Peter Goldstein wrote:

>I'm entirely new to the list, so if this is a topic that's been dealt
>with in detail, I apologize.

Please ignore that sound you just heard--it was just a number of our List
members leaving the room, screaming.....

>I'm interested in people's views on taking repeats, particularly in the
>works of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and their contemporaries.  It seems as
>if performers take more repeats now than in the past, particularly in fast
>movements--on the other hand, many slow movement repeats and second repeats
>are still left out (looking at the score for the first time, I was shocked
>to discover that the finale of the Jupiter symphony repeats both sections).
>What should be the criteria? What is the value of repeats?

The criteria is IMHO what the conductor thinks is the proper proportions
for the work, taking into account the indications in the score, the sense
of balance that obeying those repeat signs do or do not bring to the
performance, etc.  Some of the increased attention to repeat signs is a
result of HIP influences--note that some conductors who do take them also
tend toward more lively tempos than was the case 30 years ago, so the
result isn't necessarily that the length of the piece will be doubled.

There may be also a technological reason, at least in recorded
performances.  The longer play times of CDs allows easy inclusion of a
symphony with all repeats observed, whereas "cramming" two Classical era
symphonies onto a single LP disk could admittedly be made easier by
skipping repeats.

To my mind, it's a combination of a judgement call and scholarship.  You
have to decide whether the conductor's discretion fits your own sense of
the work in question.

Bill H.