What are you listening to now?

[atserriotserri]

Aaron Copland's Hoedown from Rodeo. Quite fun and passionate music.

Any other members like the music of Copland?

I would describe what I have of Copland's music precisely that way. I'ved listened to "Billy the Kid Suite", "Appalachian Spring Suite", "Fanfare for the Common Man", "El Salón México" and "Danzón Cubano".I don't know much about Copland but those records made me curious about his works... The Fanfare is based on a Movement from his 3rd symphony, and the suites derive from ballets. Now I don't have time but on the notes of the records there are some funny facts about the composer.

[Preston]

I would describe what I have of Copland's music precisely that way.

I mean sure, it is not is deep, moving, spiritual, etc., as Beethoven, but I do enjoy it. Supposedly, he spent a lot of time on his music and wrote some pretty serious music. So perhaps not all of it is fun and passionate, .

[Peter]

Aaron Copland's Hoedown from Rodeo. Quite fun and passionate music.

Any other members like the music of Copland?

Yes and I like the 3rd symphony.

[Preston]

Yes and I like the 3rd symphony.

Have never heard the 3rd symphony Peter. Will listen to it on You Tube right now, if I can find it, .

[Chris]

Tonight I am listening to Trevor Pinnock play the Bach Partitas, French Overture, Italian Concerto, and Goldberg Variations. I love his harpsichord playing, and I wish he had more recordings of the Bach solo keyboard works. Most of the rest (English Suites, French Suites, etc.) I have by Gustav Leonhardt, whose playing I also love, but he has the unfortunate practice of skipping repeats whenever possible. Ugh...

[Peter]

Pierre Fournier's wonderful playing of the Bach cello suites.

[atserriotserri]

After listening to the Grosse Fugue op. 133 (Gewandhaus Quartett) I find myself perplexed listening to the classical station of the Catalan public radio, a program named "Who's scared of XX century?" today is dedicated to Cage (1. I had to tell it, 2. depending on who reads, please make your choice: or or or or or even ): "City wears a slouch hat" and "Fads and fancies in the academy". The first is a work composed in 1942 for CBS "Columbia workshop" show with Kenneth Palchan's script. There is a narrator and a "orchestra of sounds" (percussion and other objects and sound effects). Not my kind but has some moments; I presume that scenification may add depth to its message. Now, "Fads and fancies" is being a beautiful surprise. It's a satyric work for dance where Cage parodies songs for children stablishing a dialog between a piano and the dancers; a quite simple but enjoyable piece.

[atserriotserri]

Beethoven 5th & 7th symphonies, Kleiber, VPO in a bucle.

[Preston]

I have by Gustav Leonhardt, whose playing I also love, but he has the unfortunate practice of skipping repeats whenever possible. Ugh...

Quick question, why would a performer skip repeats? I mean, is that not taking away from the music? What would inspire a performer to do this?

[Chris]

Quick question, why would a performer skip repeats? I mean, is that not taking away from the music? What would inspire a performer to do this?

Sometimes it is a matter of "interpretation", but on recordings it can often be a practical matter, so they can fit all of the music on the least amount of records/CDs/whatever. I have a wonderful recording of the Paganini caprices for solo violin by James Ehnes, but it really loses something for some of the repeats being skipped to fit it all onto one disc. James Ehnes actually talks about this in the liner notes. Personally, I would rather pay a little more for complete music.

Come to think of it, that might be an advantage of digital distribution, as we were talking about before - there is no reason to skip repeats. Well, until they realize they can save bandwidth and storage space costs, I guess, so maybe it will be worse!

I suppose it might sometimes also be a case of studio time being expensive, and not wanting to put up the money to spend the time to record all repeats, but I have no idea if that is ever actually a factor.

[PDG]

I always believed that repeats were put into classical compositions because often, at the start of a new performance, the audience would not be quite settled or attuned to their surroundings, and needed to feel 'bedded in' before being able to fully appreciate the occasion. So the first repeat acts as a precursor. When repeated, the listener already has something to latch onto (from memory) which greatly assists. If the performer/s did not make that first repeat, then the groundwork for what followed might have been lost on adjusting ears and minds, resulting in enjoyment dissatisfaction.

In this modern age of familiarity and compact audio technology, I'm not sure that all repeats are really necessary. In Beethoven, for example, I feel that the exposition repeat of the first movement in the Sonata in C (Op.2 no.3), tends to make the movement over-long, and when the trio finally arrives, it suffers by appearing to be too brief by comparison.

[Peter]

Franck's Symphony in D minor, the delightful Symphonic variations and a work of his unknown to me, Les Eolides conducted by Yan Pascal Tortelier.

[Megan]

A new composer to me, heard on Radio 3 this morning, and worth exploring, a lovely piece by -

Hellendaal, Pieter (1721-1799): Concerto grosso in F for strings and continuo, Op 3, No 6
Combattimento Consort Amsterdam.


http://www.hoasm.org/VIIJ/Hellendaal.html



-

[Michael]

I always believed that repeats were put into classical compositions because often, at the start of a new performance, the audience would not be quite settled or attuned to their surroundings, and needed to feel 'bedded in' before being able to fully appreciate the occasion. So the first repeat acts as a precursor. When repeated, the listener already has something to latch onto (from memory) which greatly assists. If the performer/s did not make that first repeat, then the groundwork for what followed might have been lost on adjusting ears and minds, resulting in enjoyment dissatisfaction.

In this modern age of familiarity and compact audio technology, I'm not sure that all repeats are really necessary..

That's a very good point about settling down. I find it takes a minute or two to focus one's attention and, especially in Beethoven, it is vital to be involved from the outset, so the exposition repeat allows that.
However, I have mixed feelings about repeats, and I am just confining myself here to first-movement expositions. Beethoven himself was one of the first composers to throw out the repeat in certain compositions. The first one that comes to mind is Opus 59, No. 1, where he actually teases the listener by starting off the development section as if it were a repeat of the exposition.
Something similar happens in the first movement of the Ninth Symphony. The "Appassionata" and the C minor violin sonata are two other works that omit the repeat in a less dramatic way. Curiously, in the last movement of the sonata, B wants the development and recapitulation repeated.
B was also in two minds about the Eroica repeat because of the length of the opening movement and he never got around to restoring the repeat in the scherzo of the Fifth Symphony - something it badly needs, in my humble.
A lot of B's earlier works could do fine without the repeats because the expositions are quite long and much simpler than the middle period and late works. The one you mention, PDG, is a case in point (although I particularly love that movement). The Opus 1 piano trios have gloriously long expositions but I feel that once is enough in those cases and I often wish the players would just plough straight on into the development.
I am, of course, referring only to sonata-form here. In Baroque music, I imagine repeats would be more essential for the purposes of balance. A lot of Beethoven's earlier works can sound top-heavy with all the repeats observed.
Then again, I had a vinyl recording of the Fifth Symphony (cond. George Szell) where the expo repeat was left out and it sounded distinctly odd.
As I have said, I have mixed feelings about this and it probably depends on my mood on the day I am listening, but PDG's point about giving oneself a chance to tune is a very good one. It may well make me more patient with opening repeats.

[Hofrat]

I always believed that repeats were put into classical compositions because often, at the start of a new performance, the audience would not be quite settled or attuned to their surroundings, and needed to feel 'bedded in' before being able to fully appreciate the occasion. So the first repeat acts as a precursor. When repeated, the listener already has something to latch onto (from memory) which greatly assists. If the performer/s did not make that first repeat, then the groundwork for what followed might have been lost on adjusting ears and minds, resulting in enjoyment dissatisfaction.

In this modern age of familiarity and compact audio technology, I'm not sure that all repeats are really necessary. In Beethoven, for example, I feel that the exposition repeat of the first movement in the Sonata in C (Op.2 no.3), tends to make the movement over-long, and when the trio finally arrives, it suffers by appearing to be too brief by comparison.

Sometimes there are two repeats in the sonata form movement:
1. the exposition.
2. the developement and recapitulation.
The opus 2/3 would be even longer if Beethoven would have put in the 2nd repeat like he did with opus 2/1 and opus 2/2.