I really don't feel that's how things work. Just do what you're inclined to enjoy. You want to jam Beethoven your whole life, do it. You want to explore as many composers as you can, do it. I don't think any are going to garner you some sort of medal when you die. You're experience of this life is over then.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Ok, i am in the privileged situation where I spend 8+ houres a day in playing, studying, listen to, teaching music (can often be very boring as well). I often feel sad there isnt *MORE* beautyful pieces composed by Bach, Schumann, Chopin, Rachmaninoff (especially!) Debussy, ...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Jumpin' Jehosaphat and little fishes! This was a world-class artist speaking about music, after all, and all the man meant was know all about music and all of music literature _in full depth_ could not be done in one lifetime... and he was right. Nearly one hundred years later and that much more added to theory and the literature, and the statement is that much 'more right,' than when he first said it


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

stevens said:


> Ok, i am in the privileged situation where I spend 8+ houres a day in playing, studying, listen to, teaching music (can often be very boring as well). I often feel sad there isnt *MORE* beautyful pieces composed by Bach, Schumann, Chopin, Rachmaninoff (especially!) Debussy, ...


... and that is far less than a micro-tip of the iceberg, and only five composers


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Jumpin' Jehosaphat and little fishes! This was a world-class artist speaking about music, after all, and all the man meant was know all about music and all of music literature _in full depth_ could not be done in one lifetime... and he was right. Nearly one hundred years later and that much more added to theory and the literature, and the statement is that much 'more right,' than when he first said it


I'm sure Rach meant just what he said. But that doesn't change the fact that many pack their duffle-bag of experiences so tight just in case they get to compare then with lesser mortals after death. Deep down, I don't think anyone really cares how much people experience. Enjoy yourself.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

PetrB said:


> ... and that is far less than a micro-tip of the iceberg, and only five composers


1) You didnt see the dotted...dotts?
2) I even said *Beatyful* pieces..then we can ignore (lots of) Mahler..Bartok..


----------



## rspader (May 14, 2014)

I remember a quote from somewhere: "When you die, your inbox will not be empty." A lifetime has to be enough for whatever you want to accomplish. It is all you have. (Assuming that there is no music in the afterlife, of course.)


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

Naxos Music Library has 99,040 CD equivalent of classical music there. That's more than 27 years worth, with 10 hours/day listening. Considering that it's only a fraction of CD/Recordings out there...

On the other hand, if our purpose of existence is to seek happiness, I already found it in music  Just finding more every day (thanks to everybody here on this forum!). Yes, I'm a happy man (well, in many moments of life, yes, I am, but there is cruel thingy called reality: "Hey, don't stop the music!" "Dad, you've had enough. It's my turn now." "....OK")


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I vote no: it isn't enough! I have in my CD collection 200+ Bach Cantatas, 555 Scarlatti Sonatas, 600+ Schubert songs, and loads of other stuff. Part of me wants to listen to them all one after the other; part of me also wants to listen at a much slower pace so that I can savour each one.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Nope! 

It is one of the positive things about classical music (that there is far more that is worth listening to than I will be able to even hear) - not one of the negative things about life (that it isn't long enough for all music listening that I want to do). 

Half empty or half full - all a question of perspective


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

If you want to listen to every piece of music, you won't succeed but you could hear a lot of music. But because it take repeated listening to be familiar with any piece, there will be less music. 

So want to do want? Listen to something new continuously every day all day and hear a very broad range of music, or be familiar with less? I think you could probably only be really familiar with a few hundred pieces, possibly less.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

I agree with all of you who said no. But like Headphone Hermit said, glass half full! It's a great thing, not a bad thing, that none of us will ever run out of great music to hear. Unless this stem cell technology or other modern science picks up...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dustin said:


> I agree with all of you who said no. But like Headphone Hermit said, glass half full! It's a great thing, not a bad thing, that none of us will ever run out of great music to hear. Unless this stem cell technology or other modern science picks up...


That there's always more to do in life is a comforting thought. That we'll never get to do it is a sad thought. C'est la vie.

Just listen till you drop. They'll find you smiling.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Who would really want to succeed in the goal of fully understanding all of music? What would one do then? I'm making a Herculean effort, but at 58 I'm not even close yet. It's the effort that is part of the enjoyment. Collecting and cataloging are a surrogate for ultimate comprehension.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

You could become familiar with everything ever composed if you had a long enough life. Of course, you'd need the soon-to-be-developed cyborg implant 3100 to be able to remember it all. Without it, after a few thousand symphonies, it would all just go in one ear and out the other!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Dustin said:


> *Is a lifetime enough for music? *


Well ... no. But, I'd much rather talk about the alternatives? Have you got any to offer?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

This topic is funny for me because I was actually told on this site that I have time to listen to everything and so therefore I shouldn't worry about prioritizing, I should just listen randomly. I'll never forget that. 

I'll also never take it seriously. I get angry thinking about how little time I have and how much I am going to miss. I have to hurry while I'm here, I guess. On the other hand, it might be nice to die rather than to see a dystopian future.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> Well ... no. But, I'd much rather talk about the alternatives? Have you got any to offer?


Haha I wish I could say I did. Eat your veggies. That's all I got.


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

Nope. Trying to compress the combined genius of the last 300 years into my lifetime?? Won't even go close.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

A lifetime is not enough. There are two possible reactions to this:

1. Oh, woe is me! So much music, so little time!

2. Yay! I'll always have no music to discover, and will never run short!


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

> Is a lifetime enough for music?


Is a lifetime enough for anything?

It depends on the life and the liver.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Is a lifetime enough for anything?
> 
> It depends on the life and the *liver.*


Especially when we ask ourselves whether a lifetime is enough to drink a bottle of every form of alcohol known to man.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I have the same sentiment. Literally been listening to almost several new songs every day since the last decade, but it seems Youtube, or some CD manufacturers, keep coming up with new music. I am speaking not only classical music. For classical music in specific, that's why I try to focus on chamber genre... ..


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Depends on what kind of a life you want to have outside of music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I never could've found this myself, but thanks to the bumped thread it found me:



some guy said:


> But recommend? What I would recommend strongly is that one listen to all of Mahler's symphonies, the sooner the better. All of them. DO IT!! Some Krenek, too, why not? And Humphrey Searles. And and and and and....





science said:


> If I had world enough and time, I would. Or if I could do it all at once, I would. Alas, finitude, temporality, mortality. I know I suck that way, but I'll have to learn to live with it. That means some prioritization even if I only listen to each work one time.





some guy said:


> Oh, you do. Truly.





science said:


> Sadly, no. I have 50-60 more years, if I'm lucky. Given my lifestyle, 50 more would be surprising. Probably 40. And that's barring surprises, which I can't bar.
> 
> And even if I live all day today, I only have a couple hours of _that_ left.
> 
> So choices have to be made.


Amazing.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Come to think of it, you just have to play through one octave on the piano and you basically heard everything there is to hear in most of music. Takes around 14 seconds, not a lifetime.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

"familiar with" and "almost all of the repertoire" is somwhat vague


----------



## Lovemylute (Jul 17, 2014)

No, a lifetime is certainly not long enough. But on the positive side, that means that one can never imagine getting bored with music, since there is more than enough to keep one enthralled during their entire life!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Dustin said:


> Rachmaninov once said, "Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music." So I have a question. Do ya'll think that if one lived a reasonably long life, there is enough time to become pretty familiar with almost all of the repertoire from every period? I'm talking about from around 1500 or 1600 to modern day and not necessarily every composer but every composer of note. I have no idea how many this would be I'd guess easily 200 or 300 plus, if not way more. And for each composer, I'm not talking about knowing EVERY single work but maybe 80 to 90% of them. Maybe this is only really possible for professional musicians? And how close do you think one could get?
> 
> I'm curious because I've been listening pretty heavily for about 4 years and sometimes it doesn't even seem like I've put a dent in the repertoire. I'm obviously not worried about achieving this goal and I enjoy my listening plenty enough but I was just curious.


Nope. A lifetime is not enough to be familiar with your favorites nor to explore others you might find interested in exploring either. So the trick is to find the ones worth doing for both. It's kinda fun.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

stevens said:


> "familiar with" and "almost all of the repertoire" is somwhat vague


Ok. You need to have listened to 85.342% of every composers's works at least 6.948 times.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

A lifetime isn't enough for a comprehensive study of Mozart's complete works.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

hpowders said:


> A lifetime isn't enough for a comprehensive study of Mozart's complete works.


Luckily I'm not interested. And I wouldn't dream of sitting around for weeks listening to 200 Bach cantatas, or a hundred Hadyn symphonies. I might be dead next week, so I'll just enjoy a few pieces at the moment, and not obsess about all the music in the world.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

hpowders said:


> A lifetime isn't enough for a comprehensive study of Mozart's complete works.


True enough! daskldsfadsk;la


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Luckily I'm not interested. And I wouldn't dream of sitting around for weeks listening to 200 Bach cantatas, or a hundred Hadyn symphonies. I might be dead next week, so I'll just enjoy a few pieces at the moment, and not obsess about all the music in the world.


Just don't obsess about not obsessing, will ya'?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Luckily I'm not interested. And I wouldn't dream of sitting around for weeks listening to 200 Bach cantatas, or a hundred Hadyn symphonies. I might be dead next week, so I'll just enjoy a few pieces at the moment, and not obsess about all the music in the world.


I was simply trying to make a point about the overwhelming vastness of the task.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

For enough music a lifetime is. Certainly.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Just remember if one is sentenced to life in prison, the thread topic simply becomes a moot point regarding classical music.

Get used to all rap, all the time.

So, be good, people!!!! :lol::lol:


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

It's a pleasure to explore music - there is so much great stuff in the classical canon. I recently discovered works by Berg, Sibelius, Mahler and Bartok - and I realized I had made the first impact on a musical world I had previously not known at all. So, I think one lifetime is not enough for music - and thankfully so.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

hpowders said:


> I was simply trying to make a point about the overwhelming vastness of the task.


I know, I know. I'm getting to work on Leif Segerstam now. Starting with Symphony No. 224 and working backwards. By the time I listen to all of 'em, he'll have written 400! Good lord, I'll never get caught up!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

A lifetime is all you get so use it wisely 
There are so many other things you can do that music just has to take its turn with everything else in my life.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Haydn man said:


> A lifetime is all you get so use it wisely
> There are so many other things you can do that music just has to take its turn with everything else in my life.


Good point. As much as I'm obsessed with classical music, I'm not going to neglect all the other wonderful things in life.


----------



## maria barbara (Aug 20, 2014)

Hi Dustin,
I've been surprised to realize that if one listens to music day and night, the whole occidental repertoire (let's say XVIIth onwards) can be heard in a bit moire than 2 months !!!!


----------

