Richard Hihn <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Andre Gretry:
>
> "I see almost all instrumental music chained to worn-out forms that
> are repeated for us without end...Hullmandel, one of the most perfect
> composers of this type [of music], was...the first to connect the
> two parts of his sonatas so that they do not repeat slavishly...A
> sonata is a discourse.  What would we think of a man who, cutting
> his discourse in two, repeated each half?"

Gretry here speaks only for Gretry, not for anyone else.  In no way should
it be concluded that, because Gretry did not like the inclusion of repeats
to be automatic in the composition process, they should be done away with
in performance.

>Rosenblum suggests that "a performer needs to consider its [a repeat]
>effect on the listener's perception of the entire form and of the
>relationships of the parts to each other."

Unless the performer possesses uncanny psychic abilities, that will
be impossible, assuming all listeners will share the same perceptions.
Moreover, unless the performer respects the composer's wishes, NO listener
will be allowed the opportunity to hear the composer's work as intended.

>All of this (and much more of such evidence) suggests that each case
>should be looked at individually, without a slavish devotion to a repeat
>sign merely because it is there.

First of all, there is nothing slavish about a devotion to artistic
integrity.

Secondly, I fail to see any basis for regarding repeats to be optional at
all.  In fact, most of what you have posted confirms that the composer's
wishes ought to be observed.  That Beethoven indicated that one repeat
in one of his pieces was at the performer's option is so exceptional that
it confirms that, if he regarded a repeat as optional, he would say so,
otherwise, he intended it to be repeated.  There are other instances where
one might expect a repeat to occur, but Beethoven does not put it there
(Op.  95 Quartet, for example).  Why? Because Beethoven, who so carefully
considered the musical consequences of what he wrote down to the smallest
detail, saw that it would serve no purpose.  We can conclude, therefore,
that, when there was a repeat, it was the result of his careful
consideration.

The letter from his brother is mentioned, but not quoted.  But there are
two additional grounds for the "Eroica" repeat to be respected that have
not yet been included in this thread as far as I can recall, at least not
this time around.  There are two different endings for each quotation of
the exposition.  The first leads us back to the beginning of the repeat,
the second leads us to the development.  This is a sure sign that the
repeat was well-considered-- not that the absence of two endings is the
lack of such a sign.  Also, when Beethoven heard a complaint that the the
"Eroica" was too long, he shot back, "If I write a symphony that is an hour
long, it will be short enough."

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series