David Runnion wrote:
>Chris Bonds wrote:
>>...he DID NOT KNOW IN ADVANCE and hence there was no a priori reason to
>>repeat or not. He treated the music as a living organism not as a museum
>And that makes it ok to eliminate the repeat? As if deciding on the spur
>of the moment makes it legit? Though it's an interesting story, I can't
>take that as artistic justification for not taking a repeat.
It depends on what you mean by "ok." Also on the function of the repeat.
If the function of the music is merely to validate the structure, then by
all means the repeat must be taken. But I think the point is arguable.
In any event, what I had wanted to add earlier I will add now: that if
repeats are taken they should not be exact repetitions. I don't mean to
change the notes of course, but nuances, tempi, etc. Otherwise, there
isn't much point.
>The wonderful thing about music is that a "museum artifact" like a
>symphony, which we admire time and time again like a painting,
We do not admire a symphony like we do a painting. Although both take
time to experience, time is not of the essence in viewing art. Time is
everything in music. Time is given shape by music.
>...remains a living organism as long as we are around to give it life.
>You don't have to change it, or, in this case, improvise taking the
>repeats, to render it a living organism.
Change is the *only* thing that will result in the experience of a living
organism. That's why live music is still important.
>In fact, the more you change a piece, the less of a living "museum
>artifact" it becomes and more a lifeless toy for a performer's ego.
As I said, change must remain within the limits of taste and convention.
We're not talking about doing violence to the music.