jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/21/84)
<approximate quote> I can think of two reasons why one might listen to a piece of music more than once. 1. You like it. 2. It has many levels of musical and emotional interest, and you are not infinitely (musically) perceptive. My personal bias is this: Any music which can give no satisfaction after the first hearing is inherently inferior to that which gives continued pleasure. Unfortunately, a great deal of "experimental" music falls in this category. What is more interesting is to take the "results" of those "experiments" and incorporate them into more complex and less objective works. Experiments are fine and necessary, but it is concepts and structures that have the real beauty. If this sounds silly to you, then, rather than flaming me, reflect on the futility of describing music in words. Jeff Winslow
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/23/84)
I think most people will agree that Bartok wrote some great music. I was
told so when I was young, but didn't know enough to agree or disagree.
I bought the quartets and taped them, but they sounded so horrible that
I could listen to them only a minute or two at a time. But because people
I respected said that they were good, I listened until I learned the
language. Then I could appreciate how really wonderful they are; to my
ear the finest quartets since Beethoven. They never tire me, as does so
much inferior music after a few hearings. The idea that you can appreciate
unfamiliar music on one hearing is pernicious. If you enjoy it right
away, that's good, but you may find it palls after twenty hearings,
whereas another piece may just be maturing in your ear by that time.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtjss@brunix.UUCP (Judith Schrier) (09/01/84)
I feel that a classic (music, literature, whatever) is pretty much defined by the fact that it can be returned to again and again, and keep on giving more. judith brunix!jss