Klarinet Archive - Posting 000070.txt from 2007/10

From: Mark Sausville <sausvill@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: the effect of technology
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:17:11 -0400

Er, folks, maybe you should ask someone who knows how to dance an minuet
whether the repeats are required in the dance.

M.

Keith Bowen wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>

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