Do repeats make it or break it for you?

[euphony131]

Did Beethoven insist on all repeats (of the exposition or Scherzo, if written) be done? Or was he open to changes? Didn't he cut out repeats himself on occasion?

His Fifth Symphony is a great example. Some "purists" decry the cutting of repeats in the 1st mvt and 4th (also in sonata form). But then are perfectly okay with cutting the Scherzo repeat. Sounds like they are playing fast and loose themselves!

Karajan will keep the 1st mvt. repeat but cut out the ones for the Scherzo and Finale. And these days the order of the day seems to be to play ALL repeats. Much to the consternation of some who say the one for the Scherzo is "killing the tension" or whatever.

Here's the thing:
I feel whether repeats (and which ones) are done or not is irrelevant compared to the performance. Like I love Pierre Boulez and the New Philharmonic take the Scherzo (with repeat) at 9:52 in an overall reading that is broad and sui generis! He makes it work. For the same token -- if Karajan cuts out repeats then I don't mind at all! He also makes it work. I don't sit there and go: Oh, god, the world will end! How dare he not do the repeat! I won't listen anymore!

Seriously? Who does that? Or actually there are people who do that. But I think they are insane.

What about the rest of you?

PS -- Btw, Boulez skips the repeat in the finale! Interesting, right? Also, he skips the exposition entirely in the 1st mvt!!! That's right. NO EXPOSITION. AT ALL. He launches straight into Development. And it's still 9:19 mins long! Okay, I was joking about the 1st mvt! He keeps the exposition and repeat. I just wanted to see the looks on your faces!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpe6...ature=emb_logo
(I tried to use the YouTube embedding feature but it doesn't work. )

[Peter]

I think myself it is acceptable to omit repeats in some cases. Where the exposition is long as in the case of the Eroica I don't personally have a problem with not repeating though I understand the balance argument. With the 8th though I think it is essential, so it really depends on each individual movement and maybe the venue and tempi that are taken as well.

[Sorrano]

With Beethoven in particular, I think the balance created by the repeats is essential for a more authentic version but I do not think it will make or break a work without.

[Chris]

Personally, I like all the repeats taken. I don't think omitting them "breaks" a performance, but all else being equal, I always prefer a version with repeats.

[euphony131]

I think myself it is acceptable to omit repeats in some cases. Where the exposition is long as in the case of the Eroica I don't personally have a problem with not repeating though I understand the balance argument. With the 8th though I think it is essential, so it really depends on each individual movement and maybe the venue and tempi that are taken as well.

In Beethoven: A Life by Jan Caeyers (arguably the bio with the most current scholarship), there's a story of Beethoven being uncertain about keeping the repeat until he heard a rehearsal. "The run-throughs with Lobkowitz helped him realize that the omission of the repeat actually made the symphony seem even longer."

So it's ironic that the Eroica repeat (one of the most contentious repeats among fans -- to do or not to do?) may be one he insisted on, while possibly the others he was flexible about.

You mention "balance." Of course there's the balance within the mvt, between the parts: Expo, Development & Recap with Coda. But there's also balance between the movements, no? Like I think Boulez cut the 4th mvt. repeat because it helped give proper proportions to the work as a WHOLE. Hey, I'm just guessing! I'm no musicologist or anything! But I think he made the right choice given his broad tempi (like the check out the vid link in my post!).

So probably nothing is "essential," not even with the 8th. Like if someone did an incredible version of the 8th without the repeat I'd be fine with it. Like I'm fine with an almost 20 mins long 9th Adagio so long as it's Furtwangler doing it.

[euphony131]

Frankly, why are repeats necessary from a musical craft perspective?
I understand listeners may want them to imprint the various themes in their minds better (though even that argument sounds a bit shaky, like saying: "Every novel will have the first two chapters repeated so you can better follow the characters." Huh?)

Repeating the exposition seems to create an imbalance, because the Development and Recap become smaller in comparison. So the work is heavily front-loaded.

Like can you imagine repeating the expo in the second mvt of Symphony 2? It's also in sonata form but no one ever does a repeat. Works perfectly without it.

Of course, I'm no expert! Just a listener and curious to know why there's so much importance put on repeats, when all the big climaxes happen later.

[Harvey]

I find the whole idea of repeats confusing. For example, it would be easy to compare tempo for different conductors by comparing a piece across conductors for total time, but those pesky repeats or lack thereof, renders any such comparison meaningless, unless you know what repeats were/ were not taken and adjust accordingly. Becomes too big of a job.

[euphony131]

I find the whole idea of repeats confusing. For example, it would be easy to compare tempo for different conductors by comparing a piece across conductors for total time, but those pesky repeats or lack thereof, renders any such comparison meaningless, unless you know what repeats were/ were not taken and adjust accordingly. Becomes too big of a job.

Yeah, you have to do some math to make allowances. I've never bothered. haha.

Timings are definitely misleading! Like some people say Karajan is "fast." But he generally avoids repeats and once you factor that in he's actually not that fast.

[Sorrano]

The other night I listened to Schnabel play the first movement of Beethoven's first piano sonata and noticed that he repeated the exposition. For me that helped clarify the themes and made a more coherent performance. Besides, I enjoyed listening to that wonderful exposition again.

[euphony131]

The other night I listened to Schnabel play the first movement of Beethoven's first piano sonata and noticed that he repeated the exposition. For me that helped clarify the themes and made a more coherent performance. Besides, I enjoyed listening to that wonderful exposition again.

Yes, on a subjective level, I can adore repeats in the context of a brilliant performance. Like when Pierre Boulez does the Scherzo repeat I think it absolutely works. Or should LvB be alive and decide to triple the repeats while playing piano then I'm happy to sit back and relish.

But objectively I don't know why they are required. Like no one would think to repeat the opening theme of the Diabelli Variations which are then proceeded by 33 variations. Should we hear it twice (thrice?) before moving on to better appreciate all its permutations? Again, doesn't seem strictly necessary from a musical standpoint. This is all I'm saying. I'm no musicologist and perhaps someone more erudite could fill me in?

[Chris]

It does seem to me that there is a reason for the original material to be repeated before diverting into other things. In a popular song, would you have only a single verse before having a bridge? It could be done, but the whole thing makes more sense if it has two verses before going on to something different. It makes the different part different as opposed to merely being next.

[euphony131]

It does seem to me that there is a reason for the original material to be repeated before diverting into other things. In a popular song, would you have only a single verse before having a bridge? It could be done, but the whole thing makes more sense if it has two verses before going on to something different. It makes the different part different as opposed to merely being next.

I'm not sure if a pop song "single verse" equates to two substantial subjects with cadence material in a symphonic exposition. I could maybe see the argument if the expo were quick, short and simple, but we know it's never that way with LvB.

Like there are those who say the expo in the Eroica isn't needed because it's already so meaty.

Anyway, I think it's interesting to discuss if only because I've never heard it discussed it before!

[Sorrano]

Bear in mind that form was extremely important to those in Beethoven's time. The structure with repeats of the Sonata-Allegro form had meaning for the audience. The key changes from the A to B themes, the ability to return harmonically to the home key of the A section from the new key of the B section, etc. We don't listen to music the way they did.

[Peter]

Bear in mind that form was extremely important to those in Beethoven's time. The structure with repeats of the Sonata-Allegro form had meaning for the audience. The key changes from the A to B themes, the ability to return harmonically to the home key of the A section from the new key of the B section, etc. We don't listen to music the way they did.

Indeed we don't - can't imagine many concert programmes today like Dec 22nd 1808 in Theater an der Wien (although I did attend a reconstruction of this event back in 2003.)

[euphony131]

Bear in mind that form was extremely important to those in Beethoven's time. The structure with repeats of the Sonata-Allegro form had meaning for the audience. The key changes from the A to B themes, the ability to return harmonically to the home key of the A section from the new key of the B section, etc. We don't listen to music the way they did.

But what about the lack of a repeat in LvB's 9th? Did that throw off his audience? Surely it works fine without a repeat!

I also wonder about repeats in the Scherzo of the 9th. Perhaps the most "controversial" of all repeats?!? It's in sonata form and the first time the scherzo comes around the expo is repeated then the development & recap follow...AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND RECAP ARE REPEATED. That's gotta be unusual! It also adds some 3:30 mins to the mvt. I don't understand the reasoning behind it. I'm all ears to anyone who would kindly explain.

Karajan leaves out all the Scherzo repeats out in his 70's version and I think it works fine. Though he does take the expo repeat in his 60's version. I think most "traditional" conductors (including Furtwangler) take the expo repeat but not the others. Though someone please correct me if I"m wrong! I'm still new to this "repeat" stuff. In fact, I'm not sure where the "recap" starts for the Scherzo. I presume it's the giant tutti?