Jocelyn Wang replies to me:

>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.

"No doubt?"  Of course there's doubt.  That's what this discussion has been
about.

>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.  As to "why bother," why do you normally play something? I play
because I enjoy it.  I don't need to know the composer's intent to do so.
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.

>There is no ambiguity about the intent of repeats,

More accurately, there is no ambiguity about the *meaning* of repeats.

>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?

Not at all.  On the other hand, don't bring up an intention you don't know.
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.

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.  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.

>>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?

This is just pique.  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.  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.  I doubt
any of us, including Beethoven (who, God knows, produced enough of it)
knows what Great Art really is as a Platonic form.  We do know what we like
and, in some cases, why we like it.

>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.

See Stirling Newberry's excellent post.

>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.

>>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.

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.  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.  I do
know that the kazoo band differs from the score, because even though I am
an idiot, I can certainly hear something that gross.  But I haven't done my
job as a listener until I consider the performance itself.  Certainly, the
closeness of the performance to the score is a consideration, but there are
many others.  Furthermore, you seem to view performances as bound to follow
a kind of "truth in lending" act.  It's very, very easy to satisfy yourself
about how closely a performance realizes the literal score.  As I say, the
really hard work of evaluating the performance remains.

>>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'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.

>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.

>>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...

Which is why composers, of course, never, ever revise.

Steve Schwartz