# Do You Prefer Exposition Repeats To Be Observed ?



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If you're a classical newbie and can't read music, you may wonder what I mean by exposition repeats .
It's a controversial subject in classical music, so let me explain . In sonata form, which is the form used in the vast majority of first movements of symphonies, sonatas and many chamber works, the opening section of a first movement is usually marked by a direction for that part to be repeated by the orchestra or solo pianists or chamber ensembles which the composer puts in. The repeat is not written out, and the conductor or other muicians do not always observe the repeat .
Some musicologists ,critics and others insist that these repeats always be observed, as they are vital part of the music's structure . In some cases, exposition repeats are found in last movements, but not nearly as often as in first . Not all symphonies or sonatas have these repeats, and they became less common by the latter half of the 19th century and are much less common in 20th century symphonies etc.
Sonata form consists of the exposition, in which the themes are first stated , the development section, where the themes undergo all sorts of transformations and modulations to more distant keys.
This leads to the recapitulation, where the music returns,more or less, to the begi ning, but not exactly .
If you are already a knowledgable classical music fan, what do you think about observation of these repeats? 
Do you prefer them, or can you do without them ? Some critics and musicologists are sticklers for their observation, and can get very testy when reviewing a concert or recording where they are omitted .
I prefer them onm the whole, but am not an absolute stickler . In Haydn and mozart symphonies, where the expositions are pretty short, omitting them is distirbing, but not so miuch in later and longer symphonies.On of the worst blinders a conductor can mae is omittiong th eone in the first movement of the Beethoven 5th, which is so short th eomission is really glaring . But I can't recall any example of this recently,live or on recordings. Repeats were not observed very often by many great conductors of the past such as Furtwangler,Walter and Beecham etc, but are much more common today , and period instrument musicians consider their omission a No-No. 
One of the worst blundrs a conductor can make in in th efirst movment of Beethoven's 5th, where the exposition is so brief the omission is really glaring.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Oops. I accidnetally repeated part of my post at the very end. Please disregard. Something fishy happened while I was writing.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

I want them, please.
Beethoven, of course. But Brahms too.
GG


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

It doesn't really matter to me, I see a good argument for both options.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

**** all repeats.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

If the composer put the repeat marks in the score, the section must be repeated!  :scold:


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

**** all composers who put repeat marks in their scores.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

They should be observed in my opinion. What are the good arguments against not, violadude?


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

I like exposition repeats to be observed. It gives me another chance to grasp the themes, and better allows me to pick up on how they are treated in the development. I get a much better understanding of the structure of a sonata form movement (and I love understanding the structure) if I get to hear the expo twice. It actually throws me off a little when people skip the repeats ("Wait, we're in the development already? Did I miss something?").


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

According to Brahms, his repeats are there exactly for the reason _Meaghan_ expounds upon. He also stated that when audiences become familiar with the music, the repeats ought to be dispensed with. Pretty smart guy, that one.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> According to Brahms, his repeats are there exactly for the reason _Meaghan_ expounds upon. He also stated that when audiences become familiar with the music, the repeats ought to be dispensed with. Pretty smart guy, that one.


Polednice, did you take this "changing avatars" thing too far and actually get a hold of Hilltroll's password?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> They should be observed in my opinion. What are the good arguments against not, violadude?


I think historical context is a valid argument to go ahead and skip the repeat. The repeat was very necessary back in the day where the common person was likely to only hear a work once, _maybe_ twice in their whole life, so it was their one chance to become familiar with the themes. That was pretty much the purpose of the exposition repeat. Now that we live in the groovy age of technology and music recordings, the original purpose of the exposition repeat is redundant since we can go ahead and play the exposition as many times as we want.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think historical context is a valid argument to go ahead and skip the repeat. The repeat was very necessary back in the day where the common person was likely to only hear a work once, _maybe_ twice in their whole life, so it was their one chance to become familiar with the themes. That was pretty much the purpose of the exposition repeat. Now that we live in the groovy age of technology and music recordings, the original purpose of the exposition repeat is redundant since we can go ahead and play the exposition as many times as we want.


I sort of feel that in a live show though when I'm experiencing something for the first time that I'm being cheated out of it in that way. I shouldn't have to go buy a recording of the piece that I heard just because they skipped the repetition!


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

violadude said:


> I think historical context is a valid argument to go ahead and skip the repeat. The repeat was very necessary back in the day where the common person was likely to only hear a work once, _maybe_ twice in their whole life, so it was their one chance to become familiar with the themes. That was pretty much the purpose of the exposition repeat. *Now that we live in the groovy age of technology and music recordings, the original purpose of the exposition repeat is redundant since we can go ahead and play the exposition as many times as we want.*


But - concerts! I guess I can always hear the piece again (unless it hasn't been recorded yet, like David Ludwig's spectacular "Lunaire Variations," which I heard earlier this month and wanted to hear again right away but couldn't), but I like hearing it in its totality the first time around, and grasping as much as possible. It just makes my concert experience better.

edit: Well, Cnote pretty much said it. That wasn't there yet when I started my post.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I sort of feel that in a live show though when I'm experiencing something for the first time that I'm being cheated out of it in that way. I shouldn't have to go buy a recording of the piece that I heard just because they skipped the repetition!


Oh well, my argument is less valid if you're thinking of live performances. I think live performances should definitely take a repeat. I was thinking along the lines of recordings of pieces.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I barely go to concerts, so I forgot about them.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm for them, every time they are in the score, including the repeats in the Andante, 2nd movement, of Mozart's, G-minor Symphony K. 550! 

They are there for a reason, for length, the overall proportion of the entire work. They began to be left of For The Sake Of Fitting A Piece Onto Vinyl Recordings, and later to fit 'more pieces' onto the longer play LP's.

The one argument is that when the repeats were a convention, that the average person was 
1.) hearing it new and for the first time
2.) hearing it perhaps for the only time

... the repeats gave the listener greater familiarity with the material before they were then taken through the development section. Musical memory is very much a part of how anyone, trained or not, listens: what has gone before stays in memory, the subsequent events, developments or surprises very much dependent upon listener memory. 

As much as more contemporary audiences are deathly familiar with classical rep, having heard, say, all the Beethoven symphonies via recordings more times than the cumulative number of performances given in the composer's lifetime, that memory, despite our modern familiarity, still works on us the same way, making the later development section that much more exciting. Hearing the repeats gives a very different perspective on what we hear after, and it also, very important, alters the proportion of the entire piece.

The fact the repeats are played differently enough that they do not sound like a dead repeat as if recorded may be somewhat lost on contemporary performers, even the better and best of them.

Union rules for major symphonies say that after one hour and twenty minutes, or thereabouts, all the players get union scale time and a half pay. The customer now expects three works on any given concert program.... Similarly, if you can buy a CD of _____A performing three Beethoven piano sonatas, and performer ______B performing three Beethoven piano sonatas, which in the marketplace is going to sell more.

I believe they are most often omitted due to commercial concerns, costs related to profit, and nothing at all to do with musical integrity. 

In the Classical lexicon, if one made an analogy to the Symphony or Sonata as architecture, in omitting the repeats you are showing the building with a truncated wing, distorting the balance and symmetry which IS classicism, an imbalanced and, yeah, corrupted, even, view.


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

There is literally no reason that I can see not to play the repeats.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Operadowney said:


> There is literally no reason that I can see not to play the repeats.


Well, in some classical era pieces that have tiny development sections, taking the repeat sometimes makes it seem like you are listening to the same thing 3 times with a 5 bar interlude between the 2nd and the 3rd time.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Yes, especially in the first movement of a typical symphony. The exposition repeat helps firmly implant the themes in the listener's mind and reinforces the effect of the development and even more so of the recapitulation. It helps build structural rhythm if I may use that term. I detest when conductors ignore them. Repeats in sonata-form movements are necessary if the composer thought it so. Sometimes, I even miss them when the composer didn't feel them necessary, though the are cases like the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth where it all makes sense without them. I can accept eliminating repeats in the other movements a little more easily but I still prefer strict observation of them. Music is an art highly dependant on memory. Repetition helps memory.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

This is the classic Schubert problem. Schubert was accused of being "prolix" because , according to his critics, he uses the repeat sign too much.

Schubert's opening movements are large scale and he take his time in developing them. For example, these works will clock over 20 minutes when all repeats are observed.

a. String Quartet no. 15

b. String Quintet in C major

c. Great C major Symphony

d. D.894 Piano Sonata

d. Piano Sonata no. 21 in B Flat

The D.960 sonata have been practically debated by musicians and scholars whether to obey the repeat sign. According to Wiki:



> The issue of repeat signs has been debated particularly in the context of the opening movements of the two last sonatas. Here, as in many of Schubert's sonata form movements, a repeat sign is written for an exceedingly long exposition, while the material of the exposition is repeated a third time in the recapitulation with little alteration. This has led some musicians to omit the exposition repeat when performing these movements. In the last two sonatas, however, unlike other movements, the first ending of the exposition contains several additional bars of music, leading back to the movement's opening. When performing the movement without the repeat, the music in these bars is totally omitted from the performance, as it does not appear in the second ending. Furthermore, in the B-flat sonata, these added bars contain strikingly novel material, which does not appear anywhere else in the piece, and is radically different from the second ending. Pianist András Schiff has described the omission of the repeat in these two movements as "the amputation of a limb". Brendel, on the other hand, considers the additional bars as unimportant and prefers to omit the repeats; with regard to the B-flat sonata, he further claims that the transitional bars are too unconnected to the rest of the movement, and believes that their omission actually contributes to the coherence of the piece


I will never forgive Brendel for omitting them!

Here is a great quick read about the issue:



> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...ts-last-sonatas-an-exchange/?pagination=false


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

There are pieces I prefer without repeats...Ravel's Bolero for example - 5 minutes or so is enough of this for me, I just find I actually enjoy the piece more at this length. I could say the same about some of Bach's Lute Suite pieces, I honestly find some more enjoyable to listen to without the repeats... I think its a grey area myself, and I don't think omitting them always takes away from the composition, not for me anyway.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I have the RCA CD of Rachmaninov conducting his 3rd symphony with the Philadelphia orchestra coupled with
his Isle of the Dead. These are his only recordings as a conductor, and thus a very important recorded document.
He does not observe his repeat in the first movement. I don't know if this was because of the constraints of 
the old pre LP recording technology , where each side lasted no more than five minutes. But the repeat is not there .


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

In my case it all depends how familiar I am with a work - if I'm used to hearing a particular work with exposition repeats included then I prefer them to be there but if I'm encountering a work for the first time and they are absent then what I don't hear I don't miss.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I appreciate repeats almost all the time because there are very few works I know well enough not to benefit from the repeat. But in those few works that I do know so well, I understand very well the desire to skip the repeat. 

But if I were in charge of a recording, I would skip the repeats, simply because the listener can hear any part of it as many times as she chooses to.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I want the repeats even in recordings. I often listen to music while I do non-thinking stuff, for example when I am soaking in a bath, or doing housework or filing.


----------



## Praeludium (Oct 9, 2011)

Repeating the exposition if fine with me (as it has been said, it allows a better grasp of the themes), but the development section has to be long enough ! I don't want to hear all the material three time if the development is really a small part of the work.

There one thing I absolutely don't want to be repeated, it's the exposition. Sometimes some peoples do it when playing a Sonata. It's just awfully boring.

Also, I think it depends on the period. Repeating the exposition of a romantic symphony is not the same thing as repeating the exposition of a purely classical one.

About the repeated exposition, and the repetitions in general, I think that, in the music that allows it (mainly classical I guess), the performers should ornament them even if it's not written. When it's well done it just sounds so good. And that's what they did back then...
I heard a simple Sor etude for guitar, played with some ornamentation. It was done with good taste and really delightful. (it's here. It's a very simple example but I love it.)


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

They should be included as the composer intended. Folks who don't want to here them can put their fingers in their ears during the repeats...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

If it's written in, play it.



Kopachris said:


> Polednice, did you take this "changing avatars" thing too far and actually get a hold of Hilltroll's password?


Unfortunately not!


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> If the composer put the repeat marks in the score, the section must be repeated!  :scold:


But it depends on context. Mozart and Haydn might have exposition repeats because, in their time, audiences wouldn't expect to hear a work more than once or twice, so the exposition repeat was needed to help listeners get the material before going on to the development session. These days, where we've heard something 47 times we don't need the repeat for that purpose, and I don't think it is essential that it is performed in music of this period. Had Mozart and Haydn been able to predict the future, no doubt they would have put a "use by" date on their repeats.

However, where the repeat is a structural device (eg Beethoven) and/or cutting mean cutting a bridge passage (eg Schubert) then it is hard to defend.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The repeating of an exposition is neccessary. It is not to do with aiding the audiences memory but with formal balance.
In symphonies of a later period the repeat may be written out and may take on some developmental duties (Mahler) but the move away from the tonic is what the exposition is for and if it is not heard twice then the structure is unbalanced. 
In a classical concerto the exposition does not move away from the tonic until the solo instrument leads it to, which happens during the repeat.
For me the classical sonata form is turned into nonsense if the repeat is not observed.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

In general repeats should be observed, but if a piece is boring I can do without them. Most relevant things about it have been said several times here already: it's a matter of balance, repetitions also help to enjoy a piece more (and for our modern ones who are not dependant of listening to a piece in public they are less needed). One thing is not said yet, though. Composers also played with the return to the second exposition. If you omit the repeat, you also omit this essential part of a composition. Moreover, what precedes the start of the second exposition also may alter the way the opening theme is experienced. For these reasons repeats also should be observed.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

martijn said:


> In general repeats should be observed, but if a piece is boring I can do without them.


I'd say that if a piece is boring, I can do without the piece altogether.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

I definitely would omit the repeat in the exposition of 4"33 by John Cage by the way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

What I really dislike is the repeat of the development/recapitulation. I feel it defeats the whole purpose of having that feeling of "coming home." It's really just a formal device left over from binary form, sonata form's root.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

violadude said:


> What I really dislike is the repeat of the development/recapitulation. I feel it defeats the whole purpose of having that feeling of "coming home." It's really just a formal device left over from binary form, sonata form's root.


I agree. The most important repeat is the first one, before development, to firmly entrench themes into a listener's mind. Repeating the recapitulation takes away the momentum build by it and diminishes the effect of the arrival of the coda (in a typical sonata architecture).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

tgtr0660 said:


> I agree. The most important repeat is the first one, before development, to firmly entrench themes into a listener's mind. Repeating the recapitulation takes away the momentum build by it and diminishes the effect of the arrival of the coda (in a typical sonata architecture).


I still say sonata form is not about themes, it's about keys. Haydn wrote some with only one theme I believe. It's only very early sonatas that repeat the 2nd half. But I agree that repeating the exposition is essential. Coda is optional.


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

It's not only the very early sonatas that repeat the 2nd half, often I hear works of late Mozart and Haydn where the second half is repeated.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

martijn said:


> It's not only the very early sonatas that repeat the 2nd half, often I hear works of late Mozart and Haydn where the second half is repeated.


Which late Mozart, out of curiosity?


----------



## martijn (May 4, 2011)

Recently, I heard f.e. k 428 with a repeated development and recapitulation, something which surprised me. Also, there are many last movements in late Mozart's and late Haydn symphonies and quartets, in which both the development and recapitulation are played twice.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

superhorn said:


> I have the RCA CD of Rachmaninov conducting his 3rd symphony with the Philadelphia orchestra coupled with
> his Isle of the Dead. These are his only recordings as a conductor, and thus a very important recorded document.
> He does not observe his repeat in the first movement. I don't know if this was because of the constraints of
> the old pre LP recording technology , where each side lasted no more than five minutes. But the repeat is not there .


It is the old pre-LP constraints, of course - an era when well-known tempi marks were over-ridden, many a well-known bit of repertoire played much faster than 'everyone' knew it went, too, for the same reason.

Some naif's have concluded that those distorted tempo recordings -- again so not what is marked in the published scores -- are 'earlier performance practice' and to be emulated!!! They are quite ready to cite such and so a pianist as taking this baroque - classical - romantic piece at such and so a tempo on those old recordings as a legitimate scholarly source!


----------

