Channel Surfing
 |
There are many works, on the other hand, that I’ve warmed to after repeated hearings – like Anton Webern’s Opus 21 and Arnold Schoenberg’s Variations for Orchestra.
Because of these varied experiences, I’ve adopted a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy. I give works of apparent historical importance three listens on different occasions and in different environments. If I haven’t warmed up to them by that point, I shelve the recording for eternity.
But how many listeners in the real world adopt this sort of repetitive listening strategy? Very few. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that less than 3% of listeners would even give a piece a second chance, if they didn’t like it after the first hearing. And without history on our side, living composers face even greater odds of someone taking a second listen to one of our creations.
Think about it! With the sheer volume of music that’s available and access to an untold number of artists through the internet, why would someone bother listening to a living composer’s works more than once if there wasn’t something compelling that revealed itself in the first listen?
I talk about the classical masters a lot in this blog, but you know, they had the game down. Many of their works possess attractive qualities on the surface level, perhaps a rich melody or an attractive motive that catches the listener’s interest on the first hearing. Repeated listenings then, reveal more aspects of the work’s beauty on a deeper level, where we get a more concrete realization of how the material is developed or organized.
 |
To get a fresh perspective, let’s take the argument outside of music for a second. Say you are flipping TV channels, looking for some entertainment. How long do you give a sitcom you’ve never heard of, before flipping the channel? 2, maybe 3 minutes tops? If there’s nothing that makes you laugh initially, why continue to invest the time when there could be better programs on a different channel?
Even if someone has recommended a sitcom to you, will you watch 3 complete shows before making up your mind about it? I doubt it, if the first few minutes of the first episode didn’t catch your interest.
And so it goes with music. I think there has to be something that engages the listener on the first hearing, otherwise…
they’ll simply flip the channel and see what else is playing.
ShareThis
I, too, have a three strikes approach except I don't shelve it forever. I've gone back to it years later and listened again. But I agree with your point about the first 30 seconds making or breaking a work's acceptance. Most of my work is, more or less, Avant Garde and isn't for everyone.
Since I'm retired and don't make a living composing, I tend to cop an attitude about such things. Also, not every work has that magical hook that draws them in right away. Some are just not going to light them up, while others will.
But in this time of instant gratification and zero patience, it may be a losing battle to try and put that hook in the first few seconds of a piece.
Other factorscome into play, too many to try and compensate for. I write what I want and need to write when itcomes to my own projects. commissions are a different story. I yield to the client's wishes and preferences. If they want it to be grabbed out of the gate, I do my best to make that happen.
Otherwise, I'll never satisfy all the criteria in question to grab a listener right away. Generally, if I'm excited about a new work and my friends think it works, most of my listeners do too. I post my work on my website and the stats tell me folks do download my music. That's good enough for me.
Bob "Prov" Paolinelli
Reply to this
Thanks Bob for taking time to read the entry and for your comment. You are right about it being a time of instant gratification and zero patience. I think composers are probably a little more patient with their listening approach then most, but we shouldn't assume everyone is like us.
Reply to this