Jocelyn replies to me:
>>Incidentally, at this point, it's taking the repeats in the Jupiter that
>>would constitute the experiment, since the "performing tradition" is at
>>this point mainly on the side of not taking the repeat. Is taking the
>>repeat nitroglycerine in a blender? Surely you wouldn't object to hearing
>>someone conduct it that way.
>The fact that I contradict your hyper-bull does not make me guilty of
No, the "nitroglycerine in a blender" is.
>What is dangerous is that we lose the "Jupiter" Symphony as Mozart wrote
>it. The fact that the disregard of those repeats is far more common than
>their observation leads to a routine destruction of a great work of art.
>One might think that conductors would get a clue that doing so is not
>justified on the grounds that some famous baton-wielding predecessor did it
>before them, or, indeed, on any grounds at all, and amounts to duplicating
>an oft-failed experiment, rather than recreating the successful one.
This begs the question on several grounds. One, according to you, we
don't have the symphony as Mozart wrote it. I contend we do in the form
of the manuscript. When they stop publishing editions which reproduce
the manuscript, you have cause for worry. As long as these exist, the
possibility of a complete performance exists. At any rate, we haven't lost
the Jupiter yet. I believe we won't lose it any time soon; you disagree.
Also, you assume that all conductors who fail to follow every repeat do it
because they're mindless sheep following a predecessor. Some might
actually have a musical reason, as might their predecessors.
The last phrase assumes that the experiment of taking all the repeats has
been successful. Which performance was this? In other words, to claim a
success, the event actually has to have occurred. What musical advantage
- other than the fact that Mozart put it down - did it have over the
performances without? As I say, I've never (if I had, I didn't know it)
heard the Jupiter taken with all the repeats.