Good afternoon.
As I am fairly new to classical music, I have a lot of pieces that are on my 'waiting list' to be heard for the first time. I may already have them, but I haven't listened to them yet.
I'm used to listening to new music very slowly. I mean, what I usually do is listen to a 'new' piece for at least three or four times before moving on to another 'new' piece. This way, I don't get overwhelmed and I'm able to get familiar with the piece.
For example, for the past five days or so I've listened to only two new pieces: Mahler's 1st symphony and Shostakovich's 7th symphony. Both are also the first composition I hear of that composer. I'm having trouble appreciating the Shostakovich (apart from that compelling march of the first movement), but I like the Mahler very much (especially the second movement).
So, how do you listen to new music?
(EDIT: grammar)
Willy-nilly.
Quote from: tanuki on December 09, 2008, 08:13:40 AM
So, how do you listen to new music?
I happily follow momentary enthusiasms.
Just let it play in the "background", pick up interesting themes and rhythms here and there (they work as route markers the next time I listen to the work.) I also read about the work, usually at allmusic.com if the work has an associated description and at a level that non-musicians can understand.
Let new works reach you as and when they do. I've tried to 'understand' unfamiliar music before now, but I came to the conclusion that just listening is really the only way (for me) to start appreciating a composer's work. If you like it, you'll know. If you don't, try it again another day.
FK
Quote from: opus67 on December 09, 2008, 08:32:01 AM
Just let it play in the "background", pick up interesting themes and rhythms here and there (they work as route markers the next time I listen to the work.) I also read about the work, usually at allmusic.com if the work has an associated description and at a level that non-musicians can understand.
I never listen to music as "background", so that can't work for me. My usual regimen with new music is to give it my full concentration but allow it to "sink in" in a natural fashion. Once familiar with the music, I'm ready to give it some analysis.
I do agree with opus67 concerning reading about the work; I also recommend reading about the composer. A little research can provide valuable insights about the music.
Quote from: tanuki on December 09, 2008, 08:13:40 AM
For example, for the past five days or so I've listened to only two new pieces: Mahler's 1st symphony and Shostakovich's 7th symphony. Both are also the first composition I hear of that composer. I'm having trouble appreciating the Shostakovich (apart from that compelling march of the first movement), but I like the Mahler very much (especially the second movement).
I feel quite an affinity with you. I have tried both methods mentioned (fully concentrate and background music) and this is my opinion. I remember Mahler 1 in the background for a week (in the car), and I too picked up on the second movement. However when giving it my full concentration it didn't take long to relegate that movement to a catchy band tune (however pertinent and planned it was by the composer) with the real substance being in the two outer movements. Either way though the first 4 symphonies have enough of those "catchy moments" to provide "hooks" to instantly like the piece for further investigation. 5 onwards got progressively trickier. I don't quite know how/when I got Shostakovich. I know for quite some time that I thought it just a random jumble of notes. If someone was playing it wrong I just wouldn't have noticed. I had to concentrate in order to understand the piece at all. So playing music in the background may help you to pick up likeable tunes and get you started, but you have to concentrate in order to fully appreciate it, and if you don't then you may miss out on some wonderful music altogether. If you must start with a Shostakovich symphony though may I suggest #5?
Always three times for a piece new to me, then I move onto something else. After a few weeks I give it another listen, which is very often when (almost like magic, really) it all "clicks" for me.
Quote from: Corey on December 09, 2008, 10:51:31 AM
Always three times for a piece new to me, then I move onto something else. After a few weeks I give it another listen, which is very often when (almost like magic, really) it all "clicks" for me.
I can relate to that! I've always wondered why that happens.
Quote from: Sef on December 09, 2008, 09:23:34 AM
I feel quite an affinity with you. I have tried both methods mentioned (fully concentrate and background music) and this is my opinion. [...]
I usually try the 'background' method for unknown Baroque and Classical works. I think they make amazing background music and they are great to listen to when surfing the web. However, I usually don't like putting unknown Romantic and (especially) later works as background music because they are very unsettling for me. They are so unpredictable, and I get bored during slow movements if I'm not paying attention or I'm not familiar with the piece.
Quote from: SefIf you must start with a Shostakovich symphony though may I suggest #5?
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll take that into account.
(http://students.umf.maine.edu/~sinaysm/MVC-298F.JPG)
I call this the "Gomez Addams".
Just to make my point clear: By "play it in the background" I don't mean it as background music for a dinner party. I'm certainly not listening to Mahler and Bruckner like that! I follow it, expect things to happen, so on and so forth. What I don't do is analyse the music, and be ready to put up a write-up on my first impressions. At the end of it, I either like it and would like to listen it another time (immediately or a few days later) or I don't like it and don't bother listening to it until I feel I can give the music another try.
Quote from: tanuki on December 09, 2008, 11:15:35 AM
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll take that into account.
I see from your introduction that you like concertos. You might also want to try the Sibelius violin concerto (if you haven't already), and then my personal favourite, the Shostakovich. The Pascaglia is possibly the most beautiful vc movement ever written - just an opinion of course!
Quote from: Corey on December 09, 2008, 10:51:31 AM
Always three times for a piece new to me, then I move onto something else. After a few weeks I give it another listen, which is very often when (almost like magic, really) it all "clicks" for me.
I think that's an excellent way to go.
Quote from: Bulldog on December 09, 2008, 02:18:08 PM
I think that's an excellent way to go.
I think so too, and it came from spending a good deal of time trying different approaches to finally settle on one that satisfies. If I haven't broken a piece by the fourth or fifth try, I just decide for now that it isn't for me.
I don't know if it is available in your parts, but I find that a Naxos subscription ($20 a year) is really helpful. Listen before you buy. Anything mainstream is there and much else besides.... www.naxos.com
Quote from: Sef on December 09, 2008, 02:04:11 PM
I see from your introduction that you like concertos. You might also want to try the Sibelius violin concerto (if you haven't already), and then my personal favourite, the Shostakovich. The Pascaglia is possibly the most beautiful vc movement ever written - just an opinion of course!
Oh, yes, I love the Sibelius violin concerto!
As for the Shostakovich violin concerto, I have this recording on my 'waiting list':
(http://i35.tinypic.com/w7iv04.gif)
Is that the violin concerto you're referring to? Is that a good recording?
I also have Bartók's three piano concertos available but haven't listened to them, and Berg's violin concerto, Spohr's 8th violin concerto, Strauss' oboe concerto, a couple of Mozart's concertos, Beethoven's triple concerto and his violin concerto... Like I said, there's a lot I have to listen to, and I try not to get overwhelmed by it. :)
With a new to me composition I turn out the lights and get ready to experience the thrill ride. And sometimes it is just that, I remember back in 1973 when I first heard "The Rite of Spring" I nearly feel off the couch about three minutes into the piece, this was a total thrill ride, almost a full 30 minutes of solid goose bumps not knowing what the hell would come next and loving every single minute in this unknown territory. I still love "The Rite of Spring" but it's not a thrilling as the first time.
That is the way it is with all music to me, the first listen is the most important one and I give that one my full undivided attention.
I love 20th century melodic classical composers, and since there are no actual composition rules they have to follow there are always shocking moments I find totally thrilling. Nothing for me compares to the first time!
Quote from: tanuki on December 09, 2008, 11:15:35 AM
...
I usually try the 'background' method for unknown Baroque and Classical works. I think they make amazing background music and they are great to listen to when surfing the web. However, I usually don't like putting unknown Romantic and (especially) later works as background music because they are very unsettling for me. They are so unpredictable, and I get bored during slow movements if I'm not paying attention or I'm not familiar with the piece.
...
My experience is much less than some, even most, people around here, but I do agree with tanuki's comments above. Modern and contemporary, and most especially any sort of atonal work, requires concentration -- background just doesn't work until you're very familiar with the piece.
Quote from: tanuki on December 09, 2008, 05:27:09 PM
Oh, yes, I love the Sibelius violin concerto!
As for the Shostakovich violin concerto, I have this recording on my 'waiting list':
(http://i35.tinypic.com/w7iv04.gif)
Is that the violin concerto you're referring to? Is that a good recording?
I also have Bartók's three piano concertos available but haven't listened to them, and Berg's violin concerto, Spohr's 8th violin concerto, Strauss' oboe concerto, a couple of Mozart's concertos, Beethoven's triple concerto and his violin concerto... Like I said, there's a lot I have to listen to, and I try not to get overwhelmed by it. :)
I don't have this particular recording. Maxim Vengerov in general gets mixed reviews. He is extraordinarily expressive, perhaps overly so (this is the usual criticism), but I tend to see it in the same way that Dudammel is expressive as a conductor - his Mahler 1 with the CSO a year or two ago was exceptional. I only saw Rostropovich conduct once - Tchaikovsky's 5th I seem to remember. I thought then that he should stick with the Cello. However, as I said I don't have this recording so perhaps someone else should comment.
Quote from: tanuki on December 09, 2008, 05:27:09 PM
Oh, yes, I love the Sibelius violin concerto!
As for the Shostakovich violin concerto, I have this recording on my 'waiting list':
(http://i35.tinypic.com/w7iv04.gif)
Is that the violin concerto you're referring to? Is that a good recording?
.... for what it's worth, I saw Julia Fischer play the Shostakovich last week with the CSO. Incredible performance. I don't think that I have ever heard a more technically brilliant performance of this symphony. She seemed to take some liberties with the tempo (or I suspect they were liberties because I had not heard them in any recordings) getting faster and faster in the Scherzo and the Cadenza to a phenonamal speed without losing any clarity. I don't know if she has released a performance of this concerto yet (I can't find one), but it might be one to watch out for.
I sometimes like to read the music along with the first (or second) listening, if I have the score or sheet music available.. On one hand, it's easier to learn and follow the music this way, (and you're practising your score reading skills) but on the other hand, it takes away some of the "surprise" of listening to a new work, as you will to a certain degree know what's coming..
And as some others have mentioned, three "listens" often seems to be what I need to "get" the music. But that depends on the piece of course, some very light pieces might require less, some more difficult music might require more. But if there's nothing particularly attractive about it upon the first listen, I might not give it another go..
You are absolutely right to give music repeated hearings. There is simply no substitute for this, although you may really enjoy SOME works at first hearing. The more you listen, and keep giving the music a chance, the easier it will become to understand things in the future. Practice makes perfect. This has worked for me countless times.
Music that completely baffled me on first hearing almost always starts to meke more sense with repeated hearing. Don't give up !!!
You won't regret it.
It's funny that in grad school I used to listen to music in the background all of the time, but now it's impossible. If I do that, I just don't work. I listen to music instead. So music listening is more of a treat for me to give my undivided attention to.
I need multiple listens to really like something, I start warming up to it after a few times but really need to listen to something at least a dozen times to really start loving it. I know that probably many of you feel like you have to move on because you see that huge cd collection, and it makes you nervous seeing them collect dust. Well my collection is stored away in a closet so I can listen to the same music as much as I want without getting nervous about getting time in with the other cds! :D
I've made a breakthrough in my listening habits.
In the days when I thought I was almost exclusively a late Romantic fan, I was incredibly slow on the uptake. During the first listening to something like a new symphony, I'd get almost nothing from it, no matter how hard I focused. I think I have a poor musical memory or something. Anyway, over the years I developed my own version of the 'background' method described by others here. Basically, this was to play the music while I was doing something else (I don't mean talking - I mean doing some job or other - or eating lunch while reading a newspaper). After 2 or 3 such playings, enough of the subliminal absorption process would occur for the music to start to feel 'familiar' - and from then on, I could actually sit and listen to it properly. But sometimes it would take more listenings even than that. I love Elgar with a profound love, but it's taken me years to get to the point where I feel that I have the beginnings of a really worthwhile grasp of what's going on in the violin concerto.
(Opera has never been a problem in that way, though. Something about sitting with a libretto, following the words, and with imagined images of the unfolding drama, seems to make the music easier to absorb, even on first listening.)
But then not very long ago, I discovered Baroque. I thought I hated the stuff; thought it was clinical, and artificial. But no one had ever told me I should listen to Baroque operas; and particularly Handel operas! Suddenly, listening to music became easy! I don't need any of this subliminal absorption any more. The tunes are so easy to lock onto, the music so infectious, that although it goes on and on getting better the more I listen, that initial tough teeth-gritting getting-to-know-you process simply doesn't need to happen. Baroque and roll. The easiest way into music that I've ever found..
I have to admit that I have done all of the above at some point.
When I get a new disc (or group), I'll usually play all of them fairly quick in order to see if the piece sounds like what I expected. I'm just exploring. I'll play some a few minutes, fast forwarding from track to track, and I'll let others play for longer if I get into. I will typically scan through the booklet as I'm scanning through the disc. This is all played on the stereo. Then, I'll rip it. And then I'll listen to it at some point in the future depending on mood. Some will get ear-marked for the car too. I generally try to listen to new discs when I get them, otherwise, they can get lost or forgotten.
I don't really try to analyze the music too much at first, but just try to enjoy it.
When I hear a work for the first time I try to give it my undivided attention without over-analysing it. I try to listen to it the same way I might if I were at a concert (assuming I'm not at a concert in the first place!); I just try to enjoy the music as much as I can that first time and trust that, if it is, indeed, good music, it will connect with me immediately. That first listening generally sets the foundations for my future listenings of the work; getting a good first impression of the piece is important, methinks. I usually don't make up my mind until at least the third hearing, which is also about the time I become comfortable and familiar with the piece...
Now, if I get a new recording of a work I'm already very familiar with I refuse to succumb to temptation and give the tracks a quick preview on my music player! A good, solid first hearing is in order here!
Anyhow, that's how I roll. 8)
Just Do It™
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 24, 2009, 06:19:03 AM
Just Do It™
Be careful - you don't want Nike™ coming after you! $:)
Muat be all those Nike™ logos I saw around town at the time of the Nike™ Boston Marathon!
I can't use music as background. If I'm reading a book and put on music I put the book down, or I turn the music off. This is in contrast to Web-based reading, where I read and post here and watch TV news. With unfamiliar music I do tend to employ total immersion, playing pieces over again. Or if I can't do that for some reason I'll go back several times over a period of days and try to "get" a piece.