David Runnion replies to me:

>>Justifications:
>>
>>1.  We don't know what the composer's will is, only what he wrote - quite
>>another thing.
>
>How? What is the composer's will other than what he wrote??? This makes no
>sense at all.

What defies belief is the assumption that someone never miscalculates.
Otherwise, we'd have far more masterpieces to listen to than we apparently
do.

>>2.  The composer may want something worse than is possible.  In
>that case,
>>since aesthetics is about better and worse, go with better.
>
>Then that's the composer's problem, not the performer's.  Your or my
>aesthetics have nothing in the least to do with a composer's intentions;
>they're his/her aesthetics, not ours, and we have no right to intrude on
>them.

Once again, you don't know the composer's intentions.  You know only
what he wrote, or at least you trust the edition you're working with.
You identify intention with score.  What support do you have? This is a
question with thorns.  As to having a right, it's not a question of right,
but of better and worse.  I doubt that Beethoven or Bruckner will be
greatly pleased or terribly offended by *any* performance at this stage of
the game.  As I am unwilling to pronounce on the worth of music that hasn't
ever been written (see the Mozart thread), I am equally hesitant to say
that the composer, particularly a dead one, will shout "halleluia" or
"sacrilege" about this or that performance decision.

>>3.  The composer cannot know everything, including a later change in
>>attitude toward certain conventions, like repeats.  Consequently, it makes
>>little sense to contribute to the ruin of the composer's reputation under
>>the banner of honoring him.
>
>This seems strange in this day of HIPness, when every last detail of
>a composer's intention is respected, as well as the instruments, is
>faithfully recreated.  In this atmosphere it strikes me as odd that a
>thinking music-lover would favor going against a composer's wishes.

I have no idea what a dead composer wishes, and in any case, the composer,
after he completes the score, becomes a listener who knows the detail of
the score very well and who alone knows the relation of the marks on the
page to the sounds in his head.  He can always be corrected by performance.
Many composers have revised extensively - think of Vaughan Williams and the
6th Symphony - after actually hearing what they wrote.  I've heard non-HIP
performances that strike me as better than HIP ones (I've also heard the
opposite).  But again, they're not recreating intention.  They're trying to
recreate performance practice contemporary with the composer's life.  This
has, in many cases, produced revelatory readings of scores.  However, it
has *not* revealed any composer's intention, as far as I know.

>>4.  Even if the composer wants it and you know exactly what it is he wants
>>and it's better than anything anyone could think up (and that's everything
>>you claim), you may simply want to hear it the way you want to hear it -
>>eg, the Eroica played by a kazoo band (no repeats, thank God).  ...
>
>The Eroica with a kazoo band.  I'm sorry, but this crosses into
>the absurd.

I've heard *and performed* something very like - a kazoo band performance
of the first movement of Mozart's Symphony No.  40.  It was fun.  I
enjoyed it.  It was a different enjoyment than I got from, say, Szell's
performance.

>We love music because we get to see into the mind of a great artist.

That's certainly one reason to like music.  There may be others.

>We admire works of art that have lasted centuries.

Don't you think it's interesting that probably performances all claiming to
realize a composer's intentions have changed so greatly from the composer's
time to ours? To me, this suggests that we're not realizing a composer's
intentions but our own expectations of the music.

>We can play little games for our own "enjoyment" but classical music is
>about art and creation.

So is playing "little games."

>Nobody, but nobody, has the right to tamper with a work of art for puerile
>"enjoyment."

Haul 'em up on charges!
Hang 'em by their thumbs!
Make their pyre of Greek fire
'Til the Second Coming comes!

Honestly, do you think Bach cares?

>>And, just so you don't think I've gone napping, your position does not
>>agree with the composer's intent, but only with what he wrote.
>
>?? But what is the composer's intent other than what s/he wrote? Let's
>examine the word "justification" for a moment.  For me none of the above
>statements qualify as justification for omitting repeats.  They're
>rationalizations, perhaps, silly mind games certainly, but far, far away
>from artistic justification for disregarding what is plainly on the printed
>page.

In that case, you have a real problem with some of the greatest
performances ever - or at least with what most music lovers have considered
as such.  You're not obligated to follow that opinion, of course.  I'd also
raise the point whether it's all that important to observe every single
repeat in a Kuhlau sonatina.  One might reasonably ask, "Didn't you get it
the first time?" I believe that question has actually come up in this
discussion.  Sorry for the repeat.

>Another thing that has been bothering me for days now.  I read in
>a post on another thread, I don't remember the author, a reference to
>"repeat-Nazis." I find this offensive to the extreme.  It is typical of
>people trying to defend the indefensible to resort to this kind of KKK
>namecalling, and I, for one, object.

It wasn't me, and (while I enjoyed the rhetoric) I found it unhelpful.
I have no problem at all with people preferring a repeat.  However, I do
object to the claim that they alone know the secrets of the composer's
heart.  I would say nobody knows that and it's presumptuous, often comic,
to say so.

Let me illustrate with a really underhanded example.  I just bought a
CD of piano trios by Foote and Shostakovich, which I enjoyed immensely.
However, I have no idea whether either composer's "intention" was realized,
since I'm not able to ask either composer.  I do know what I like and, in
some cases, why I like it.  I can do this without having to shoot up
Shostakovich with sodium pentathol or consult a ouija board.  If I follow
with a score, I can notice the relation of what's written to what I hear.
The performance helps me find expressive capabilities in the score I was
previously unaware of.  Isn't that wonderful enough? Do I need
Shostakovich's imprimatur? After all, I ain't gonna get it.

Steve Schwartz