BaL 1.06.13 - Brahms Symphony no 2 in D

[verismissimo]

I liked your gentle joke anyway, verismissimo

Merci.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

But it can also be an accumulation of the ideas of great minds.

There aren't many "greater minds" than that of Brahms, who oversaw many editions of his works in his lifetime, sometimes altering details, sometimes arranging for different instruments - not once in his life did he excise an Exposition repeat when he had an opportunity to do so.

When a conductor chooses to ignore a repeat, I respect that, unless it's to save time.

Why? Which conductor can you name whose Musical judgement was superior to Brahms'?

In a sonata form movement, I consider the exposition repeat to be a structural flaw.

Fine: miss them out of your symphonies. Brahms disagreed with you; his Music still does.

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.

But, with the need to repeat myself, this isn't what happens in Brahms' sonata expositions. He has carefully designed the structure so that climaxes occur at precise moments that are lost when Exposition repeats are ignored. He was quite capable of knowing when repeats were necessary and when they were harmful: the Finale of the Second (as you'll remember from your "A"-Level studies) doesn't need one structurally, so he doesn't write one in. The first movement does, so he does write one in. The First Movement of the Fourth similarly doesn't need the repeat, so similarly doesn't have a repeat mark. He's Brahms, for goodness' sake, not some half-wit deferring to an outdated tradition, but one of the greatest Symphonic minds the world has ever known! Stop treating him like an idiot child with comments like

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.)

... which does you no favours when you've just stated that"short repeats in minuets make much more sense" - so, when you reach two-thirds of the way through Pride & Prejudice, do you read a page, then repeat it then read the next two, repeat those before reading page 4, repeat ... well, you get the idea! Literary time is a different matter entirely from Musical architecture.

I - V - I - V - tonal flux - V - I is perfect Musical sense, allowing new insights from hearing the First Group material immediately after the Second Group, just as the Second Group has been heard in relation to the First. And, in this most beautiful of Brahms' symphonic First Movements (the apotheosis of the Waltz) the way the First Group returns in new light after the Second group, and the way the Development suggests a third hearing, only to be lost in the heartbreaking lurch away ... well, it's so masterly that to reduce the moment to a "dragging the Music back to the start and 'saying' it all again" is so far from Brahms' achievement in the work!

[cloughie]

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.)

Not necessarily a rational or musical response but if it is a work I particularly like I want savour it and any repeats make it last longer. I think this is probably why I dislike slow movements taken too quickly.

[Pabmusic]

This business about repeats has certainly taken off.

I am continually puzzled by the attitude that accepts the omission of repeats without question. It is as if the very presence of repeat markings makes the music they contain optional. What? No-one teaches that repeat signs signify that they contain a passage that can be left out - instead they teach that the composer used a shortcut to save writing the passage out twice.

If the composer had written the exposition repeat out in full, would we still be cutting passages out? "I'll do Brahms 2, but get the librarian to block out 178 bars of the first movement". Well, you'd need a very good reason, such as clear evidence that the composer changed his mind, and in the case of Brahms 2 I don't think such unequivocal evidence exists.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i do hope the programme on next Saturday lives up to this thread!

[Sir Velo]

I speak here as the world's no. 1 Elgar fan.

I hadn't realised Michael Kennedy had joined the forum.

[amateur51]

I hadn't realised Michael Kennedy had joined the forum.

[Alison]

i do hope the programme on next Saturday lives up to this thread!

Ah, it's Stephen Johnson. Stand by for those hasty and gleeful dismissals of long cherished versions.

[BBMmk2]

With all this talk opf the need or no need to repeat the exposition, well, imo, at times,I feelo, it's artisitc judement. Perhaps there are conductors around, who have superior musicality, than Brahms!?!!? There may, ofcourse be a time management factor involved as well??

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Perhaps there are conductors around, who have superior musicality, than Brahms!?!!?

Not in this universe, Bbm. <harrummphemoticon>!

[BBMmk2]

A Brahms affcionado, by all counts then Ferney!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A Brahms affcionado, by all counts then Ferney!

[amateur51]

Ah, it's Stephen Johnson. Stand by for those hasty and gleeful dismissals of long cherished versions.

And for goodness' sake SJ Speak UP!!

[EdgeleyRob]

Musical numpty here.

Surely if a composer states any part of a work is to be repeated then it should be,or is it not that simple?

[Alison]

Who started all this non repeating of repeats ? Name names.