Sick of missed repeats--the closest I've come to scholarly

[jbuck919]

Within the last two weeks I caught two late works of Mozart. First, there was a recording of the live broadcast of the Clarinet Quintet. It was one of those cases where I drove the car around the block a couple of times to make sure I heard at least the entire first movement. Then, on mhy last full day in the States, I attended a performance of the Trio for Piano, Clarinet, and Viola at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center with none other than Andre Watts (the weak point in the performance, but I won't go there). In both cases, they skipped the repeat of the first movement.

This issue has come up here and on the other board a number of times, and the discussion always plays out to a matter of opinion, which it most emphatically is not. It is incorrect, unmusical, and in fact devastating to the music to skip the first movement repeats in very many works. I do not understand why this is still a matter of discussion, or why it is bandied about as though we were discussing whether the right hand of a Bach English Suite should be played without playing the left hand.

In the mature works of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven, the first movement repeat must always be taken. This is true also for the Romantic composers, emphatically Brahms, who modelled their work on the classical sonata form, irrespective of whether they were as structurally tied to it as the great classicists.

The reasons for honoring the first movement repeat are as follows:

1. To omit it is to deprive the listener of a second opportunity to hear and contemplate great music. For example, if one omits the repeat of the Mozart Clarinet Quintet, one only gets to hear the famous rapturous atypical second theme twice instead of three times. "Puerile criterion," you cry, "we don't care about pretty tunes." Don't we? We'd better, because Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert all did.

2. Omitting the repeat distorts the proportion of the piece by changing the length of the all-important first movement. In both Mozart pieces I cited the first movement sounded noticeably truncated without the repeat.

3. The most important reason of all. By the time of the late works of Mozart, the first movement repeat was no longer just a da capo in the manner of a dance suite. There were usually profound tonal reasons for using the ending of the "exposition" differentially for the return to the beginning and the continuation to the "development." In the Clarinet Quintet, Mozart clearly wants us to hear the difference between a return to the tonic and a move to the submediant; and that is an elementary example of the possibilities.

So why are the repeats omitted? Consensus of the moment. I've challenged performers and if you ask them why they did not take the first movement repeat they look at you as though, if it were a string quartet, you asked them why they performed with a cello instead of two violas. Current performers just don't get it, and in their neglect of this very important matter they are not only setting music back, they are making themselves look pretty dumb.

[springrite]

I totally agree. The only recordings of missed repeats I have are the Gould Goldberg and the Tureck Bach partitas (which she did reluctantly to fit the recording on 2 LPs/CDs). Otherwise I always go with the complete versions.

[diegobueno]

I agree that repeats are important. I'd say more musicians "get it" today than previously. Now some performers even take the dev/recap repeats, which takes a lot of discipline, especially in longer movements.

I find it also takes some discipline on my part to accept the 2nd repeats as a listener. I know that the repeats are there and so logically one should assume the composer meant them to be observed, but I've accepted the "expo twice, rest of it once" model so much that it's hard to shake. Some pieces, like the first movement of Haydn's Emperor Quartet, really need that 2nd repeat, because Haydn has so much still to say after the recap is over, and the way he sets up the return to the development is so clever.

[karlhenning]

I totally agree. The only recordings of missed repeats I have are the Gould Goldberg ....

Does he omit the repeats on both recordings? (Do I remember aright that he recorded the Variations twice?)

[Heck148]

I tend to agree regarding exposition repeats, esp first mvts...

to eliminate them does offset the balance of the movement. ommitting these repeats can be made to work certainly, but the repeat is very often a most effective device, and it does provide the listener with a second opportunity to hear the musical idea presented.

[springrite]

I totally agree. The only recordings of missed repeats I have are the Gould Goldberg ....

Does he omit the repeats on both recordings? (Do I remember aright that he recorded the Variations twice?)

No repeats in either recording. The second one is just VERY VERY SLOW.

[BWV 1080]

I typically skip repeats on baroque binary pieces, like suite movements or Scarlatti sonatas, but agree on the classical sonata forms - omitting the repeat alters the balance of the work

[Corlyss_D]

The problem of the decapitated da capos was endemic in pre-70s performances of baroque opera, along with rampant scene cuts, transposition of arias from high voices in male roles to low voices for male singers, wrenching entire scenes from one act to another, and other faithless acts designed to make the product more palatable to the audience. Arias were routinely truncated to eleminate the restatement of the A section (which should have been differently ornamented, not merely repeated as performed in the first statement of the A section). Use to drive us EM types wild . . . . Fortunately, we don't see those practices much any more.

[jbuck919]

The problem of the decapitated da capos was endemic in pre-70s performances of baroque opera, along with rampant scene cuts, transposition of arias from high voices in male roles to low voices for male singers, wrenching entire scenes from one act to another, and other faithless acts designed to make the product more palatable to the audience. Arias were routinely truncated to eleminate the restatement of the A section (which should have been differently ornamented, not merely repeated as performed in the first statement of the A section). Use to drive us EM types wild . . . . Fortunately, we don't see those practices much any more.

Ah Corlyssita--so good to have you back. You'd never think from some of the smooth stones we sling at one another on other sites that anybody here actually likes anybody else. A big "whew" and welcome to your own board.

Thist thread has moved on from my particular rant (about first movement repeats in works that are in either sonata form or the romantic answer thereto) to the question of repeats in various other contexts. Forgive me for a moment for sounding like someone with two degrees in music theory, but binary form repeats and ABA repeats, both phenomena largely of the baroque, are something of a different animal. That does not mean that the subject is not worthy of discussion.

Let me limit myself to a single aria, which I think will make my point. "He was despised" from Messiah has an A section to tear the Earth apart, and an inferior, almost perfunctory B section that Handel obviously put in because it was expected that arias have a B section (even Bach occasionally had his arm a little twisted when presented by this convention). Do I want them ever to perform the number without "He gave his back to the smiters"? No way. Some composers are so great that they are scarcely open to second guessing, and besides, who does not die to hear "He was despised" the second time through?

To defend our mutual hero, he knew enough not to be a slave to form, and by the end of Messiah, in the incomparable and rarely well performed aria "If God be for us" he showed that he didn't really give a rat's ass about ABA and that he could out-Bach Bach if he wanted to.[/i]

[Werner]

Back to your original "rant," John, I encountered this question some forty years ago, when I was involved with a couple of sonatas by Mozart and Schubert, and reading the likes of Wanda Landowska and Harold Schonberg in trying to form my own opinion as to what I wanted to do.

Digressing, with regard to the Goldbergs, I have the Gould recordings, without the repeats, the Hewitt, with repeats (which I prefer) and Landowska's, who as I remember takes some repeats and not others.

But you're talking about exposition repeats in classical - to- romantic sonatas. If I remember correctly, the exposition repeat was provided in order to give the performer an opportunity to embellish the repeat - wich Landowska did with an astonishing degree of genius and authority in the Mozart piano sonatas.

By the Sixties, that had pretty much gone out of style - so much so that I felt justified in leaving out the repeats in both the Mozart K570 and the Schubert "little" A Major sonatas. And as you are surely aware, a large portion of the great performances of the late Schubert sonatas, if not the majority, do not contain the exposition repeat.

If you prefer to have the exposition repeats included, that's your privilege, but I don't see it as a point of dogma.

[Corlyss_D]

Ah Corlyssita--so good to have you back. You'd never think from some of the smooth stones we sling at one another on other sites that anybody here actually likes anybody else. A big "whew" and welcome to your own board.

Thanks! You know how these trademen things go. The gas guys were supposed to give me 2 days notice before they arrived. They gave me the notice then didn't show up for 4 days. The appliance guys are supposed to come tomorrow at 0 dark 30, and spend the day taking out my propane appliances and installing my natural gas appliances. We'll see. My painter, who's doing my shelves, is having a baby, so he's running a little late installing the shelves. So I'll be around intermittently. I have the tarps all ready to throw over my computer again when he arrives bearing boards.

Some composers are so great that they are scarcely open to second guessing, and besides, who does not die to hear "He was despised" the second time through?

After the B section, hasn't the da capo always sounded infinitely more plangent? In the hands of a good singer with good instincts about ornamentation, it's one of the most affecting expressions of pity ever written. That really was the point of the movement among musicologists and reviewers in the 60s and 70s to get producers to reinstate the da capos - heighten the emotion of the arias. I mean, all the action of the opera has to stop for the arias, might as well get the most emotional bang for the buck out of them.

To defend our mutual hero, he knew enough not to be a slave to form, and by the end of Messiah, in the incomparable and rarely well performed aria "If God be for us" he showed that he didn't really give a rat's ass about ABA and that he could out-Bach Bach if he wanted to.[/i]

Nicely put, John.

[Werner]

...and here is hoping that when the project is complete, you'll have a long, happy, and satified life in your recondidioned digs.

[Corlyss_D]

...and here is hoping that when the project is complete, you'll have a long, happy, and satified life in your recondidioned digs.

Thank you, friend. When you wind your way out this way, you will be able to stretch out on my 7.5 ft couch in my study, pluck a book off the shelves, and read till you're sleepy, then take a nice nap. To me that's the essence of relaxation.

[premont]

The score reflects obviously, how the composer wants the music to be played, and why should he indicate repeats, if he didn´t want them? This is why all repeats are mandatory as well in baroque music as elsewhere IMHO. A detail, which surely should not be left to the performers discretion. The music sounds always truncated, when repeats are not taken as indicated. And the awful but common habit of repeating occasionally is almost worse than no repeats at all. Of course the making of repeats implies, especially in early music, an obligation to make suitable variations (extra embellishments, passing notes et.c.).

[Harvested Sorrow]

...and here is hoping that when the project is complete, you'll have a long, happy, and satified life in your recondidioned digs.

Thank you, friend. When you wind your way out this way, you will be able to stretch out on my 7.5 ft couch in my study, pluck a book off the shelves, and read till you're sleepy, then take a nice nap. To me that's the essence of relaxation.

Thanks for the nice mental picture that gave me. Reminded me of some of the time I spent in Hawaii in June, and brought a picture to my mind for a possible future study/music listening room when I can get a house.

[Corlyss_D]

Thanks for the nice mental picture that gave me. Reminded me of some of the time I spent in Hawaii in June, and brought a picture to my mind for a possible future study/music listening room when I can get a house.

My pleasure, Harve.

I just realized a few weeks ago where my view of how the study should look and be used came from - a trip I took with a friend when we were graduating college seniors, one of those nice gestures some profs do for their students. The guy, an artist named Julian Binford whose WW2 art work hangs in some museums, had been restoring an 18th Century Armory on the banks of the James River SW of Richmond and converting it into his residence. While the others gamboled on the lawns and drank tea on the veranda, I discovered the study/library with a ton of London Illustrated News and a big leather couch next to the desk. I did exactly as I described - perused the LIN - it was an issue on the Charge of the Light Brigade, which was being filmed that year in a major studio release - until I was sleepy and took a nap. One the most pleasant memories of my life.

[jbuck919]

Back to your original "rant," John, I encountered this question some forty years ago, when I was involved with a couple of sonatas by Mozart and Schubert, and reading the likes of Wanda Landowska and Harold Schonberg in trying to form my own opinion as to what I wanted to do.

Digressing, with regard to the Goldbergs, I have the Gould recordings, without the repeats, the Hewitt, with repeats (which I prefer) and Landowska's, who as I remember takes some repeats and not others.

But you're talking about exposition repeats in classical - to- romantic sonatas. If I remember correctly, the exposition repeat was provided in order to give the performer an opportunity to embellish the repeat - wich Landowska did with an astonishing degree of genius and authority in the Mozart piano sonatas.

By the Sixties, that had pretty much gone out of style - so much so that I felt justified in leaving out the repeats in both the Mozart K570 and the Schubert "little" A Major sonatas. And as you are surely aware, a large portion of the great performances of the late Schubert sonatas, if not the majority, do not contain the exposition repeat.

If you prefer to have the exposition repeats included, that's your privilege, but I don't see it as a point of dogma.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Werner. I never intended, of course, to claim that every repeat in everye piece of music should be taken. Charles Rosen in his liner notes to his own peformance of the Goldberg Variations basically said "I repeat the ones I want to." In the case of the Schubert sonatas, as dreadful a thing as this is to say, their length is a weakness and no sane performer would compound this by honoring the repeats.

I was in fact considering pretty much only the mature works of the greatest composers, those works in which, very specifically, the first movement has a repeat that cries out to be honored. This is not particularly a new problem. Back in the 70s I first owned the Guarneri Quartet's late Beethoven, then had the privilege of a stage seat to hear their cycle in New Haven. In both cases, in performances otherwise to die for, they omitted the repeats. How an ensemble that sweats blood in all-night coffee-and-cigarette sessions over every single note in its repertory can be so negligent about a gross matter like that is beyond me.

[Teresa B]

Hmmm...at the risk of being considered a total plebian, I am seriously thinking of omitting the repeat of the exposition in the 1st movement of Bethoven's Piano trio Op 1 no 1. (I would have to obviously run the idea past my two co-trio-ists, or we might find ourselves playing something entirely different.)

We're performing this for a small concert in the spring. Having practiced it awhile now, and listened to a good recording, I've come to the conclusion that the repeat makes the movement far too long, and adds not much to the whole thing.

Same goes for the repeat in the finale (which in my CD of the Beaux Arts Trio , I think is not taken by them). All the other repeats in the entire piece seem absolutely essential.

If Old Ludwig come storming out of the grave to smite us, I will at least hope he waits til we get to the last chords.

All the best, Teresa

[jbuck919]

Hmmm...at the risk of being considered a total plebian, I am seriously thinking of omitting the repeat of the exposition in the 1st movement of Bethoven's Piano trio Op 1 no 1. (I would have to obviously run the idea past my two co-trio-ists, or we might find ourselves playing something entirely different.)

We're performing this for a small concert in the spring. Having practiced it awhile now, and listened to a good recording, I've come to the conclusion that the repeat makes the movement far too long, and adds not much to the whole thing.

Same goes for the repeat in the finale (which in my CD of the Beaux Arts Trio , I think is not taken by them). All the other repeats in the entire piece seem absolutely essential.

If Old Ludwig come storming out of the grave to smite us, I will at least hope he waits til we get to the last chords.

All the best, Teresa

Don't you dare ever omit a repeat in Beethoven. Die first.

[Teresa B]

Aw, do I have to run upon my sword? Tell you what jbuck, I'll let the string players decide. Whatever the vote, we shall do!

I don't mind playing the repeats, but I admit the thing seems too long listening, and we have as the audience a bunch of donors to the chamber orchestra who will be sipping wine and munching--well, something. The attention span can be a bit wanting.

And...you said the mature works, no? And this is Opus 1...? Immature? A little bit? Pretty please??

Teresa

[jbuck919]

Aw, do I have to run upon my sword? Tell you what jbuck, I'll let the string players decide. Whatever the vote, we shall do!

I don't mind playing the repeats, but I admit the thing seems too long listening, and we have as the audience a bunch of donors to the chamber orchestra who will be sipping wine and munching--well, something. The attention span can be a bit wanting.

And...you said the mature works, no? And this is Opus 1...? Immature? A little bit? Pretty please??

Teresa

My dear Teresa, take me seriously, and do not doubt me in this matter. Beethoven's Opus 1, number 1 is already as great a masterpiece as any chamber work by Mozart or Haydn. We must remember that we are not talking about an ordinary mortal.

Do not rely on the opinion of your string players; they are notoriously lazy in these matters. Exercise the strength of will that I know that you have, and insist on taking the repeat.

[Teresa B]

OK, OK, I bow before the Master. You win jbuck (Have you considered changing your moniker to Yoda919? )

Teresa