# How many listens for the average listener to become overly familiar with a work?



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Much like the title says, I'm curious, how many listens do you think it takes for the average listener to become overly familiar with a work?

Maybe their familiar with Bruckner's 7th or Dvorak's 9th or Sibelius & Nielsen's 5th or Schumann's 3rd, but maybe they've never heard the 1st Symphony from any of the above.

How many listens do you think the average person would take before they are familiar with all the movements, and can for example hum lines in their head or know when the horns are coming or notice the little things within each movement.

Obviously there are no absolutes in this and it's a very general and broad idea, but if someone wanted to really become familiar with the work and assuming they enjoyed it upon first listen, and it's not of case of "trying to like the work", how many listens do you think it would take for them to really become familiar with it.

Do you think it takes a Dozen times? Two Dozen? More?

Just kind of curious what you might think...


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Two dozen sounds reasonable for something like a 30 minute work.


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

Well, someone's gonna say this eventually anyway. Might as well be me. Might as well be now.

Who is this "average listener"? Never met 'em.

And what's "overly"?

And even if none of this were questionable and the correct answer to the question turned out to be "two dozen," what would you know?

(You said you were curious what I thought. But you probably weren't. 'Cause that's what I think.)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm as average as they come, so feel free to consider me the average listener.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, someone's gonna say this eventually anyway. Might as well be me. Might as well be now.
> 
> Who is this "average listener"? Never met 'em.
> 
> ...


You're welcome to say whatever you want because yes I'm still interested in everyone's thoughts.

I have no doubt there will be many responses like yours. I know some folks can't deal with broad or general ideas on this forum and that's ok. After 4 years, I'm used to it.

I could go into plenty of specifics of average listeners and how they don't read or follow scores. How, they don't care too much about the specifics of harmony, structure and theory. How they just like listening to classical music and are familiar with the popular works and enjoy humming along to them, but it wouldn't matter because it's still a general idea in the greater scheme of things.

But there will be others who will follow the general idea and say "yeah, when I was listening to such and such it took me about 20 times before I really felt like I knew where all the changes where or when the movements were about to end or when someone asked "hey how does the 3rd movement go?" and I could in turn hum it for them".


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

some guy said:


> Well, someone's gonna say this eventually anyway. Might as well be me. Might as well be now.
> 
> Who is this "average listener"? Never met 'em.
> 
> ...


That it would take about 12 hours of listening. :tiphat:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I guess I don't understand the question, because 'how much is too much' depends on the work. Sometimes it takes me a while to pick up on what's happening (yeah OK, duh).


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

realdealblues said:


> I know some folks can't deal with broad or general ideas on this forum and that's ok.


Some folks. Yeah. So pesky with their not dealing withness.

No, it's not that the ideas are broad or general. More like chimerical was my point. And the terms vague and undefined.

I don't think anyone has any issue with general. Vague, however. That is an issue for sure.

And the question remains unanswered: even if the answer could be "two dozen" what would you know?


----------



## Guest (Jul 16, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> That it would take about 12 hours of listening. :tiphat:


So you only have to listen to Feldman's 2nd string quartet twice to thoroughly get it? I would eat my hat if that were true. (After tipping it, of course.)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Does the average listener spend any time with Feldman?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

There's no such thing as an "average" listener. Everybody's different. Someone with musical talent, once.
Someone without musical talent and interest, never.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

The truth of the matter is a simple one: the number of hours would tend to vary according to the work itself. For example, conventional/established pieces in the classical canon would broadly indicate it could take less hours than largely unknown pieces/historically rejected pieces over time/more challenging avantgarde pieces that are soundscape in nature/lengthier pieces (e.g. grand operas). Of coruse, this doesn't apply to all listeners. But there is reasonable consistency, based on speaking / knowing people in the real world. In the end though, it's your own journey. Others' experiences are only an indication.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*How many listens for the average listener to become overly familiar with a work? *

Of course this question remains unanswerable, in any meaningful way.

Legend has it that Mozart was able to write out the Allegri Miserere after only one or two hearings. Whether or not this is true remains open to debate. But I wouldn't put it past Mozart to be able to do such a thing. But he's Mozart.

Remember, one needn't hear a work at all to become familiar with it -- conductors read and memorize scores of new, previously unplayed and unheard works all the time. When they finally step on the podium to conduct the thing, they are quite familiar with it though it's never been heard before. And some conductors can do this quickly; others need more time for study.

I find that my own memory for works improves if I find the work interesting from first hearing. A couple of listens later I can probably hum the thing. Some pieces I will never fathom in such a way. Complexity has a lot to do with it. Though I know Beethoven's Fifth by heart (I've heard it hundreds of times over the past half century, and I've studied the score), I would struggle forever, I'm afraid, to learn John Cage's much briefer Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra, a work I've heard several dozen times. I think even Mozart might struggle with some of Cage's stuff.

A lot of learning a piece of music has to do with mastering the form. Some forms are easier to master than others. So there are a lot of components to consider.

As for becoming "overly familiar".... I don't really know what that means. Again, I know the Beethoven Fifth well. But am I overly familiar with it? I don't think so. I always enjoy hearing the work another time. Yes, it's strange and perhaps makes no sense. But that's part of the magic of music.


----------



## Declined (Apr 8, 2014)

I don't think it's possible to become "overly familiar" with a work. Every time I hear a piece, I notice something that I didn't notice last time I heard it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nobody's mentioned the extreme case. I can become familiar with some works in five or ten minutes. Well, as familiar as I want to get! Didn't Stravinsky say something about that?

OTOH some works could never become too familiar, like a beautiful view of mountains out of a north-facing window. They're for a lifetime.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> The truth of the matter is a simple one: the number of hours would tend to vary according to the work itself. For example, conventional/established pieces in the classical canon would broadly indicate it could take less hours than largely unknown pieces/historically rejected pieces over time/more challenging avantgarde pieces that are soundscape in nature/lengthier pieces (e.g. grand operas). Of coruse, this doesn't apply to all listeners. But there is reasonable consistency, based on speaking / knowing people in the real world. In the end though, it's your own journey. Others' experiences are only an indication.


So you could become overly familiar with, say, Beethoven 9 in fewer hours than you could with, say, a Bocherrini Flute Quintet? Certainly doesn't apply to me, but I'm on my own journey


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

Moreover, just what does it mean to be familiar? 

1) Does it mean that you turn on the radio and midway though a piece you could name it?
2) Does it mean you can hum or whistle the entire piece?
3) Does it mean you can hum only the main theme?

I would say I'm familiar with some music, I can hum some of the main themes. I can't hum the entire piece. I'm not very good at naming a piece while tuning in while in the middle of the piece.

It takes many listens for me to be very familiar. Dozens of listens, over time, months and years not days.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2014)

Depends not only on how we define the average listener but also on how familiar they are with the idiom of choice. You absorb more information when all of that information flying at you at once isn't entirely alien. Hence why we suggest that people listen to an avant-garde composer for more than 4 minutes before creating 3 polls a week...


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I haven't counted, but I am glad you started suggestions at one dozen, two dozen, or more. Now I don't need to feel dumb 

It takes me at least three or four times just to pick out an occasional sequence that resonates with me, but don't expect me to necessarily remember it until next time around. To be able to hum a sequence? Many more times! Often, there will be one movement that is easier, but the whole work? I definitely need at least a dozen listens, likely two dozen or more, until I feel very familiar and, even then, that doesn't mean I know the whole piece. Considering that it takes me about a full year just to get through my collection and get back to that particular piece, I am sure I will have lost almost all of what I got the first few times around by then and I will almost be starting all over again.

I am always noticing things I didn't notice the last time I listened. I should add that I like it like this. My investment is worth it on the long term, becasue there's always more for me in it. Simpler music wears out after a couple of listens and then I feel that I wasted my money and I usually pawn off the album. Over my head gives me something left to get out of it... and as my knowledge and experience grows, I am sure I will be up to it.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

I try to make a general rule of listening to anything at least 10 times, but sometimes I latch onto things a lot sooner or much later. Some themes become earworms much quicker and I find myself humming a bit of tune the next day that I can't put my finger on. Once I have a latch on one section, my attention then wanders to parts that I maybe didn't notice the first few times. Other times, especially in more modern works, I find myself unable to remember much but still enjoy the transient experience of listening to them at the time. I think it is also fair to say that it also depends on how much attention one is paying to the music or whether it is a pleasant background to whatever one might be doing (housework or reading in my case).

At the moment, I rarely listen to the Beethoven symphonies because they were the first classical pieces I got to know well and somehow they got impressed into my memory more firmly. Same goes for many Saint-Saens pieces as the first classical CD I bought was a compilation of his orchestral works. I don't know about anyone else, but I find it harder to retain memory of solo instrumental pieces, including piano works. Identifying Chopin's mazurkas by ear is an impossibility! 

Don't know if that helps at all, but that's my two cents.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Hmm..I'll say for me, 10-15, but I wouldn't call that the "overly familiar" range, just the "familiar" range. That's why it's going to take me at least 50 more years to become familiar with "Les Troyens" and Wagner's operas, to name just a couple.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Does the average listener spend any time with Feldman?

I nearly spit out my drink at that. :lol: Give us a heads up next time. :tiphat:


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

One thing about classical music I absolutely love is that I can listen many times and still get something new, it takes many listens to be familiar with a piece. It takes some work. However work can be a pejorative term. It's work, but enjoyable, not the 9 to 5 work we need to do to pay the bills. It takes some effort to be familiar with a classical music piece. But effort implies some sort of energy expended. It takes some labour to get to know a piece. 

But it's all good work.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

It is a terrible question because there is not an average, including if you did some survey which named several pieces.

There is music I am not done with or tired of after decades and decades. Other works all it has taken to feel 'over-familiar' is _one_ or _two_ listens, because to me those works, popular and enduring as they may be, seem so transparent, have nothing I think to further discover if I did listen again even though they're considered good enough works to remain in the repertoire. In that category are the works I am done with to a point of never really needing or wanting to hear them again, others, only very occasionally.

I don't think you can guess which work / composer is going to affect listeners that way.

Some of the most generally enduring and popular classical may have one listener done after just one or two listens, never to seek it out again.

Other works, also considered great and enduring, yet perhaps not high up on the great and popular lists, may keep a listener engaged for a lifetime.

Far too regularly repeated listening -- to anything, usually has a breaking point for people, but even that thresh-hold of "when is enough enough and when does overexposure make for a kind of death?" Is a different number of exposures, over differing amounts of time, depending upon the individual.

Some, with all sorts of training and practiced skills, including listening skills, really can hear pretty much everything going on in a performance the first time through: then it is a matter of if they found that attractive -- and interesting -- enough to simply want "to go there again."

As per Bulldog's "Does the average listener spend any time with Feldman?" LOL tiphat, here is an example of a composer well-enough known yet outside the usual canon of "all-stars of all times" lists with whose works I think I could probably not ever become overly-familiar, and it is music which I have spent a pretty good chunk of time with to date... with no signs of its wearing thin on me any time soon.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Since the question seems to require a definitive answer: I need to listen to a "typical" piece of classical music 3.7 times* (rounding of course) before I feel familiar with it. Other pieces are arranged around this average in a poisson distribution. 11.8 times breeds overfamiliarity. Hope this helps!

I have not yet been certified as an "average" listener, so caution is advised.

*See the complete report for details.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I've decided that overfamiliar must mean bored, because I'm not sure what else it could mean. 

I think I'm a fairly average listener, at least with respect to classical music fans. The works I've listened to the most are by the biggest big guys - Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Brahms, Tchaikovsky. I once almost got tired of Brahms' 1st piano concerto at a time in my life when I'd decided to listen to it every day for a month, but that's it. Nothing else. Then I took a break from it for about a year I guess and never had that problem again! So whatever the number is, I haven't gotten to it yet. 

This seems like a reasonable discussion topic to me. I'm not sure why it occasioned so much mockery.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Declined said:


> I don't think it's possible to become "overly familiar" with a work. Every time I hear a piece, I notice something that I didn't notice last time I heard it.


Take my word for it, it is entirely possible, dependent upon the work, who you are, your listening habit / ability. For me, it is a few of some of the more popular classical pieces, and I'm convinced that no matter what the particular spin on the interpretation, there is _nothing whatsoever_ new for me to hear in a handful of works I can think of.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Listening to a particular recording of a particular work many, many times before listening to a different recording of the same work... and then not being able to listen properly because I keep noticing every little difference with the other recording and it makes it an altogether weird experience... I think that qualifies as being overly familiar with a work (or a recording?). Been there, done that.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

dgee said:


> So you could become overly familiar with, say, Beethoven 9 in fewer hours than you could with, say, a Bocherrini Flute Quintet? Certainly doesn't apply to me, but I'm on my own journey


Beethoven and Boccherini in general (not just the pieces you suggested) are not those piece that "industry supply their deficiency". Pure and simple.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

senza sordino said:


> Moreover, just what does it mean to be familiar?
> 
> 1) Does it mean that you turn on the radio and midway though a piece you could name it?


That would be a prime example of what I meant by "overly" familiar.

Turning on the radio and hearing something and within a few bars going, "Oh that's the 2nd movement from Beethoven's 9th". Being able to do that within a few seconds no matter which movement happened to be playing from Beethoven's 9th Symphony. Meaning you are familiar enough with the work and all of it's movements that you could pick each one out and name it quickly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Take my word for it, it is entirely possible, dependent upon the work, who you are, your listening habit / ability. For me, it is a few of some of the more popular classical pieces, and I'm convinced that no matter what the particular spin on the interpretation, there is _nothing whatsoever_ new for me to hear in a handful of works I can think of.


Ravel's Bolero endangers my dental work. Wonder if that is relevant.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven and Boccherini in general (not just the pieces you suggested) are not those piece that "industry supply their deficiency". Pure and simple.


That doesn't even begin to make sense as an interpretation of your signature...


----------

