Klarinet Archive - Posting 000064.txt from 2007/10

From: "Keith Bowen" <bowenk@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Re: the effect of technology
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:15:24 -0400

David, I don't agree with this at all! And guesses are not evidence.

1. We know that Mozart was careful about whether or not to have repeats,
since he marked "senza replice" when he didn't want them.

2. In traditional sonata form there are two reasons for repeating the
exposition. One is to establish the first and second subject firmly in the
mind of the audience before the development section - recall that with no
CDs and emphasis on new music, for many in the 18th/19th century, this would
be the only time they hear the piece. The second is because the introduction
and first subject sounds different in the two cases: in the first you hear
it in the tonic with nothing before, on the second occasion you hear it
following the dominant ending of the exposition.

3. In the movements with most repeats, minuets/trios, the balance of the
movements is wrong if we don't do repeats. David Whitwell explained this
nicely; if you are listening to the trio, you lose the sense of contrast
with the minuet if you've only heard it once, because it was a long time
ago; if you hear it twice, you appreciate the trio all the more. Then to
balance the key structure you need the minuet again. In many cases
originally you would hear that twice also. BUT it should not be played the
same each time. It is a chance for the first instrument players to show of
their embellishments and interact with each other. When composers wanted to
discourage this practice, they stopped writing nearly so many repeats.

4. Sometimes they were added to increase the length, no doubt. But again
recall that these were not CDs with which everyone was familiar, but new and
often revolutionary music. No harm in hearing it twice.

Keith Bowen

-----Original Message-----
From: klarinet-return-91902-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org
[mailto:klarinet-return-91902-bowenk=compuserve.com@-----.org] On Behalf
Of David Lamb
Sent: 08 October 2007 04:26
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: [kl] Re: the effect of technology

Dan Leeson on repeats:

> That is very consistent with a cellist I played with many years ago. He
> was
> quite aged at the time, and had even played with Brahms himself. I asked
> him about repeats and his response was the same as your statement; i.e.,
> they never took any repeats, though he was speaking about chamber music
> rather than large scale orchestral works.
>
This is what I have suspected all along. In most cases, repeats add nothing

to the structure of a work, and they are there simply because they are
there. My guess is that composers put in the repeat marks because they were

expected -- musical punctuation marks in a sense -- and I also guess that
repeats were often not observed. I believe that they add little to an
understanding of a piece, and I would be happy to do without them. I
further believe that if composers felt a need to review the material, they
should present it again in a different way -- a way that shows some new
aspect or way of thinking. In general, a repeat is the mark of a lazy
composer.

David Lamb in Seattle

------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------