OK, I've been following this thread for a long time, and I've finally
decided to thrown in my opinion, for what it's worth.  I've always been of
the impression that repeats were added to round out form, and add length to
what were in actuality rather short pieces.

Before the symphony and the Sonata de Camera and Sonata de Chiesa, there
were simple, binary songs (that is, having only two sections, or themes,
with no development, and no need for recapitulation).  Necessarily, these
were very short pieces (probably lasting no more than thirty seconds to a
minute each).  Composers might have added the repeats to "get more for
their money," or notes, in this case.

Once the Sonata de Camera and Chiesa came in to the picture, repeats were
kept.  This could be for any one of a number of reasons, such as: 1) "that
was the way it was done." 2) when there were voices involved, most of the
time there were multiple verses, so repeats were necessary to get all the
verses in (this is especially true in the Sonata de Chiesa, which followed
the church/hymn tradition).  and 3) It's easier to slap a repeat onto
something already written than it is to write another 100 measures of new
material.

In the Baroque, you don't find a lot of repeats, except in choral works
with multiple verses.  In the Concerto tradition (using the ritornello
form), there were two groups that played: 1) the ritornello group that
consisted of the "main body" of instruments, and 2) the concerto group,
who were essentially the soloist(s).  Form in the Baroque was a series
of blocks theme A stated by ritornello group, expounded upon by concerto
group.  Then Theme B did the same thing.  There was no need for a repeat.

In studying Bach's music, one finds very few repeats.  The Preludes and
Fugues have none.  The major choral works have none.  The same is true of
Handel (I don't think there is a single repeat in the Messiah, or in Judas
Maccabeus).

By the end of the Baroque, when K.P.E.  Bach was developing his own style
(the famous Empfindsamer Stil), and experimenting with form, repeats began
to creep in.  A lot of instrumental music was based on dance forms (Gigue,
Galliard, Pavane, to name three).  Dance forms needed repeats so that those
dancing to the music had a reference point to begin each section of the
dance.  K.P.E.  kept this tradition in his keyboard sonatas (which began
the first germinations of Sonata form as Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven knew
it).  K.P.E.'s younger brother Johann Christian (Mozart's best friend when
Mozart was a boy) wrote possibly the first truly "Sonata Form" concerto
with his Harpsichord Concerto #2 (with the famous Scottish Snap rhythm in
the third movement).

With the development of Sonata form, one begins to see repeats more
and more often.  Also, with the developments in musical experimentation
and interpretation that were going on in Mannheim during this time, the
possibilities of composition were enlarged exponentially.  Gone were
terrace dynamics.  Gone was the idea that "anyone" could play in a major
orchestra.  The Mannheim Crescendo, while tame by today's standards, was
all the rage in 1740, as was the Mannheim Rocket (an ascending arpeggio
with a crescendo added).  Now, it was possible to interpret pieces in more
than one way (not just changing tempo).  Perhaps the repeat craze that
hit the early Classical period was a way for composers to let orchestras
experiment with new techniques (do it one way the first time, and a
different way the second time).  Also, dance forms persisted in all aspects
of music (symphonic, chamber music, Suites, etc.) The Minuet is a dance
form, and the incessant repeats of most minuets are a holdover from the
times when musicians were only there to provide a way for wealthy dancers
to dance (with all the accompanying repeats to give the dancers their
place, and remind them when certain moves were to be done, etc.).  The
Gigue was also still used extensively, mostly in Suites.

Now, on to whether or not we should take these myriads of repeats.  I
think it is totally a matter of personal preference.  For example, Haydn
symphonies, with their weird three measure phrases and quirky harmonic
texture would be naked without certain repeats; conversely, I don't think
that a repeat of the first 200 or so measures in the first movement of the
Eroica accomplishes anything today.  The Beethoven 1, though, is perfectly
at home with its first movement repeat (same with the third movement).
The same is true of the Eighth Symphony's third movement Minuet.  There
is no need, though, to repeat in other works by both Beethoven and other
composers (can one imagine if one took every Mahler repeat (if there are
any), especially in the Third Symphony--tune in tomorrow when the symphony
ends!)

To reiterate, I think the matter is personal in nature.  Solti might
repeat while Barenboim does not.  Karajan might take one repeat and not
the other, and Haitink might not.  Mehta, in all his Mack Truck approach
to conducting, blindly takes them all...:) (just kidding).  Personally, I
think repeats are a good thing when not blindly adhered to (well thought
out in advance), and not merely repeated.  If you repeat, do SOMETHING
differently so that the audience doesn't say "Here we go again."

As always, I invite any comments, good, bad, or indifferent...:)

Take care,

Charles L. L. Dalmas
[log in to unmask]
http://www.winternet.com/~davion