Dramatic Developments...

[Pabmusic]

When suggesting that some Schubert developments and recapitulations 'go on a bit' it's easy to forget that he often liked to continue to develop the music during the recap, rather than give a 'straight' repeat. Of course, this wasn't new, but it is a Schubertian trait. Add to this his habit of sticking to one key (or tonal centre) for longer than many others would do, and it is possible to generate some criticism, especially with an indifferent performance. Schubert regularly flies close to the flame, so it's very much up to the interpreter to make sure he doesn't touch it.

[salymap]

Well four more days for all the Schubert enthusiasts to enjoy his heavenly length. I'm off to listen to
some Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, etc.

He cannot eat breakfast all day, nor is it the act of a sinner,
When breakfast is taken away, to turn his attention to dinner
W.S.GILBERT

However I may listen to the hour from one of my favourite places, FINCHCOCKS in Kent and hope some of the atmosphere of the place comes over the airwaves. 1pm today.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It isn't development sections that are the problem for me. It's exposition repeats that can be so tiresome in most cases.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It isn't development sections that are the problem for me. It's exposition repeats that can be so tiresome in most cases.

[Serial_Apologist]

I've often wondered about composers' intentions in repeating the exposition. Could it be the composer, realising that this opening movement provides what "he" might consider the most important furnishing materials for what is to follow, is offering a possible one-in-a-lifetime chance for the listener?

[aeolium]

I've often wondered about composers' intentions in repeating the exposition. Could it be the composer, realising that this opening movement provides what "he" might consider the most important furnishing materials for what is to follow, is offering a possible one-in-a-lifetime chance for the listener?

Or the composer giving the performer(s) a chance, in an age of few or no rehearsals, to get it right second-time around?

[Serial_Apologist]

Or the composer giving the performer(s) a chance, in an age of few or no rehearsals, to get it right second-time around?

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, I'm sure that was originally the case - the repeat made simply to help listeners and performers to get fingers and ears around things. But as soon as Beethoven in Op.59/1, and then Brahms and Mahler in their 4th Symphonies, make as if to repeat and then dive off into the development, something crucial has happened - the conscious recognition of the "redundancy" of the repeat. So when Mahler uses it in his 6th, it becomes a more deliberate gesture towards a classical model, set up as Cardus said, as a citadel to be attacked. Even the amazing finale retains more than a hint of sonata statement/development/recap.

Then look at Nielsen who travels from formal repeats in 1 & 2 to leaving all such notions behind in No.5...
Or in 4 and 6 the music flows seamlessly on into the development and often compresses recaps too.

I think if you're bored with the piece, you'll be fed up with the repeat; if not, you'll welcome the chance to enjoy it again.
If I like it and I'm used to a repeat a symphony can seem lightweight without it, and lack contrast between statement and development.
Does anyone here have a piece in mind that they love, "apart from that damn repeat!"?

But Schubert had his own "lab" going on didn't he - his experiments in length and structure had only just begun and he would soon have found a formal repeat boring.

With pieces like d.960 or d.894 I like to hunker down for the long, repeat-laden haul, and let the music take me...
I think Richter sensed that the only thing to do was be unapologetic about the length, take it to the extreme.

Zen and the art of listening to (or playing) Schubert, as it were.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well, it should also be remembered that "originally" the repeats were also written in solo keyboard Music for performance at home, not just for an audience in a concert hall listening to an orchestral work for the first time. And that the Development/Recaps were supposed to be played/heard twice through as well. It's a question at least as much of structural balance as it is of "getting to know the Music for the first/only time". That's why individual movements which "use" the Sonata Principle but which omit the Expo repeat (such as the first movement of Mozart's C major Symphony K338) are significant: the Finales of such works do include both repeats. It wasn't "just a convention" that we "more sophisticated listeners" today can simply ignore*.

(AND, of course, the surprise of the lack of Expo repeat in Brahms' 4th is totally lost when the conductor cuts them in the first three!)


EDIT: * = Well, of course we can ignore them if that's our preference; but it shouldn't be pretended that we're doing the works any favours by so doing.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well the thread is about development. That is often the most listenable bit - hearing what the composer can do with just a little material. The development of the 1st movement of Mozart's 40th is a prime example, as is the development in the finale of the same work.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Well the thread is about development.

I agree! 'twas not I who introduced the topic of Exposition Repeats!

That is often the most listenable bit - hearing what the composer can do with just a little material. The develpment of the 1st movement of Mozart's 40th is a prime example, as is the development in the finale of the same work.

I agree: well worth hearing twice.

[Panjandrum]

With pieces like d.960 or d.894 I like to hunker down for the long, repeat-laden haul, and let the music take me...
I think Richter sensed that the only thing to do was be unapologetic about the length, take it to the extreme.

I had the good fortune to hear Richter playing D.894 in recital in Chichester Cathedral in 1989 (Schumann's Nachtstucke and Prokofiev 4 the other items I recall). He was illuminated by a solitary candelabra perched above the piano. His countenance that of a man who had just walked into a room affected by an extremely unpleasant smell, but when he started to play, time was suspended; the music just seemed to drift and merge imperceptibly with the night. You couldn't achieve that effect with a more aphoristic composer.

[jayne lee wilson]

Your points are (as ever) well made fhg, especially about the Brahms symphonies (repeats please!) - but I must admit to finding the repeat of development/recap often tougher to swallow. Listening last night to Schubert's A minor sonata d.537 I was fascinated by the treatment of the 1st theme in the development, reducing it to a stark 2-note rhythm, then melodically elaborating its second half; and was then a little abashed when Michelangeli repeated it and the movement's second half! On this occasion it diluted, rather than enhanced the experience...

Structural balance aside, what possible, conceptual or "philosophical" (!) reason might there be for second-half repeats in such movements? Remember Harnoncourt's astounding set of the Haydn Paris Symphonies? He does this kind of repeat there as well, making for some epic lengths, often over 12 minutes for the first movements!

Pj - I heard that 1989 d.894 performance when Richter did it live on R3 from the RFH - my C90 SA-X tape (remember them?) just failed to contain it by a matter of seconds...(boo!)
..but I caught it on the Christmas repeat! (yay!)

Well, it should also be remembered that "originally" the repeats were also written in solo keyboard Music for performance at home, not just for an audience in a concert hall listening to an orchestral work for the first time. And that the Development/Recaps were supposed to be played/heard twice through as well. It's a question at least as much of structural balance as it is of "getting to know the Music for the first/only time". That's why individual movements which "use" the Sonata Principle but which omit the Expo repeat (such as the first movement of Mozart's C major Symphony K338) are significant: the Finales of such works do include both repeats. It wasn't "just a convention" that we "more sophisticated listeners" today can simply ignore*.

(AND, of course, the surprise of the lack of Expo repeat in Brahms' 4th is totally lost when the conductor cuts them in the first three!)


EDIT: * = Well, of course we can ignore them if that's our preference; but it shouldn't be pretended that we're doing the works any favours by so doing.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't know the Harnoncourt Paris set, but Kuijken does the second half repeats in his excellent set (as, indeed, did that fine old HIPPster Leonard Bernstein in his VPO Mozart Symphonies): the "rush" of sound is so exhilarating I find it utterly captivating and convincing: a real "Wheee!" experience where the adrenaline slides down the banisters of my arteries! It's one of those things that Music can do that doesn't work in Literature/Drama (rather like polyphony, for different reasons).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Your points are (as ever) well made fhg, especially about the Brahms symphonies (repeats please!)

...only Brahms was the one who said the repeats in his expositions were not really necessary when the listeners knwe the works.
Which suggests that the repeat was there only knock the themes into the listeners' heads before doing something interesting with the music in the development section.
A kind of brainwashing, I suppose.