Michael Cooper <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Can we be sure that if they were selling Sony Discmans in the streets of
>Salzburg, that Mozart would have directed that all recordings of his works
>have the repeats relentlessly observed?

Once again, the idea of composers saying to themselves, "I can't wait for
the advent of advanced recording methods so I can dispense with these pesky
repeats" is absurd.  The fact is that modern composers do have these at
their disposal, and they continue to emply repeats.

>And of course, if we're to insist on taking the repeats in Bach's
>concertos, make sure they're played on harpsichord, too.

If they are played on something other than the harpsichord, then we are
not likely to mistake it for its original version.  There's nothing wrong
with transposing for other instruments, because the one who is doing the
transposing is not trying to pass it off as the composer's original--
Ravel's (or anyone else's) orchestration of "Pictures at an Exhibition"
for example.  But a performer who ignores repeats is passing it off as
the composer's intent, and that's just plain wrong.

>Now, don't think that I'm violently opposed to repeats.  For example,
>I agree with the general notion that without the repeat at the opening
>of Beethoven's Fifth, the exposition is too short, not taking it's proper
>weight against the other sections of the movement.  But the repeat in the
>last movement, to stick with the same example, I think would be up to the
>conductor.

Beethoven disagrees with conductors who do not observe his repeats, and his
opinion carries more weight than everyone else's combined.

>There is little else in music that we have been as saturated with as
>this work, to the point that we are all quite familiar with what sort of
>interpretation suits us, and immediately pick up nuances in a performance
>new to our ears.

That may be true of aficionados, you forget that, given the rampant musical
ignorance of the MTV generation (who think that Beethoven is a large dog),
the vast majority of people have never listened to this work from beginning
to end even once, let alone repeatedly.  What of those who are hearing it
for the first time, as will be the case at any concert, or for anyone
buying their first recording of it? This work is not familiar to them at
all.

>OTOH, I might take the repeat anyway.  A second time around may help
>to endear the listener to the peculiarities of my own interpretation.
>And although in Beethoven significant differences in the approach to the
>material in the repeat would no doubt be inappropriate, it may delight the
>more refined ear to take the sforzandos a little more forcibly, to take
>broaden the ritards a hair more, and such.

Which is perfectly acceptable, given that there are more ways than one to
play a passage well.

>And of course, the chord change at the beginning of the development is
>exciting when we were expecting it to lead to back the the tonic.  (The
>first hundred times, anyway.)

And the second hundred, and the third...  great music will reveal something
new to the attentive listener each time.

>I think each individual case is different, and it's up to the performer
>to research.  Of course, my favorite pianists include Friedman and
>Moiseiwitsch, so I rarely to object to *informed* taking of liberties.

And what information, other than the consent of the composer, would justify
eliminating repeats? No one has come up with anything that would justify it
in this entire thread.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: www.bigfoot.com/~CulverMusic

YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.