Chris Bonds writes:

>One of the things I'm wondering is: Do we too often listen to a performance
>once, decide it's not for us, without giving it a second,
>or third, or 7th chance?  To what extent can repeated hearings of a
>recording actually change our notion of how a piece should be intepreted?

Repeated hearings changing our "notions" happens frequently with me, not so
much in that the "old" way becomes obsolete, but adding the new approach to
a few others which work very well.  And repeated listenings  in an
environment where one can concentrate is an essential element of "good"
listening.  The first time I listen to a concept which is new to me of a
familiar work, it can sound very odd and questionable.  Just by the second
time, it sounds better already, and additional listenings just add to the
enjoyment and understanding.

Listeners who take one stab at a new recording and discard it are not
doing themselves any service.  I think that the majority of classical works
need much more than one hearing to understand and fully appreciate.  This
applies even more to 20th century works which are not tonal in nature, but
it also applies to relatively uncomplicated baroque works by composers like
Telemann and Hasse.  Actually, it also applies to much rock music; as an
example, even songs by the Beatles sounded better with additional hearings.
The "listen once and junk it" method has little to recommend it.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]