# I've come up with a new listening strategy.



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I think I went too fast in the early days of my listening. I downloaded a lot of huge bargain sets of several different composers and haphazardly went about listening to them. I feel like I'm at a party where I've shaken a lot of hands, but haven't actually met anyone yet. 

So, to remedy this, for the next 30 days I will strictly listen to only three composers. If this month feels successful, I will pick a different three for the next 30 day set.

The first three I have selected are: Bach, Beethoven, and Liszt. That should be enough variety to keep me interested. I will have to purchase more Bach and Beethoven, but that is no impediment to my plan.

It will be interesting to see how this goes.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Lol good luck! Never worked for me, but it might for you! I couldn't even stick to one symphony cycle.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Only 30 days for those three? Oh, well, good listening!

I hope you select something from Beethoven's early, middle, and late periods to see his spiritual progression. And with Bach, sample his solo works, ensemble works, cantatas, passions, and then the Coffee Cantata to see that he wasn't always so serious. And don't forget Liszt's choral works - he wrote well for them. Christus is worth your time.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"I feel like I'm at a party where I've shaken a lot of hands, but haven't actually met anyone yet."

That's good...but I think you've been on the right road. It's good to feel bewildered. It's important to listen to as many as you can in a short period of time. It's called atonement (for ignoring CM for as long as you did). 

You will be better for it. Happy listening.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> Only 30 days for those three? Oh, well, good listening!


Yes, 30 days is just to meet them. I wouldn't ask them to help me move or anything after 30 days.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

How about listening variably, but whenever you hear a piece that strikes you, or you like, listen to it again, and even again until you sort of "know" it. Then move on and repeat. That way, you'll actually come away sort of knowing some works, instead of sampling a smorgasbord that will have you feeling you have been exposed to something but you have no idea what.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Here's what you do to really get to know a piece inside and out. 

Listen to a minute of the piece
Rewind to beginning
Listen to two minutes
Rewind to beginning
Listen to three minutes
Rewind to beginning
Repeat pattern until the movement is over
Take previous steps with all movements of the piece


Tedious? Yes
Time Consuming? Yes
Annoying? Yes
On the verge of being absurd and asinine? Yes

Effective??? YOU BETCHA

Developing that much patience and understanding will lead you to become a Buddhist monk of music.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm working on Bach right now, and there's too much there to take all at once. I'm focusing on just cantatas right now.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The problem, to me, is you have a strategy at all, which keeps your mind busy on 'what you ought to do and how and when and how much you ought to do it,' vs. "Just listening to something."

You might want to try the latter sometime


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Just listening is what you do with mindless pop music. If your brain isn't turned on and you aren't organizing what you hear in your head, you aren't going to get much out of classical music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Three composers? *Ligeti,* Wagner, Nyman. I only _need_ these composers to be happy with my listening. However, it is very difficult to go without the Bach family, Farrenc, Ferneyhough, Carter, Monteverdi, Haydn, Byrd, Stockhausen and all the other composers I love.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> I think I went too fast in the early days of my listening. I downloaded a lot of huge bargain sets of several different composers and haphazardly went about listening to them. I feel like I'm at a party where I've shaken a lot of hands, but haven't actually met anyone yet.
> 
> So, to remedy this, for the next 30 days I will strictly listen to only three composers. If this month feels successful, I will pick a different three for the next 30 day set.
> 
> ...


Good luck! I know what you mean about large mixed boxed sets I try to avoid them for that reason. However you get the odd diamond in the rough. As for your first three good choices I look forward to seeing your next three.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

violadude said:


> Here's what you do to really get to know a piece inside and out.
> 
> Listen to a minute of the piece
> Rewind to beginning
> ...


I think that if I apply your technique to minimalist music I will die in the attempt.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Just listening is what you do with mindless pop music. If your brain isn't turned on and you aren't organizing what you hear in your head, you aren't going to get much out of classical music.


I don't think listening to classical music has to be so cerebral 24/7. It's important just to listen and let your mind wander with the music now and then. If all you did was think about or study the music you'd be missing out just as much if not more I'd say no?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

No way I could stop at 3 Composers per month. Variety of Classical Music makes it more enjoyable for me. Whatever I'm in the mood for, I'll listen to. Right now listening to Tchaikovsky who has a lot of variety.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I do programs like that, and I believe it has a good thing for me. I'll try a random listening thing this fall, though. We'll see how it goes!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

You need to at least listen twice to a composition. Two times often show you if you like the work or not. Very few compositions are lovable in the first listen.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> I don't think listening to classical music has to be so cerebral 24/7. It's important just to listen and let your mind wander with the music now and then. If all you did was think about or study the music you'd be missing out just as much if not more I'd say no?


Maybe it's just that my brain doesn't have an off switch. I'm either paying attention, or I'm paying attention to something else.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

violadude said:


> Developing that much patience and understanding will lead you to become a Buddhist monk of music.


I like this idea, but how does that work for Wagner or Bach's Passions?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> I like this idea, but how does that work for Wagner or Bach's Passions?


That's why you need all month.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The problem, to me, is you have a strategy at all, which keeps your mind busy on 'what you ought to do and how and when and how much you ought to do it,' vs. "Just listening to something."
> 
> You might want to try the latter sometime


Then again, I am in the situation that I will listen to literally anything at any time. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. When that is the case, then having a strategy really isn't any different from 'just listening to something'. It's really not restrictive at all. If you just listen to stuff on a whim, however, its all too easy to either listen to the same pieces over and over again or to move from piece to piece without really absorbing anything. With the former, expanding your knowledge of the repertoire alone will take a long time and leave other works neglected. I also don't really value the latter - it's like reading a book and forgetting all the information you've just read as soon as you turn the last page. There are people who work like that perfectly happily, but I prefer to savour things.

Three composers in a month is also not really limiting at all. The flaw I do find in such plans, however, is that you can get to the end of one month without making a dent in even the standard repertoire of one of those composers. Listening to Bach can be like attacking a mountain with a spoon! I ended up taking the view that progress WILL be slow - measured in years or maybe decades rather than months or weeks. I may as well spread my enjoyment of certain composers over a long period of time.

My own listening strategy is set up in a cycle of Bach, Concerto, Choral, Symphony/Orchestral, Keyboard/piano work, Opera, Chamber music and then starting again at Bach. That means that I have variety and can pretty much choose what I want from any composer and any musical period. That I do it in advance doesn't really hamper my enjoyment at all. Strategy doesn't have to be limiting at all - it is only a means to an end. I also listen to some pieces as the mood takes me, but the main thrust of my listening is still predetermined.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I would make sure to use 3 Composers from 3 different Eras to avoid burnout of an Era.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

EricABQ said:


> I think I went too fast in the early days of my listening. I downloaded a lot of huge bargain sets of several different composers and haphazardly went about listening to them. I feel like I'm at a party where I've shaken a lot of hands, but haven't actually met anyone yet.
> 
> So, to remedy this, for the next 30 days I will strictly listen to only three composers. If this month feels successful, I will pick a different three for the next 30 day set.
> 
> ...


I think this is a very good approach as a way of getting some grounding and some orientation in what can be a dauntingly wide and diverse field. (Some of the other contributors to this thread don't seem to have grasped why you're doing it.) I would make two points:

(1) I notice you've chosen one composer each from the baroque, classical and romantic eras. Don't neglect later composers in future choices.

(2) The music of just three composers in a month is a little austere: I suggest you spend 25-30% of your time listening to each of your three, and the remainder to works which are prompted as a result of reading around the music you're listening to. And periodically give yourself a rest from a regime of three new composers a month so that you can consolidate and re-listen to works you heard in previous months.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> That's why you need all month.


I suppose you could split it up into 10 minute chunks or, with opera, into acts or scenes. For 10 minute chunks using this method, each 10 mins would take at least 55 mins (say 1 hr) with only one listen of the final minute of each chunk. For 20 min chunks, that would increase to 3.5 hrs and for 30 min chunks it would be 7.75 hrs. If you started at the beginning every time for St. Matthew's Passion, it would take 133.35 hrs for just one listen all the way through! That's 4hrs 22 each day for an average month. Obv. I don't think this was intended. A different strategy would have to be taken for any work longer than 20 mins (most of them). It's also a lot easier (read less clicking ever few mins) to just listen to works or movements again and again and again. I usually split operas up into Acts.

Forgive me for my maths.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. It was interesting to read through this.

I think I may loosen this up a bit by giving myself a break on the weekends. That would be cheating, but I may do it anyway.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

aleazk said:


> I think that if I apply your technique to minimalist music I will die in the attempt.


Should try it out with this


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

violadude said:


> Here's what you do to really get to know a piece inside and out.
> 
> Listen to a minute of the piece
> Rewind to beginning
> ...


That is a poor way of discovering music. It is like watching the first scene of Hamlet - going back - then watch two scenes etc.
I also means by the end you hear the first part more than any other part - which invariably affects how you hear the rest.

Composers wrote music for concerts (or at least used to) - to be heard in one sitting from start to finish and I listent that way if I can and if not then at home or in car - the whole work once.


----------



## hocket (Feb 21, 2010)

I agree with those suggesting that you just try listening to stuff that you actually like. From there you can follow upon the composer, find others that are similar and just keep going from there. Enthusiasm and enjoyment will encourage you to learn and give provide far greater depth than any of this 'discipline' or 'strategy' nonsense. Forcing yourself to listen to stuff that whoever and his dog thinks you ought to listen to will likely kill your interest stone dead.

It's actually supposed to be enjoyable you know?


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

As a listener with 25 years experience I can now tell within 1 minute of listening to a piece if it has sufficient merit to warrant further listening - often much less than that. 

It is obvious if a composer has anything worthwhile to say or not and life is too short to waste on mediocre music.


----------



## eorrific (May 14, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Three composers? *Ligeti,* Wagner, Nyman. I only _need_ these composers to be happy with my listening. However, it is very difficult to go without the Bach family, Farrenc, Ferneyhough, Carter, Monteverdi, Haydn, Byrd, Stockhausen and all the other composers I love.


HAYDN?! *Gasp* Didn't know you've had it in you, CoAG!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> I like this idea, but how does that work for Wagner or Bach's Passions?


I usually divide the segments by ten. So if there's a movement or piece that is 20 minutes, listen to 2 minutes at a time instead of one.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> That is a poor way of discovering music. It is like watching the first scene of Hamlet - going back - then watch two scenes etc.
> I also means by the end you hear the first part more than any other part - which invariably affects how you hear the rest.
> 
> Composers wrote music for concerts (or at least used to) - to be heard in one sitting from start to finish and I listent that way if I can and if not then at home or in car - the whole work once.


Works for me.



stomanek said:


> As a listener with 25 years experience I can now tell within 1 minute of listening to a piece if it has sufficient merit to warrant further listening - often much less than that.
> 
> It is obvious if a composer has anything worthwhile to say or not and life is too short to waste on mediocre music.


And I can tell what kind of person you are by looking at your eye color.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

I have always listened to only 3 different composers in a month. I have been a Beethoven nut for 2 years now and i haven't even heard half of the music he wrote.


----------



## SAKO (Jul 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> I would make sure to use 3 Composers from 3 different Eras to avoid burnout of an Era.


Great point.

I find it better to split my listening, and as a rule listen to a lot of Baroque or early Classical during the day or early evening, switching to later period Classical or 19th century in the evening.

If I spent an entire day listening only to Bach, Vivaldi and Handel, I'd be too hyper to sleep. :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

violadude said:


> And I can tell what kind of person you are by looking at your eye color.


I used to own a classical CD shop and I found my method actually quite common. Buyer comes asking to listen to a CD of music he has never heard before - and usually within a couple of minutes he/she has made a buying decision.
Of course if you have an abundance of time - and access to all the repertoire without having to buy it - I suppose you might want to keep listening in the hope of discovering a piece though somehow the way you do it takes away the beauty of a first listening experience. It's not revision for an exam after all.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

I'm out! Couldn't even make it 24 hours.

It's not like I'm ever going to take a test on this stuff, so I'll just listen to what sounds good at the moment.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

"As a listener with 25 years experience I can now tell within 1 minute of listening to a piece if it has sufficient merit to warrant further listening - often much less than that."

Experience doesn't make you a psychic. This works for pop music, not classical.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

If you really want to listen in depth and learn about the music, analyze a piece. If your not familiar with the form google it and read about it. Take a Beethoven Piano Sonata, for example. Google it and see what the form of each movement is (sonata, rondo, minuet, scherzo, etc.). I first did this with the first movement of Mozart's 40th Symphony (first movement) and and I listened a lot more closely and understood the piece better because I was listening for the progression of the piece. 

Good luck


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I usually judge the quality of music by the picture on the cover.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

If I ever had a strategy to listening to music, it was where I found one work by a composer I liked, and then spent either a few days, weeks, or months, depending on my excitement, looking up anything else I might like by that one composer. And this process can go simultaneously with several other composers.

Ever since I found internet radio, my listening as been a mix of random stuff, but also a chance to discover new things. My days are filled with Russian music, but also what other people like, i.e. the classics, or lesser known classics. They are my palette cleansers.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> I'm out! Couldn't even make it 24 hours.
> 
> It's not like I'm ever going to take a test on this stuff, so I'll just listen to what sounds good at the moment.


Lol, oh well, back to the drawing board! Enjoy the music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm just listening to Beethoven piano sonatas at present.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> Here's what you do to really get to know a piece inside and out.
> 
> Listen to a minute of the piece
> Rewind to beginning
> ...


Your listening time increases quadratically by T=0.5*(L[SUP]2[/SUP]+L) where T is the time in minutes to finish a piece of length L minutes.

A 30 minute piece would take you 7.75 hours.

A 1-hour symphony would take you 30.5 hours.

A 4-hour Wagner opera would take you 20 days, 24 hours per day.

Goodall's _Ring Cycle_ would take you just shy of a year, 353 days of continuous listening.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> I usually divide the segments by ten. So if there's a movement or piece that is 20 minutes, listen to 2 minutes at a time instead of one.


In this case your listening time is linear, T=5.5*L

A 30 minute piece would take you 2.75 hours.

A 1-hour symphony would take you 5.5 hours. 

A 4-hour Wagner opera would take you 22 hours.

Goodall's Ring Cycle would take you 3.85 days.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

EricABQ said:


> I'm out! Couldn't even make it 24 hours.
> 
> It's not like I'm ever going to take a test on this stuff, so I'll just listen to what sounds good at the moment.


Btw Seinfeld is awesome. Great picture to.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Yes, you are correct: the huge difference between getting sense from classical music (I would add Jazz) is the very fact one must actively listen, i.e. intellect engaged, not passively 'just hear.'

You seem to mistake 'listen' -- the active intellectual activity -- for 'hearing,' which can be entirely passive. 

As Stravinsky said, "Even a duck can hear."


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

stomanek said:


> As a listener with 25 years experience I can now tell within 1 minute of listening to a piece if it has sufficient merit to warrant further listening - often much less than that.
> 
> It is obvious if a composer has anything worthwhile to say or not and life is too short to waste on mediocre music.


I think what you mean is "...I can now tell within 1 minute of listening to a piece if it is _likely to have_ sufficient merit to warrant further listening", and I note you are not referring to gaining any understanding of the music or even making any assessment of its quality. So, you're likely to miss quite a few works you would have enjoyed had you given them a more thorough hearing.



stomanek said:


> I used to own a classical CD shop and I found my method actually quite common. Buyer comes asking to listen to a CD of music he has never heard before - and usually within a couple of minutes he/she has made a buying decision.


And a buying decison is just that - nothing more. It's just about whether the purchaser thinks the music makes a nice noise which they are willing to listen to more of.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

violadude said:


> And I can tell what kind of person you are by looking at your eye color.


In a restaurant you can tell whether a meal is worth eating from the first mouthful. You also do not walk around an art gallery spending 20 minutes looking at each painting - but rather you pass by many with just a glance and focus only on those which are of interest.

You don't exhaustively go beyond eye colour with every person you meet and get to know them by engaging in lengthy conversation to find out what kind of person they are. There is a filtering process. You may not like the sound of their voice - and exclude them at the first spoken exchange - they might have bad breath - or any one of a number of things about them that put you off before a word is said.

I don't dispute that it takes many listenings - or even years - to discover a piece of music - what I am talking about is the selection process which you obviously misunderstood. A lot of listeners on this board rave about certain composers well outside of the mainstream and my curiousity send me where I would usually not go. If I am sent to a 30 minute Clementi piano sonata I am not going to listen to the whole thing if after a couple of minutes it seems to me musically weak.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

stomanek said:


> In a restaurant you can tell whether a meal is worth eating from the first mouthful. You also do not walk around an art gallery spending 20 minutes looking at each painting - but rather you pass by many with just a glance and focus only on those which are of interest.
> 
> You don't exhaustively go beyond eye colour with every person you meet and get to know them by engaging in lengthy conversation to find out what kind of person they are. There is a filtering process. You may not like the sound of their voice - and exclude them at the first spoken exchange - they might have bad breath - or any one of a number of things about them that put you off before a word is said.
> 
> I don't dispute that it takes many listenings - or even years - to discover a piece of music - what I am talking about is the selection process which you obviously misunderstood. A lot of listeners on this board rave about certain composers well outside of the mainstream and my curiousity send me where I would usually not go. If I am sent to a 30 minute Clementi piano sonata I am not going to listen to the whole thing if after a couple of minutes it seems to me musically weak.


The meal analogy is really weak. Music moves through time and has various points that may or may not be of interest. A meal is a stationary object whos ingredients are right in front of you at one moment.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> The meal analogy is really weak. Music moves through time and has various points that may or may not be of interest. A meal is a stationary object whos ingredients are right in front of you at one moment.


I'd go further. Any good piece of music relies on the cumulative effect, at one moment, of all the previous moments. For example, the recapitiulation in a sonata form piece has no _meaning _without the experience of the exposition and development sections. Of course, it might make a pretty noise which appeals to the listener, but the original poster's requirement was for a process which would enable him to get a better understanding of particular composers, which is a rather tougher ask.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I usually judge the quality of music by the picture on the cover.


I usually judge the quality of music by the three texts on the cover; Composer, Conductor, Publisher.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> I usually judge the quality of music by the three texts on the cover; Composer, Conductor, Publisher.


I usually judge the music by the title and how cool the Composer's name is.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I usually judge the music by the title and how cool the Composer's name is.


I usually judge the music by process of elimination using a complex and sophisticated method called "eenee, meenee, minee, moe."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I evaluate music by rolling CDs down my steps. The ones that get all the way to the bottom step get 10; if they only make it to the second step, they get a 9, and so on.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

violadude said:


> The meal analogy is really weak. Music moves through time and has various points that may or may not be of interest. A meal is a stationary object whos ingredients are right in front of you at one moment.


Yes I agree it's not the best analogy - I think the art gallery analogy is better - or a book. When I go to a bookshop and see a title that interests me - I usually read/scan the first couple of pages to see how well written it is - the style, direction - and make a buying decision based on that. It would be unreasonable - as you suggest - to read and re-read the whole book in sections if I find the opening lacking in quality/content.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> I'd go further. Any good piece of music relies on the cumulative effect, at one moment, of all the previous moments. For example, the recapitiulation in a sonata form piece has no _meaning _without the experience of the exposition and development sections. Of course, it might make a pretty noise which appeals to the listener, but the original poster's requirement was for a process which would enable him to get a better understanding of particular composers, which is a rather tougher ask.


Of course if we are talking about "good" music. What I'm saying is I can tell from the opening whether a piece of music is good or not and hence whether it deserves to be heard in full.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Yes, you are correct: the huge difference between getting sense from classical music (I would add Jazz) is the very fact one must actively listen, i.e. intellect engaged, not passively 'just hear.'
> 
> You seem to mistake 'listen' -- the active intellectual activity -- for 'hearing,' which can be entirely passive.
> 
> As Stravinsky said, "Even a duck can hear."


Not sure who you are addressing here, but I will respond anyway. I don't know why you assume why I make a 'mistake' between listening and hearing since I am merely reflecting what people's listening habits actually are. Some people 'listen' and some people 'hear', though it is mostly a mix between the two. Besides, all my original points still stand. As I said, strategy is simply a means to an end. If that end is to become familiar with as many pieces as possible, then a systematic approach will always be more efficient than one which is not.

Your advice of 'just listen to something' would imply a random selection process, but based on what? Even impulse is based on something that can be adapted into a strategy. I might also point out that any serious effort to listen or analyse a piece is more exhausting than any strategy. Sometimes I have music on the backround, but anything that is part of my chosen listening cycle is something that I am interested in and am prepared to spend a little effort getting to know. I'll just finish by reiterating that a strategy needn't be restrictive, esp. if one will listen to anything. There is enough variety in the works of Beethoven, Bach and Liszt, for example, to fit any mood. This does, however, depend on having a good enough selection to begin with, but every listening activity depend on that.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

stomanek said:


> Of course if we are talking about "good" music. What I'm saying is I can tell from the opening whether a piece of music is good or not and hence whether it deserves to be heard in full.


"Deserves"?

It's got nothing to do with "deserving", and only to do with whether you fancy hearing more than the first minute.

As for being able to tell whehter a piece of music is "good" from its first 60 seconds, perhaps you would care to share your techniques with us.

Seeking to sit in judgment on music, assessing its worth and quality (from the first 60 esdencds), is an untenable. At the very best, this is _solely _about your own opinion and tastes which, while of interest to this forum, have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the music.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> "Deserves"?
> 
> It's got nothing to do with "deserving", and only to do with whether you fancy hearing more than the first minute.
> 
> ...


Of course it's about my own taste. And what sounds poor to me may sound good to someone else. What is quality music to me may be poor quality music to another. What else would I be talking about. You obviously cannot assess a whole piece of music from listening to the beginning 1 - 2 minutes - but I have a reliable instict for whether a piece is likely to be rewarding or not based on that. Putting it into colloquial language - if it seems not to be much good I move on to another piece.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

stomanek said:


> Of course it's about my own taste. And what sounds poor to me may sound good to someone else. What is quality music to me may be poor quality music to another. What else would I be talking about. You obviously cannot assess a whole piece of music from listening to the beginning 1 - 2 minutes - but I have a reliable instict for whether a piece is likely to be rewarding or not based on that. Putting it into colloquial language - if it seems not to be much good I move on to another piece.


I know exactly what you mean and share your view. However, you've got to have had quite a lot of experience before this is a safe way to proceed, which I know you have.

I'm sure you would agree that a quick 1-2 minute assessment is not a technique to be recommend to someone starting out because, as we all know, first impressions can be and often are misleading with classical music. But the more experience one acquires the quicker it ought to become to reach a judgment on whether it's worth the effort to spend more time exploring it further, assuming it doesn't appeal fairly quickly.

Basically, I stop listening to a new piece when I consider that the marginal reward in so doing would be better spent doing something else. It may be as short as a minute or two, and often is with anything very modern. I accept that mistakes may be made occasionally, but the price is worth paying because obviously one can't round sampling every new piece of music throughout its entire duration just on the off-chance it might improve at some juncture.

It rather reminds me somewhat of house-hunting. One starts out with a short-list of properties and then begins working down that list checking out every room, nook and cranny, and asking all manner of questions. Then after a while it becomes a quick look-see, packing in twice as many viewings per unit of time as before. Assuming no success thus far, the next development is a glance at Google Maps and maybe a drive-by. With the latter you obviously don't get to see the colour of the bathroom suite or whether the place is littered with dog hairs or mouse droppings, but who cares, time is precious after all.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Very Senior Member said:


> I know exactly what you mean and share your view. However, you've got to have had quite a lot of experience before this is a safe way to proceed, which I know you have.
> 
> I'm sure you would agree that a quick 1-2 minute assessment is not a technique to be recommend to someone starting out because, as we all know, first impressions can be and often are misleading with classical music. But the more experience one acquires the quicker it ought to become to reach a judgment on whether it's worth the effort to spend more time exploring it further, assuming it doesn't appeal fairly quickly.
> 
> ...


That's it.
Of course with composers I know well - I tend to be much more patient - but then the quality is always evident with Mozart (mid to late period), Beethoven, Schubert etc - I was more thinking about minor compsers who mostly composed mediocre music with the occasional gem.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I think we do things according to our personalities. I never had a "method" for listening (except for opera where I subscribed to a set of highlights which gave me a new CD with 12 arias every two weeks - and our Sunday formalised listen and learn sessions which have now fallen by the wayside. Everything was haphazard.

I am fairly new to jazz as a genre. Because I attend live concerts I am "trapped" for the set, usually 45 minutes to an hour. If I like it, I am pleased. If I dislike it I try to work out why, what's wrong, what I would prefer or simply just set my mind on "wander freely". I suppose that is true for attending classical music concerts, but there I have the experience to know (more or less) what's coming and to be able to cope. 

I am listening to one jazz CD a week - mostly the jazz greats. I sometimes listen to that CD twice, but usually only once. It's a slow process, but then I'm not in a hurry. As I sit here and reflect, the haphazard way of listening to jazz was how I started (and still do) listen to classical music.


----------

