# Why aren't the first movement repeats played?



## Manok

I have several full scores of symphonies for study, and I notice in at least 3 of the symphonies there is a first movement repeat that isn't played on my recordings. Either that or I am totally missing out on it? Other movements in the works the repeats are all played like normal. So, is it my editions of these works that is wrong, or did they shorten it because it was a recording or something?


----------



## jegreenwood

It seems to me there are several reasons. The high-minded might claim that the point of the repeat in sonata form was to better familiarize the listener with the musical themes of the exposition and that this was unnecessary for recordings as the listener would become familiar with them after several repeated hearings.

I think it's also true that in many cases the point was to get the music to fit on the LP. Looking back further to 78s, having to issue an additional disc or two (and perhaps forcing the listener to change discs one or two more times) would likely have increased the cost have and possibly interfered with the enjoyment of the recording.

I don't keep close track, but it seems to me that most recent recordings include the repeats.


----------



## KenOC

It’s interesting that we tend to treat “composer’s intent” as sacred. If the score calls for an expo repeat, and you don’t observe it, you are surely the devil incarnate!

Beethoven’s brother wrote a letter describing Ludwig’s struggle over whether or not to repeat the expo in the first movement of his Eroica. On the one hand, it was unusually complex and in those times difficult to clearly understand, so the repeat would have helped. On the other, it was already longer than any symphony yet written, and the repeat might well push it beyond the limits of contemporary attention spans.

He tried it multiple times both ways over several days of rehearsals at Lobkowitz’s palace and finally decided, narrowly, to leave the repeat marked in score. Today, many listeners are far more certain about that repeat than Beethoven seems to have been!


----------



## mbhaub

At the time a lot of music was written, long before recordings were available - and audiences were generally more musically intelligent! - composers wrote exposition repeats so the listener could have a better chance of learning the material from which the development would be built. Nowadays,, what with recordings and that we're all so familiar with the music it's not necessary. But - some people argue, correctly, that the formal balance of a work is damaged if the repeat is not taken. There were many composers who wrote the repeat for formal reasons, but they themselves didn't perform the music with the repeats: Brahms & Rachmaninoff for example. Personally, in long romantic symphonies I don't need or even want the repeat. Even the few that Mahler wrote I can do without. As a performer, I detest playing first movement repeats - Dvorak, Brahms, Beethoven -- skip them all! The recording business is all over the place on repeats - some do, some don't. What has changed in the last few decades is making cuts in the music is thankfully a thing of the past.


----------



## Manok

Thanks for the replies! I only asked out of confusion. It's weird to expect a repeat and to have it never come. In some cases it seems like it would be a tiny bit more complete with it, but it doesn't bother me beyond that.


----------



## Triplets

KenOC said:


> It's interesting that we tend to treat "composer's intent" as sacred. If the score calls for an expo repeat, and you don't observe it, you are surely the devil incarnate!
> 
> Beethoven's brother wrote a letter describing Ludwig's struggle over whether or not to repeat the expo in the first movement of his Eroica. On the one hand, it was unusually complex and in those times difficult to clearly understand, so the repeat would have helped. On the other, it was already longer than any symphony yet written, and the repeat might well push it beyond the limits of
> 
> contemporary attention spans.
> 
> He tried it multiple times both ways over several days of rehearsals at Lobkowitz's palace and finally decided, narrowly, to leave the repeat marked in score. Today, many listeners are far more certain about that repeat than Beethoven seems to have been!


Interesting. Thanks, I had never heard that before


----------



## Triplets

Sometimes the repeat will have a few snatches of music not contained in the first go round. It isn't a Symphony, but Schubert's last Piano Sonata, D. 960 asks for 2 repeats in the first movement. The final repeat is prefaced by a few bars of music that is somewhat out of character with the rest of the movement, somewhat restless and harmonically unstable. Brendan refuses to play the last repeat, arguing that the first movement is already to long. He also argues that the added few bars are so different from the rest of the movement that it just doesn't belong there. He has been widely taken to task for this stance.


----------



## Heck148

I generally favor 1st mvt expo repeats....usually, it's a matter of balance to the overall form of the movement.


----------



## KenOC

The problem with expo repeats is...Schubert! First movement repeats in the D.960 sonata or the String Quintet should be formally classified as the crimes they are. And the "Great" C-major Symphony? Even Mahler would never take all the repeats!


----------



## Heck148

KenOC said:


> The problem with expo repeats is...Schubert! First movement repeats in the D.960 sonata or the String Quintet should be formally classified as the crimes they are. And the "Great" C-major Symphony? Even Mahler would never take all the repeats!


Right, there are times when repeats are "over the edge" - Schub Sym #9 is a good example - so is LvB Sym #9/II...some, not all, is usually sufficient....


----------



## KenOC

Heck148 said:


> Right, there are times when repeats are "over the edge" - Schub Sym #9 is a good example - so is LvB Sym #9/II...some, not all, is usually sufficient....


With all repeats, the Scherzo from Ludwig's 9th is longer than the slow movement. It just ain't right! :scold:


----------



## Totenfeier

Here's my sophisticated analysis of one case:

If you don't do the repeat in Mahler 1 - it sounds weird.


----------



## premont

Every performer must decide for himself which repeats he wants to do or not to do.

But I do not always agree with their choices. Brautigam e.g. does litterally every repeat in his recording of Mozart's piano sonatas, so he repeats both parts of movements in sonata form as Mozart prescribed. This makes these rather intimate pieces (of limited interest after all) seem endless. I think there was a reason, why later composers skipped the repeat of the second part.


----------



## R3PL4Y

I generally find these to be unnecessary and for the most part I appreciate when they aren't taken. For most composers, it seems to just be an arbitrary rule that they abode by but didn't really put much thought into. However, for composers like Mahler who rarely put one in, I usually prefer it to be taken, as he was certainly willing to not put this in his music, but deliberately chose to do so.


----------



## maestro267

If the music is good enough the first time round, having it repeated shouldn't be an issue. Length shouldn't be an issue. It shouldn't be a case of "get on with it". Otherwise I'm questioning whether you enjoy the music on its first time round.


----------



## superhorn

Rachmaninov left only two recordings as a conductor ; his 3rd symphony and "Isle of the Dead " with the Philadelphia orchestra on RCA , which I have on CD . 
He does not observe the repeat in the first movement, although a number of other conductors, such as Ashkenazy with the Concertgebouw orchestra do . Possibly this was to save time , as this was before LPs existed , and to observe it would possibly have required another 78 disc . Whether he observed the repeat when conducting it live, I don't know. So we will probably never know if he thought it was mandatory .


----------



## MarkW

It's obviously a judgment call for the performers, with reasons varying from the considered to the banal (not enough time). Also, sometimes the transition between exposition and repeat is just not very interesting (first movement of the Eroica for instance).


----------



## GraemeG

Often you need the repeat just for balance: Beethoven 5, for instance. And 7 if it comes to that. Other times, if the repeat is omitted, a whole lot of magic is lost when you come to the end for the second time, and the music goes on. The character changes; try Brahms symphonies (No 1 especially) for great examples of this.
When there are first time bars with unique music - Mendelssohn 4 - the repeat ought to be compulsory on pain of death.
Mostly, I want repeats.
Graeme


----------



## Heck148

I like all first mvt repeats for Beethoven, for Brahms, also....omitting the first mvt repeats makes the movements unbalanced....not enough exposition....
for Mahler - definitely need 1st mvt repeats for Syms 1 and 6. same reason.


----------



## mbhaub

Your point about balance is well-taken, but not all composers who wrote repeats really expected them to be played. Brahms, for one. When he conducted his own works he omitted the repeat. Actually, his transitions back to the beginning are not very convincing or well-done. He wrote the repeat, classicist that he was, for formal reasons, I suppose. As to Mahler, since he wrote so few repeats, I guess it's a good idea to take them. But it's interesting that two of the most highly regarded versions of the 6th symphony omit that first movement repeat - and I like it! Szell and Barbirolli.


----------



## Becca

I have just been listening, for the first time, to the Barbirolli Mahler 6th in the live Proms recording. What struck me in noticing the total disc timing was how much faster it is than others, then I realized that it was almost all from the first movement, i.e. the missing repeat. I must admit that I did not notice it ... or miss it! At least he got the Andante/Scherzo in the correct order.


----------



## Botschaft

mbhaub said:


> Your point about balance is well-taken, but not all composers who wrote repeats really expected them to be played. Brahms, for one. When he conducted his own works he omitted the repeat. Actually, his transitions back to the beginning are not very convincing or well-done.


They convince me. He probably omitted them out of modesty.


----------



## Heck148

Improbus said:


> They convince me. He probably omitted them out of modesty.


Yes. I too, like the exposition repeats in Brahms symphonies...the mvts just seem too short, too truncated without them. I like the lead-ins to the repeats aswell....#1 is esp good...Solti/CSO sell it very well..


----------



## Alydon

I think nowadays most music, especially from the classical period, is played with the exposition repeat and if it's not you feel cheated of something. I always remember the Beecham Haydn symphony recordings and they always seemed to have something missing - the repeat, and I would have relished that extra bit of music. Of course many old recordings were limited time-wise and the logistics of fitting the music onto 78s was always a problem, though strangely enough Schnabel took some of the repeats in the Beethoven sonatas, but left most of them out. There always seems to be a debate whether Beethoven's Erocia should have the repeat and the seventh, and in both cases I think it feels right either way and in historical recordings it isn't even noticeable in these particular works.

The old age problem as to that particular Schubert piano sonata is best summed up by Richter who said it should never be played without the repeat, and I agree with him and the only version I can tolerate without the repeat are in both of Clifford Curzon's available recordings where his line seems perfect as it is, and it's a crying shame Brendel always dropped the repeat in this sonata but included it in all the others.


----------



## gardibolt

Heck148 said:


> Right, there are times when repeats are "over the edge" - Schub Sym #9 is a good example - so is LvB Sym #9/II...some, not all, is usually sufficient....


The Beethoven Symphony 9/II is a poor example since it's one instance where Beethoven was very, very insistent about what was to be repeated and what was not; there are not only written notations in the score beyond the repeat signs themselves, but there are at least two letters to publishers where he's very clear about the repeats he wanted included. I can think of no other instance in Beethoven's works where he's more clear about the repeats he wants and doesn't want (he expressly says no repeats on the da capo). Oddly, it's one of the symphony movements where his instructions are least respected since the second (quite long) repeat of the first section is only very rarely honored. Offhand Hogwood, Zinman and Abbado do it right but not a lot of others. If you don't like repeats, Karajan is your man. He omits almost all of them in Beethoven.


----------



## JeffD

I think it is important, at least once, to hear the piece as written, with repeats. My preference would be that the first time I heard something, it was as written. 

But I am perhaps a little obsessive. I recall as a kid playing Monopoly with kids down the block. They added these little changes, like every time you land on "Go" you get a jackpot of money derived from saving off all the fines everyone paid since the last time someone landed on "Go". Little seemingly inconsequential things like that. I remember arguing that we therefore were not playing the game Monopoly. It might be fun, what we were doing, but should not be called Monopoly. 

What a little nerd I was.

Especially in light of some of the above comments, where the composer may not have intended his repeat indication to be honored.


----------



## Biffo

Becca said:


> I have just been listening, for the first time, to the Barbirolli Mahler 6th in the live Proms recording. What struck me in noticing the total disc timing was how much faster it is than others, then I realized that it was almost all from the first movement, i.e. the missing repeat. I must admit that I did not notice it ... or miss it! At least he got the Andante/Scherzo in the correct order.


It is not simply a matter of omitting the exposition repeat. Barbirolli does this in all three of the recordings I have. For his studio recording he takes 83'53 but in his live performances he take 74'42 (Proms) and 74'14 (Berlin Philharmonic). He insisted on the order Andante/Scherzo but EMI issued his studio recording Scherzo/Andante - this was corrected in later releases.


----------



## GraemeG

JeffD said:


> I recall as a kid playing Monopoly with kids down the block. They added these little changes, like every time you land on "Go" you get a jackpot of money derived from saving off all the fines everyone paid since the last time someone landed on "Go".


But, like mucking around with repeats, it affects the structure. Those fines are there to take some money out of the game, offsetting the $200 input per circuit. You leave that money in a pot, it just prolongs the game, because it takes that much longer for someone to go bankrupt.
You were right to be offended!
Graeme


----------



## Heck148

I don't know......? All the repeats in Beethoven 9/II?? And Schubert 9/III?? That's marathon length....


----------



## Rafaelcrt

What is the point of repeating the expo of a Brahms's symphony? 
Well, when it was composed, he surely wanted the audience to familiarize with the music. Is this still necessary today? Most people that listen to a symphony are already familiarizad with the themes, so I wold say there's no need to repeat the expo.


----------

