David Fenton wrote:
"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.
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?"
this. Do you have any documentation that the repeats were expected on
the da capo?"
What malarkey.
I'd say the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, since the manuscripts and parts DO have the repeat signs.
And you really don't offer any other proof than make broad statements with absolutely no citations for any facts.
Mr. Hogwood has demonstrated clearly, there are absolutely no such statements for any music prior to 1800,
where the repeats are to be ignored. And to be honest with you, Mr. Hogwood has a lot more cache with me.
Let's see: Mr. Hogwood is a graduate from Oxford, musicologist for how many years, on the editorial staff of how many publishers?
Let's see: Mr. Hogwood is a graduate from Oxford, musicologist for how many years, on the editorial staff of how many publishers?
I mean it's so obvious that you have it right, and Mr. Hogwood is so wrong:
"Many conservatoire-trained musicians have grown up with a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy of convenience in interpretation: a dagger means staccatissimo, a trill starts on the written note, long slurs in string music are never bowings, repeats of a Minuet da capo are to be eliminated. It rests on the new editions and their creators to combat this arrogant casualness; a well-placed paragraph or two to indicate that in the 17th century an accidental had a very different application than 100 years later, that in the 18th century the dagger was not a staccatissimo, many trills would begin with the upper auxiliary, and minuets were assumed to include their repeats at all hearings; and for the 19th century a whole raft of novel information is required covering the forgotten conventions of up-beats at repeat marks, the multiplicity of accent markings, the difference between instrumental oddities such as English bass-horn, ophicleide and Russian bassoon, the evidence for and against lavish decoration and cadenzas in Rossini or Verdi"
"Many conservatoire-trained musicians have grown up with a 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy of convenience in interpretation: a dagger means staccatissimo, a trill starts on the written note, long slurs in string music are never bowings, repeats of a Minuet da capo are to be eliminated. It rests on the new editions and their creators to combat this arrogant casualness; a well-placed paragraph or two to indicate that in the 17th century an accidental had a very different application than 100 years later, that in the 18th century the dagger was not a staccatissimo, many trills would begin with the upper auxiliary, and minuets were assumed to include their repeats at all hearings; and for the 19th century a whole raft of novel information is required covering the forgotten conventions of up-beats at repeat marks, the multiplicity of accent markings, the difference between instrumental oddities such as English bass-horn, ophicleide and Russian bassoon, the evidence for and against lavish decoration and cadenzas in Rossini or Verdi"
Kim Patrick Clow
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
