BaL 1.06.13 - Brahms Symphony no 2 in D

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Sorry ferney, but, as Akiralx attests, Abbado really does observe the repeat. Apart from the fact that his performance of the first movement takes almost 21 minutes (which would be extraordinarily slow without the repeat), the other big clue is that after 5 minutes and 22 seconds, the orchestra plays the exposition again.

erm ... could I borrow that emoticon for a moment, please, AP?

Ah, thank you ...



Where on earth did I ...

Oh; never mind.

[Andrew Preview]

erm ... could I borrow that emoticon for a moment, please, AP?

Ah, thank you ...

Never mind - I had that kind of day on Monday. And again on Tuesday...

[Nick Armstrong]

...the other big clue is that after 5 minutes and 22 seconds, the orchestra plays the exposition again

Like your style, Mr Preview

Sorry ferns

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Like your style, Mr Preview

Sorry ferns

I can take it! (I'd like to blame the Tallisker, but no one would believe it - least of all me!)

As "punishment", I'm playing the Abbado disc (and, yes, he does) - and it's magnificent! The recording has excellent detail and "width"; the playing is superb; the tempi sound exactly right. This is going to be very hard to "beat"!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

He does - comes in at a few seconds under 21mins - how much more do you want?

Apologies, aki, for completely missing the point you were making here: that I can blame on the Talisker!

[Pabmusic]

Gosh! I didn't know that Kertesz's performance was so bad that it made listeners want to avoid the Expo repeat! And, as I'm sure you know, the Expo repeat has nothing to do with "drill[ing] the basic material into the listeners' minds" (before going on to develop it) - but with the architecture and timing of events. Reaching bar 233 too early (which is the inevitable result of omiting the repeat) is equivalent to reaching a climax too early in other aspects of life. It's sort-of okay, but rather disappointing when one's expectations have been aroused so well.

And Brahms was quite capable of leaving out Expo repeats when they weren't essential, as you'll remember from your "A"-Level studies - there isn't one in the First Movement of the Fourth Symphony.

A good post with an excellent analogy - how to avoid premature recapitulation.

The 'Brahms repeats' case is not quite as straightforward as that for the New World - there, Dvorak put one in, having left them out in his previous two symphonies, so there's absolutely no excuse to drop the New World repeat. But Dvorak was no lover of expo repeats and there's correspondence with Brahms about just this, but ... I can't find it.

Norman del Mar is interesting about Brahms 2 (he's probably writing in the 1970s, though it didn't appear in print till 1993):

"Until recently the repeat in this symphony, as in the C minor, was never observed, so that the touchingly lovely first-time bars have taken on the quality of a discovery. There is much to be said therefore for restoring them if the programme's overall length and structure will permit, despite any reservations one might have over the introductory nature of those mysterious early bars" (Conducting Brahms, Oxford 1993).

[seabright]

None of the early pre-LP recordings of Brahms's 2nd, whether commercially recorded or off the radio, observe the first movement repeat and they include the likes of the great 'literalist' Toscanini. Somewhere it has been stated that Brahms told Weingartner not to make it, so he never did. It's called "changing my mind", something that composers have every right to do along with anyone else. Look at the many various different editions and versions of works, from Tchaikovsky's three versions of "Romeo and Juliet" to the various editions of Vaughan Williams's "London" Symphony.

It has also been stated in print somewhere that Dvorak changed his mind about the repeat in the "New World" first movement and evidently wrote on the manuscript "Don't make it!" (or words to that effect). It's then just a question of observing the published score, or taking note of any evidence of changed minds and going along with a composer's revised opinions. It will be interesting to see if Stephen Johnson has dug out the reference to the Brahms / Weingartner conversation as it would be useful to have it verified!

[Pabmusic]

None of the early pre-LP recordings of Brahms's 2nd, whether commercially recorded or off the radio, observe the first movement repeat and they include the likes of the great 'literalist' Toscanini. Somewhere it has been stated that Brahms told Weingartner not to make it, so he never did. It's called "changing my mind", something that composers have every right to do along with anyone else. Look at the many various different editions and versions of works, from Tchaikovsky's three versions of "Romeo and Juliet" to the various editions of Vaughan Williams's "London" Symphony.

It has also been stated in print somewhere that Dvorak changed his mind about the repeat in the "New World" first movement and evidently wrote on the manuscript "Don't make it!" (or words to that effect). It's then just a question of observing the published score, or taking note of any evidence of changed minds and going along with a composer's revised opinions. It will be interesting to see if Stephen Johnson has dug out the reference to the Brahms / Weingartner conversation as it would be useful to have it verified!

Good points, yet the Dvorak story may not be true (at least, as you tell it). I have a copy of the autograph score, which has no indication that the repeat should not be observed, neither does Burghauser's 1960 catalogue mention it.. And in any case, a composer's suggestion, given on one occasion, may not represent the final word. Certainly in the case of the New World, to not observe the repeat unbalances the whole work (just check the timings). Do remember, too, that pre-LP recordings may have been affected by the cost of producing an extra side or two of music.

[mikealdren]

Norman del Mar is interesting about Brahms 2 (he's probably writing in the 1970s, though it didn't appear in print till 1993):

"Until recently the repeat in this symphony, as in the C minor, was never observed, so that the touchingly lovely first-time bars have taken on the quality of a discovery. There is much to be said therefore for restoring them if the programme's overall length and structure will permit, despite any reservations one might have over the introductory nature of those mysterious early bars" (Conducting Brahms, Oxford 1993).

I played it under Norman in 1970 in my local youth orchestra, I guess we didn't repeat although I can't remember with or without Talisker! Norman's larger than life personality and the Brahms did have a lasting impression and I've always loved the work. I've also always enjoyed the 1960s Karajan BPO performance.

Mike

[BBMmk2]

New upstart coming along here, methinks :)

[amateur51]

Never mind - I had that kind of day on Monday. And again on Tuesday...

Most generously done, Mr Privet

It happens to us all some time, ferney

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Somewhere it has been stated that Brahms told Weingartner not to make it, so he never did.

"Stated" where, by whom and in what circumstances? There's a big difference between a composer deciding (after hearing a work in performance a few times) deciding that passages need revising/trimming/re-scoring and adding those details to his/her score for future performances, and a composer in a moment of depression trying to get rid of a nagging correspondent so he can go for a beer. There is nothing in the ms score of Brahms' first three Symphonies to suggest that the composer decided that the repeats were superflous. There is everything in the Music to demonstrate that the Expo repeats are an essential a part of the structure of the whole four-movement work. (Pace "the great literalist" Toscanini, who added horn parts to the Missa Solemnis and pedal-tuned Timpani to bash out the First Group melody at the Recap in the First Movement of the Eighth Symphony. It's called "having an off day", something that conductors have every right to experience along with everyone else.)

It has also been stated in print somewhere that Dvorak changed his mind about the repeat in the "New World" first movement and evidently wrote on the manuscript "Don't make it!" (or words to that effect). It's then just a question of observing the published score, or taking note of any evidence of changed minds and going along with a composer's revised opinions.

I agree without reservation, but again, there is a difference between "evidence" and "hearsay".

[LeMartinPecheur]

I agree without reservation, but again, there is a difference between "evidence" and "hearsay".

All hearsay is evidence (though in some contexts - esp. UK criminal law - not admissible evidence), but not all evidence is hearsay

[Nick Armstrong]

All hearsay is evidence (though in some contexts - esp. UK criminal law - not admissible evidence), but not all evidence is hearsay

I'm reeling slightly from coming to read about Brahms and finding a discussion about evidence

Bear in mind that hearsay can sometimes be admissible, as it can be stronger than direct evidence, e.g. when it's about an individual's state of mind... "A third party's hearsay evidence of what X said at the time are often more trustworthy evidence of X's then state of mind than X’s direct testimony give after a lapse of time and under the influence of self- interest."

[amateur51]

"Stated" where, by whom and in what circumstances? There's a big difference between a composer deciding (after hearing a work in performance a few times) deciding that passages need revising/trimming/re-scoring and adding those details to his/her score for future performances, and a composer in a moment of depression trying to get rid of a nagging correspondent so he can go for a beer. There is nothing in the ms score of Brahms' first three Symphonies to suggest that the composer decided that the repeats were superflous. There is everything in the Music to demonstrate that the Expo repeats are an essential a part of the structure of the whole four-movement work. (Pace "the great literalist" Toscanini, who added horn parts to the Missa Solemnis and pedal-tuned Timpani to bash out the First Group melody at the Recap in the First Movement of the Eighth Symphony. It's called "having an off day", something that conductors have every right to experience along with everyone else.)


I agree without reservation, but again, there is a difference between "evidence" and "hearsay".

I love it when ferney borrows Rumpole's wig