Repeats in Older Recordings

[Richard Barrett]

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

That's a work I've never got to grips with, not because it's repetitive but because it seems to me the material of the finale is a bit weak (by Schubert's standards!) to begin with. But now I think I'll give it a spin in the hope of changing my mind.

[cloughie]

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

I'm with you there edge. It was a work I loved at first hearing at age 14 and still do.

[Dave2002]

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.

Lucky you weren't looking for a nurse!

Re Schubert 9 I've always loved it, but I know of others who hated the over the railway tracks accompaniment which just goes on and on and ......

Re my earlier comments re Schubert and second or third time repeats is that not one work where at least some of the repeats are not always played? Also, is it really mandatory to play all the repeats every time - for example in an ABABA structure (maybe scherzo+trio or perhaps minuet with trio) format? In days when I did plaY frequently, I thought we were often told to go to the 2nd time round bar on the second or third repeat - possibly erroneously, but it was frequently a scramble of page turning and inaccuracies as some of us (not always me) usually forgot.

In the end I think it is up to the performers. Mozart and Schubert and others are all now dead, so it's modern tastes which will decide. I mention Mozart as I think the 29th Symphony must have repeats which are not always played. A lovely symphony, but I believe I once heard a very extended version - presumably with all the repeats "strictly" observed. It did start to feel unduly expansive. I also have sneaking feeling that Benjamin Britten's recording of Mozart's 40th was also much extended.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Re my earlier comments re Schubert and second or third time repeats is that not one work where at least some of the repeats are not always played?

Well, of course it is - as is the Bb Piano Sonata O mentioned earlier. Not sure what your point is here, Dave - the fact that sometimes/often repeat marks are ignored doesn't illustrate that they should be (or "shouldn't") all the time. Nobody's ever suggested that ignoring the composers' directions never occurs, either.

Also, is it really mandatory to play all the repeats every time - for example in an ABABA structure (maybe scherzo+trio or perhaps minuet with trio) format? In days when I did plaY frequently, I thought we were often told to go to the 2nd time round bar on the second or third repeat - possibly erroneously, but it was frequently a scramble of page turning and inaccuracies as some of us (not always me) usually forgot.

Again I'm not sure what your point is here, Dave. It isn't "mandatory" (alas) to trust the composers' judgements and never has been - performers abound who live the happiest (and sometimes most financially rewarding) lives deluding themselves that they know better than Beethoven/Schubert/whomsoever and presenting Readers' Digest Condensed versions of their works.

In the end I think it is up to the performers.

Indeed - I said much the same earlier - but I do wish they'd announce in pre-publicity what their attitude to such matters is, so that audiences can choose to attend/avoid those not to their requirements of the works on the programme.

Mozart and Schubert and others are all now dead, so it's modern tastes which will decide. I mention Mozart as I think the 29th Symphony must have repeats which are not always played.

I think that you need have no hesitation in stating confidently that there are and have been many performances in which the composers' written requirements are ignored by performers.

A lovely symphony, but I believe I once heard a very extended version - presumably with all the repeats "strictly" observed. It did start to feel unduly expansive.

To everybody in the audience? Absolutely no one was thinking "At last! This is the performance I've been waiting all my life to hear!"?

I also have sneaking feeling that Benjamin Britten's recording of Mozart's 40th was also much extended.

Well, it was rather slow (much slower than Furtwangler's tempi) so even without the repeats it went on rather. But again, many people prize this recording as highly as any they've heard.

[Dave2002]

So it's really all your opinion then, fhg! Nothing wrong with that, but still opinion.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So it's really all your opinion then, fhg! Nothing wrong with that, but still opinion.

... and, of course, the composers'.

It's also my opinion that War & Peace would benefit from losing about 100 pages of Tolstoy's flawed theories of history, but I'd be incensed if a bookshop owner sold me a copy with those pages torn out.

[Richard Barrett]

... and, of course, the composers'

Yes, let's not forget about that lot. As I said before, in general you wouldn't advocate changing the notes of a piece to accord with "modern tastes" - what's different about changing the repeats?

(offtopic addition) - I found a live performance on Youtube of Schubert 9 conducted by Marc Minkowski, which I very much enjoyed, enough in fact to want urgently to hear the rest of his Schubert set as soon as possible. I realise that my lack of engagement with the work is nothing to do with it being too long (and this is a relatively fast performance as you'd expect, less than 55 minutes) or too repetitive, but with its relative lack of expressive complexity. Am I wrong about this?

[mathias broucek]

... 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...

Actually two sides of a 10" LP /pedantic

[Dave2002]

I'm not suggesting we should disregard what might have been a composer's intentions completely ... though https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2QtOqf20qg

Most of the time we have no very strong idea what composers really wanted - a lot is conjecture. The HIPP movement - with which I'm largely in favour - may have got some things very wrong. It is very possible that composers of earlier years only had the barest conception of what their music would sound like played by experts on decent instruments. A recent trip to the Bach museum - fascinating place - led me to think that perhaps Bach never did get to hear much of his music played really well. THe HIPP movement has led to some very accomplished musicians playing on either old instruments, or facsimile instruments, but perhaps to standards that would have been impossible in Bach's time, and he may only have dreamed of some of the sounds which are now possible, either on modern instruments, or from "authentic" ensembles. Arguments against HIPP have been going on for many years - modern instruments are better ... Bach would have used a piano if he'd had one .... and a synthesiser and a computer based DAW etc. too no doubt. Beethoven might have loved the 21st Century - but this is all conjecture.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not suggesting we should disregard what might have been a composer's intentions completely ... though https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2QtOqf20qg

Merely suggesting that performers have the right to select which of the very clear composer's intentions they wish to observe?

[Dave2002]

Merely suggesting that performers have the right to select which of the very clear composer's intentions they wish to observe?

Market forces. I"m only putting forward an alternative view for you to hit at. Performers who don't provide what the market "wants" will starve, or at least remain relatively poor. It's 21st Century taste which will determine the outcome.

Of course success isn't only measured by money, or even acclaim during one's lifetime, and there may be several examples of composers whose success while they were alive was relatively limited - though probably most did have some success during their lives. Bizet is an example of a composer who may have had limited success - but greater luck posthumously. His Carmen is one of the most successful operas ever, yet he could not have known that. His delightful Symphony in C was only performed in the 20th Century I believe. There are doubtless others.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Market forces. I"m only putting forward an alternative view for you to hit at. Performers who don't provide what the market "wants" will starve, or at least remain relatively poor. It's 21st Century taste which will determine the outcome.

I really doubt that market forces has much to do with it. I would think that most people don't feel too strongly about it.

[Dave2002]

I really doubt that market forces has much to do with it. I would think that most people don't feel too strongly about it.

Most people don't seem to like music much, so in that sense I agree with you. In a restricted market - of those who even have a vague interest in what we might call music, there will be some economic drivers which will influence all participants - composers, performers, listeners - plus hangers on who may have no significant interest in music per se, but who may derive some possible economic benefits from it.

[Richard Barrett]

THe HIPP movement has led to some very accomplished musicians playing on either old instruments, or facsimile instruments, but perhaps to standards that would have been impossible in Bach's time

That's a big "perhaps", given that the repertoire of Bach's musicians consisted very largely of Bach and didn't have to include several centuries of repertoire from numerous different strands of musical tradition, so that these people were "specialised" in a way hardly any "classical" musicians are these days.

I think you're massively overestimating the impact of "market forces" on decisions made by musicians. Everyone is different in this regard. Bach for example never had to contend with market forces. If he had, his work may have ended up being compromised thereby, or it may not; there are plenty of examples of both.

[Dave2002]

Bach was very talented, but also had a lot of people helping him in Leipzig. I did not know the scale of the operations before visiting the Bach museum there. Whether those people - many were effectively music students or musicians, actually did reduce his effort significantly we can't be sure (many cooks ....) but it seems likely that he was able to produce his work much more quickly because of the support he had. This would not have been possible if there hadn't been a really serious appreciation of his work, enabling him to run music in at least three churches. He had support from copyists and others who would have made his composing somewhat easier. He probably also had other support to train the orchestras and the choirs he was involved with.

Having said that, I still don't know how he coped. He obviously was a genius.

There were "market forces" in operation though, as it was clear that there was a very strong interest in having him in Leipzig, which some parties were willing to pay for.