# Be Honest Now!



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

Can you name a single piece of composition that has at least 3 or more movements, that you can honestly say that you'd never skip a movement to get the next?

I know some compositions tend to have strong and weak movements, but in your own experience, have you ever found such a composition? If so, please share!! 

I'll share some of mine:
Schubert - String quartet No. 15 in G major
Mozart - Symphony No. 39 in E flat Major
Hummel - Piano concerto No. 3 in B Minor
Tchaikovsky - Symphony No.1 in G Minor
Beethoven - Symphony No. 6 in F Major

There are more, but suffice to say, I hope this illustrates what this thread is aiming for. Anyways, what are some of yours?! :cheers:

TPS


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

An odd question, to me. I never skip movements, even if some seem weaker than others. Just don't do it, for whatever reason.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

What comes to my mind: 
Dvorak' Symphony No.7
Haydn's Symphony No.88 & 92
Most of Piano Trios and other chamber music


----------



## stanchinsky (Nov 19, 2012)

Prokofiev Symphony #1 - Not all movements are equally good but they are all pretty short so why bother skipping?
Beethoven Symphony #6- I agree with you on this one, my favorite Beethoven Symphony
Fauré and Duruflé Requiems- Not only will I listen to these two uninterrupted, I can listen to both back to back, Robert Shaw made this very convenient.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

To quote KenOC: *I never skip movements, even if some seem weaker than others. Just don't do it, for whatever reason*

That is a big me to!!

/ptr


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I never skip movements either, and I never play "bleeding chunks" of complete works.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

In all honesty I dont skip any movements but I can loose attention for sure so technically this is the same thing!. I find I often loose attention during the final movement of many Symphonies - I dont think I can remember the Finales of any Bruckner Symphonies despite listening to them many times!


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

I never skip movements, but - to be honest - I sometimes listen to a movement twice before continuing.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

I don't skip movements...if I pick it to listen-to, I listen to it!


----------



## CyrilWashbrook (Feb 6, 2013)

Well, I regularly listen to movements in isolation: I don't always have time to listen to a full Celibidache recording of a Bruckner symphony, for instance, and the movements that I enjoy more will receive more playing time than the others. But if I intend to listen to a piece, I listen to it: no skipping movements.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

There are times when I listen to a single movement but that would be because I only have time for that. Or if I have a short window, I throw a couple of unconnected movements through it, for the sake of expediency. But when I have time in the evening I don't skip movements and I listen more attentively too...


----------



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

Guilty, your Honour - or at least occasionally where one work is concerned. Once or twice I have listened to the three orchestral sections of Mendelssohn's Hymn of Praise symphony and then finding myself strangely not looking forward to the remaining vocal sections which make up the majority of the work. Unless it's down to the ratio between the instrumental and the vocal I honestly don't know why, really - perhaps in my mind I'm puzzled by a work that starts off more like a conventional symphony for about half an hour and then for the remaining three quarters of an hour turns more into an oratorio. I'm not averse to symphonies with choral sections, btw - for example, Beethoven's 9th has never held any terrors for me but maybe I just prefer that one because the vocal part concludes the work rather than forms the majority of it.


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

Try singing-along to the choral sections via an English translation of the vocal score! I try this occasionally with an old Novello edition....it's surprisingly difficult to do...(whilst listening to the original German, that is) and makes a truly horrid noise, too!


----------



## WJM (Mar 25, 2013)

What do you mean "never"? If I want to listen to whole piece, I listen to whole piece without skipping anything. If I want to listen to just one movement, I listen to just one movement.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> An odd question, to me. I never skip movements, even if some seem weaker than others. Just don't do it, for whatever reason.


Me neither. I also avoid CDs with single movements extracted from works. I don't even like when someone plays something like an etude or two from a set of 10. Play the set, darn it! So I don't buy many recital albums.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I can't say I skip movements but I do often listen to single movements. One that comes to mind is Mozart's c-minor piano concerto whose first movement I've heard at least fifty times by itself. Then, there's stuff I do like pop on Beethoven's piano concerto in g from the andante con moto and just listen to the second and third. Also there's times when I'll be dissecting a piece or part of a piece so why would I listen to movements I'm not even working on...but I don't simply skip a movement to get to the one after it. Some Mozart piano sonatas have the capacity to make me _want_ to skip; but I don't.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> Me neither. I also avoid CDs with single movements extracted from works. I don't even like when someone plays something like an etude or two from a set of 10. Play the set, darn it! So I don't buy many recital albums.


I am one of 'the completist bunch' too. I have no problem with recital encores that use -for instance - Brahms Op. 118/1 or Op. 119/2, but pulling one prelude out of Chopin's Op. 28 seems to cause bleeding.


----------



## campy (Aug 16, 2012)

I _can't _skip movements in most of my listening. Most of my music is formatted as one mp3 or aac file per work, no matter how long. Minute Waltz? One file. Bruckner 8th symphony? Also one file.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I remember learning in a Psychology course that the human brain can readily take in information efficiently in about 20 minute chunks of time. So our teacher suggested that when we study we could be more efficient with our time by spreading out our studying periods as opposed to 'cramming'. 

This concept applies to music listening as well. After around 20 minutes or so the mind will naturally lose a bit of focus and start to wander. So I would suggest that individuals who never skip movements in longer works, actually retain less information about those works in memory. Ironically by occasionally listening to 'bleeding chunks' of massive works like a Bruckner Symphony or Brahms German Requiem one can actually gain a better familiarity, intimacy and understanding of the different movements of these types of works by breaking up their listening.

This is why I personally have no problem with listening to individual movements at a time in the longer works.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm like most everybody else; when I put on a piece, I'm pretty much committed to seeing it through, time permitting, of course. But some pieces fit together as a continuous narrative, so I wouldn't think of breaking the sequence up. 

Pieces like Beethoven's 3rd, 7th, and 9th have a narrative I've created in my head, so breaking them up would interrupt the story. 
The same with Mahler's 3rd - its sequence from non-being aspiring to the next level until reaching total enlightenment only makes sense if I hear it from start to finish. 

Personally, I like every minute of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto, Hammerklavier Sonata, C# minor quartet, Opus 132 quartet, Appassionata Sonata, Pathetique Sonata . . . in fact, there are a ton of pieces that keep me on the edge of my seat. 

But to be embarrassingly honest, I've found that many of Haydn's slow movements, particularly in his string quartets, make me want to reach for the Next button.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

tdc said:


> I remember learning in a Psychology course that the human brain can readily take in information efficiently in about 20 minute chunks of time. So our teacher suggested that when we study we could be more efficient with our time by spreading out our studying periods as opposed to 'cramming'.
> 
> This concept applies to music listening as well. After around 20 minutes or so the mind will naturally lose a bit of focus and start to wander. So I would suggest that individuals who never skip movements in longer works, actually retain less information about those works in memory. Ironically by occasionally listening to 'bleeding chunks' of massive works like a Bruckner Symphony or Brahms German Requiem one can actually gain a better familiarity, intimacy and understanding of the different movements of these types of works by breaking up their listening.
> 
> This is why I personally have no problem with listening to individual movements at a time in the longer works.


I think there is a flaw in your argument, related to 'information'. It is unnecessary, _at least for a non-professional_, to process and absorb music in a manner that permits 'replaying' it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2013)

I know there have been times when I've skipped a movement - so I won't say 'never'. But I will say 'not often'. To begin with, that goes for all 9 Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I too found the question itself surprising, though not so odd.

In matters of music, I've nothing in the way of omission to admit.

If I listen to anything, it is the entire work: if there is a complete version of a ballet vs. a suite, I almost 100% opt for the full length piece; the complete work is 'what it is.' (there are few exceptions -- in Copland's "Appalachian Spring" Ballet (original chamber orchestra version) I really think there is some less than interesting 'filler' and that the composer did a fine job in reducing the length for the concert suite and did leave out that 'filler' material. Sometimes, it is nearly impossible to get the complete piece, Prokofiev's Scythian Suite seems to be the only choice, even if you did want to hear the entire ballet from which the suite was extracted.

My listening habit, now a reflex, is a result of a life-long involvement with music from childhood to and through practicing professional, so to me it might be quite different as to hearing or thinking of a particular movement as 'weaker' or 'lesser.' What some might call lesser or less interesting is a perfectly calculated foil to separate a set of movements which were ore dense / intense, or a psychological 'respite' while still holding the listener's attention and 'balancing' the overall hearing of the piece.

Perceptions vary from person to person, some are just far less interested in 'the whole story,' others have a far shorter attention span -- not any sort of 'deficit' but merely the attention span perfectly matches the individual's degree of interest. 

I would not chastise anyone who wishes to go that 'editing' route, unless of course they were on course to being an earnest musician. For the audience, from the general hoi-polloi to the most involved ardent listener, it is -- and should be -- always theirs to do with as the wish.

Skipping a movement still seems to me almost directly analogous to omitting one or two acts of a three or four act play, i.e. almost completely removing any real sense to be gotten from it by so omitting


----------



## TwoFourPianist (Mar 28, 2013)

Beethoven's 9th Symphony
Brahm's 3rd Symphony

These two are simply bliss the whole way through!


----------



## OboeKnight (Jan 25, 2013)

There's movements I wouldn't mind skipping...but I feel like I'm cheating if I skip one :lol:
Some slow movements of baroque concertos seem to be really dull..maybe because the particular performer didn't use enough ornamentation lol.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I never skip movements either, and I never play "bleeding chunks" of complete works.


Are you sure about _never_? What about Mahler's 5th? Because I seem to remember you posting a while back that you occasionally only listen to one movement from that work.



Hilltroll72 said:


> I think there is a flaw in your argument, related to 'information'. It is unnecessary, _at least for a non-professional_, to process and absorb music in a manner that permits 'replaying' it.


For myself I do not have a desire to be able to replay the pieces, but for example what if something subtly brilliant happens halfway through the second movement of a Mahler or Bruckner symphony, I would have otherwise missed? Sometimes I like listening through different sections with 'fresh ears' so to speak. In this case this doesn't necessarily mean I will skip movements, but I will often divide my listening time to allow for this.



PetrB said:


> What some might call lesser or less interesting is a perfectly calculated foil to separate a set of movements which were ore dense / intense, or a psychological 'respite' while still holding the listener's attention and 'balancing' the overall hearing of the piece.


True, but as you have said perceptions vary from person to person. I don't think any composer regardless of how brilliant can predict how an audience will hear their work. It is pretty common for composers to have works initially have bad receptions, and for composers to have a vastly different idea of what their "best" work is compared to the general public. You make it sound like these composers are practically omniscient but in reality these things suggest a composer has in fact very little control over how a listener perceives a given composition. Another point to think about are works like Schuman's 7th Symphony, originally entitled the _Celebration Concertante _. Schuman later added a first movement to this work and called it the _7th Symphony_, how often do you suppose things like this happen? Are you telling me there is only one correct way to listen to this work?

Ultimately, if anyone wants to make the argument of "listening to what the composer intended" lets face it, as soon as a person decides to listen to a recording of a piece of music as opposed to a live version (in optimal settings with competent musicians) an individual is NOT listening to Bach or Mozart or Beethoven the way the composer intended.



PetrB said:


> I would not chastise anyone who wishes to go that 'editing' route, unless of course they were on course to being an earnest musician.


So in order to be an "earnest musician" one can never skip any movements of pieces they listen to? Can you explain this further?



PetrB said:


> Skipping a movement still seems to me almost directly analogous to omitting one or two acts of a three or four act play, i.e. almost completely removing any real sense to be gotten from it by so omitting


This last point seems to me surprising coming from you considering how often I've seen you argue against the use of Program Notes or background information on pieces and that absolute music should stand up as absolute music.

Don't get me wrong folks! I agree that listening to these types of works in full is a virtuous philosophy. I don't think it is realistic or necessary to suggest anyone _never_ skip a movement in any circumstance. The whole idea of never doing something like that to me just reeks of an old-fashioned 'no pain no gain' mindset I generally do not agree with.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

There are times when I listen to only the slow movements out of a complete set of Beethoven's or Mahler's symphonies or out of Schubert's quartets and piano trios and don't want to hear the rest of those works.


----------



## campy (Aug 16, 2012)

tdc said:


> So in order to be an "earnest musician" one can never skip any movements of pieces they listen to? Can you explain this further?


I would think an earnest musician would have _more _reason than a layperson to take one or more movements of a work out of context, e.g. for study purposes.


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

It's nice to see so many positive responses. I know skipping an entire movement is rather harsh, or in some cases it only seems that way, but it should never be the norm. I'm not particularly fond of skipping movements, or even fast-forwarding a certain section of the music, but in some instances, which are quite rare, I'm forced to skip a movement with the clear intention of listening to it another time.

I seem to appreciate certain movements of large orchestral works when I listen to them individually, and of course, some movements I just flat fall in love with them in the first listen. Additionally, the type of mood that I'm in certainly influences whether I'd want to listen to particular movement or not. So, I can never say that I don't skip movements, and this is especially true with new music that I'm not familiar with, because I do, but it occurs so infrequently that it should never become habitual.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Here are some movements I like to listen to in isolation:

Bach, Partita for violin no. 2, Ciaccona
Beethoven, symphony no. 9, second/third movement
Brahms, German Requiem, Denn wir haben hie keine bleibende Statt
Brahms, symphony no. 3, third movement
Hindemith, piano sonata No. 3, finale
Holst, The Planets, Mars/Jupiter
Mahler, symphony no. 6, Andante moderato
Schumann, symphony no. 2, second movement
Sibelius, symphony no. 5, finale


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

When I was young and impatient I would skip over the slow movements sometimes, but never now -- except a lot of my listening is on shuffle play which in effect skips movements all the time. So I must answer never and always.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Well, I might not usually skip movements, but there are some works where I see all the movements as being about equal in quality:

Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 4
Dvorak's Symphony No. 8
Dvorak's Symphony No. 9

I almost always have a favorite movement in a multi-movement work, but I can't pick a favorite in these three symphonies. Each movement of these symphonies is almost a mini-symphony itself.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Although I don't skip movements much, I'll admit to listening to a movement in isolation once in a while. And as for bloody gobbets -- if it weren't for those, I'd never hear Wagner at all!


----------



## dkjoeyss (Mar 31, 2013)

I try and listen to all movements of a work. Someone mentioned some movements are "weak." I beg to differ. The "weak" movements or less simulating movements are created by design. You can not have a full 30 minutes (or over an hour if you are listening to composers like Bruckner) of high stimulation. Otherwise, the quality of the symphony itself diminishes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> So in order to be an "earnest musician" one can never skip any movements of pieces they listen to? Can you explain this further?
> 
> This last point seems to me surprising coming from you considering how often I've seen you argue against the use of Program Notes or background information on pieces and that absolute music should stand up as absolute music.
> 
> Don't get me wrong folks! I agree that listening to these types of works in full is a virtuous philosophy. I don't think it is realistic or necessary to suggest anyone _never_ skip a movement in any circumstance. The whole idea of never doing something like that to me just reeks of an old-fashioned 'no pain no gain' mindset I generally do not agree with.


_Ultimately, if anyone wants to make the argument of "listening to what the composer intended" lets face it, as soon as a person decides to listen to a recording of a piece of music as opposed to a live version (in optimal settings with competent musicians) an individual is NOT listening to Bach or Mozart or Beethoven the way the composer intended.is _
This is *just so wrong*, technology apart or included as the root of this 'reasoning, it actually pulled a surprised giggle out of me. Would you like to add a similar qualification, that even if you are listening to live musicians in a hall, that 'what the composer intended' is not at all happening because the hall is lit by electricity? 

_So in order to be an "earnest musician" one can never skip...._
I'm a bit alarmed at your generally flat literal interpretations.

Everybody does everything. Many a more 'earnest' musician, or ardent listener, as seen by the large majority of responses in this thread, tend to much prefer listening through, than passing a movement by...

_This last point seems to me surprising coming from you considering how often I've seen you argue against the use of Program Notes or background information on pieces and that absolute music should stand up as absolute music._
My goodness! Analogies are analogous, not literal! 
The 'music tells a story' (choke, gag, tears in my eyes), 'music is a universal language,' and all the rest are so often misunderstood as being literal, when they are analogies exactly because absolute music is not about narrative verbal story-telling / illustrative about a physical scene = but only analogous to those things.

I will always urge just anyone to listen to the entire work, read the entire book, look at all parts of a multiple panel painting, etc. I think to do otherwise would be to shortchange the person you are urging to do so, and short-change the very thing you are recommending.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Weston said:


> When I was young and impatient I would skip over the slow movements sometimes, but never now -- except a lot of my listening is on shuffle play which in effect skips movements all the time. So I must answer never and always.


Is it not possible, with a little doctoring, to force shuffle-play to select entire 'albums'? I'm asking because I don't know. My 'Brennan' player has that ability, but the Brennan is rather non-standard.

Anyway, the shuffle-play you allude to is anathema to me... a 'modern abomination'.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Is it not possible, with a little doctoring, to force shuffle-play to select entire 'albums'? I'm asking because I don't know. My 'Brennan' player has that ability, but the Brennan is rather non-standard.
> 
> Anyway, the shuffle-play you allude to is anathema to me... a 'modern abomination'.


Yes it can select entire albums if I went to the trouble to set it that way. However, I'm really only using shuffle play at work to drown out my noisy co-workers and to casually entertain myself in the stultifying office environment. The music will get interrupted there anyway. If it seems an abomination to use Corelli side by side with pop / rock in this way, rest assured I listen in earnest to entire works with my full focus in the evenings and on weekends.

A worse anathema to me is the player's habit of putting a little gap between continuous movements even when playing in sequence unless you tell it to accommodate gapless play. I usually forget how to do that.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The closest I get to such "editing" is those great "bleeding chunks" discs or discs of recitals by a single singer or performer. Other than that... unless I'm rudely called away (or fall asleep after a particularly tiring day) I always listen to works of music in their entirety. I can't imagine skipping over scenes in a movie or a book to get to the "good bits". I would never think to undermine the integrity of the art work as a whole. Of course, as an artist myself (a painter) I may be overly sensitive to slicing and dicing up works of art to churn out a "greatest hits".


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)




----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I will always urge just anyone to listen to the entire work, read the entire book, look at all parts of a multiple panel painting, etc. I think to do otherwise would be to shortchange the person you are urging to do so, and short-change the very thing you are recommending.


Fair enough. I can agree with this. It really was just this 'never' business I was a little skeptical of, and good to see more are admitting their definition of 'never' wasn't really literal. For example using your analogy, once a person has 'read the entire book' I see no problem with an individual re-reading specific passages of interest and/or difficulty to gain a better understanding. Also I'm glad someone brought up Bach's Chaconne, as with the many different transcriptions made of the piece, I'm sure most of us have heard the work a time or two extracted from the suite. Which begs another question - if someone makes a transcription of a movement of a work does that now make it fair game to listen to as a stand alone piece? There are a lot of shades of grey to this topic, and though I do generally agree with you, for reasons I previously mentioned I believe there are certainly some advantages to listening to smaller chunks of works at a time on occasion as well.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The Chaconne in Partita No. 2 is not a movement. It is a piece among pieces in a suite. Movements of a symphony are different beasties.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

OK, once or twice, in a weak moment, I've played a single movement. I think they were the respective finales of Mendelssohn's 5th and Berlioz's Grande Symphonie Funebre et Triomphale, just to revel in the bliss one more time when the whole symphony had played out. But other than that, I never skip movements or single them out, although I hold no ill will to those who do.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Xaltotun said:


> [...]
> But other than that, I never skip movements or single them out, although I hold no ill will to those who do.


I think that people who do such things, with the grudging exception of professionals in their work, are cheapening the *art*, and opening the sacred portals to the depredations of savages.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think that people who do such things, with the grudging exception of professionals in their work, are cheapening the *art*, and opening the sacred portals to the depredations of savages.


Which is why I call for mandatory straight-through listening! All playback devices must be equipped with monitors and wireless reporting to the authorities, so that depredators can be immediately and thoroughly terminicated!


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

Weston said:


> When I was young and impatient I would skip over the slow movements sometimes, but never now -- except a lot of my listening is on shuffle play which in effect skips movements all the time. So I must answer never and always.


I'm more likely to skip the faster movements myself! Usually I don't but sometimes I will.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

When I'm listening a piece for the first time, I go through the full piece, without interruptions, trying to maintain full attention.
Once I'm familiar with the piece, I can listen to separate movements, the full piece, etc., it depends on my mood.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

tdc said:


> I remember learning in a Psychology course that the human brain can readily take in information efficiently in about 20 minute chunks of time. So our teacher suggested that when we study we could be more efficient with our time by spreading out our studying periods as opposed to 'cramming'.


I agree that the human brain has a limit, as you say, that has been studied. But I don't agree with this:



> This concept applies to music listening as well. After around 20 minutes or so the mind will naturally lose a bit of focus and start to wander. So I would suggest that individuals who never skip movements in longer works, actually retain less information about those works in memory. Ironically by occasionally listening to 'bleeding chunks' of massive works like a Bruckner Symphony or Brahms German Requiem one can actually gain a better familiarity, intimacy and understanding of the different movements of these types of works by breaking up their listening.
> 
> This is why I personally have no problem with listening to individual movements at a time in the longer works.


The brain is a very flexible thing. You can "train" your brain in order to surpass this limit of 20 minutes. It requires hard work, but it is possible. In fact, you can train your brain for surpassing the average brain in a wide array of situations.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

For the first time yesterday I listened to all of Mahler's 2nd symphony while paying attention to all of it, most other times I skipped to the last two minutes. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The OP's premise has an unfortunate analogy to a hypothetical "pop" music listener who "skips the bad songs" and plays only the "hits."

Of course, every classical listener who wants to retain any "street cred" would never skip parts of a multi-movement work, as this would put us in the short attention-span category of a typical _pop music fan_. :lol:


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> For the first time yesterday I listened to all of Mahler's 2nd symphony while paying attention to all of it, most other times I skipped to the last two minutes. :lol:


I used to do that too. :lol: I would listen to the last 2 minutes, then the last 5 minutes, then 10, etc, until I eventually ended up listening from the beginning. That way I could get to know the symphony in small chunks but still get to experience (somewhat) the feeling of completion each time.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

aleazk said:


> The brain is a very flexible thing. You can "train" your brain in order to surpass this limit of 20 minutes. It requires hard work, but it is possible. In fact, you can train your brain for surpassing the average brain in a wide array of situations.


I agree, but my post was using a basic generalization. Unless the average listener has put in the work you've mentioned to increase their attention span/memory their mind will generally start to wander after around 20 minutes.



millionrainbows said:


> Of course, every classical listener who wants to retain any "street cred" would never skip parts of a multi-movement work, as this would put us in the short attention-span category of a typical _pop music fan_. :lol:


Oh, well good thing I don't listen to classical music to gain any sort of cred. But in all seriousness I think part of my fixation with the singled out movements has to do with the fact I play classical guitar and often will play transcriptions of individual movements of pieces, and I don't like the idea of people turning up their nose at this like it is disrespectful to the composer, because I don't believe it is.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

People thought it is long and repetitive, but I never did skip any movements of Great C major symphony by Schubert.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> People thought it is long and repetitive, but I never did skip any movements of Great C major symphony by Schubert.


I've been known to edit repeats out of Schubert. Is that allowed?


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I've been known to edit repeats out of Schubert. Is that allowed?


It is not! You will be hanged for subversion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> It is not! You will be hanged for subversion.


Oh. In that case, I was just kidding.


----------

