Definitely! I mean, Mahler's 3rd Symphony is like an hour and a half or more, and it's a classic of symphonic repertoire. It's not at all repetitive.
Honestly, I think that monotonous yet interesting pieces, at least in my experience, and in the reactions of others, tend to go for interesting timbral and "mood" choices, rather than interesting melodic lines or harmonic progressions. There's a limit to how long a fantastically noodly woodly bebop alto sax can hold your attention for, but that same sax, playing with tone and extended technique and drones, and subtle harmonic tensions, can keep me and apparently many others entertained for a long time.
I think the difference is that something like a melody or chord progression requires constant, vigilant focus to make sense, to be interesting. If you come in half way through a measure, it sounds confusing and wrong. If you tune out for a bit, you loose your context and sense of place within the form.
With a more consistent, monotonous piece, you can come in anywhere and get the "right" experience, so tuning in and out and drifting away, and then focusing on the changing tone colour, and then vegging out again, and then chatting a bit, and then tuning back in, you can maintain the ambiance and immersion in the artistic cohesion of the piece. (Does that make sense??? I'm not sure...)
I forget who said this, some towering figure of Tunisian Núba, I believe, something to the effect of, "Our music should be like a garden, everything is beautiful, nothing offends, nothing startles, nothing surprises, I can look at it when I want, and then look away, I can view a part of it or not view it, but every part should be similar and beautiful, so that wether I am looking or not, the garden will be enjoyable."
I butchered what he said, and I forget who it was, but you get the idea. Traditional Núba (kind of like halfway between a suite and a highly structured program) could go on for hours. Like, six or more, I believe. (Though they are generally shorter in common practice.)
|