Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Jocelyn Wang replies to me:
>
>>>1.  We don't know what the composer's will is, only what he wrote -
>>>quite another thing.
>>
>>Which is, no doubt, reflected in what he wrote.
>
>"No doubt?"  Of course there's doubt.  That's what this discussion
>has been about.

No, only you seem to have that doubt.  I haven't seen anyone else say that
what the composer wrote is not what he intended, even the antirepeatites.

Why you have that doubt is a mystery, something you still have not
explained clearly.

Moreover, to use your own argument against you: How do we know that you
mean what you say merely because you wrote it? If what one writes is not
necessarily what one means, then I really think no one has any reason to
take seriously anything you've written at all.

>>There is no basis to conclude otherwise.  If what he wrote is no
>>indication of what he wanted, why bother playing it at all?
>
>There's no basis to conclude your way either.  At least, you've
>offered none.

Yes, I have: see those two lines and two dots down on that score? The
composer put those there.  They mean to repeat that passage.

>In any case, I'm out of luck in that regard.  Bach and Beethoven (even
>Lutoslawski) aren't around to tell me what they intend.

They don't need to be.  They've left ample record of what they intended.

>... don't bring up an intention you don't know.

I do know the intent, because the composer left it there.

>You may very well prefer the score as you see it.  So may I.  In fact, I
>almost always do.  After all, the composer has thought about his work far
>more than I have.  On the other hand, I'm not obliged to, which seems to
>me to be what you're arguing.

Prefer whatever suits you.  Just don't mess up the art.

>So far, we two have been arguing about leaving out something that's
>there.  What about putting in something that's not there? This is an even
>bigger can of worms, since most of the elements of performance are not in
>the score, as you very well know.  Both are equally "unfaithful," by your
>criterion, and thus, if you were consistent on this point (which I don't
>accuse you of), you should condemn as well.

It depends on what it is you put in.  There have been instances where
repeats have been added where none were intended by the composer.  And,
yes, I'm against those.

If you're talking about certain nuances that the composer did not place
there, it is a given that some of those will take place that do not violate
the spirit of the art, and they are expected by the composer.  Beethoven
often spoke of tempo marks, for example, as being a base from which small
deviations can take place within a phrase.  And no composer of merit will
expect or desire a performer to put nothing of himself in the performance.
I never argued thusly, so your straw-man version of my position doesn't
have a leg to stand on.

>You might have a list of dispensations you're willing to extend.  You
>might simply pass over these little additions if you like them and think
>they enhance the score.  Probably most people - even those who talk about
>"faithfulness to the composer's intent" or even "to the score" - do this.

I have been consistent on this point that there are numerous
ways to play a passage well, but it has nothing to do with repeats.

>>..  that Beethoven, what a boob he was for putting in those repeats.
>>thank goodness we have the Steve Schwartzes of the world to rescue the
>>fool from his own incompetence and maintain the illusion of his brilliance.
>>In any case, you still have not provided a basis for determining that the
>>composer was in error.  Moreover, if he was such a poor judge of what form
>>his work should take, then he obviously couldn't have been that good a
>>composer, so why are we playing his music at all?
>
>This is just pique.

You are no more able to read my mind and conclude "pique" than I am able
to read yours and conclude anything.  Fortunately, with scores, we don't
have to read the composer's mind, we only have to read his score.

>As great a composer as Beethoven is, I know one thing he doesn't.  I know
>what I like.  I know I prefer the first piano concerto to the second.  No
>one really should care about what I like but me.  I'm also canny enough
>not to equate my likes with Artistic Truth and consequently I'm don't say
>Beethoven was an inferior composer.

Therefore, what you like has nothing to do with whether a repeat should be
observed.  What the composer likes, however, has everything to do with it.
Artistic Truth, at least insofar as the form that his own work should take,
lies with the composer, and no one else.

>On the other hand, it doesn't matter to me how good a composer people
>believe him to be.  When I say he miscalculates, I merely point to
>something in the score that doesn't work for me and I can point out the
>reason why.

And then do what? "Correct" it, like an orangutan trying to obviate flaws
in the theory of relativity?

In all the volumes you have written about this, you have yet to say
why Beethoven (or anyone else) failed.  On the other hand, it's his
composition, not yours, so it really doesn't matter.  Beethoven wrote
it, whether you like it or not.

>See Stirling Newberry's excellent post.

I haven't seen an excellent post by him on this thread.  In what I *have*
seen, he only said that things have changed that would justify omitting
repeats.  He did not specify what those were.

>>And name one composer whose reputation has been ruined by respecting his
>>score.  I won't hold my breath waiting for the answer.
>
>Any composer, right?  OK, Andrew Lloyd Webber.

How has his reputation been ruined? We can dislike or like them, but his
reputation has hardly suffered.  His bank account certainly hasn't.

>>However, performers who play a composer's works without the repeats are
>>doing so under false pretences, for they are presenting the work as if
>>it were what the composer intended.
>
>Only to someone who believes that that's what performers ought to do.  I
>don't, because I don't see how it's possible.  I do see how it's possible
>to follow all the marks in a score, or to try to.

Well, they're down there, and a good many performers do follow them.
Perhaps that's what rehearsal is for.

>To me, what performers do is realize their own expectations of a score.
>Given the range of performances, this probably differs from what a composer
>intends, although I have no idea what a dead composer intends, only what he
>writes.

AGAIN: Regarding repeats, and much else, it's what he wrote.  If it were
not, he'd have written something else.

>You're condemning all these things without having seen them.  Seems
>unreasonable because you don't know what's possible.  Why not see them
>first, and, if you don't like them, condemn them then? Hell, I can cry
>"shame on you" for all sorts of reasons against things I haven't seen.

I haven't eaten a vomit sandwich, either.  Shame on me for being so certain
of the outcome that I wouldn't try it.

>>You say that we don't lose the original just because such alterations are
>>made.  Well, sure, most recordings of "Eroica" do observe the repeats, but
>>how many do of the "Jupiter" symphony? Do we not lose the original?
>
>No, we don't.  If we had, you wouldn't be able to make that statement.

Where are all those "Jupiter" recordings recordings that observe all the
repeats then?

>>...  If he had intended something else, he would have written something
>>else.  Sheesh...
>
>Which is why composers, of course, never, ever revise.

It is for them, and only them, to revise.  It is, after all, their work.

For someone who wrote a zillion pages ago "Just this last, and I'm done"
you've certainly gone on.  But, then, I don't really know what you meant.
I only know what you wrote.

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