BaL 1.06.13 - Brahms Symphony no 2 in D

[BBMmk2]

What's the Harnoncourt like?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Note that most of Seabright's non-repeaters are "old school" europeans,

Is this a term of abuse. I wonder. 'Cos those "old schoolers" appear a mighty fine collection to me.

As for observing what the composer actually wrote, composers do sometimes change their minds. But it's often difficult to do anything about an engraved, printed and widely distributed full score.

[amateur51]

Adrian Boult generally advocated playing expo repeats, but left them out of his first (early 50s) Brahms symphonies because of the length of LPs in those days, and the fact that the usual fillers were to be included. (By the way, name-dropping badly, I know this because he told me so! )

Beautifully dropped, Pabs

[amateur51]

Yes, and Boult was one of those who would play Beethoven 5 WITH the finale repeat - but only, of course, if the trio had been repeated already. As Robert Simpson says: "...Boult has pointed out to me that a serious difficulty in observing the finale repeat is to avoid a sense of anticlimax with each return of the main theme. But he has himself convincingly demonstrated how with a skilful reservation of power each appearance of the theme can be increased in intensity..."

A question of choice and balance, perhaps, but for the listener (as opposed to a performer) the Beethoven 6 repeat is ESSENTIAL; otherwise those minimalist-like figurations through the development could almost be an anti-exposition, and that isolated minor-key moment in the recap would count for much less...

How many conductors are brave enough to play Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony with the repeat (heavenly long slow intro included?!)

Oh yes please

[Hornspieler]

Nice bit of research, thanks, seabright...

From my own shelves, these conductors all play the repeat:
SVETLANOV/USSRSO
HARNONCOURT/BERLIN PO
BERGLUND/COE
MANZE/HELSINGBORG SO
ZINMAN/ZURICH TONHALLE
JOCHUM/LPO

Note that most of Seabright's non-repeaters are "old school" europeans, as compared to the above (well, Jochum always did go his own way...).

Yes. Old school Europeans

Austrian or German most of them. So perhaps they were closer to the music than the Scandinavian, Russian, English and American interpreters listed above.

But I do concede that the amount of available track time, particularly with vynil LPs (or length of a concert programme) could be a deciding factor either way as to whether to include an exposition repeat.

HS

Edit: But it Shouldn't be.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Yes. Old school Europeans

Austrian or German most of them. So perhaps they were closer to the music than the Scandinavian, Russian, English and American interpreters listed above.

But I do concede that the amount of available track time, particularly with vynil LPs (or length of a concert programme) could be a deciding factor either way as to whether to include an exposition repeat.

HS

In the case of Brahms 2, it was easy enough to include the exposition repeat if the conductor so-wished - by pressing the 1st movement on side 1 and the others on side 2, as with the VPO/Kertesz.

[Rolmill]

Why do you think "Old School European" Brahms said it should be? Incompetence? Any other bars you think he mangled so badly that if we missed them out we'd be doing him a favour?

I read HS's postscript comment ("But it Shouldn't be") as referring back to:

...the amount of available track time, particularly with vynil LPs (or length of a concert programme) could be a deciding factor either way as to whether to include an exposition repeat.

not to the original question of whether the repeat should be taken.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On a related issue...
There used to be a theory that Elgar conducted his works faster to ensure that his works fitted neatly on to 78 sides. However, there was no evidence for this in the Elgar/Gaisberg correspondence. When Yehudi Menuhin was asked about it, he said quite categorically that it was untrue.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I read HS's postscript comment ("But it Shouldn't be") as referring back to:

...the amount of available track time, particularly with vynil LPs (or length of a concert programme) could be a deciding factor either way as to whether to include an exposition repeat.

not to the original question of whether the repeat should be taken.

In which case, I apologize to HS and withdraw my remarks, leaving them in your comment for the consideration of anyone who believes the repeat is a mistake.

[verismissimo]

... the repeat is a mistake.

Is there perhaps a little too much repetition in this thread?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is there perhaps a little too much repetition in this thread?

At least it keeps us off vibrato.

[verismissimo]

At least it keeps us off vibrato.

OK. OK.

[jayne lee wilson]

Is this a term of abuse. I wonder. 'Cos those "old schoolers" appear a mighty fine collection to me.

As for observing what the composer actually wrote, composers do sometimes change their minds. But it's often difficult to do anything about an engraved, printed and widely distributed full score.

My point about "Old School Europeans" (term of abuse?! talk about forcing the text...) as opposed to those Russians, Scandinavians etc., in their approach to Brahms 2, was that they had a tradition of performance which may indeed have been "closer to the music" but could also have settled into interpretative habit about repeats (and not only repeats...), and partly as a result of concert- and side-lengths.

My listed conductors were often coming to the music afresh, in some cases for the first time, and either saw the repeat as essential or saw no reason to leave it out. Their very different interpretations all have at least the merit of compelling you to listen anew, and mostly without straining for effect or originality.

If classical music is to stay alive, then it has to be made new every so often, or we stop hearing it and just rehearse our old responses.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If classical music is to stay alive, then it has to be made new every so often, or we stop hearing it and just rehearse our old responses.

Yes, indeed. But part of staying alive is evolution, and interpretations can evolve over time. Experience can be no more than repetition of old bad habits. But it can also be an accumulation of the ideas of great minds.
When a conductor chooses to ignore a repeat, I respect that, unless it's to save time.
In a sonata form movement, I consider the exposition repeat to be a structural flaw. At the risk of "repeating" myself, it seems nonsensical to spend 5 minutes carefully moving from one key base to another, and then suddenly dragging the music back to the start, and "saying" it all again. Short repeats in minuets make much more sense.
After reading the first few chapters of Pride and Prejudice, do you turn back to the beginning and start again? (I only do that with War and Peace.)

[aeolium]

Is there perhaps a little too much repetition in this thread?

I liked your gentle joke anyway, verismissimo