Recording of Op. 18 and 111 WITH expo repeats

[BrahmsGuides]

Just released on Hänssler, the Verdi Quartet pairs together the two pieces whose expo repeats the familiar DG Amadeus Quartet recording omits:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TD1XPS/ref=dm_dp_cdp?ie=UTF8&s=music[/ame]

And fine performances they are.

If you've never heard the Op. 111 quintet with the repeat, you need to hear it. It's a great, highly effective first ending--music of Brahms that the "complete edition" cut. For Amadeus to cut this repeat was simply inexcusable.

The only thing worse in the "complete edition" was deciding that Jessye Norman's solo recordings of Nos. 1-8 and 11 of the Op. 103 Zigeunerlieder were sufficient and therefore having Mathis, Fassbaender, Schreier, and Fischer-Dieskau only record the quartet versions of Nos. 8-10. THAT was simply idiotic.

DG complete edition currently in re-release...

[Felix]

That Brahms Quintet op. 111 is one of my favourite works. You may be right about the repeat being essential - I have to teach this evening, otherwise I' d listen again - but there are really quite a lot of works in which the repeats could be dropped. With recordings and CDs we can repeat the music as often as we like. In Brahms' days you might be lucky to hear the works on one occasion and the composer had to familiarise you with his basic material. Apart from that, repeating the exposition was a convention. In some cases - I'm thinking of the Schumann Sonata in F sharp minor - The whole work can be saved by not repeating the expo; if you do, the rhythm becomes monotonous, if you don't the whole movement goes swimmingly.

Alfred Brendel wrote an essay opposing repeats, but on his recordings he does them.

Best wishes,
Felix

[Felix]

Brughtcecila, I lisened to the Quintett this afternoon, I was convinced I'd agree with you, but, alas, I don't. It so happens that I have the Amadeus recording without the repeat and I really prefer it. The material in the exposition is so vivid, you can't forget it. Then, the recap is abbreviated and developed further after the development, so it is becomes a rare exmaple of a through-composed form looking in the direction of early Schönberg. But the beauty of this work as a whole is stunning. On this I'm sure we agree.

[Despina41]

Did Brahms write two endings for the exposition? That is the question. If so, we are missing music when people don't take the repeat. Besides, who doesn't want to hear the exposition again? it's so good!

[Felix]

I have checked my score and there are a couple of bars missing, but they are a fairly perfunctory transition back to G major. It is not as though you were missing the significance of the entire work without them; on the contrary, it gains. I agree, who wouldn't want to hear the exposition again? I have heard the expo many times on my CD, and the desire to hear it again is all the greater if it has not been thrown in my face twice to begin with. As I have suggested it becomes an all the more interesting work without the exposition.

It is conceivable that the Amadeus left it out to gain space. they packed all the Quintets for all combinations onto 3 CDs. They play all the repeats in the third movement which has a Minuet and Trio design, but it is a shorter movement and has the most fascinating developments - you have to hear them again.

When you are playing the music yourself, you enjoy repeats no end because you are feeling the music under your fingers. With those very ephemeral pieces by Webern, conductors sometimes play the whole work twice, saw the da capo comes in again through the backdoor.

I find these discussions very interesting because they make you think about the music and reconsider it.

Yours,
Felix

[BrahmsGuides]

Here's the thing: Brahms sometimes indicates a repeat, other times he doesn't. He is not beholden, like a slave, to the convention of the exposition repeat. Hence the repeats in the first three symphonies, but not the Fourth. Because of this, I really believe that when Brahms indicates a repeat, he kind of means it. ESPECIALLY in a late work (later than the Fourth Symphony) and ESPECIALLY(!) when there is a second ending.

MacDonald (or somebody, I'll have to look it up) commented specifically on this repeat. The two first ending bars are not, in fact, a "perfunctory" transition back to G major, but they include music that is not heard if the repeat is not taken. The opening G of the cello line is utterly different in the context of the first ending than at the beginning of the work. At the beginning, you just have the tremolos in the upper strings. In the first ending, the opening upbeat cello G comes in against ascending arpeggios derived from the theme in a rather complex hemiola before the tremolos come back--totally different.

My own theory is that cellists are so damn proud of getting it the first time that they are scared of trying to do it again...

What bothered me about the Amadeus decision was that they DID take the repeat in the Op. 88 Quintet--which has a far less interesting first ending--but not in this one. What's really sad is that the Amadeus cellist (Lovett?) just NAILS the opening solo. That makes you really regret that he omitted it in the new context.

[Despina41]

Oh yeah, the rhythmic play between the opening of the cello phrase and the retransition back into that opening from the exposition first ending is super cool.
MUST TAKE this repeat!

Originally Posted by BrahmsGuides

Here's the thing: Brahms sometimes indicates a repeat, other times he doesn't. He is not beholden, like a slave, to the convention of the exposition repeat. Hence the repeats in the first three symphonies, but not the Fourth. Because of this, I really believe that when Brahms indicates a repeat, he kind of means it. ESPECIALLY in a late work (later than the Fourth Symphony) and ESPECIALLY(!) when there is a second ending.

MacDonald (or somebody, I'll have to look it up) commented specifically on this repeat. The two first ending bars are not, in fact, a "perfunctory" transition back to G major, but they include music that is not heard if the repeat is not taken. The opening G of the cello line is utterly different in the context of the first ending than at the beginning of the work. At the beginning, you just have the tremolos in the upper strings. In the first ending, the opening upbeat cello G comes in against ascending arpeggios derived from the theme in a rather complex hemiola before the tremolos come back--totally different.

My own theory is that cellists are so damn proud of getting it the first time that they are scared of trying to do it again...

What bothered me about the Amadeus decision was that they DID take the repeat in the Op. 88 Quintet--which has a far less interesting first ending--but not in this one. What's really sad is that the Amadeus cellist (Lovett?) just NAILS the opening solo. That makes you really regret that he omitted it in the new context.

[Felix]

Thank-you for the ongoing dialogue, something I rather miss in these Schumann and Brahms discussions. I notice that Despina has done a da capo of Brightcecilia's arguments, perhaps to nail the truth in Felix's fuzzy head.

I have thought of another argument against my position: after the development Brahms cites his first theme very briefly and goes on developing his material, so it might be as well to repeat the initial exposition. But I have pointed out that we live in the age of mechanical reproduction. and can repeat the music as often as we like.

Your arguments are very cogent but don't convince me. I can live without the 'super cool' transition. I have a mind that kind of looks forward to Schönberg and I'm very pleased to have the Amadeus recording. It makes the work more exciting for me. What I do find super cool is the way Brahms and other greats work their way back to the recapitulation. I have alreay stated my arguments for not repeating.

There can be no categorical imperative for what musicians do, no MUST. even if the transition to recap contains some lovely bars. Composers often cut out lovely bars for the greater cogency of their works. I know this from my own experience as a very minor composer. Beethoven had no objection to people playing single movements from his Sonatas out of context.

These bars are not censored as they are still there on paper and other musicians can play them. I think they belong in live performances, but not as an absolute diktat.

This would be a big subject in Schumann, who, despite being my favourite composer, was a compulsive repeater, a price to pay for absolute spontaneity, but this theme belongs on a Schumann thread.
********
Having put my provisional arguments, I have an uncanny feeling about this site, as though I were an alien presence. There is very little ongoing discussion, so I was greatful for the above dialogue, but I think it was primarily designed to put me in my place. I was the only member who replied toi Despina's interesting comments on Brahms/Schönberg, but there has been no response. I wrote to Philidor asking about my apparent or accidental esclusion from a thread In fact I continued to post on it, but have had no reply, which seems to confirm the negative assessment. I have been on three blogs, Harry's place, two Shakespeare blogs, and in all cases the moderator replied to my personal letters

I have been looking for a way to unsubscribe to Brightceclia, but have investigated the homepage and found no way of unsubscribing except to individual threads which - ideally - I'd prefer not to unsubscribe to. I will go on writing for the moment, look at other threads and then decide whether to opt out or not. Of course you can always expel me!

Yours with regret,
Felix

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Felix

Alfred Brendel wrote an essay opposing repeats, but on his recordings he does them.

Strange, he doesn't repeat the exposition in Schubert's sonata D. 960 which, like that in Brahms' op. 111, is really worth repeating!

[Felix]

Herzeleide, maybe Brendel doesn't repeat because the Expositions in the two works you are referring to are long and full, and in Schubert's
D 960 you get all the lovely lyrical episodes again in the recapitulation, so I think there is still less of a reason for repeating, Brahms' motivic work is terse and intense and this could be a reason for repeating to get the material more fixed in your mind. In the Schönberg school we have to do without this repeating automatism.

With his lyrical episodes, Schubert was beginning to take a step out of Sonata form, leading in the direction of his piano pieces and, above all songs and also of the short piano pieces by Schumann and Chopin.
I can hardly resist writing more about Schubert who, all on his own, as it were, had to reconceive Sonata Form, but I don't want to go too far off thread.

Best wishes