# Observing Repeats



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Observing repeats: except for Wagner's political views and the order of the inner movements of Mahler's Sixth, is there a more controversial subject among CM listeners?

KenOC remarked today that he does not like repeats to be observed in Schubert finding that they prolong Franz's compositions far beyond "heavenly" length. For my part, I like the first movement of the D.960 sonata & D.887 quartet to last twenty minutes at a minimum!

Today I listened to Szell/Cleveland's celebrated performance of the Jupiter symphony, followed by Bernstein's with Vienna, which unlike Szell's observes exposition and development repeats. What a difference the repeats make, especially in the finale. Much as I enjoy Szell's lively account, only with the repeats intact does one really get the impression of a major symphonic statement.

Your thoughts on repeats?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I usually prefer them if I enjoy the music well enough. I wish that people took repeats like the one of the exposition of the Eroica more often, and ever since I've heard Mozart's last symphonies with all repeats observed, I don't want it any other way. It won't make or break a recording, though, especially if the performance is excellent.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Viva Repeats*

Our community orchestra played the Schubert Ninth a few seasons ago. Our conductor wanted to ignore some of the repeats for time reasons. It is such a great piece to play. The orchestra members insisted that we play with all the repeats. The conductor granted our request. When you playing a great piece the repeats are not so bad.:clap:


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Repeats should be observed. If the repeats make the music dull, that's probablty the conductors fault. I think it may have been the recording industrys fault that repeats were ignored. Records just weren't long enough for them.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Andras Schiff makes a compelling point about the repeat of the exposition of Beethoven's sonata Op. 13, "Pathetique." Most performers, he claims, consider the opening bars as just an introduction and they repeat back to the beginning of the allegro segment, but when Schiff plays the repeat all the way back to the "introduction," it's not only unexpected, it also seems right, perfect, inevitable. Though he is not the first to promote this, I've barely been able to listen to other versions since.

Oh, to answer the original question, repeats are sacred to me. How else in baroque suite movements will performers get to mess up the composition with their own trills and mordents if there is no second time around?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

They are a convention from another time, you heard the work, if lucky, once. The repeats gave to the listener of the time a chance to get familiar with the new (modern) music: especially in the sonata-allegro, the repeat also more firmly sets in the listener the fundamental material so the 'departure' into the development becomes that much more of a 'flight away from.'

Repeats are also very much a part of the proportions of the overall structure; removing them skews those proportions a great deal.

Repeats were first left off when recording was 'new,' because of space and time limit on those early discs. Eventually, either the piece and / or the vocabulary of the piece was no longer 'new' -- in a way even upon an initial listening -- having become directly familiar. The later audiences were already familiar with what was once 'modern' musical language.

Those late Mozart symphonies, it seems to me to make a world of difference -- 'better' with repeats.

Many a classical sonata, although not upsetting without the repeats, still 'shows' the more awkward proportion if played without.

Later, in Schubert's works, many of the repeats are truly 'wholesale cut 'n' paste exactly the same,' and those are longish sections. Again, in the time, people happily went out for a whole evening, and did not expect to cram in an after hours bistro or 'something else' as a full night out -- the concert was the full night out.

So - without the repeats, whether a matter of occupying real estate on a recording alongside other works, or the less-long now standard concert length of our time (with, natch, three full works expected per concert) that is a 'part of our time,' i.e. -- we're all in a hurry, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It's true that baroque composers made good use of repeats. Classical, too, at least through Mozart in his concertos, where the performer was expected to add florid embellishments in the rrepeat.

But in Beethoven's time and later, repeats seem mostly designed to fix the main themes and relationships in the mind. This made sense in an age before recordings, when performances of the same piece were rare and well-spaced in years. Today, when we all can whistle the expositions from memory, that purpose seems no longer very relevant.

Added: I see PetrB addressed the same issue.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I find it astounding that performers have such a blaze attitude towards repeats. PetrB is right, it completely skews the proportions of a piece, particularly in Classical period. And Beethoven in particular clearly put a lot of thought into his repeats. He has sonata forms with them and without them. Who are we to change them?

It was a different matter when they had to be fit onto records. I am not against the freedom of the performer either, it's just the fact that people don't seem to think they matter which annoys me.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Weston, 

Thanks for bringing up the Op. 13 sonata repeat, a case where composer's intention is harder to determine! Schiff credits R. Serkin with being the first to take the repeat all the way back to the opening measure. 

I still don't know whether I like that reading of the repeat. Sometimes I do (as you say, it can feel "right, perfect, inevitable"), but sometimes I think it throws off the proportions of the sonata as a whole.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I am generally in favor of them, but approach it on a case by case basis. I'm all for them in Schubert, where the slow unfolding is part of the character of the work. Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven fine (although I can take or leave the exposition repeat in the Eroica because the transition is so dippy and it works fine without it). Similarly, the exposition repeat in the Mahler Sixth adds nothing to the work (to me). Shorter movements practically demand them (like the Haffner Symphony, which would be over before it even started, without  ).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Similarly, the exposition repeat in the Mahler Sixth adds nothing to the work (to me).


The proportions of the movement would seem very off if you didn't have 8~9 minutes of the exposition and its repeat. Also, the development, recapitulation, and coda are quite complex and need to be offset by something more straightforward. It wasn't a matter of course for Mahler to use repeats (the only other symphony where he did was the 1st, although there was an exposition repeat in the 5th's second movement, later cut, that nobody plays), so it should be taken seriously.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The proportions of the movement would seem very off if you didn't have 8~9 minutes of the exposition and its repeat. Also, the development, recapitulation, and coda are quite complex and need to be offset by something more straightforward. It wasn't a matter of course for Mahler to use repeats (the only other symphony where he did was the 1st, although there was an exposition repeat in the 5th's second movement, later cut, that nobody plays), so it should be taken seriously.


I don't disagree. I just personally find it long enough without (I sort of save my mental energy for the finale anyway.)


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

I need to make a correction. Earlier I wrote:



Hausmusik said:


> Today I listened to Szell/Cleveland's celebrated performance of the Jupiter symphony, followed by Bernstein's with Vienna, which unlike Szell's observes exposition and development repeats. What a difference the repeats make, especially in the finale. Much as I enjoy Szell's lively account, only with the repeats intact does one really get the impression of a major symphonic statement.


This was a somewhat misleading statement. Szell _does_ observe the expo repeats in the primos of both K.550 and K.551. It is in the slow movements and finales that he ignores repeats. The most dramatic effect occurs in the two finales, where both the expo and development repeats are ignored.

Now the development repeat is the variety of repeat some most object to as a rule (at least to judge from posts I have read online). As Ken points out, "_n Beethoven's time and later, repeats seem mostly designed to fix the main themes and relationships in the mind." Such a justification scarcely exists for repeating the development, since the themes have already been fixed at this point. Repeating the development would seem to be utterly redundant, like ending Star Wars by having the Death Star explode twice.

But in the case of K. 550, Szell's failure to observe the development repeat musically means we only hear the remarkable proto-serialist mm. 124-132 one time, which diminishes its impact, while as for the shocking modulations through various keys in the development, the listener never gets to move beyond shocked awe into absorption. When Szell's K. 550 ends, the symphony doesn't feel "closed" somehow--at least to my ear.

If anything, K.551 (Jupiter) is an even more dramatic case, to my mind, where ignoring the development repeat seriously diminishes the impact of the symphony. I have seen Szell's Jupiter praised as definitive. But in Szell's 6 minute finale (as compared to Bernstein's 11:49!) the ingenious, overwhelming, and exciting fugato writing is over before the listener has a chance to begin to absorb it. With the repeat, there is--for me, anyway--a greater sense of a musical idea that has brought to completion.

So strangely enough, I feel a lot more strongly about the importance of these two development repeats than I do about, say, the expo repeat in Schubert's "Death and the Maiden" or the 887 quartet--skipping those repeats alters the proportions of those work but does not diminish the impact for me in quite the way that skipping the dev. repeat in the K.550 and K.551 does.

Or, to put it as PetrB did, "Those late Mozart symphonies, it seems to me to make a world of difference -- 'better' with repeats." Amen._


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hausmusik's comments bring up an interesting point. There are repeats and repeats. An exposition repeat is one thing, a development repeat is another.

Exposition repeat: "Let me say that again, so that even the stupidest will understand, and we can then move on."

Development repeat: "So how did the ball get under this cup? Amazing, isn't it? Here, let me do that again and maybe you can see how it's done. Or perhaps...it's real magic!"


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I also approach it on a case by case basis, in most cases I respect the performers decision on repeats. I definitely notice I'm in the minority on this board in that I most often don't consider them as vitally important to a work as what most people I come across here think, though I do find these responses quite interesting.

I think in many cases an individual will just get used to hearing a work a certain way, and then they will want to continue to hear the work in that way. In some instances an individual may come up with grand musical theories about why certain interpretations are better - in this case perhaps claiming it makes a critical difference in ratios and proportion etc. But I wonder in how many instances the underlying reasons remain just being more familiar with a certain approach.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

tdc said:


> I think in many cases an individual will just get used to hearing a work a certain way, and then they will want to continue to hear the work in that way.


I agree with you. PalJacky on the Amazon forum called this "imprinting." I learned the Mozart K550 and K551 from Gardiner and Bernstein, both of whom take repeats. If I had been "weaned" on Szell, the omitted repeats might not leave me with a sense of something lacking.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Repeats. The composer wrote 'em, you play 'em.
GG


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I prefer them on the whole, but am not fanatical about them . In symphonie sof Haydn, which tend to be relatively short ,it's definitely a no-no to leave them out in the first movement . 
But in Brahms, they're not absolutely necessary. Brahms himself did not observe the ones in his first three symphonies (the 4th has none ) whne conducting them after the premieres . He felt that the repeats were necessary for people hearing the symphonies fo rthe first time ,but not once they got to know them.
Dvorak wrote them in his 1st,2nd,4th,5th,6th and 9th, but never observed them when conducting them himself, according to reports . He was especially adamant about not observing the repeat in the 6th, and is said to have upbraided one conductor for doing this .
The exposition in the first movement of the Beethoven 5th is so short that to omit it is a musical crime .
I remember a WQXR broadcast of it with the late Maurice Abravanel and the Utah symphony, and he omitted it .
It's puzzling how such an intelligent musician as this could be so dense as to leave it out .


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I prefer to observe the repeats faithfully, especially in great piano works.

With Schubert's 9th, I would prefer to hear the repeats observed. I love how the Trio section of the Scherzo dominates the inner third of the entire movement, please don't take that away from me, it's my favorite part!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Repeats yes*



tdc said:


> I also approach it on a case by case basis, in most cases I respect the performers decision on repeats. I definitely notice I'm in the minority on this board in that I most often don't consider them as vitally important to a work as what most people I come across here think, though I do find these responses quite interesting.
> 
> I think in many cases an individual will just get used to hearing a work a certain way, and then they will want to continue to hear the work in that way. In some instances an individual may come up with grand musical theories about why certain interpretations are better - in this case perhaps claiming it makes a critical difference in ratios and proportion etc. But I wonder in how many instances the underlying reasons remain just being more familiar with a certain approach.


I really can not remember the details of the lecture but in our music history class our professor strongly believed in observing repeats.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I really can not remember the details of the lecture but in our music history class our professor strongly believed in observing repeats.


Yes, and that probably explains why so many here are pro-repeats, but even what is taught by music professors I generally take with a grain of salt. As pointed out in the above post by superhorn there are instances when even the composers don't honor their own repeats. In a lot of old music the repeats are there simply because the pieces would rarely be heard more than once. I don't think this type of issue has a 'one size fits all' type of solution. With some of Bach's music (because it is so well known) I think some of it sounds better without the repeats - of course in his day and age the pieces would be more effective exactly as notated, but we don't live in his day and age anymore. Having heard many of these works both ways I am convinced the 'less is more' approach is often effective with many of them. So, it really depends on the situation and specific piece I think, but I feel the performers should have some freedom in the matter.


----------

