Repeats in Older Recordings

[Richard Barrett]

Even in the repeated sections?

Well yes. You wouldn't want to change the notes, why would you want to change the repeats? There's always an opportunity to do things subtly differently when they return.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On the other hand, one function of repeats in this music was surely to maximise the audience's acquaintance with the musical material given that many if not most of them would never hear the piece again, a precaution which isn't necessary any more... and on yet another hand omitting repeats sometimes involves omitting first-time bars which might be thought essential to the music...

I go along with this. Brahms said as much and Dvorak was ambivalent. The question of first time bars is interesting, as these are usually there to avoid ugly and abrupt key changes in sonata form movements. Sometimes I feel these sound artificial, the composer having skilfully modulated to establish a new key, only for this to be rendered superfluous by playing it all over again. Where it does work is in concerto sonata form, where the orchestral exposition begins and ends in the tonic key, with the significant key change taking place in the second (varied) exposition with the soloist.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Even in the repeated sections?

Absolutely - Schubert (certainly in his last decade) knew what he was about. If someone's going to perform his work, they should perform his work, not their own "improvements" of it. Play what Schubert wrote, so that the listener gets a better idea of what he is doing - don't get between the composer and the audience by altering the structure. If the performer isn't convinced by the text, then don't play it.

[Pabmusic]

I go along with this. Brahms said as much and Dvorak was ambivalent. The question of first time bars is interesting, as these are usually there to avoid ugly and abrupt key changes in sonata form movements. Sometimes I feel these sound artificial, the composer having skilfully modulated to establish a new key, only for this to be rendered superfluous by playing it all over again. Where it does work is in concerto sonata form, where the orchestral exposition begins and ends in the tonic key, with the significant key change taking place in the second (varied) exposition with the soloist.

Dvorak's is an interesting case. He didn't include an exposition repeat in nos 7 & 8.* What this implies musr surely be that he thought the repeat in the New World (which he did include) was integral to the work, yet this is one that'a often omitted.

(* I think - scores not to hand.)

Infamously, the 1st time bracket in Mendelssohn Italian is more than 30 bars, so you miss a lot if you lose the repeat.

[Pabmusic]

The starting point must always be that if it's there you play it. However, I am open to persuasion very occasionally. Beethoven 5 (last mvt) is a case in point. That long crescendo with timps leading from the Scherzo ends in a blaze of C major (with trombones, piccolo and contra) at the start of the last mvt. I think that to repeat it without the build-up is an anticlimax. Or so I'd argue.

[Richard Barrett]

That long crescendo with timps leading from the Scherzo ends in a blaze of C major (with trombones, piccolo and contra) at the start of the last mvt. I think that to repeat it without the build-up is an anticlimax. Or so I'd argue.

On the other hand, if you don't repeat it the enormous closing passage can seem even more dominant (I mean tonic ) than it already is.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The starting point must always be that if it's there you play it. However, I am open to persuasion very occasionally.

Ultimately it's up to the performers if the composer is not there to be asked. If a conductor or soloist decides a repeat is better omitted for musical reasons, it shouldn't be regarded as a capital offence. Solti's Chicago Beethoven symphony cycle was the first to include every repeat, but Solti himself said he would prefer to omit a repeat in the third movement of the 7th symphony, but included it for consistency.

[seabright]

Anyone who bought the American RCA releases of two Reiner / Chicago SO Beethoven LPs (No. 6 on SB 6510 and No. 7 on SB 2010) will know that neither have the first movement repeats. However, when these recordings were issued in the UK on the Victrola label (VICS 1449 and VICS 1523 respectively) the repeats were there. This was because there are no "lead back" bars in either case, so the powers-that-be in the RCA London office decided to do what the score required by simply copying the tapes and splicing the repeats in at the start of each movement. The thorny question is of course whether they should have left the performance as Reiner had conducted it, or were right to observe those repeats in the score.

Incidentally, CRQ Editions CDs have come out with an "Eroica" broadcast conducted in 1968 by Robert Simpson. He contributed a preliminary talk in which he said Beethoven took the first movement repeat out and then put it back again. Simpson observed it in his performance and you can hear his little talk on You Tube. Incidentally he was observing the metronome marks and using Beethoven's original instrumentation long before Norrington and others came up with the same ideas ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-cnCOz-iNY&t=243s

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The thorny question is of course whether they should have left the performance as Reiner had conducted it, or were right to observe those repeats in the score.

Well - whilst I believe that Reiner should have chosen to follow Beethoven's instructions, I think that it is deceiving the customer for a record company to sell their wares using the conductor's name on the cover, but then not supply the performance he gave. (And I don't like "mechanical" repeats anyway - the repeat of the First Group needs to be "coloured" by the experience of what happens in the Second - the return is to know the place anew, if you like.)

We are indeed fortunate to be alive at a time when we can choose which performances suit how we wish to listen to the Music. I haven't attended a performance of a symphony where the conductor amputated a written repeat since Karajan's Brahms' #1 in 1986 - and many chamber Musicians nowadays give what the composer indicated: as recently as fifty years ago, audiences had much fewer opportunities to experience this.

[EdgeleyRob]

What are first time bars ?
Sorry if that is a silly question.

[mathias broucek]

You just have!

(Of course, of all Mahler's reconsiderings and mind-changes, the Exposition Repeat was never anything that he considered removing - and, as it is only the second time in the Ten/Eleven Symphonies that he did this, I don't think that ignoring it is a creditable option for performers.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What are first time bars ?
Sorry if that is a silly question.

The only thing "silly" about a question is if you don't ask it for fear of looking silly.

Many repeats just concern a number of bars - you play them, play them again (or not if you think you know better than the composer) then move on to the next bars. In some cases, a composer will alter the end of a section - sometimes just the last bar of a phrase, sometimes a huge section; the first time through you play this/these bars, on the repeat you miss out those bars and go to the alteration. The First time is marked in the score with a square bracket over the bar(s) and the words Prima volta (= Italian for "first time") or, for short 1ma___ ; the second time (Secunda volta, or 2da____ )



In works like Schubert's Bb major Piano Sonata, the Exposition repeat is led up to by some twenty or so bars of material that isn't heard before in the work, but which features in the Development section. If the performer is "convinced for Musical reasons" (whatever that means) that the repeat should be omitted, s/he has to go straight to the second time bar, missing out this new material (which all appears under a 1mo_____ sign).

[EdgeleyRob]

The only thing "silly" about a question is if you don't ask it for fear of looking silly.

Many repeats just concern a number of bars - you play them, play them again (or not if you think you know better than the composer) then move on to the next bars. In some cases, a composer will alter the end of a section - sometimes just the last bar of a phrase, sometimes a huge section; the first time through you play this/these bars, on the repeat you miss out those bars and go to the alteration. The First time is marked in the score with a square bracket over the bar(s) and the words Prima volta (= Italian for "first time") or, for short 1ma___ ; the second time (Secunda volta, or 2da____ )



In works like Schubert's Bb major Piano Sonata, the Exposition repeat is led up to by some twenty or so bars of material that isn't heard before in the work, but which features in the Development section. If the performer is "convinced for Musical reasons" (whatever that means) that the repeat should be omitted, s/he has to go straight to the second time bar, missing out this new material (which all appears under a 1mo_____ sign).

Thank you ferney,appreciated.
I don't understand why,if a composer indicates music is to be repeated,the performer doesn't follow the instruction as a matter of course.

[Pabmusic]

Not a silly question at all.

Remember that repeat signs are shortcuts saving the composer the need to write out a long passage again (though musicians too often think they mean the repeat is merely optional). But often the composer wants small differences between a passage and its repeat – usually at the end of the passage (preparation for a different tonality, for instance). This means the two passages aren’t quite identical, so first- and second-time brackets are used (and third-time, fourth-time, etc.). The bracket is horizontal with hooked ends that point downward; it sits above the bar(s) it applies to, and is identified by a number: 1 for the first play, 2 for the second, etc. (It could be “all verse except last” and “last verse only”.)

The important thing is that on the second time you skip over the first-time bracket and go straight to the second-time bracket. Therefore, if you’re not going to observe the repeat, the first-time bracket never gets played. I mentioned below that this can mean that quite large chunks of music never get heard in any form, because they exist only in a first-time bracket. Mendelssohn Italian is a classic – more than 30 bars in the first-time bracket (perhaps 20-30 seconds of music) that never resurfaces in the movement.

[Pabmusic]

The only thing "silly" about a question is if you don't ask it for fear of looking silly.

Many repeats just concern a number of bars - you play them, play them again (or not if you think you know better than the composer) then move on to the next bars. In some cases, a composer will alter the end of a section - sometimes just the last bar of a phrase, sometimes a huge section; the first time through you play this/these bars, on the repeat you miss out those bars and go to the alteration. The First time is marked in the score with a square bracket over the bar(s) and the words Prima volta (= Italian for "first time") or, for short 1ma___ ; the second time (Secunda volta, or 2da____ )



In works like Schubert's Bb major Piano Sonata, the Exposition repeat is led up to by some twenty or so bars of material that isn't heard before in the work, but which features in the Development section. If the performer is "convinced for Musical reasons" (whatever that means) that the repeat should be omitted, s/he has to go straight to the second time bar, missing out this new material (which all appears under a 1mo_____ sign).