 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Pappy
Date: 2009-03-01 23:37
I've done enough research to learn that there are numerous opinions about this and I'm not sure I've found a consensus.
So, using the Mozart Quintet as an example (but really the question applies to all such works), what are your opinions about whether the repeats must be played or may be omitted? In the first movement, would either one or both of the repeats be considered discretionary? In the Minuet and Trio, must the de capo be played between each trio or is that optional? I have read that repeats on the exposition of classical period works were generally considered optional and were often left out, even by the composers. What do you think?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-03-01 23:48
By default, I'll take all repeats. If the piece feels like it drags with repeats included, though, or if I don't want the concert to be too long, I'll start cutting.
Playing background music at a party? That's when all the repeats come in really handy.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-03-02 00:30
I'm not sure why repeats started getting omitted from a performance- perhaps the record industry has some fault here. I like hearing the repeat- it shows the listener how far the piece has traveled harmonically and balances the structure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryder
Date: 2009-03-02 02:02
I have a similar question about the Weber Concertino. I have one edition revised by T. Conway Brown, that has a repeat in variation II from the poco piu vivo to D. It is marked forte the first time and pianissimo the second. I have two other editions w/o the repeat. None of my recordings play the repeat...the consensus on whether to play the repeat or not is clear, but how was it originally intended to be played? do we even know?
____________________
Ryder Naymik
San Antonio, Texas
"We pracice the way we want to perform, that way when we perform it's just like we practiced"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2009-03-02 03:08
This is my belief:
The exposition of many works enjoyed a repeat in the classical period because the initial themes would almost certainly be heard for the first, and most likely, only time. Considering the size (in comparison to the whole) of most sonata form first movements, it helped the audience to be familiarized with the themes. Embellishments were expected somewhat in the repeat and certainly in the recapitulation.
The question for you is: if you are performing a work that is almost certainly known to the audience, do you want to repeat? I think that program constraints are the best reason not to...but I'm not certain that is a good enough reason.
Sometimes removing a repeat actually improves a piece...mostly not!
Artistically the repeat should be an opportunity for you to do something different (perhaps play a phrase in two different ways...the ones you couldn't choose between) to keep the audience engaged.
just my 2 cents
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-03-02 05:17
James, I'm not so sure about your belief. Composers often repeated the exposition section in the romantic era as well. I believe the Beethoven symphonies (with the exception of no. 9) and the Brahms symphonies have repeats- I could be wrong since I do not have scores with me. I imagine many of the chamber works also have repeats.
I think- and this is speculation of course- that the practice of omitting repeats is due in some part to the record industry. Maybe limited space on LP's combined with not wanting the exposition on one side and the repeat on the other side of a record made some execs can the repeat.
I think sonata form is more a product of key relationships than themes, and therefore themes would have little bearing on my choice to repeat or not to repeat. Firstly, if the composer wrote in the repeat why would someone want to ignore that? Secondly, the repeat is to display the harmonic distance traveled and to balance the form of the movement. For these reasons I think they should be adhered to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2009-03-02 13:29
I once played under a conductor who didn't take the exposition repeat in the last movement of Mozart Symphony #40, but did want us to take the recapitulation/development repeat. I usually care about what's in the score, but this was like watching the end of a bad movie twice (conductor was dull, too).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-03-02 13:36
I always assumed you play the repeats the first time round in Rondos and Minuet&Trios, and not to play the repeats on DC/DS.
Sometimes the repeated section in the 1st movement of symphonies may have been cut on LP recordings and live performances due to time restrictions (45 mins on LPs), though as CDs have longer playing time, more recent recordings will often include the repeated sections.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2009-03-02 13:42
Hello Brycon,
Beethoven is the bridge between the classical and romantic periods, and didn't get around to breaking down traditional forms until his late string quartets and the last movement of the 9th symphony.
Brahms was such a traditionalist that he followed suit in his use of form and his belief that well crafted formal architecture was fundamental and necessary. So as far as the Romantic era is concerned the principle of classical form were still regimentaly in place amongst those composers who used form. I would presume that any sonata form work from this period would also have repeats.
It wasn't until Beethoven's/Brahm's/Wagner's time that composers realized that they were writing music that would be heard on into the future...before that it was rare that any piece would enjoy multiple performances. Brahms and Wagner both in their careers keenly felt the pendulum swing of performance practice: from the composer of the day to the composer of the past.
Sonata form itself experienced a great transformation over time from the classical to the romantic periods. Opposition of tonality is always a primary force, but the opposition and/or unification of themes became increasingly important as composers began to incorporate folk themes, and as the symphonic form became larger and the composer sought to create melodic elements that could provide continuity to the work as a whole.
Change of tonality almost always coincides with change of theme or formal change! There should be no insistence on separating them unless we're talking about mono-thematic Haydn sonata mvts.
My point about how and why you choose to express themes had nothing to do with WHETHER you choose to repeat, but what opportunities you have WHEN you repeat.
"Firstly, if the composer wrote in the repeat why would someone want to ignore that?"
There are a host of times that we choose to ignore what the composer wants because we know better! Or at least, time and performance practice have changed what we do. Why did Brahms think that a couple measures of A clarinet at the beginning of the third symphony was a good idea? As fine a craftsman as he was, it is known that he had a poor understanding of winds until later in his life...and this is one example of a poor choice on his part.
You commented earlier that the repeat balances the structure...I would argue that it unbalances it: often the A-B-A form falls into proportional sizes, so that you have three sections that are a third of the composition each...with the repeat you have four sections, three of which are the same.
If you reread my original post you'll realize that I'm not for removing the repeats in general, btw.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2009-03-02 14:32
Thanks, James, for your marvelously insightful post! Your having mentioned Brahms in the context of repeated exposition sections of symphonic works, I have heard that Brahms himself, when this question was raised, opined that the repeats ought to be observed when the work was performed for a new audience, but not necessarily when the audience was already familiar with the particular symphony.
Having performed Brahms 2nd many times, rarely with the exposition repeated, I was shocked, when I finally got to play the "first ending", to discover a few previously unheard bars of Brahms' music!
To further complicate this issue, there is no repeat in the first movement exposition of Mahler's 1st Symphony (at least in the editions that I've played), but several conductors have asked the orchestra to insert repeats, with good effect -- gives the bass clarinet two shots at the lovely counter-melody!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-03-02 14:50
Pappy said, "I've done enough research to learn that there are numerous opinions about this and I'm not sure I've found a consensus." This is true, amongst conductors as well as musicians, oops, did I say that? I do think it is common to take all the repeats in the Minuet and Trio but optional in the first movement of the Mozart Quintet. I've done it with all repeats, just the first repeat and without any repeat in the first movement. It usually depends on what the other members want to do and the length of the program. I prefer doing only the first repeat myself but will do it any way. Since there isn't a consensus do what you think is right at the time you're playing it. It's nice to have choices, Mozart won't be there to give his opinion, but I'm sure others will. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pappy
Date: 2009-03-02 15:33
Ed Said "Mozart won't be there to give his opinion, but I'm sure others will."
:) Well that's just it. We want to give a good performance AND not be called Philistines as our audience departs, shaking their heads........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-03-03 00:58
Pappy, you just have to do what you think is best, because as you said, there is no consensus so that's the only point I wanted to make. I suppose one can say that if a composer wrote a repeat it should be done but that's not what actually happens in real life so you just have to do what you think if right. Everyone can't be right since so many have different opinions. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-03-05 00:11
James,
Just got back from out of town and would like to respond. I enjoyed your post very much- a welcome break from reeds and mouthpieces!
Firstly, would you not consider Beethoven's Eroica a romantic work?
Secondly, Beethoven altered the sonata form earlier than the 9th symphony.
In the Eroica, Beethoven expanded the coda to practically a second development section. To balance this, he also expanded the exposition section. Beethoven also altered the aesthetic properties of the sonata form with the Eroica. He made the end of the development section the moment of maximum tension in sonata from (the horn playing the theme in tonic while the strings are playing dominant harmony simultaneously).
I would say this constitutes a change in sonata form, and a change in aesthetics. Whether you say it is classical or romantic- or what these terms mean for that matter- is up to you.
I seperate themes from key areas because I believe this is how composers thought about the form. Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven did not have a formula set down and taught in music theory classes that said there are two themes: Theme 1 in tonic and Theme 2 in dominant. The fact that there are so often 3 or 4 or any number of substantive themes in an exposition leads me to believe that key centers were the determining factor.
A-A-B-A is sonata form. It is a four part form. This is why I said removing the repeat unbalances the movement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2009-03-05 01:26
Hello Brycon,
I think the first place to agree upon is that many works of the classical and romantic periods used form. In the romantic period there were many works that did not use form, but where they did use form they used them for (generally) the same reasons and essentially the same way as the classical period.
So whether or not Beethoven (or anyone else) wrote a “classical” or “romantic” piece, we agree that most expositions were written with a repeat.
“Firstly, would you not consider Beethoven's Eroica a romantic work?”
As I state above and you point out later in your response, this characterization is irrelevant. The first movement of the symphony IS sonata form, and we both agree on that.
“Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven did not have a formula set down and taught in music theory classes that said there are two themes: Theme 1 in tonic and Theme 2 in dominant.”
Yes they did. They listened to music and studied scores. They took lesson with the best composer/pianist they could find. They learned the forms from those teachers and everything they heard: they were steeped in music that used form without fail. Although “theory” at that time was descriptive and not prescriptive, they all understood exactly how the form worked and what was expected of the composition. They weren’t studying to learn “theory”, they were learning “composition”. So THEY DID know that the first theme was in the tonic and the second was in the dominant…the composers we are discussing had decades (if not hundreds) of years and a lifetime of music to know this…even if they might not have used the terms “tonic” and “dominant”.
In fact: back then you didn’t have to study music to understand how the forms worked. Almost EVERY single piece used form, and its’ pattern was well understood. Form provided music a set of expectations that could be met or frustrated for effect: will the composer follow the form exactly? Or where and how will what they expect be changed? A well versed audience, without lessons/classes, understood form.
How a composer met or frustrated you expectations is fundamental to how form succeeds. Providing a false recapitulation, modulating to an unexpected key, etc,…HOW the composer used the form is one of the many reasons why some composers have stood the test of time, and others have not.
Mozart was a genius and a brilliant melodist, but Beethoven’s impact on the composers who followed him was far greater because of the scope of his music’s architectural structure, a quality that Brahms continued. One of Schubert’s greatest contributions: the three key exposition.
I don’t have my scores around either, and I won’t argue that Beethoven frustrated the standard expectations with the first movement of the Eroica. It was still Sonata form, however! In the fourth movement of the 9th symphony (and some of the late quartets) he abandons form entirely, hence my statement. All good composers altered the form eventually. Beethoven’s abandonment heralded a future shift.
Form was SO INGRAINED that when composers started to compose without forms that two camps were created: the traditionalists who insisted on form’s continued use and the reformers who did not want to be restricted by the forms. This is ranging far afield, however…
Binary form existed before and “evolved” or expanded to become Ternary. Sonata Form is just a complicated Ternary form that became the standard for the first movement of many works for an extended amount of time. AABA is NOT the definition of Sonata Form…the repeated A section exists to familiarize the audience with the tonal centers/themes of a piece of music that they would likely never hear again.
I do not separate themes from modulation/tonal centers because they’re always related.
Respectfully disagreeable,
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-03-05 02:22
A few more points of disagreement:
The last movement of the 9th symphony is not without form. I can think of no common practice symphonic pieces that are without form, but I am open to examples. The last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony is a set of variations- if you would like I could provide a more in depth analysis.
I also do not believe that sonata grew out of ternary form. I have heard there is some sort of argument over sonata form being binary or ternary, but it's origins lie in binary dance form. Late 18th Century treatises- the first to mention sonata form- refer to it as being binary. Furthermore, late 18th and early 19th C treatises "understood sonata form organization primarily in terms of the tonal structure" (Grove Music).
I will agree with you that romantic era composers had a certain aesthetic desire for two distinct themes (in terms of character).
Post Edited (2009-03-05 02:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2009-03-05 02:45
Sonata form came from the sinfonia, and perhaps I should not have made such a broad statement as "it grew" from the Ternary. It is at its heart a Ternary form. Obviously we're going to disagree on that.
Although there are variations on the joy theme in the finale from the 9th, it is not a theme and variations. It has alternations of bass theme with synopsis of the previous movements. When has that ever occurred in classical form before? How does it function in relation to the whole movement? It does not in a classical sense. Beethoven almost sums up the three movements to move on with something new.
The final movement is a revolutionary form-breaking work, unlike anything that came before it. That is my point in relation to this piece (and the late string quartets) where even Beethoven, classical trained and a pioneer of form, began to cast this aside. Who knows what he would have composed had he lived longer.
This doesn't mean that the finale lacks STRUCTURE, it just lacks FORM as it has been used before (and after).
Ultimately you believe that the repeat of the exposition in classical form is integral to the structure, I believe it is incidental.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2009-03-05 12:20
I really wish that I had my Beethoven scores, I have no idea where they are.
It is also interesting to retrospectively analyze the history/theory courses one has taken to determine exactly WHERE one learned something that you believe absolutely. Was it from a text (that I still own)? Or was it the personal conviction of the teacher of the course?
I provide some data from a dubious source. The information may be valid, and it certainly can be argued:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sonata_form
Under the header Sonata form in Classical period:
Sonata form grew from...
1. the weakening boundaries between binary and ternary form
2. a shift from polyphony to homophony
3. growing movement to juxtapose keys/textures.
As I think about it, I don't believe there is any form that is quarterly in nature. Even Rondo form can be perceived as an extrapolative outgrowth of ternary form. Am I missing/forgetting a four part form?
I also provide, from the same source, in the next section on Romantic period that:
1. focused more on themes than cadential placement.
2. expected that themes of first and second groups must contrast.
3. viewed more on contrasting theme(s) than tonal areas.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-03-05 17:28
Formally, sonata form's roots lay in French dance movements (Grove Music):
//: A :// //: B A ://
Haydn creates 2 independent key areas in the first section and prolongs the dominant in the beginning of the second before returning to the tonic key. As the second section starts to become too large, he removes the repeat:
//: A :// B A //
As I said earlier, Beethoven expanded the coda section of the Eroica into a second development section and made the return to the tonic harmony the culmination point. Therefore, when he removes the exposition repeat in the 9th symphony the form is something like this:
Exp. Development // Recap Coda(2nd Dev)
Later, Brahms and Bruckner removed the coda in some of their compositions making the sonata form a 3 part form. Also, you are correct, in later romantic music the individuality of themes is very important.
On to the last movement of the 9th. I believe you are correct that the introduction into the Joy theme and variations is something that had not been done. I believe Beethoven does this in order to introduce the vocal part into the symphonic realm, something that had also not been done before.
dminor and BbMajor are the two most prominent keys in the 9th, and in the 4th movement Beethoven introduces the keys simultaneously in the opening dissonance (Bb Triad/ A). Then after a recitative in the low strings
there is an allusion to the first movement. This is followed by a repeat of the recit. and an allusion to the second movement, et cetera.
After all four movements have been heard in brief, the theme is presented in DM and followed by three variations. Then the opening dissonance comes back again and is again followed by the recit but this time in solo voice rather than strings. This is followed by 3 more variations with orchestra and voices.
That's my take on it at any rate.
Post Edited (2009-03-05 19:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
