Are first impressions everything when listening to a score?

I think those of you for whom the first listen turns out to be the most important, are really fortunate! It makes life easy in the sense that if you don't like it at first listen you can move onto something else (and get rid of the score if you bought it)

My tastes and appreciation for scores have changed over time and I'm glad that I retained many scores that did not make much of an impact then, only to be utterly charmed by them now. I think I got Morricone's Mission To Mars based on Southall's review and could not go beyond the first few cues (you know.. when Ennio pulls out his tension devices). I might have cursed Southall for a long while! In the end it just took a certain frame of mind to sit through the whole album and then you get it! Today it's one of my favorite scores of all time

He brain washed you, too? Thank God his Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

-Erik-

One of those scores that divides people.

I bought it without any recommendations and loved it from the start, it's a great score!

The first impression is 90% right for me. When you got a good score in, it doesn't need a second shot to be "good". Harder scores to appreciate follow the next 10%, then the last are ones that never got a fiar shot and/or I didn't like the first time around.


Nick, you just may be listening to the wrong scores, that's all.

Its an extremely difficult subject, especially since the very definition of "listening" varies from listener to listener. We all have different metaphorical and aesthetical references to our own experiences when listening to music, and our cultural upbringing and surroundings often dictate what sounds "good" to us and what does not, or what sounds "familiar" and what sounds "alien". For example, if you are used to listening to the gospels of Mahalia Jackson or Aretha Franklin you will most likely find the opera tones of Maria Gallas or Renee Fleming to be odd and unnatural. It is not before we have been able to adjust our ideological perception of how music should sound, what it should express, and (in this case) what a musical instrument should sound like, that we are capable of transcending the boundaries of genres. Each piece of music evolves within its own individual framework, and the art of understanding that framework is (paradoxically) often complicated by our subliminally defined pre-conceptions of what music is supposed to express. For example, if you are used to listening to the simplistic (often A-B-A) forms of today's popular music then the internal developments of a classical sonata will likely confuse you. Based on such assumptions, the importance of a "first impression" is (from a scientific point of view) secondary to the importance of cultural circumstance. Therefore, the experience of a first impression isn't really a guideline towards defining the artistic value of a given musical work, it is merely a guideline towards defining ones own musical ideology. My view is that since music is such a deeply abstract, diverse, and multivalent medium of art, there are no absolutes for defining quality.

Your signature sums it up pretty neatly, Tom!

Great to see the "Topic from the Past" being used to continue lost discussions.

The answer is far simple, at least for me; it's not everything but it surely is very important. And it goes for everything and everyone new in one's life.

That first listen for me can be so misleading

Good point!

The nature of a first impression is oftentimes based on heteronomous considerations, such as observations one might make concerning the personal development of a specific composer compared to previous works: what our expectations are prior to listening to something new and unexplored. If we have not already established an aquaintance to the specific composer, genre, or historic period, such observations are non-existant. The listening experience is in that case completely autonomous and therefore would likely result in a completely different experience than the former situation.

It is like my recent exploration of John Williams' "Duo Concertante" for violin and viola. I was particularly excited about hearing this piece since it was such an unusual deviation for Williams to write chamber music for only two instruments. Even before hearing the piece I had already been stimulated by an overwhelming (partly subliminal) curiosity:

- How would this work compare to his symphonic scores?
- How would the textural or structural aspects of the work differ from what I have already become aquainted to?
- What kind of musical dramaturgy is currently unfolding in the mind of such an accomplished, experienced, and aging composer?

These pre-considerations helped allow me to enjoy the piece from first listen, simply because there were so many (for me delightful) developments within the music that would either be:

a) "familiar", like recognizing something that is typical in Williams' music and therefore drawing associations to previous works of which I have a long history of enjoyment,

or:

b) "surprising", like the experience of having been conditioned to expect one structural solution based on previous aquaintances to Williams' work, to then hear something new and fresh, and hence both witness and take part in a different direction for Williams' musical thinking.

These associations are undeniably important to my first impression. Also crucial to the first impression is that I had purchased the written score, and was able to gain a graphical impression of the piece and its intention. I have also composed both chamber music and orchestral music myself, and have some first hand experiences concerning what the specific challenges are when writing for the smallest of ensembles. All these personal experiences and considerations form a highly "pluralistic perception" of a given musical work that is unique to me alone - that is unique to all listeners.

The nature of a first impression is therefore merely a guideline towards defining ones own musical ideology, and in my opinion uninteresting as an argument towards defining musical quality outside ones own unique frame of mind. To place judgement on music based on first impression is like "locking oneself in a box". Music is uniquely multivalent and all-encompassing. It can sometimes pose a challenge, or even a threat, to ones own (often subliminally defined) ideologal viewpoint. Likewise, sometimes it can reassure us of our musical "morality" and comfort us with its confirming familiarity. But a big part of music's function is to challenge us, to stimulate our curiosity. If we aren't curious we are unable to learn, and from that perspective music serves a an educational tool towards the possession of tolerence, understanding, and respect - values that are universally important in all aspects of life and society. Music is truly the most basic, most natural, and at the same time most multivalent of artforms, and in posession of the most wonderful metaphoric possibilities of all mediums.

Case in point: "The Knight Bus".

I've always advocated seeing the film if at all possible. Case in point is I'm not sure if Demetris has seen the original "Day the Earth Stood Still."

Since I saw little comment I'm not sure how impressed he was with that one either.