On 28 May 2006 at 18:16, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > Richard Smith wrote: > > > Current practice is often stuck in the habits of previous centuries > > and > > does not reflect the > > capabilities of our software. Finale or Sibelius (even most of the > > "toy" notation programs) eliminate the need for repeats to save the > > engraver's time. Just copy and paste (and edit as needed). > > It's ashame whatever you do as an engraver, we still have conductors > who pick and chose which repeats they will honor. I think Christopher > Hogwood was one of the first conductors I heard that would never > ignore any repeat. . . .
What malarkey. Repeats were obligatory in the repertory Christopher Hogwood plays *only* if you *vary* the repeat in some way. If you don't have anything different to say in the repeat, then you're under no obligation to take it. Secondly, many of the original sources are quite contradictory about where repeats are intended, and often ambiguous as well, so we can't always say for sure whether a repeat was intended by the composer or not. In short, there is no hard and fast rule about whether repeats are obligatory just because they are found in the score, even if it's the composer's autograph. > . . . Even in the minuet movements of Mozart symphonies, > the minuet repeats are observed on the recapitulation. Which I found > interesting because if you look at the timings of movments where > conductors don't do this-- the Minuet always looked so small compared > to the other movements. I don't know that Hogwood had any justification whatsoever for doing this. Do you have any documentation that the repeats were expected on the da capo? I have encountered a few sources that say "Menuetto da capo senza replica" or something to that effect, which might be interpreted to imply that the convention would be to honor the repeats on the da capo, hence the need to specify the omission, but I'd consider that a slender reed to pin this on. > Christopher Hogwood has mentioned many times there is no evidence ever > to suggest that on the recapitulation of a dance movement the repeat > signs were ignored. I don't know the origin of the convention, but I do know that by c. 1800 there were printed sources that specified the omission of the repeats on the da capo, so it certainly wasn't unheard of. The question is whether or not that represents a departure from convention or simply a restatement of it. Or, perhaps, a composer saying "generally, it's up to you whether you want to take the repeats in the da capo, but in this minuet, I don't *want* you to have the choice -- don't play them." > I'm not sure what the convention was for Mozart dances, but I've read > there were multiple repeats with alternation from a previous minuet, > which makes quite a bit of sense, since the balls he wrote for lasted > many many hours. . . . Symphonic minuets and dance hall minuets are not the same genre, so why would you assume that the conventions for the one would apply to the other? > . . . As played, his minuet sets last maybe 20 minuets? But > I don't know if the autographs of the dances are marked in any manner > to indicate how this was done. I'm not sure if the performance > materials for the dances survive either. > > Some of the replies to what you proposed suggested the repeat marks > make the structure of the movement more obvious to the performer. I'd > suggest honoring the composer's intent makes it very obvious to the > listener as well. But then the question becomes: what is the intention of the composer? What is your evidence for playing the repeats in the da capo of the minuet? Do you have any at all? Likewise, what is your evidence that "proves" that composers wanted all repeats slavishly honored, as opposed to the repeats being a subject that is left up to the performer to decide for the particular performance situation? -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
