Repeats?
Mon, Mar 25 2013, 10:21AM
#2
RE: Repeats?
Not moribund at all. This quite an interesting debate. Even Parla's contribution was beyond criticism.
In sonata form movements, I generally like exposition repeats (ok, maybe not D960) but not second half repeats. I have the Mackerras late Mozart, and regret the not altogether heavenly lengths these repeats create. And there's not much of a case for repeats in scherzi second time around.
I'm not sure I can justify this position intellectually, but it's what works for me.
Mon, Mar 25 2013, 10:40AM
#3
RE: Repeats?
I agree with you PG. Not moribund at all. Excellent discussion, without too many repeats!
Chris
Mon, Mar 25 2013, 11:35AM
#4
RE: Repeats?
Moribund? Is it so? I don't think so. Just some moments of repose, I guess, for some or most of us.
As for the 14 minutes of worthy music of the Scherzo of Schubert's "Great", I can say that all depends on two factors: a) what is in the score (has Schubert clearly indicated his wish for the repeats) and b) on the performance's power.
I have attended performances and have recordings, where all the repeats were observed, and the result was pure musical transcendence, while there are performances and recordings below even the 10 minute mark, which, however, cannot justify their existence and pay almost no service to the "Great" music of the composer.
Parla
Wed, Mar 27 2013, 6:38PM
#5
RE: Repeats?
I believe repeats were originally a practical way of familiarizing listeners with the
basic material of a sonata movement. Mozart, of course, balanced his structures
so well that they come across as an indispensable part of the whole. By the
time we get to Beethoven and certainly Brahms, they’re generally integrated
with superb craft although I still find Schubert’s 9th with all
repeats threatens to sound like Philip Glass. Regardless, they were still a
help to audiences in pre-recording days.
Going through the Ring just now, I’m struck by how often Wagner recapitulates the
story-so-far. I doubt that when he wrote it he could have envisaged people
seeing the entire work 50+ times. Those recaps may have been a practical way of
reminding audiences, watching for the first and perhaps last time, that this
is where we’ve been up to now. Often they integrate perfectly with the story
and even further it – Wotan’s pouring out his heart to Brunnhilde in Walkure,
the Norns in Gotterdammerung – other times, as in Act 1 of Siegfried, the endless
dialogue between Mime and Siegfried, I find myself yelling at Ricky to get on
with it.
Given the ability to see 100 years forward, I think Wagner would have given us a
radically different work. Musical repeats, mimimalists excepted, are just about
redundant as are dramatic recaps, for the same reason, unless you’re producing
a TV series for prime-time audiences with zero attention span.
Fri, Mar 29 2013, 8:02AM
#6
RE: Repeats?
I guess I cannot possibly argue with you, Tagalie, regarding your otherwise fascinating (as reading material) last post, but, allow me to simply say: It is not necessarily so!
Repeats play a much more significant role in composition and they constitute an integral part of the score (particularly, when they are noted by the composer).
Parla
P.S.: Did you find actual repeats in Wagner's works (identical parts of the score repeated as such)? We speak of "repeats" not recapitulation or other transformation of the same thing.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
I've since had the editting software out. The long second half repeat in the Trio had to go!
Moribund is the word. Would love to see you over at...
http://haydnesqueIII.freeforums.net/