Spread too thin????????

(i meant "Spread" too thin--sorry)

I've been thinking about this lately-

Life is short- we all love music- ok question:

Is it better to have less albums, and liisten to those religiously, or to have MANY albums and listen to them not as much?

Do you spread yourself to thin by buying many albums and find yourself rarely listening to them?

Or do you listen to your favs over and over? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm tell me what you think!

Edited by Drew

that's great- but as far as the question............

Drew wrote: that's great- but as far as the question............

lots of music - i'd get bored listened to a few over and over ...

I think it's best to have listened to a lot of music, but to have whittled your collection down to a small core of essential albums that you know you'll always love.

I try to have many albums that I like and listen to them according to my mood. That is the way to go.

I have a sizeable collection with a good variety to suit my present mood. I rarely find myself not listening to an album just because I have too much. The only reason something doesn't get played too often is if it's not that good.

The Miracle wrote: I want to know a lot of music The more the better. I live getting into new albums. If I had to listen to same 20 albums forever, I'd go insane But that's just my personality.

Don't worry, you'll just end up insane. I'm on the path now...

"The lunatic is on the path"

 

The more albums the better.  I love having a plethora of music at my disposal and I would much rather have albums in my collection that I've never listened to than be forced to listen to the same albums because of a lack of a good collection.  The albums that you really like will attract you more, and albums only deserve many repeated listens if they are really great anyways.  I don't subscribe to the "it takes many listens to appreciate this music theory."  If you listen to the music closely enough the first time, and you know how to listen to music, you can "get" it the first time around, and then of course repeated listening is done for further enjoyment but is not needed to "get" the music.  It's of course easier to listen to the music on subsequent listens because you know what to expect but I don't think that one needs to listen to an album 5 or even 2 times to "get" it.  That's why I can have such a huge collection and am able to listen to new albums all the time without going back to the already listened ones too many times except when done for pure enjoyment.  I think repeated listenings of albums is only necessary to some to acclimate them to music that they would not like if they didn't "force" themselves to try to like it.  I won't divert to far into this subject although I think it would make an interesting point for another forum, I'll just reiterate my initial point, one can never have enough prog and one should never be satiated by their current collection of prog.  

It depends on how much time you have on your hands IMO.
I think you have to discipline yourself to play the stuff you don't usually listen to. Some albums are that good, you can listen to them regularly but if you want to listen to something different you have to put them aside for awhile (bit like dieting and giving yourself a treat). I have to many albums and not enough time to listen in order to appreciate half of them. Not enough hours in the day. In the end, unless you have heaps of time you end up listening more for pleasure and not for trial because you only have a certain amount of time in which to enjoy the moment.

Yams wrote: Life is short, but not that short.

Yeah, I get your point. I was just trying to explain that with work and family commitments and other stuff, the time I do get to listen means I prioritise what I listen to more and I probably don't experiment as much with listening because of that.