As far as I can tell, the proponents of the two sides in this debate are
actually arguing about two different things.  From what I understand,
Jocelyn is strongly against a performance of "Beethovens 3rd symphony"
without the repeats, but if the performance is specifically labelled as
either

   "Beethoven's 3rd symphony (without repeats)"
   "Beethoven's 3rd symphony (excerpts from)"
OR "Based on Beethoven's 3rd symphony" to be even more extreme,

then she would not object to the performance (as far as I can tell anyway.
I'm sure she'll correct me if I am mistaken).  At least by pointing out
in some way that this was not strictly what the composer wrote, then the
composer is not mis-represented in any way.

This sort of labelling does lead to a few interesting questions...  how
far should it go.  I agree that there should be some sort of labelling
for missing repeats (as well as which cadenza a piece uses for the case of
concertos) but what about the orchestration? If for instance a bassoon was
used instead of a contra-bassoon (not being very musically knowledgeable,
I have no idea whether this is a big difference) or if an extra violin was
added to the string section, should all of this information be added too?
What about Bach's "Toccata and Fugue"? I've heard that there is some
speculation that this was originally scored for violin.  Should this be
labelled as by Bach, or as a transcription?

Also, I am not exactly sure what people refer to as a repeat.  If there is
a few minutes gap between repetitions of a particular musical passage, is
this still called a repeat or do they have to be repeated consecutively? If
it is the latter, then I am one of those people who generally dislike the
repetitions, and don't see any need for it (if someone could explain in a
non-subjective fashion why they are useful, I'd be interested in hearing).
There are some cases though where I find them to enhance the music.

A particular instance I would like to bring up, where the repetitions in
fact make the music is Alkan's Etude Op31.  No1.  In fact, this piece is
the same seven notes repeated over and over again, but with different
timing, different relative volumes and different amounts of pedal (whatever
this is called musically).  I didn't even notice this repetition the first
time through (although it would probably be more obvious to others) since
it was made to sound so different.  This has become one of my favourite
Alkan works.  On the other hand, I have difficulty listening to some of his
other works due to the number of repeats (in which the pianist does not
seem to have varied playing style).

Are there any other works in which the repeats very strongly enhance the
work in this way?

Tristrom Cooke                | Editor of the Internet
[log in to unmask]  | Top 100 SF/Fantasy List