What's the Deal with Repeats? (Tips on Critical Listening)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 มิ.ย. 2024
- When should performers take a major formal repeat in a large instrumental piece? Is the indication in the score to make a repeat a suggestion, or an obligation? Well, it depends. There is no single answer. In this video, we'll breeze through a brief history of the origins of the repeat, and then discuss its relevance to the music of specific composers where the issue most frequently arises.
- เพลง
The repeats in the first two movements of Mahler 1 are relatively brief, and are both nice, bright melodies. I think they reinforce the mood, like singing the second verse of a happy song. Since I personally enjoy both, I really miss them when cut.
I always assumed repeats were to let audiences hear the "good bits" again in an era where you might only hear a particular symphony once or twice in your lifetime. And that the recording era, and its ability to not only hear all 104 Haydn symphonies but hear them 104 times each if you want, made repeats an anachronism. So this was an interesting video about the artistic design of repeats and how they were purposefully used (or not used) by composers.
Great video on an interesting topic. Personally, I love all repeats being respected in Haydn era works all the time (except da capos), because that just means more music to listen to! With Haydn's 54th, the slow movement becomes an 18 minute behemoth that might be too long for some people, but not me! I really wish that you mentioned Shostakovich's 9th, as I feel like that repeat adds to the "joke".
Agreed. Listening for the first time to Hogwood's two-symphonies-to-a disc sets, (which, incidentally, I'm enjoying much more than I expected to) it's wonderful to hear all the repeats, with the possible exception of the minuets! Those sublime slow movements! In most cases when the music's good it's also no displeasure to hear it again.
@@robkeeleycomposer I generally like Hogwood, but his repeats on the Scherzo to Beethoven's 5th symphony are completely wacky. I thought spotify was broken the first time I heard it!
@@djbabymode Hogwood's Beethoven is a treat I have to explore....
When I saw the title "What's the Deal with Repeats?" I was hoping for a Seinfeldesque stand-up set, but this is good too.
When I first heard the first ending in Dvorak’s 6th, it was a beautiful moment (especially the oboe part) that would be lost without taking the repeat. However, I understand why Dvorak wanted to leave it out. It could be boring. If the musicians make it beautiful and interesting, take the first ending, and the listener will enjoy it, especially since it’s Dvorak. Thank you for your videos.
Yes, there are some beautiful bars written for first repeats! The one that comes to mind is in Rachmaninoff's Vocalise.
I listened to, and played, Brahms 1 several times before I got to hear the repeat of exposition. It blew me away! And it doesn’t break the energy. I can appreciate both, but I don’t find the transition in the repeat disturbing, just as a wake up call.
An outlier is the first movement of Stravinsky's Movements for piano and orchestra (1959). Much as I relish its capricious serial spikiness one can't help feeling the repeat is only there to make the movement longer. Of course it works, being Stravinsky. And then there's the conundrum of the finale of Berg's Chamber Concerto.
The first time I heard Dvorak's 6th Symphony was by Sir Charles Groves and the Royal Philharmonic on an imported EMI HMV Lp (ASD 3169). In this wonderful recording - my first time hearing this work, Groves took the first movement repeat; when I didn't hear it in performances I heard later I really missed it. I was aware of Dvorak advising against playing it, but Dave does a great job of explaining why it should be heard.
Very intersting talk. I have always thought that eliminating repeats was due to the recording era and being able to fit works on two sides of an LP. I am one of "those people" who likes to honor the composer's wishes, but will not eschew a great performance simply because it removes the repeats. I am reminded that Beethoven occasionaly faked you out and made you think there was a repeat and then used it to end the movement. The scherzo of "THE NINTH" comes to mind.
1:55 Great tribute to the Queen!
Interesting talk. My thoughts turn to other repeats in symphonies, that I've come across. Namely, the finale of Beethoven 5. Even Otto Klemperer did it 50% tempo. Also the repeat of the entire development section in scherzo of (THE NINTH). Makes this movement incredibly long. Finale of Schubert's great c major... First movement of Mendelssohns Scottish symphony. And the most unnecessary one in March to the scaffold in Symphony Fantastique...
I heard a performance of Mozart No.40 recently (St Olave's in York) where they did the second repeat in the slow movement: it was a good brisk pace do it didn't seem to long, and the cold shock of getting to the end and then getting suddenly plunged back into the middle was worth the ticket price on its own.
Not for me.
Great discussion. I had somehow believed that repeats were as mandatory as any of the notes on the page, and it's really only recently that I learned how optional they are regarded by musicians.
Speaking of Beethoven symphonies where a repeat is a great idea, the repeat of the opening of the 5th symphony's fourth movement is critical. I find it so distracting when I listen to Szell/Cleveland's recordings which both omit it. Granted it appears that both were pressed on one side of an LP, paired with another work on side B, so some cuts had to be made to help it fit. (I hope that's the reason for its omission.) But it's my intention, when I finally rip it for my phone, to digitally put in that repeat myself. Just copy the opening and drop it in.
And a few years ago in Hull I heard Brian Newbould do Schubert's Great C major with all the repeats including ones I didn't even know where there and at the end the front desk of cellos almost fell off the platform with exhaustion.
I also like Dvořak 6th Its passionate...Tghere is Kubelik's video now Dvořák 7th.. I like that he makes such a loud ending. It's good.
because the first movement is so interesting that the louder ending of the last movement gives it "balance".
Before I thought that the last movement is very interesting movement but it needs something special... his version seems to me very nice with the passion in the end too.
In other versions as they often share videos of 7th, of this year London or Germany...the ending seemed to be a bit ordinary and boring.
Based on how Kubelík spoke to some players it seems he likes explosive loudness, and when the players dont "wait" for climax.
A very long time ago the music teacher at my school told us that the repeat of a section should be used to give a new insight into the music. Paradoxically in those prehistoric days he had short sections on 78rpm discs. So to do a repeat he had to put the same record back on again!
One my favorite, and at the same time most frustrating performances of "The Goldberg Variations" is by Peter Serkin. He doesn't repeat any of the variations. What he does play is delightful, and I just wish there was more to hear! I would have liked for him to take repeats (maybe not necessarily all of them, but some of them for variety). Oh well.
Totally agree with Beethoven 7. It's going under development, then you put the brakes on and start over again.
I prefer to take the repeats in almost any piece that has them. In short binary forms (Baroque music, symphonic minuets etc.) it slightly bulks up the movement and adds to the feeling of a balanced 2-part structure. In a longer sonata form, it really helps get the transition and second group in particular in your ears, so that when they return in the recap you can more easily hear how they were altered harmonically, making the whole "reconciliation" with the first group easier to appreciate.
The only piece I can think of that is easier to bring off without the repeats is Schubert's last symphony. Normally it drives me crazy that people tend to leave out his repeats, but in that particular symphony there are so many repeats of so many long sections, and so much of the symphony is passagework and repetitive rhythms, that a performance that takes all repeats runs a real risk of becoming a 50-minute blur of endless stomping fanfares. I actually hated it the first time I heard it, and though now I can appreciate the piece, I still think it's not Schubert's best work or anything, largely because he misjudged the proportions, whereas in his other long pieces (string quintet and piano trios especially) I wouldn't cut a single bar.
The only repeats in Schubert's 9th that are problematic are in the scherzo (and trio). Elsewhere, it's not a big deal--just the expositions in the outer movements.
@@DavesClassicalGuide The scherzo is the main potential problem, it's true. I think the others also run a risk of becoming annoying. It's a symphony that needs to be shaped very carefully in performance to keep from being monotonous, and the repeats exacerbate it.
I am disappointed when the repeat of the exposition of the last movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony is left out because when it is included it makes the development sound more dramatic in my opinion.
Mengelberg recorded the Eroica with the NYP in1930 with the repeat. I agree with you, as with the 7th. a bad idea. I do think the 4th and 5th have more power with those repeats. I also feel something is missing in Haydn and Mozart if first half repeats are ignored. But those development-recap repeats seem deadly to me. Mozart seems to love them including the last mvt of the Jupiter. But why did he omit first (and second) half repeats in symphonies 33-35?
When I got the Robbins Landon score of Haydn 88 recently I was surprised to see a second half repeat because neither of the two earlier scores I owned indicated any such thing!
I grew up with the complete symphony cycle of Dvorak with Istvan Kertesz and The London Symphony on London/Decca. What's your opinion of the repeat in the first movement of the Symphony No. 1 (The Bells Of Zlonice)? I was shocked (well almost) when I heard a performance by a another orchestra that left the repeat out. The movement with the repeat makes it almost 19 minutes long. This might be why some conductors leave it out. And as you said, you just heard the music, why hear it again??? Even so, I miss hearing the repeat when it isn't there.
I don't think it matters.
I very much enjoyed your discussion about the symphony repeats of various composers. My own thoughts are running to shorter forms. I am undecided about how I feel about repeats in the Goldberg Variations. It's a plenty long piece without the repeats, but I've rarely been bothered by its being twice as long (provided I have the time.)
Schumann's Davidsbündertanze is full of repeats of 8-bar melodies. Ashkenazy's recording--my imprint--observes these. Murray Perahia omits them all, which makes the music sound truncated. It's a shame, because his performance would otherwise be my favorite.
Absolutely agree about the Schumann. For example, the second section of XV "Frisch" which is just so beautiful (taking us right into the world of "Widmung") simply has to be heard twice. When that doesn't happen, it indeed feels truncated. And as a listener I feel short-changed on a great tune. Also it robs a sensitive pianist of the chance to interpret the repeat in a different and affecting way--as, say, Ann Schein does in her fine recording.
Re the Goldbergs: I'm convinced that Bach wouldn't have expected the work to be performed in its entirety every time. While its cumulative effect is magnificent, it's an awful lot of G major (and yes, minor)
I'm a stickler for observing composers' wishes, warts repeats and all. But... In how many cases can we be sure that the repeat is actually put in by the composer and not an overzealous copyist/editor/publisher? That, I think, matters when making the decision.
Wouter
Offhand, I don't know of any controversial examples of spurious repeats in major works added by third parties. We can be sure because in most cases we have access to manuscripts or publisher's proofs signed or otherwise approved by the composer.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Rococo Variations: repeats to the theme added by (probably) Fitzenhagen - "2nd time" signs added on to the manuscript by a hand that is clearly not Tchaikovsky's, with no indication as to how the 1st time bars should go. (Of course that was part of a much larger overhaul which the composer was not best pleased with!)
I don't know any others offhand either.
i well remember the publicity when the complete beethoven synphonies with sir georg solti and chicago symphony had to go out.....''the first recording of complete beethoven symphony''.....because you know surely solti made all repetitions in this recording (decca) ...and on the other side...why karajan,in each recording he do it of this work ,he d'ont make the repetition in the thirdt movement of the pastoral symphonies of beethoven....????
Leaving out the exposition repeat in the first movement of Schubert's last piano sonata (like Brendel does) to me is a deal breaker. Not so much for the repetition, but for the music of transition to this repeat.
I'm trying to remember what AB's reason for this omission was - he wrote about it in one of his essays)
@@robkeeleycomposer I dimly remember something like this passage at the end of the prima volta would be inconsistent with rest of the movement.
@@Sulsfort possibly: but Schubert did write it!
@@robkeeleycomposer Yes, and it's an essential part, I don't wanna miss.
I'm kind of torn on this particular case. Same as Brendel I think that the extra material in the prima volta is inconsistent. OTOH the repeat is structurally important, especially in some performance styles (e.g. Richter's). Now what 🙂
Bruno Walter rarely made repeats....
"I can't go back" he so often said
@@richardkavesh8299 Did you read his biography? I bought that book, and Walter stated that he ignored exposition repeats because he said by human nature, it was impossible to repeat it exactly the second time because there will be small differences. Maybe more difference in the vibrato, less accent, etc., so he never did it. His comment made me think about that, and he does have a unique point of view. I guess he didn't believe in playing it differently the second time around, like Monteux did in Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony fourth movement.