# Listening to a lot a little, or to a little a lot



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Is a man better off to listen to a large amount of diverse music but only know it on a superficial level, or to a smaller amount but heard enough and studied so that you come to know it intimately? 

Ie, listening to 100 pieces once vs. one piece 100 times.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm not sure what listening to hundreds of pieces is like so I can't really answer. I usually listen to a CD at a time and get to know it before I move on. I know that I am familiar enough with a piece when I can hum it over without listening to it. I also like to get some background information on the particular piece I am listening to.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

Always depends on the piece.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Depends on the person as well.

For me, I'd rather continue to explore the unknown.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

100 pieces 100 times.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> 100 pieces 100 times.


Ah... if only the day was 40 hours long!


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Ah... if only the day was 40 hours long!


The average life span is approximately 700,000 hours long though.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I'd prefer to hear less works and know them intimately!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Trout said:


> Always depends on the piece.


I don't mean you listen to any and all piece 100 times. Clearly if a piece does absolutely nothing for you and you don't think you'll get more out of it from subsequent listens you won't give it a second chance. But when you find a piece you do enjoy, will you listen to that piece exhaustively, or a few times, then move on to something else (maybe coming back to it now and again), and you wouldn't be able to hum the majority of it while picturing the accompaniment in your head, etc.

Also, "both" is clearly not an option unless you're retired.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2011)

What about a listening to a lot a lot?

It's like listening to music is a huge chore, something you have to budget time for. I have to budget time for work and for eating and sleeping. For women and music, I don't budget at all. Women and music are delightful and need no planning to spend time with.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

some guy said:


> What about a listening to a lot a lot?
> 
> It's like listening to music is a huge chore, something you have to budget time for. I have to budget time for work and for eating and sleeping. For women and music, I don't budget at all. Women and music are delightful and need no planning to spend time with.


It suppose it depends on what "listening a lot" is considered to be, but for me "a lot a lot" can't be done. Tristan is approaching a year, 5 recordings, 2 books, analyzing the score, learning to play sections of the piano reduction, etc.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Music is a specific vocabulary. Listening to a lot of music makes you more fluent.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Music is a specific vocabulary. Listening to a lot of music makes you more fluent.


I'm confused whether you're advocating for listening to a lot a little or a little a lot. If you try to learn every language you won't end up fluent in any of them. If you focus on just German (), _then_ you become fluent.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think that Couchie is just trying to justify his Wagner obsession


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

With the amount of time couchie has left and because of the length of the music, couchie would not be able to get through one Wagner opera 100 times. Perhaps listen to a piece by Webern 100 times and come back in two minutes.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Conor71 said:


> I'd prefer to hear less works and know them intimately!


I'm with you here but as my obsession is with opera, not sure if my preference is valid in a purely listening thread.

For me to enjoy a live opera properly, I have to know it as well as I possibly can before I go & this means lots of homework. I start with listening to a CD every day for about two weeks then watching a DVD several times.

If this sounds like a chore, believe me it isn't, it's a joyful experience.


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Related discussion a few years back:
http://www.talkclassical.com/5806-breadth-depth.html


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

For me personally, I go by the axiom "less is more."

But it ultimately depends who you are, your interests, where you're coming from.

Eg. if you're someone whose profession is music, or are studying music, then obviously you have to do a bit of both. Listen to and study a high quantity, then funnel it down to your area/s of specialty, etc.

I think if a music has a certain quality, no matter what the genre, style, era, etc. - or whether it's classical or not - it can bear repeated listening and reward the listener constantly. & it can also be gratifying for those who play it or study it, etc. for a livelihood.

Of course, for me and others I know regarding their love of music, "variety is the spice of life" -that cliche tends to apply across the board, incl. for most/many people on this forum...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

One piece a thousand times to the obsessive exclusion of all others.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> One piece a thousand times to the obsessive exclusion of all others.


I most certainly agree. When I heard Michael Nyman's piece _MGV_, I listened to it at _least_ eight times a day for two months without listening to _anything_ else. No exaggeration. I am serious.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Unfortunately I'm mostly (but not exclusively) one of those "listening to a lot a little" people. I often feel like listening to something I really like a lot, but then I consider what I haven't yet heard and usually end up listening to that. In a way life was simpler when I was a teenager and I knew the lyrics of every Blonde on Blonde track from start to finish and could play every Zep guitar solo just as well as Jimmy Page. I was a real virtuoso in front of the mirror when I let my fingers go over that handle of my tennis racket......But then Mozart, Strauss and the rest of 'em made a real mess of my life because it became virtually impossible to keep up with everything I was interested in.  Having said that, I of course also go back to old (or not so old) faves. Not as often as I would like, but listening to something one or two times per year still makes for dozens of times during a lifetime.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> ... and I knew the lyrics of every Blonde on Blonde track from start to finish


:tiphat:

I knew 'Desolation Row' so well I adapted all the lyrics once & wrote them in a card to Bob Willis, the England & Warwickshire fast bowler who changed his name from Robert George Willis to Robert George _Dylan_ Willis because he was such a fan.

"They're selling score-cards of the Testmatch
They're painting the grandstands brown
The pubs are filled with laughter
The Aussies are town.."

(I can't remember the rest, should've kept a copy)

sorry gone totally off topic here :lol:


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Is a man better off to listen to a large amount of "diverse music" but only know it on a superficial level, or to a smaller amount but heard enough and studied so that you come to know it intimately?
> 
> Ie, listening to 100 "pieces" once vs. one piece 100 times.


ok is this a dirty analogy... (in your original question, do "pieces" actually mean "women")?

because in that case, i like to listen to the least amount possible, while getting to know all of them intimately.

if we're talking about music, i like listening to one or a couple whole albums at a time until i get tired of them, then round-robin with other new albums. when i'm busy doing something else, i listen to old albums to which i'm accustomed.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Both.

Surely one should listen to some pieces intensively and repeatedly and a lot of others a few times.

The reason is that no piece of music exists in isolation (even if, occasionally, the composer would like us think it does). One's appreciation of a work one is listening to in depth must be hugely enhanced by having a general appreciation of: other works written by the same composer; other works written at the same time; the work's predecessors and successors; other works in the same genre; and so on.

Equally, one's general listening is enhanced by knowing at least one particular, relevant work very well. Know one Mozart piano concerto well, and that will inform your experience of listening to others, if only to point up how they are not like the first one (or each other).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Couchie said:


> I'm confused whether you're advocating for listening to a lot a little or a little a lot. If you try to learn every language you won't end up fluent in any of them. If you focus on just German (), _then_ you become fluent.


When you listen to a lot of different music- from country to classical and jazz to rock n roll- you realize that all music is the SAME language. Music speaks on a level that is born into us. Listening to a lot of different music unlocks it, and things you learn about one type of music end up illuminating completely different kinds of music.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Some pieces have their greatest impact on me from their first listening (like many pieces by Tchaikovsky), while others take me much longer but have a much greater value the more times I hear it (like Mahler's symphonies), so it really depends. Personally I like to listen to a piece until I feel I understand the feelings it's trying to get across to me before giving up on it, so I'll go with listening to a little a lot.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I think I do both. I listen to a lot of music on the surface (meaning I know the era, composer, and listen to the structure and themes of the piece), but some pieces resonate, and those works I concentrate on, trying to get the score, consulting commentaries, then marking up the score so I don't forget what I've learned, then listening to different interpretations.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Perhaps listen to a piece by Webern 100 times and come back in two minutes.


That made me laugh. Except two minutes with Webern is equal to an hour with many others.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Thread: Listening to a lot a little, or to a little a lot.

It doesn't matter whether you're a newbie or veteran collector. 

A newbie will be steadily progressing through composers, and likely using the "listening to a little a lot" method, learning the works, cracking the occasional harder nut.

Generally, veterans will become set in their ways, arriving at a number of favorite composers, and a manageable recs count. Of course this "manageable recs count" might seem large to a newbie, but it's really not, considering a comparison to total recs heard over decades. And this is why the veteran is likely "listening to a little a lot", also.

Listening to classical music is not a race. Listening habits are necessarily conservative...for learning, and for enjoyment.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

A certain amount of my listening time is dedicated to exploring new music. I'd guess maybe 15% of the time I spend listening each week. When I find something I really like I will add it to my regular playlist which I listen to during the remaining ~85% of the time. I generally get to know those works pretty well. Occasionally I will go through my playlist and remove pieces that I've grown tired of, so the list never becomes too long.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

bigshot said:


> When you listen to a lot of different music- from country to classical and jazz to rock n roll- you realize that all music is the SAME language. Music speaks on a level that is born into us. Listening to a lot of different music unlocks it, and things you learn about one type of music end up illuminating completely different kinds of music.


I think music does speak to some of the same innate feelings in all of use, in all cultures, genres, etc. I don't strictly believe it's universal, or not always, but it can be, depending on a variety of things. For one thing, how we talk is a bit like music, when we are talking or even writing we are composing, we are making our thoughts in our head "real." Songwriters sometimes think in these ways, combining words and music, with all those things like rhyme and intonation, the language they're working with. But with the music I listen to, no matter if it's a Piaf chanson, West AFrican drumming or Janacek's choral music, the emotional effect, that visceral gut feeling is coming at me from them, it's affecting me, and I think that's more important than what language it's in, etc...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

What I've always done is listen to as much new much as possible...if that music catches me in any way beyond just a good listen, I stick it into my regular rotation...if it still survives that much scrutiny, I begin to compare it by other performers...if then, it continues to satisfy and reveal more and more with every listen,...well, then it is likely to become one of my favorite pieces of music; standing among thousands...I guess it depends a lot on how much one can absorb and memorize and how quickly and that for me I am afraid has to this date proven to be limitless.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Wow - I probably don't have enough time left to justify buying much more music...


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

I listen repeatedly to music I think might be interesting. Some music immediately strikes me as brilliant, while from experience I know that there are plenty of great works that I have not understood on the first listen (or even the first few listens). I prefer to analyze certain favorite pieces until I feel like I understand their structure and their emotional effect. Therefore I am probably not as eclectic or wide-ranging in my music knowledge as others might be. But that's fine. I think everyone has their own way of listening to music.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

The music that I find challenging I prefer to listen more of.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Of course, for me and others I know regarding their love of music, "variety is the spice of life" -that cliche tends to apply across the board, incl. for most/many people on this forum...


:tiphat: I concur, sir. 
Hence, I choose to listen to 33.3 pieces thrice.
And maybe then pieces that are appealing to me will played more, so maybe that gets an extra play while the less appealing will be played only once or twice.


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2011)

Another option - get the gear you need to play 100 works simultaneously. Then take LSD and follow along with all of them at once.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I think it might have been last week or the week before where I found myself listening to Don Giovanni over and over again. Listening to a piece of music over and over again like I did can make listening to something different very satisfying.


----------

