Leslie Kinton <[log in to unmask]> replies to me replying to him replying to
me replying to him...  um...:

>>>...  I heard no less than Malcolm Bilson point out that Mozart himself
>>>was quite cavalier about the whole matter, and left them in, or took them
>>>out according to how the piece would fit the rest of the programme.
>
>>I am rather skeptical about this, to say the least.  The fact that Malcolm
>>Bilson said so does not, in itself, constitute hard evidence.  Can you (or
>>anyone else on the list) document that Mozart did this?
>
>Interesting.  Could you perhaps provide us with the motive for Malcolm
>Bilson lying to his audience in this manner, or is it your contention that
>he is merely ignorant?

Lying? No reason that I can see.  Mistaken? Perhaps.  But I care enough
about the point to want to be directed to something firmer than "Bilsom
said he did."

>As to Beethoven in particular, it is instructive to remember how he gave
>his permission, in writing, for one of his students (Czerny?) to mangle op.
>106 in London by omitting a movement (I forget which one; when I get back
>from my present tour, I'll look it up) and rearranging what was left to
>make it at least plausible.

It was Ries.  This also arose earlier in this thread and the last time this
thread surfaced.  Both times, it was pointed out that Beethoven scholars
regard this as out of character for him.  The answer may lie elsewhere in
the letter, in which Beethoven refers to copyist problems, which might mean
that there was a problem with Ries' copy of the piece.  Beethoven might
simply have been making suggestions on how the best might be made of such
a situation.  Given that Beethoven often wrestled with the tiniest details
of his works to get them exactly how he wanted them, something that like a
repeat, which is not a mere tiny detail, would hardly be treated by him
cavalierly.

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