I've just been noticing lately how a particular piece of classical era music can, over the course of many different recordings, either seem like a short, taut piece (@15min), or a more expansive full-sized piece (up to @29min) depending, for a good part, on the use of the "repeat." (along with, of course, the general disposition of the players themselves)
Is anyone interested in talking about this? Who chooses to include or exclude, philosophically speaking?... If I like a piece, sure, I want it to "come around again", but if I find a piece boring, no repeats is a good way to win me over.
Repeats in symphonies are a highly controversial subject; some critics and musicologists insist on their observance because of what they see as their structural importance; others; either performers or listeners dislike them or don't feel they're necessary.
On the whole, I prefer them, but I'm not an absolute stickler for their observance. In general, with the exposition in a Haydn or Mozart symphony, they should not be omitted,particulary with Haydn.
In the Beethoven symphonies, I prefer them, buit his symphonies tend to be longer anyway, and can tolerate their omission somewhat, but not in the 1rst, 4th, 5th, and 8th. The exposition in the first movement 5th is so short that it's absolutely criminal to omit it.
If you're listening to a symphony for the first time, exposition repeats are very helpful in getting familiar with the music; they help you to get the structure.
Today, at least on recordings, repeats are the norm; in the past, famous conductors such as Walter,Beecham, Weingartner and Furtwangler usually omitted them, but with the HIP movement, the're pretty much de rigeur.
With the Brahms and Dvorak symphonies, many listeners don't feel the need for them, and Dvorak ,who put exposition repeats in all but the 3rd,7th and 8th symphonies, never observed them when he conducted himself. By the late 19th and 20th century, repeats were pretty much abandoned.,except for Mahler's 1st and 6th, and the Shostakovich 9th.
You can check reviews and timings to find out whether any given recording observes the repeats or not, and decide for yourself.
Repeats are used so that the audience (who typically at the time only heard a work once) would learn the melody so they would understand how it's being varied in the development section. In the age of recordings where we can simply listen to a work 100 times over we don't need the repeats. But for those of us that prefer a wide range of music listened to only once or twice ::) you will still need the repeats to follow what's happening.
Do I personally need the repeats? No. Should they still be played? Yes, if only for the big box set people or the people who only listen to music in live performances.
I have no logical reason for my preference but I like exposition repeats on fast movements and not on slow movements. Sometimes I've even heard repeats of the development/recapitulation, there's just no reason for that.
Quote from: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 07:44:28 AM
Repeats are used so that the audience (who typically at the time only heard a work once) would learn the melody so they would understand how it's being varied in the development section. In the age of recordings where we can simply listen to a work 100 times over we don't need the repeats. But for those of us that prefer a wide range of music listened to only once or twice ::) you will still need the repeats to follow what's happening.
Do I personally need the repeats? No. Should they still be played? Yes, if only for the big box set people or the people who only listen to music in live performances.
I think repeats indicated by the composer should
always be observed because they do change the structure of the piece. In a tertiary pieces like the Goldberg variations (and many other pieces of the same era) the placement of the repeat defines the structure and helps you know where you are in the piece. I find them very helpful. The most infuriating recording of the Goldbergs I had had inconsistent observation of repeats, sometimes they were both observed, sometimes only the first one, sometimes none. It made it completely frustrating to keep track of where you were in a variation (i.e., I am listening for the A secion repeat, only to find myself halfway into the B section before I realize it).
In Mozart/Haydn I find it bracing to hear the opening again jump out from a new context, wrapping around from the end of the exposition rather than starting from scratch. It is equally striking to hear the development re-entered after the piece seems to be over in those cases where there are two repeats in a sonata-allegro form movement. In later music such as Brahms there is often a very interesting transitional passage which leads from the end of the exposition back to the beginning of the exposition which would never be heard if repeats were skipped. Even in scherzos I find them important. A lot of the fun of the Scherzo of Beethoven's 7th consists of passages which you expect to hear loud but which are soft, and visa versa, because of the complex structure of literal and almost literal repeats of material. Skipping the repeats ruins some of the jokes that Beethoven plans for us.
Finally, there is no reason that the repeat should be played identically. The exposition repeat gives the performer the opportunity to play the same music with subtle variations the second time around. My favorite conductors sometimes take advantage of this.
Quote from: hornteacher on July 17, 2009, 08:09:20 AM
I have no logical reason for my preference but I like exposition repeats on fast movements and not on slow movements. Sometimes I've even heard repeats of the development/recapitulation, there's just no reason for that.
If there is a development/recapitulation repeat it is because the composer specifically indicates it, as in Mozart's Symphony 41 finale, and several other late symphonies.
I really don't have a set preference on repeats, except that in general, the longer a section is, the less likely I want to hear it repeated. For instance, in Brahms 1 & 3 I want the repeats there, but in 2, I think the repeat in the 1st mvt. drags it out too long. But of course, I'm not the one who gets to choose whether to repeat or not :D
Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 08:23:42 AM
Finally, there is no reason that the repeat should be played identically. The exposition repeat gives the performer the opportunity to play the same music with subtle variations the second time around. My favorite conductors sometimes take advantage of this.
Strongly agree; unfortunately in a lot of recordings they just splice in the repeat, so you lose this effect.
Quote from: Spitvalve on July 17, 2009, 08:54:44 AM
But of course, I'm not the one who gets to choose whether to repeat or not :D
But you have the fast forward button. ;)
Scarpia makes a good point, I didn't think about how the composer is thinking about the effect of the repeat and how it fits in when he/she composes.
Quote from: Spitvalve on July 17, 2009, 08:54:44 AM
Strongly agree; unfortunately in a lot of recordings they just splice in the repeat, so you lose this effect.
When the second part of a sonata-allegro is repeated it is clear that there will be a difference, since the final cadence is typically played with more gravitas when it is ending for real. Otherwise, in most cases not much is made of the opportunity to vary interpretation in the repeat. In Andras Schiff's recordings of Bach Suites, which except for the prelude consists of tertiery movements with repeats, there is almost always more liberal ornamentation of the melodies during the repeat. Makes the repeat really worth it.
Quote from: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 07:44:28 AM
Repeats are used so that the audience (who typically at the time only heard a work once) would learn the melody so they would understand how it's being varied in the development section. In the age of recordings where we can simply listen to a work 100 times over we don't need the repeats. But for those of us that prefer a wide range of music listened to only once or twice ::) you will still need the repeats to follow what's happening.
Do I personally need the repeats? No. Should they still be played? Yes, if only for the big box set people or the people who only listen to music in live performances.
I think it can go both ways. Sometimes repeats can be for the
performer's benefit. One pianist (deceased) expressed his desire to play all the repeats since sometimes it takes him time to 'warm up'. By the time of the exposition if he's mangled the section in the first go-through the repeat can be a redemption of sorts.
For my part, if the piece is good - and performed well - then hearing the passage again isn't such a concern for me.
That makes sense Don for live performances. Of course for recordings it's the tale of a thousand cuts.
Quote from: DavidW on July 17, 2009, 12:34:23 PM
That makes sense Don for live performances. Of course for recordings it's the tale of a thousand cuts.
Is this really true? In many instances, even when there are no first and second endings, the composer indicates a difference in dynamics, articulations, etc. for the repeated section which would prohibit splicing. When there
are first and second endings (which is usually the case in post-classical era music), it would seem more difficult to try to splice in music mid-phrase on an odd measure that to observe the repeat to begin with.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 08:23:42 AM
I think repeats indicated by the composer should always be observed because they do change the structure of the piece. In a tertiary pieces like the Goldberg variations (and many other pieces of the same era) the placement of the repeat defines the structure and helps you know where you are in the piece. I find them very helpful. The most infuriating recording of the Goldbergs I had had inconsistent observation of repeats, sometimes they were both observed, sometimes only the first one, sometimes none. It made it completely frustrating to keep track of where you were in a variation (i.e., I am listening for the A secion repeat, only to find myself halfway into the B section before I realize it).
But once you're familiar with the particular performance, "keeping track" is easy.
Quote from: Bulldog on July 17, 2009, 01:37:57 PM
But once you're familiar with the particular performance, "keeping track" is easy.
For you, maybe. I like my repeats.
Quote from: Scarpia on July 17, 2009, 01:46:59 PM
You you, maybe. I like my repeats.
Understood; I also prefer that all repeats of the Goldbergs be observed. Yet, I do find it interesting how different performers handle the repeats, especially how they decide to vary them. Lately, I've been listening to Barbara Harbach's Goldbergs; her primary approach to the repeats is to go on a trill-happy trip. That approach doesn't appeal to me at all.
Quote from: Szykniej on July 17, 2009, 01:17:54 PM
Is this really true? In many instances, even when there are no first and second endings, the composer indicates a difference in dynamics, articulations, etc. for the repeated section which would prohibit splicing. When there are first and second endings (which is usually the case in post-classical era music), it would seem more difficult to try to splice in music mid-phrase on an odd measure that to observe the repeat to begin with.
Oh no I meant that there is no mangled first try in recordings, so a repeat is not needed to make it better just different.
I always prefer the exposition repeats taken. The proportions of a classical sonata allegro movement tend to be skewed if the exposition is overwhelmed by the development, recapitulation, and coda. Repeating the exposition helps balance the movement (though this is only my personal preference).
There are a number of works where the music almost demands the conductor to take the repeat. The most prominent is Mendelssohn's 4th Symphony, where a new theme is introduced during the 1st ending but does not reemerge until the coda. If a conductor skips the repeat, and therefore jumps immediately to the 2nd ending, listeners wouldn't encounter the new theme until the coda, which the classically minded Mendelssohn would never have accepted.
I've also heard some performances where not taking the repeats can often make the piece sound longer. I once heard a performance where a conductor took none of the repeats in the finale of Beethoven's 7th symphony. It sounded labored and unbalanced.
Among performing musicians, the general practice is that if there's a "first ending," that is, a transition passage before the actual repeat, the repeat is mandatory; if there isn't, then it's optional. Also, in minuets or scherzos or other similar movements with a "da capo" section that's repeated, it used to be customary to omit the repeats the second time through, but the HIP movement has pretty much put a stop to that practice.
In the Eighteenth Century, it was customary to add ornaments or improvise variations on the repeat.
One interesting effect from taking repeats consistently is that in some movements, notably the finales from Brahms' First and Third Symphonies and his Fourth's first movement, the development begins with a more-or-less literal repeat of the beginning of the exposition; the audience expects a full repeat and gets surprised when the music takes a different turn. :D 8)
On the other hand, some pieces or movements get extremely demanding for the players if all repeats are taken. The Scherzo from Beethoven's Ninth is such a piece; everybody, at least all the strings and woodwinds, are playing pretty much all the time, and if you take all those repeats, it's very tiring! :-\
Am I imagining it, or did Brahms once say that he thought that repeats were unnecessary if the audience already knew the work?
QuoteAm I imagining it, or did Brahms once say that he thought that repeats were unnecessary if the audience already knew the work?
I've heard that as well. I believe it was during the second performance of the second symphony. Someone asked why he didn't take the repeat, and he responded that the audience knew the work by now, so it wasn't necessary.