Repeats in Older Recordings

[Richard Barrett]

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.

Isn't that stretching the concept of market forces somewhat beyond the context in which it was introduced in this thread, that is to say the effect of record sales on whether performers would take repeats?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not quite accurate, Dave. Bach didn't have "copyists" as such - he had a family and a bunch of schoolstudents; he was essentially the equivalent of a Head of Department (and, with the exception of a few instrumental teachers) sole Music teacher (with additional responsibilities to teach Latin) at a secondary school (although the students were aged from about 13 to University age - which could, and did in a couple of instances, go up to 23). "Really serious appreciation of his work" is misunderstanding the respect Bach had for his duties as organist, teacher, and choirmaster, which itself was limited in that whenever he asked for help to improve Music-making he was never given the finances or resources he'd asked for (the plight of Heads of Music the nation over!) and he increasingly turned to the support of the Musicians of the University (some of them his ex-students) to gain the appreciation he lacked in his job. His compositions were peripheral (although he would have been in serious trouble had he failed to provide Music for regular Church and Civic services) - but there is evidence that the sung parts of the services were occasions for the congregation to chatter amongst themselves and catch up on business deals. It's entirely possible that if we were able to pop back in time to hear a Bach Cantata being performed by Bach and his students, we wouldn't be able to hear the Music for the noise of the congregation! (Which is one of the many reasons why it's incorrect to think that HIPP enthusiasts want to recreate the original performance conditions of the works.) And then there's the fact that we have lost a third of Bach's Music because, sadly, not enough people had the "really serious appreciation" for it that you say existed.

Not sure what this has to do with repeats, though.

[Bryn]

I don't have the time to check whether they were restored for the CD boxed set at the moment, but ISTR that the Franz Konwitschny/LGO Beethoven symphonies had many repeats in place when it first appeared on LP but lost many of them when re-issued on the bargain basement Fontana series, this in order to fit them on fewer sides, with, where possible, a symphony to a side.

[Dave2002]

I was shifting the emphasis as to whether the composer "is always right". Of course we should take the views, opinions, wishes of composers to heart - but that does not mean that composers have an absolute monopoly on what to do with their music. Many composers were well aware of the financial aspects of the music business, even a few centuries ago - examples - Handel, Haydn, though they may have reacted to the economics differently. Many composers were keen to rearrange their music so that their publishers could sell more sheet music. Some may have done this for other motives - for example Schumann, who wanted to promote domestic enjoyment and playing of his music, and that of other composers, but some were definitely interested in financial benefit for themselves, or their work. Thus composers may have had to compromise in order to achieve the "best" results - for whatever reasons - financial - dissemination of work etc. Some would have simplified parts to make them playable by amateur musicians - which in the longer term might have been to their advantage.

A particularly odd case is that of Vivaldi, as performed by the group Red Priest. Anyone familiar with their performances will understand that they bring a vitatlity to the music that many other groups do not, but are they faithful to the scores - the composer's intentions etc.? Does it matter? There is no doubt that the musicians in that group are extremely talented, but should their activities be curtailed because of someone's views about what the composer might have wanted?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that we should also take the composers' express intentions as communicated in their scores (combined with what is known of their own and their contemporaries' expectations) to mind, Dave. And when we have a Musical mind as astonishing as Mozart's (or Bach's or Beethoven's or any of a dozen or so other people) where the imagination is so superior to that of any performer of (in this case) K543, then you don't f ... mess it up with your own "interpretation": you present the Music (all of it) as well as you can, as near to the sounds that Mozart would have expected to hear.

Of course composers made arrangements to widen their audience/performer "base" and to bring in much-needed extra cash, and they may have had to "compromise" (to use your vocabulary) their original ideas to do so. But in what sense is that an excuse for others to do so? Why present to an audience a compromised version of their ideas - let alone one compromised by somebody born decades/centuries after the composer died? The only legitimate justification for this today is when a work is simplified for children and beginners' ensembles, to enable them to get to play a decent piece of Music - and they'll want to perform it for their family and friends. But nobody would suggest that this is a legitimate alternative to the original (even if the, for the parents of an eleven-year-old, that particular performance of Grieg's Hall of the Mountain King is the best that they'll ever hear, for all that Billy came in two bars early).

Red Priest certainly bring "a vitality" to their performances, and one that is valid in its own terms - but they don't (?do they?) pretend that what they're doing is an actual reproduction of something Vivaldi would have expected to hear: audiences know that what they're getting is Red Priest - just as Bernstein's later performances & recordings were more Bernstein than whoever. Greatly enjoyable, and legitimate arrangements - but (unless the original work is a dud) in no sense preferable to the original. Who could do better than Mozart in K543? Seriously?!

[Richard Barrett]

should their activities be curtailed

Nobody's musical activities "should be curtailed" for any such reason and nobody here is suggesting such a thing! but what a composer writes in his/her score for whatever motivation is surely of a different order of authoritativeness than whatever a performer decides to do with it centuries later. We speak of "historically informed performance" these days rather than the more categorical and questionable "authentic performance" of the 1960s and 1970s. For a performance to be historically informed seems to me unquestionably desirable when possible. On the other hand, deciding to omit repeats in performances of 18th and 19th century music is the result either of ignorance or dismissal of the available historical information (for example the score). Again, nobody is claiming that this should be "curtailed" but it should be called what it is.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'm just pleased that there are performances and recordings that do observe repeat markings to the letter. But I do not thing these are musically (or even morally) superior to those which do not. Two centuries of performing experience is not to be sniffed at, and I suggest 18th century composers would be amazed and thrilled that their music is still being played today.

[Richard Barrett]

They might also like their music played without repeats, but since they didn't write it that way and are unavailable for comment why not start from the basis of the text and our historical knowledge? Two centuries of performing experience with no such historical perspective until very recently can be sniffed at, I think. Otherwise you have interpretation of one past period through the prism of another.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm just pleased that there are performances and recordings that do observe repeat markings to the letter.

But I do not thing these are musically (or even morally) superior to those which do not.

"Musically" depends on which performance - Furtwangler's repeatless Eroica recordings I prefer to Loughran's (very fine) repeatful recording. (But Krivine's is better than them all - not just because of the repeats, but the fact that he starts with the assumption that the composer knew what he was doing in this and all other matters is significant.)

"Morally" - well, it's a heavy word, but as you've chosen to use it I'd say missing out anything in the score of an important piece of Music is as moral as selling a bottle of Lagavulin only 7/8 full.

I suggest 18th century composers would be amazed and thrilled that their music is still being played today.

Of course they would - and they'd be delighted to pick up a few of the royalties just as much. But they'd also be most thrilled with those performers that realized that what they wrote is worth hearing in full.