On 30 May 2006 at 7:08, Kim Patrick Clow wrote: > 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?" > > 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. . . .
No, they don't in all cases. Hogwood takes repeats in the early symphonies that are *not* in that autographs. I know, because I did a systematic study of all of Mozart's early symphonies, including all the source materials I had available, and found that both the NMA and the Hogwood recordings (which didn't use the NMA for the early symphonies, because it wasn't out yet) put in repeats that aren't found in Mozart's autographs. > . . . And you really > don't offer any other proof than make broad statements with absolutely > no citations for any facts. . . . As did you. > . . . Mr. Hogwood has demonstrated clearly, > there are absolutely no such statements for any music prior to 1800, He has demonstrated this? Where has he done so? > 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? He's also a musical cypher. > I mean it's so obvious that you have it right, and Mr. Hogwood is so > wrong: [quote not related to this discussion deleted] Hogwood has replaced one categorical tradition with another one. I'm arguing for something in between, a "leave it up to the performers" approach, one that seems to me to be in line with the way composers of the time wrote about their own music, and also consistent with the kinds of things you see in sources from the time (including authentic ones). I don't think composers thought of their music (or their scores) as cagegorically as you seem to think they did. An example of this is the tempo markings for Mozart's work that are listed in his personal catalog of his own works -- they aren't the same as found in the composer's autograph. Does this means there's an alternate tempo? An alternate version? A lost second autograph? No, all it means is that when Mozart was writing down the incipit by memory, he wrote something that captured the same musical output, even if it wasn't exactly what was in his autograph. The result is that the exact tempo marking is not the same, but we can presume that this tempo marking would have produced the same musical results. That loose approach to notation and meaning is what I'm arguing for, not some slavish devotion to a printed page whose meaning we really can't say for certain, since no one at the time seems to have seen fit to comment on the subject of taking repeats or not. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
