Bob Draper <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>The thrust of the argument is that he and other composers of the time
>did not see any more longevity in their music than a modern pop star does.
>Thus they were often more interested in earning a crust from their work
>than presenting it in its best artistic light.
>
>Given this, I have no problem with the omission of repeats.

This idea that Haydn & Co.  were no more than the top 40 of their day is
so ludicrous that it barely deserves a response, which is why it didn't get
one the first time.  While their were certainly many (probably a majority)
composers of that day for whom the that analogy holds, Haydn was not one of
them.  The greatest were geniuses, and their primary concern was to create
great art.  To assert otherwise is to deny the profound beauty of their
results.  Sure, they wanted make a buck from their music, and there is
nothing wrong with that, but that does not mean they were going to create
inferior music to do it.  Saying that they were merely the rock stars of
the era is like saying Keats was a greeting-card poet of his day.

Moreover, Haydn's own analysis-- the one he made as he was composing--
refutes yours.

>Another good reason has occured to me.  With many recordings of Haydn
>when the repeats are ommited it is possible to get an extra symphony or
>two on a disc.  This I feel will help to bring more of his masterpieces
>to a wider audience.

Putting four abridged performances onto a disk instead of three complete
ones is not justification on musical grounds.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: www.bigfoot.com/~CulverMusic