On exposition repeats in the symphonies

[BrahmsGuides]

This is a subject I've wanted to vent about for some time, and after reading some recording reviews by supposed "experts," I feel that now is the time to do it. And what better place than here.

I'm talking about the issue of repeats in the first movements of the first three symphonies. It seems that today, this wouldn't be a controversy anymore, and that they would always be taken. But finding recordings with repeats is not that easy, especially for the First Symphony, and even more rare in live performances.

Idiot reviewers even castigate conductors for TAKING the repeats with such foolish nonsense as "If he were alive today, he would have never included them." And other such idiocies.

Let's look at the repeats. The one in the First Symphony is the least commonly taken, partly because the whole symphony is already the longest of the four in terms of performance time. It's the only one that doesn't go back to the beginning of the movement (because of the Un poco sostenuto introduction). At the first ending, Brahms's simple differentiation between exposition repeat and the beginning of the development is intriguing. It's all about a half-step. The hammering descending thirds at the end of the exposition finally move down, and at the first ending, the strings go down a half-step to C, leading back into the exposition. At the second ending, this descent is now a whole step, leading to the B major at the beginning of the development section. This was quite simple, but took some planning. The repeat is unpopular because it makes the first movement as long as the finale. In my opinion, this is a justification--adds balance to the whole.

The Second Symphony is also controversial because the first movement is so enormously long, even without the repeat. If you take it, you have a 21-minute movement. But it is taken more often than the one in the First because the difference is more than just a half-step. The first ending is eight bars long, and eight bars of actual non-repeated music are cut if the repeat is omitted. Again--balance. If you take the repeat, the first movement is about as long as the other three combined, which is different, but another sort of balance. Conductors might be frightened at a 21-minute movement in a Brahms symphony, but this time you've got a relatively brief finale, and these same conductors won't shy away from Mahler's 30-minute movements, after all!

The repeat in the Third is the least controversial, and even the pundits argue for its inclusion. This is because the first ending completes the descending A-minor arpeggio, then leads back to the exposition with A natural-C natural in the strings. When going back to the beginning, of course, you have F-A flat at the top of the opening chords. One of the biggest storylines in the symphony is the tension between A-flat and A-natural (or F minor and F major). The A-minor ending of the exposition, followed immediately by the opening chords, which include a prominent A-flat, are a microcosm of this storyline. If you skip the repeat, you plow right past this and miss it. This is, of course, the shortest symphony, and the movement is only about 13 minutes even with the repeat, about as long as that of the Fourth.

Then we come to the Fourth, which of course has no repeat. Here, the "experts" make moronic comments like "By the time he wrote the Fourth, he understood that repeats were no longer necessary." This is, of course, pure bunk. What Brahms does in the Fourth is a technique he had employed as far back as the G-minor Piano Quartet: compose a movement without an exposition repeat, and begin your development section as if it WERE an exposition repeat, thus "fooling" your listeners until the divergence. This, of course, only works if you are expecting an exposition repeat, which, having heard three previous symphonies by Brahms, his audiences surely would have. In addition, the Fourth has a disguised arrival of the recapitulation, so the "false repeat" at the opening of the development is actually part of the recapitulation (in a way)! Look at the finale of the First for another, more extreme example of a "telescoped" development and recapitulation.

In conclusion, the repeats are vital and necessary for the organic structures of these symphonies, and should never be omitted. Conductors who do so should be ashamed of themselves. As controversial as Lenny Bernstein could be, we at least owe him the gratitude of almost single-handedly reviving the practice of including expo repeats in recordings.

Claudio Abbado sadly fell into the trap with his early 90s box set that is still available at an expensive full price. This set has almost everything going for it--the overtures and Haydn Variations, plus the four short one-movement choral-orchestral works. But Abbado included the repeats in 2 and 3, but not in 1. One wonders why--there was still plenty of space on the disc. I love and treasure this set, but had to go out and get Lenny's 1980s live recording to get a First with the repeat. We shouldn't have to bother with this at all. Those who don't like the repeats are not hearing the symphonies as they were meant to be heard, and they are flat, dead-on WRONG!

Thanks for indulging my rant.

[maureen]

...i like this argument...
concise, to the point, with logical support
and no one is calling anyone else a small headed ninny...

so is the basic argument against the added length?

[BrahmsGuides]

Hi, Maureen:

Actually, my post was very polemic, but I'm glad you weren't offended by statements such as "moronic comments"

The length argument doesn't work with the Third, but again, few people argue against that repeat. It is a valid point with the second, and somewhat with the First for those who think the weight should be firmly shifted to the finale.

But what I read most commonly among repeat foes is stuff like "we've already heard it, and it just delays the tension and drama of the development section!"

Okay, then, why is the moment of arrival at the repeat in the First such a jolting and surprising moment? In the Second, the rather large length of the development section and even the coda really does eliminate this concern. In the Third, taking the repeat greatly ADDS to the drama. I don't buy that argument.

And I don't buy people who presume to read Brahms's mind--you've always gotta love performers and pundits who think they know more than the composer. If Brahms didn't want a repeat, he didn't include one! (And anyone who trots out the "by the time he wrote the Fourth, he realized it was unnecessary" argument is ignoring the fact that the G-minor Piano Quartet--written long before the symphonies--also doesn't include an expo repeat.)

Moving beyond the symphonies, I'm especially amused by the omission of a repeat in a late work like the Op. 111 String Quintet or the Op. 115 Clarinet Quintet. At that point, we have Brahms works like the violin sonatas or the C-minor piano trio that don't include expo repeats. Don't you think that Brahms, in his later years, knew what he was doing when he asked for repeats?

By far the most common and well-known recording of the quintets and sextets is the one by the Amadeus Quartet with Pleeth and Aronowitz. It is still ubiquitous today. But they cut the repeat in the first movement of Op. 111, which, IMO absolutely ruins that great movement. I really think the cellist, Martin Lovett, who is still alive, should be grilled about this. I'm guessing that he was frightened of the opening (as many cellists are), and didn't want to play it twice (or three times, if you count the recap).

[maureen]

i always approach these arguments through my understanding of the creative process in the visual arts as that is what i am most familiar with
i agree that anyone who's reached a level of craft as a creative individual wouldn't abandon a piece of work on the grounds of having outgrown a technique (or wouldn't want others to abandon bits of it)
the work still stands as a coherent and valuable creative piece

it was an intentional expression irregardless of later development or different expressions and it should stand in it's totality

inept or awkward is one thing but it doesn't sound as though that argument really holds
surely the repeats don't make the pieces unpalatable?
it seems just a matter of taste then...and i would have to weigh in favor of the whole banquet not the pared down meal...

but i would still like to hear if anyone really feels there is an aesthetic argument against the repeats

and if there is...is there an argument for revising a composition in this manner and what does that do to the integrity of the work

there is that tradition it seems in classical music (or music in general)
to arrange matters to suit the conductor or tastes of the audiences or performers which has it's validity

i guess it becomes at what point do you rearrange or omit and why use specious justifications to hide other motives...

i agree that it is ridiculous at the least and rather nasty at worst to imply or suppose intentions of the creative person that are not evidenced in some real way...if you are going to make suppositions about a composers intent it should be backed by very good support...

any other opinions ???