Repeats in Older Recordings

[seabright]

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.

Rachmaninov recorded his own 3rd Symphony on five 78s with the Philadelphia Orchestra but did not make the first movement repeat. It can't be argued that there was no room for it on the old shellac discs because in fact the work took 9 sides, not 10, with the last side left blank. I believe he also made a cut or two for good measure. I wonder how many other composers who've also conducted their own music have also had a change of mind about repeats and decided not to make them.

[Richard Barrett]

If the performer is "convinced for Musical reasons" (whatever that means) that the repeat should be omitted

This principle could usefully be applied in much of the work of Philip Glass I think.

[Richard Barrett]

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

I don't have anything to add to the replies you've already had, except to recommend this site http://www.teoria.com/ for questions regarding music theory in general - you might well enjoy just browsing around it too.

[ahinton]

This principle could usefully be applied in much of the work of Philip Glass I think.

Only "much" of it?(!)...

[Pabmusic]

Rachmaninov recorded his own 3rd Symphony on five 78s with the Philadelphia Orchestra but did not make the first movement repeat. It can't be argued that there was no room for it on the old shellac discs because in fact the work took 9 sides, not 10, with the last side left blank. I believe he also made a cut or two for good measure. I wonder how many other composers who've also conducted their own music have also had a change of mind about repeats and decided not to make them.

The record companies had most say; if they wanted 9 sides of symphony and one of - Vocalise, say - Rach probably had little choice.

[ahinton]

Rachmaninov recorded his own 3rd Symphony on five 78s with the Philadelphia Orchestra but did not make the first movement repeat. It can't be argued that there was no room for it on the old shellac discs because in fact the work took 9 sides, not 10, with the last side left blank. I believe he also made a cut or two for good measure. I wonder how many other composers who've also conducted their own music have also had a change of mind about repeats and decided not to make them.

OK, but Rachmaninov was a great one for making cuts and was indeed once admonished by his friend, compatriot and colleague Medtner over those that he made in his Fourth Piano Concerto (dedicated to Medtner) with the words "is music so bad a thing that the less of it the better?"...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This principle could usefully be applied in much of the work of Philip Glass I think.

Naughty! (But true.)

Of course, I apply my preferences about repeats only to Music worth hearing through the first time. There are many, many composers whose work benefit from judicious cuts - of around, say eight hundred bars or so, in some cases.

[Pulcinella]

I don't have anything to add to the replies you've already had, except to recommend this site http://www.teoria.com/ for questions regarding music theory in general - you might well enjoy just browsing around it too.

Richard
I just searched the site you linked to for 'First time bar', and discovered that I could earn £10--£20 per hour as a barista with no experience.

[P. G. Tipps]

I don't have anything to add to the replies you've already had, except to recommend this site http://www.teoria.com/ for questions regarding music theory in general - you might well enjoy just browsing around it too.

That's a marvellous site.

Though I was taught some music theory at school it was far too little and, in any case, I had my mind on what I considered to be much more interesting matters. In later years I have come to regret that ,especially as the 'other matters' turned out to be not nearly as interesting or long-lasting as I'd imagined. Oh, the sublime follies of youth!

It is never too late to learn, I suppose ...

[Petrushka]

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.

This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when starting this thread (which seems to have got diverted into the question of repeats generally) and I suspect that more examples could be found if both original LPs and fresh CD transfers could be compared.

The 1954 Jochum recording of the Mozart 39th which set me thinking, and this thread in motion, seems to be a genuine case of having a generous clutch of repeats but, like Richard Barrett, I had thought that repeats in recordings or concerts at that time simply were not done hence my surprise at finding them there. Indeed the first recordings I can recall of Mozart symphonies having ALL repeats intact were those conducted by Britten made in the late 1960s/early 1970s which created something of a stir.

In the LP era I think the repeat question was decided by a mix of what the conductor wanted and the restriction of a side length but if Jochum was giving repeats in 1954 mostly due to the whole symphony fitting on to a two sided LP then I do wonder if the tyranny of the studio has given us readings from conductors that are not genuinely as they would have wished them to be. Nowadays no restrictions apply so conductors can give as many, or few, repeats as they wish.

Abbado with the Orchestra Mozart follows Britten in their Mozart symphony recordings but note how Abbado makes subtle changes in the repeated sections, a joy to hear. I am less enamoured with their recording of the Schubert 9 which makes every single repeat making for an hour long symphony. In my view, the finale repeat in this symphony is a mistake: it sounds contrived and unnecessary but that's only my opinion.

[cloughie]

This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when starting this thread (which seems to have got diverted into the question of repeats generally) and I suspect that more examples could be found if both original LPs and fresh CD transfers could be compared.

The 1954 Jochum recording of the Mozart 39th which set me thinking, and this thread in motion, seems to be a genuine case of having a generous clutch of repeats but, like Richard Barrett, I had thought that repeats in recordings or concerts at that time simply were not done hence my surprise at finding them there. Indeed the first recordings I can recall of Mozart symphonies having ALL repeats intact were those conducted by Britten made in the late 1960s/early 1970s which created something of a stir.

In the LP era I think the repeat question was decided by a mix of what the conductor wanted and the restriction of a side length but if Jochum was giving repeats in 1954 mostly due to the whole symphony fitting on to a two sided LP then I do wonder if the tyranny of the studio has given us readings from conductors that are not genuinely as they would have wished them to be. Nowadays no restrictions apply so conductors can give as many, or few, repeats as they wish.

Abbado with the Orchestra Mozart follows Britten in their Mozart symphony recordings but note how Abbado makes subtle changes in the repeated sections, a joy to hear. I am less enamoured with their recording of the Schubert 9 which makes every single repeat making for an hour long symphony. In my view, the finale repeat in this symphony is a mistake: it sounds contrived and unnecessary but that's only my opinion.

I can remember when Fontana, ie Phillips, decided to butcher Konwitschny's Beethoven in order to fit on to LPs reissues for Fontana Stereo Special so that 7 & 8 went on a single side and then to fit 6 & 9 on two LPs without splitting 9,3 put a side split, if my memory serves, between 6,3 and 6,4. Also Sym 2 and I think 4 were cut to fit single sides. I cannot be sure without checking whether the original masters were used for the CD remasters.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I do wonder if the tyranny of the studio has given us readings from conductors that are not genuinely as they would have wished them to be.

Live recordings (of Furtwangler and Klemperer, for example) suggest that, for them at least, it wasn't a record company's decision - and I can't imagine Karajan being told by a record company what to include/omit from a score! I think the late 19th Century, post-Wagnerian idea of what Classical Music (the real, 18th Century stuff) should go like has more to do with it. But there were conductors who had the individuality and respect to humbly suggest that the composers knew what worked best for them. Boult was one, if his recordings from the '70s are representative of his general attitude, and so, it would seem, was Jochum - which I'm delighted to hear.

Abbado with the Orchestra Mozart follows Britten in their Mozart symphony recordings but note how Abbado makes subtle changes in the repeated sections, a joy to hear.

I am less enamoured with their recording of the Schubert 9 which makes every single repeat making for an hour long symphony. In my view, the finale repeat in this symphony is a mistake: it sounds contrived and unnecessary but that's only my opinion.

Yup; sure is. (I'm with Schubert and Abbado - and Boult, and Loughran, and Goodman.)

[EdgeleyRob]

I don't have anything to add to the replies you've already had, except to recommend this site http://www.teoria.com/ for questions regarding music theory in general - you might well enjoy just browsing around it too.

Thank you Richard.

[EdgeleyRob]

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.

Thank you pabs.

[EdgeleyRob]

This is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when starting this thread (which seems to have got diverted into the question of repeats generally) and I suspect that more examples could be found if both original LPs and fresh CD transfers could be compared.

The 1954 Jochum recording of the Mozart 39th which set me thinking, and this thread in motion, seems to be a genuine case of having a generous clutch of repeats but, like Richard Barrett, I had thought that repeats in recordings or concerts at that time simply were not done hence my surprise at finding them there. Indeed the first recordings I can recall of Mozart symphonies having ALL repeats intact were those conducted by Britten made in the late 1960s/early 1970s which created something of a stir.

In the LP era I think the repeat question was decided by a mix of what the conductor wanted and the restriction of a side length but if Jochum was giving repeats in 1954 mostly due to the whole symphony fitting on to a two sided LP then I do wonder if the tyranny of the studio has given us readings from conductors that are not genuinely as they would have wished them to be. Nowadays no restrictions apply so conductors can give as many, or few, repeats as they wish.

Abbado with the Orchestra Mozart follows Britten in their Mozart symphony recordings but note how Abbado makes subtle changes in the repeated sections, a joy to hear. I am less enamoured with their recording of the Schubert 9 which makes every single repeat making for an hour long symphony. In my view, the finale repeat in this symphony is a mistake: it sounds contrived and unnecessary but that's only my opinion.

An hour of Schubert 9 is still not enough for me Pet.