Bill Strother wrote:

>However, if an interpreter cares to create an interpretation wherein the
>first runthrough is played straight, and the repeat is a variant in terms
>of -- emphasis, phrasing? -- that might be a worthwhile experiment.

That's a very good point and one that I've made repeatedly - but with
the proviso that the variants should always contribute to the musical
narrative, one must take great care not to let them become steriotyped
or mechanistic or otherwise an end in themselves.  Playing straight first
time, spicing things up the second can't be the invariable rule.  Certain
passages can be intensified the second time to highlight their cumulative
effect, in other cases, where you have a surprise of some sort, a sudden
caesura, an unexpected outburst or other abrupt change in dynamic, it would
appear to make greater sense to make more of that shock effect the first
time and to play through it more on the repeat, when the listener already
knows what to expect.  It all depends on the context - what one has to keep
in mind is always the psychological effect of hearing a certain passage
twice.  And of course the performer's variants must never distract from
the composer's written in variants or otherwise confuse the actual musical
structure.  In a sonata movement, for instance, any changes in emphasis in
the exposition repeat must strike the listener as a much smaller event than
the composed variants in the recapitulation.  Small wonder that with all
these dangers many people take the safe route and play carbon copies, but
a shame nevertheless.

Felix Delbruck
[log in to unmask]