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

>Justifications:

Just because you shoot at the basket doesn't mean you score two points.

>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.  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 is no ambiguity about the intent of
repeats, with the possible exception of some works in which the composer
makes it clear that they are to be considered optional.

As was brought up in the earlier go-round of this topic, your view is
highly speculative at best.  By adopting it, one compels every composer
to say, "Yes, I really do mean repeat it" with all of his repeats.  Shall
we have him do that with everything else regarding his work? "Yes, I really
do mean crescendo" "Yes, I really do mean ritardando" "Yes, I really do
mean eighth-note" "Yes, I really do mean F#." Then why do it with repeats?
That is ludicrously impractical.  Given the specificity of the repeat sign,
if the composer wished it to mean something other than to repeat a passage,
such as incorporating the option of the performer to do so, then it is
incumbent on the composer to do so.  Unless the composer makes it known
that a repeat is to be considered optional, then it ought to, and does,
mean simply to repeat.

>2.  The composer may want something worse than is possible.  In that case,
>since aesthetics is about better and worse, go with better.

Yeah, right, 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?

>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.

There is nothing to justify a change in attitude toward what the composer
intended his work to be.  No one, not you or anyone on this thread, has
specified exactly what it is that has changed that would musically warrant
omitting a repeat.

And name one composer whose reputation has been ruined by respecting his
score.  I won't hold my breath waiting for the answer.

>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).

There would be no illusion that the Kazoo Concertgebouw Orchestra was not
playing the "Eroica" as Beethoven intended, but, rather, an arrangement
for plastic Cracker-Jack prizes.  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.

>There are lots of people eager to limit one's musical choices for all
>sorts of virtuous reasons which will undoubtedly reward them in musical
>heaven.  They are free to disapprove.  However, music isn't about approval,
>but enjoyment.

Sure, and wouldn't Casablanca have been better if Bogie had gotten
the girl? Why did all those people have to die in "Hamlet," it was so
depressing.  And wouldn't Mona Lisa be a much cooler painting if she were
making out with Venus on the half-shell? Such artistic vandalism should not
be condoned.

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?

Don't go saying we still have the manuscript, because, as you have
truistically pointed out, music does not exist on paper, but as sound.

>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.

Which IS what he wrote.  If he had intended something else, he would have
written something else.  Sheesh...

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