# Less is more?



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Some performers, Alfred Brendel, for instance, refine their repertoire until they play only a handful of favourite composers. I wonder if the same trait applies to listeners. I once knew someone who restricted his listening entirely to the works of Puccini.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

... heard of a fellow who collected most recordings of solely 20 works he considered masterpieces, and nothing more.

Also heard of a fellow who kept 18.000 LPs of diverse classical repertoire in a two-room Parisian flat.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Schroeder from _Peanuts_ certainly fits into that category.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Richter famously only allowed some works into his repertoire - not even all the Beethoven sonatas - but was at the same time fairly adventurous. Rostropovich, on the other hand, asked composers to write cello works (concertos, I think) and promised to play any that were written for him. This led to a large increase in the number of 20th Century masterpieces for his instrument. 

I like to hear as much music as possible but do reject quite a lot if it fails to reward me (although I do try harder if there is an established opinion that the music is excellent). The advantage of this is that there is always something that suits my mood and can, indeed, raise my mood.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Playing everything is to play nothing, essentially. Luther said the following about sophistry, but it might as well be said about (one's choice of) repertoire: "Plato offers a remarkable description of sophistry: People who can twist everything, repudiate the opinions of others, and draw conclusions on both sides... are not to be praised. These are sly tricks. _It is the glory of a good character (on the other hand) to seek the truth and to rejoice in guilelessness._"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I listen to everything including non-Classical. I try to understand the virtues of each style/genre, and how they fit as a whole, and have developed strong opinions on music. I think Luther's words are more applicable to morality (and politics) than musical diversity


----------



## agoukass (Dec 1, 2008)

I listen mostly to piano and chamber music. Most of my collection is piano music. The main reason is because I played the piano throughout elementary, middle, high school, and college and have found the instrument's repertoire as well as its performers to be fascinating. I can listen to the piano for hours and never get tired of it. However, I wouldn't restrict myself to one composer or to one particular performer.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

How can you know what not to listen to if you don't give it a chance? If you give lots of music a fair chance you might still reject more than you "keep". But doing this still left me with an enormous amount of music to enjoy!


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I listen to everything including non-Classical. I try to understand the virtues of each style/genre, and how they fit as a whole, and have developed strong opinions on music. I think Luther's words are more applicable to morality (and politics) than musical diversity


I very much respect your eagerness in discovering new musical territory, Phil, and I would certainly also like to delve more deeply into certain composers, etc.; but, alas, life is short!

This is also why, if going to an art exhibition, one should choose _one_ particular painting to focus on, to contemplate, rather than half-contemplating _all_ paintings, in order to (at least) open up for the possibility of disinterested pleasure (Kant).


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I get your point, and it can be true as regards the level of personal interpretation, but without a fair amount of comparative material, interpretations tend to be a-historical, subjective, and maybe even factually wrong. 

The provocative aspects of a Constable, Whistler, or a Courbet, can easily be overlooked, if not compared to their more conventional contemporaries. Likewise, the sheer amount and popularity of certain genre scenes is in itself an important feature for understanding their appeal.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Forss said:


> I very much respect your eagerness in discovering new musical territory, Phil, and I would certainly also like to delve more deeply into certain composers, etc.; but, alas, life is short!
> 
> This is also why one should choose one particular painting (instead of half-seeing all paintings in an art exhibition) to focus on, to contemplate, in order to (at least) open up the possibility of being transformed/overwhelmed.


Life is short, therefore devote yourself to a single path - or - Life is short, therefore explore as many paths as possible? It's the latter for me, but I don't know why "should" has to come into it. Some people are overwhelmed by a sunrise, others by a clear night sky. One star versus millions - there's no correct answer.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> Life is short, therefore devote yourself to a single path - or - Life is short, therefore explore as many paths as possible? It's the latter for me, but I don't know why "should" has to come into it. Some people are overwhelmed by a sunrise, others by a clear night sky. One star versus millions - there's no correct answer.


I'm with Nereffid on this. I found it possible to focus on a particular era or style at a time and move on, then return to pick up what was missed.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

I can certainly see both sides to this issue. There is only so much time, and there is more music out there than I could possibly hear in many lifetimes. I have mostly gravitated toward variety; my music collection is very large, and it includes a wide variety of classical music, along with a lot of popular, folk, and "world" music. Naturally, I cannot get to know most of this music very well; due to the scarcity of time, I often listen to a recording once, and then it might be many years before I hear it again. This doesn't stop me from acquiring new recordings. Despite the existing backlog, there is always something new that I want to hear.

Despite my attraction to variety and my constant search for something new, I find that I also focus on certain music and try to come to a deeper understanding. The method by which I choose this subset of music is haphazard. In some cases (i.e. 1950s/1960s rock music and certain pieces by Mussorgsky and Bach), it is music that I know from my childhood. In other cases, something just happened to grab me and I decided to explore it in depth. In one case many years ago, I decided to get to know one of Mahler's symphonies extremely well, and I put the question as to which one in a poll on a music forum. (I'm not going to mention the winner of the poll because I'm considering repeating the experiment here, though I might choose a different composer instead.) I find that getting to know some music well while continuing to explore the greatest possible variety is a good compromise - in the depth vs. breadth conflict, it isn't necessary to go completely one way or the other. I find that an understanding of the breadth of music on a shallow level helps when I pick something to study in depth because it provides context.


----------



## silentio (Nov 10, 2014)

I can relate as a listener. While I don't listen to across of genres (just classical, jazz and some other forms of traditional music), but in classical I listen to quite a lot of thing, from pre-renaissance to 1950's. 

Sometimes I found myself "trapped" in a specific period/genre that it is so hard to enjoy anything else. For example, when I was obsessed with Franco-Flemish Renaissance composers, other periods and composers sound less profound and precise. When I was obsessed with Wagner and Scriabin, others sound less colorful. With Italian opera, others sound less melodious. With classical period chamber music, others sound less pure. With Brahms, others sound less sophisticated.

That 'localized trap' may be what caused the listener to restrict himself, as the OP mentioned.

That is why sometimes I like the idea of play a random playlist on Spotify. You could discover so many gems, and when different types were juxtaposed, you would be amazed at how vast and diverse is classical music, and how lucky we are to be blessed with such legacy.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I have always enjoyed going deeply into fewer things, but it's something that I have given way to more as I grow older.

When I was young I wanted to try everything - I remember as a teenager being deeply depressed because I calculated that even if I lived to be 100 and spent 8 hours a day reading, I still wouldn't be able to read all the important books in the world. 
But I've accepted that now, and a lot of my pleasure consists of rereading.

There are lots of different types of book that I enjoy, and lots of different types of music. But I read and listen now to new things more on a 'need to' basis, whereas delving more profoundly into things that are 'exactly me' is always tempting.

So yes - these days - where music and books are concerned, I'd agree that for me 'less is more' but you can only know that it's more if you've already tried *more* quite a bit in the past.

And chocolate doesn't taste as good as it used to...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

silentio said:


> I can relate as a listener. While I don't listen to across of genres (just classical, jazz and some other forms of traditional music), but in classical I listen to quite a lot of thing, from pre-renaissance to 1950's.
> 
> Sometimes I found myself "trapped" in a specific period/genre that it is so hard to enjoy anything else.


That's been my experience also, especially when I was a new listener. I would bird-dog on one composer or one particular era, reading books and marking up scores, until I understood what they were about. But by now I've done that enough with enough composers/eras that I can draw from that experience and get deeper enjoyment from whatever I'm listening to without having to put in all that initial effort again.


----------



## Forss (May 12, 2017)

The B's alone are enough for a lifetime: Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Berg...

Perhaps we can make a distinction between (a) exploring the very music itself, and of (b) exploring various genres (i.e. cultural expressions)? The former requires only, say, the B's (or whoever you prefer) and the latter, naturally, a more varied diet.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't know whether less is more, but I know that enough is enough, and that there's never enough unless there's too much.


----------



## St Matthew (Aug 26, 2017)

Sometimes less is more, sometimes more is less


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

One reason that I listen to the local classical radio station is that I get variety and not just what I have on the shelf, although at times I just have to switch it off and revert to my CDs.
Re performers I always consider Rosalyn Tureck as a Bach Girl.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I've always liked the saying that it's best to know something about everything and everything about something. In the realm of artistic experience, I take that to mean that it's good to experience as much as possible, but also have those works/artists/genres/mediums that you take as "your own" and dive deeply into. How to get the balance right is the real trick, and there's no one-size-fits-all answer possible. 

Personally, I just explore works/genres/artists to the extent that I'm interested in them, and that interest can span from as little as a single experience, to as many as dozens or hundreds of experiences. It's also hard accounting for changes in taste or mood. As an example, I've seen well over 8000 films in my life, gone through periods where I would watch as many as 3-4 films a day; yet I haven't seen a single film in the last year plus because I've been obsessed with music; and even with music, I spent most of the year listening to pop/rock/metal music, but the last several months have been 100% classical.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I've always liked the saying that it's best to know something about everything and everything about something. In the realm of artistic experience, I take that to mean that it's good to experience as much as possible, but also have those works/artists/genres/mediums that you take as "your own" and dive deeply into. How to get the balance right is the real trick, and there's no one-size-fits-all answer possible.


I agree, and find this approach the most personally rewarding in my own case, and probably for many others also--to have a broad outlook or overview of what's out there, but not so obsessive or time-consuming that one fails to identify and cultivate one's own peculiar areas of both pleasure and expertise. In today's drinking-from-a-firehose environment of attempting to be conversant with What's Happening Now, some may lose sight of who they are and what yields them lasting rewards.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know whether less is more, but I know that enough is enough, and that there's never enough unless there's too much.


This really belongs in the wise sayings thread!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Fritz Kobus said:


> This really belongs in the wise sayings thread!


There is such a thread? That's just too much.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

More or less.
I certainly don't jump from one piece, or composer, to the next. I take a LOT of time getting to know music and most of my listening time is spend on music I've heard before. Maybe 5% of that time is spent on "new" music. So it's very gradually expanding. At this rate I'll never get to know a lot of classical music and while that's tragic in a way, in the end it's quality over quantity everytime.


----------

