Does anyone share this obsessive tendency?

[Beyond Within]

If I find a section of a piece of music spectacular and more enjoyable than anything else within the rest of the piece, I will listen only to that section like its its own complete composition.

For instance: At about 6 minutes into Mozarts 40th symphony there is this beautiful development where Mozart just goes wild, moving the music every which way possible, giving it a powerful emotional drive. I find this 30 seconds to be enjoyable and fascinating on so many levels that I will sit and listen to this 30 seconds for up to 45 minutes a day! Just that little section!

Anyone else do this?

[Chris]

You bet I do. If a tendency could be considered obsessive in the least, I'm sure I do it some form.

[Ahmad]

Well, I have the opposite tendency!

When I enjoy a piece of music, I try to avoid listening to it too many time. That's to prevent the feeling of "listening to a cleache".!

May be another kind of "obcessiveness"!

[This message has been edited by Ahmad (edited 06-07-2004).]

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:


Anyone else do this?

Yes! I know what you mean. I am currently hooked to the first 20 seconds (no more) of Haydn's 'Te Deum'.

[urtextmeister]

I can honestly say that I never do that.

I used to do a lot. I used to lounge on my bed for hours at a time listening my favorite movements and passages over and over again. Now, I listen on my walkman on my way to work or when walking, gardening, etc. I am more concerned with getting unfamiliar music and familiarizing myself with it. Often it is work related.

I think you have the right idea. Music should be savored. When you find that moment in time that is so delightful, why wouldn't you want to relive it over and over.

Plus, there is something really powerful about music and familiarity. This could be why there is so much music based on formulas that involve repetition and so little that is "through-composed." We love to hear things we know and love. (Again! Again! as they say on Teletubbies). Once in while you hear something new that blows you away, but how much more frequently do you hear an old friend, whether it is a popular song that brings back memories or a classical piece that you have known for years, and you are flooded with emotion!

It is a bit of mystery to me how this all works, but I know there is something powerful about hearing something many times. Maybe this is what minimalist composers were (are) trying to tap into...

[Michael]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
If I find a section of a piece of music spectacular and more enjoyable than anything else within the rest of the piece, I will listen only to that section like its its own complete composition.

Anyone else do this?

How quickly the convenience of the CD has been taken for granted. When I first became interested in classical music, in the late sixties, it was almost impossible to do this with gramophone records. It would entail standing over the record-player and lifting and dropping the pick-up arm every thirty seconds or so. Apart from the damage being inflicted on the vinyl, you could never get the exact point each time. And you would get a crick in your neck! That's why I never got into the habit - and I'm glad, because it meant I had to listen to at least a whole movement at a time, which is what the composer intended.
Incidentally, this reminds me of a music critic who, in his boyhood, bought a shellac 78 recording of Brahms' Fourth Symphony. The trouble was that, in those days, a complete movement had to be spread over two or three discs. The version he owned stopped at the end of the exposition - and that was all he knew of the symphony for a long time. When, years later, he finally got to hear the rest of the movement - the development and recapitulation - it was an unbelievable experience.

Michael

[Joy]

You bet! I remember those days Michael! Dropping the needle on just the right spot and never quite finding it was frustrating for sure. One of the pieces I remember listening to over and over again was when I was about 10 yrs. old I would listen to the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony about 40 times in a single afternoon I was so taken by it and couldn't believe it's composition. It's quite unbelievable and I still love it so. I never get tired of it. That's seems to be successful thing about Beethoven, you just never get tired of listening to him.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Ahmad]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
..., but I know there is something powerful about hearing something many times. Maybe this is what minimalist composers were (are) trying to tap into...

What do minimalist composers do regarding repitition?

[This message has been edited by Ahmad (edited 06-08-2004).]

[urtextmeister]

Originally posted by Ahmad:
What do minimalist composers do regarding repitition?

[This message has been edited by Ahmad (edited 06-08-2004).]

They repeat things a lot.
They repeat things a lot.
They repeat things a lot.
They repeat things a lot.
Then they change it slightly.
Then they change it slightly.
Then they change it slightly.

I was in a large class in college once and the instructor asked for a brief explanation of the minimalist school of composition.
I stood up and said, "A series of notes is repeated so many times that even a small change becomes very important."
"I'm sorry," he said. "Could you say that again."
Gullible young freshman that I was, I obliged him. By the third or fourth time, I caught on to his point.

Minimalism started back in the 60s I think--I am not researching this, just irresponsibly spouting what comes to mind--with people like Steve Reich experimenting with tape loops as well as live music. Terry Riley's "In C" was a seminal work of minimalism. The most famous (and commercially successful) proponent of this style is Phillip Glass. Nowadays, minimalism is going in different directions. I think John Adams is considered a minimalist composer (?), but his work is far more complex than Phillip Glass.

Does that answer your question? Or were you just being ironic when you asked it?

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Ahmad:
What do minimalist composers do regarding repitition?

[This message has been edited by Ahmad (edited 06-08-2004).]

Listen to Debussy, too. His music repeats phrases often with subtle changes per repetition. Minimalism may well have gotten kicked off in the 60's but I think you'll find some very good examples in earlier works.

[Ahmad]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
They repeat things a lot.
They repeat things a lot.
They repeat things a lot.
They repeat things a lot.
Then they change it slightly.
Then they change it slightly.
Then they change it slightly.

I was in a large class in college once and the instructor asked for a brief explanation of the minimalist school of composition.
I stood up and said, "A series of notes is repeated so many times that even a small change becomes very important."
"I'm sorry," he said. "Could you say that again."
Gullible young freshman that I was, I obliged him. By the third or fourth time, I caught on to his point.

Minimalism started back in the 60s I think--I am not researching this, just irresponsibly spouting what comes to mind--with people like Steve Reich experimenting with tape loops as well as live music. Terry Riley's "In C" was a seminal work of minimalism. The most famous (and commercially successful) proponent of this style is Phillip Glass. Nowadays, minimalism is going in different directions. I think John Adams is considered a minimalist composer (?), but his work is far more complex than Phillip Glass.

Does that answer your question? Or were you just being ironic when you asked it?

Thanks very much for your explanation of minimalism urtextmeister ...Ofcourse I wasn't ironic in my question. In a previous topic in this forum named "Modern classical music ,why is alway's derelict?" I was trying to share views of modern directions in classical music with members of the forum. I've been always eager to know more about new ideas and thoughs in music .I consider Debussy ,for examples, one of the most prominent characters in music history, as he gave us a new way to enjoy music and draw our moods. Maybe I didn't understand Prokofeiv and Shostakovich music yet as I do with Handel,Beethoven,Chopin and Debussy , but I'm sure that the 20th century has revolutionised music thoughts , and its muscic is worthy to listen and understand.

[Ahmad]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Listen to Debussy, too. His music repeats phrases often with subtle changes per repetition. Minimalism may well have gotten kicked off in the 60's but I think you'll find some very good examples in earlier works.

Yes Sorrano. Maybe prelude no.8 from his first book of preludes is an example of this kind of repitition...Am I right?!

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Yes Sorrano. Maybe prelude no.8 from his first book of preludes is an example of this kind of repitition...Am I right?!

Sorry, I don't have any specific examples. His impressionisitic style lends itself well to minimalistic writing (in fact, when we spoke of minimalism in my music history class we talked of Debussy). I recall hearing various examples, but I'd have to go and examine some of his music--I've not had much listening with Debussy.

[urtextmeister]

Sorrano,

I have disagree just slightly with your description of Debussy as a minimalist composer. I agree that Debussy repeated patterns of notes to create a texture and color, but I think his agenda was different from that of the early minimalists.

When minimalism began in the 60's, it was radical and shocking. Like Cage's experiments, it was conceptual. Take a piece like Reich's "Come out," (1966) for instance. It is nothing more than a spoken sentence that is repeated over and over. It is like staring at a doorknob for twenty minutes.

The amazing thing about this approach is that it forces us to perceive things in a completely different way. We see that doorknob every day, but if we stop and stare at it for twenty minutes, we will discover a world within that doorknob.

Glass and others have provided a solution to the syndrome of more and more complex systems to avoid sounding like the previous two hundred years of music. What if we take a simple patterns of notes, nothing special just, say a dominant seventh chord, and look deep within it? I haven't always liked this music, but I think it succeeds in finding an entirely way of exploring music and perception.

[AndrewMyers]

I have the opposite obsessive tendency to Beyond. I have to listen to complete SETS of works - i.e. all 3 piano trios in op 1, all 6 quartets in op 18 etc

I think the beauty of those 'little moments' is precisely having to wait for them - for some hours, in my case

[This message has been edited by AndrewMyers (edited 06-09-2004).]