playing with repeats

[Tash]

for the past however many years i have played pieces that include the use of repeat brackets, i have always ignored the repeat and gone onto the little second ending etc. but playing this sonata of beethoven's, op.27 no.1, the whole first page is a mass of repeats, and i'm finding that it all goes too quickly without repeating each section. i have a feeling when i go back to piano next week i will be debating with my teacher whether these repeats are worth doing or not- she'll say they're not because you're just playing the same thing twice, except i feel that the composer obviously put them there for a reason so why ignore them? so any insight into this little query of mine?!

[galonia]

I personally feel that the habit of ignoring repeats is a very bad habit, caused by AMEB examiners not taking the time for the piece to be heard in its entirety (can you believe in many exams I've been stopped in the middle of my pieces or mvts once the examiner feels s/he has heard enough to make a judgement? - how rude!)

I agree that the composer put them in for a purpose.

My teacher has always allowed me to decide for myself whether or not I do the repeats for all performances, except exams, when I ignored the repeat signs as specified by the AMEB.  Also, if you're playing in eisteddfods or things like that, just note the time limits!

And when you do repeats, you shouldn't play the section in exactly the same way as you played it the first time, so the audience isn't really hearing the same thing.  That's what I think, anyway.

[will]

i have a feeling when i go back to piano next week i will be debating with my teacher whether these repeats are worth doing or not- she'll say they're not because you're just playing the same thing twice, except i feel that the composer obviously put them there for a reason so why ignore them? so any insight into this little query of mine?!

No real insights here sorry. Still, let me know what your teacher has to say after your next lesson.

It seems this 'ignoring the repeats' has a lot to do with examinations. In most exams, repeats are to be ommited simply to save time. The examiner(s) has heard you play the section once and know if you can manage it. I guess examiners are easily bored and want to keep things moving along...

[bernhard]

I agree with everyone above.

Yes, repeats are there for a reason and should always be respected (except in the case of exams where you are explicitly directed not to do them. As pointed already by the other posters this is simply due to time constraints).

The repeats are there for (at least) the following reasons:

1.To give the listener another opportunity to listen to the music.

With a painting, you can sit for hours in front of it examining every detail. But music is time bound. It exists only in the fleeting moment. The performer can repeat the same piece passage countless times for his own entertainment, but the listener has only that single opportunity (or at least had, before recordings became available). Hence the necessity and the inescapability of repetition in music, both in the form of repeats, and in the form of repeated patterns. If you decide this is the reason for the repeat, then it should be a genuine repeat, that is you do not play it in any different way. Grieg Lyric pieces and Brahms waltzes (op. 39) are a good case in point. It can be argued that the repeats there are just that: repeats.

2. To give the performer an opportunity to show off his musicianship and improvisatory skills.

Most Baroque and even Classical music can fit in here. The first time the section is played, it is played as written, but in the repeat the performer is expected to add embellishments and even freely improvise. I am sure Mozart, Scarlatti, Bach and so on, all freely improvised in the repeats of their works. Many complain of Mozart sonatas as being dull piano pieces. Yet the possibility exists that the scores for these sonatas just show a skeleton, and is up to the performer to flesh them up (have you ever heard Malcolm Bilson recording of them?). In pieces where improvised ornamentation an improvisation is not expected (most pieces form Beethoven onwards), you are still required to show musicianship by subtle variations of dynamics and agogics in the second repeat.

3. Formal reasons

The music form may require the repeats, and by ignoring them you are literally destroying the form. For instance in a rondo, the subject must be repeated after each episode (A-B-A-C-A-D-A... etc.). If you do not, the rondo form is no more. (In this case the repeats are just repeats: they are not supposed to be varied).

4. To create a certain effect on the listener.

Music is vibration, and vibration affects the human bodymind in fathomless ways. The constant repetition of certain vibrational patterns may be necessary before certain effects can take place. Especially during the Renaissance, the concept and attitude of a piece that would go on an on forever were widely accepted amongst certain musician/listeners. They simply could not get enough of it. This requires a certain frame of mind. A right-brain approach if you wish. Repetition (and most tasks considered boring by the left brain) tend to switch off the left brain and give the reins to the right brain. In strongly left-brain oriented people this switch can take a lot of time to happen. It reminds me of John Cage’s famous saying: "If something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, then eight. Then sixteen. Then thirty-two. Eventually one discovers that it is not boring at all."

I would also be interested in what your teacher says.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Tash]

thanks all!

so the AMEB actually specifies that you don't play them? does that include Amus pieces? in which case i guess i'll be forced to ignore them...oh well i'll talk to my teacher anyway

[galonia]

thanks all!

so the AMEB actually specifies that you don't play them? does that include Amus pieces? in which case i guess i'll be forced to ignore them...oh well i'll talk to my teacher anyway

Yes, it includes AMus.

[Tash]

BOO fine then i'll just comply with the syllabus

[jeff]

for that 1st mvt of the op27 no1, the repeats are pretty neccessary to the structure of the music. your hunch was right. have a look at the second page - he writes out the repeats there (he just varies them a bit). so basically he was just not bothering to write the passages out twice in the first part (saving his little variations for later on). same thing with the repeats in the C maj section.

i did this sonata for my Amus last year, with repeats. they didn't even ask me about it. it makes more sense (musically) to do the repeats.

so DON'T COMPLY! REBEL, REBEL!!

[geze]

The habit of leaving out repeats comes from school days and lessons. The teacher does not want to hear the whole piece because of time restrictions. Also, in school concerts, some teachers take it a step further and edit the piece so that it is less than 3 mins long! In exams, in the olden days of grade 8 (1985), you play the Beethoven sonata (all movements) without repeats and they still stop you in the middle.

[49410enrique]

i used to always play them but like mentioned above got into skipping them in juries and exams due to time constraints (often there were many players that needed to be heard and always playing them only served to prolong an already dragging on and on event and usually would make them fall behind schedule so you'd sit around waiting and waiting past your time slot).

for formal perforamnces i.e recitals and such i suggest taking them unless again there is a definte time limit placed on your performance. 

i'm learning some themes and variations and i rather like it without the repeats but will probably at my discretion take one or two from the variations i enjoy more or feel there is something else left to say before moving on to the next.

just make sure if you skip for non required reasons you have a darn good musical reason to do it. usually there are more reasons to include them than not.

[iansinclair]

Well, a few thoughts.  Keeping in mind that I've never participated in a competition or test, except for the AGO exams (which is quite a different thing), but I've been a musician all my life, and a professional for part of that time (classical organ, conductor).

Repeats.  I think I understand the need to leave them out if you are pressed for time, although I would say that the practice is unfortunate.  There are at least two points.  First, if the composer of the piece wants a repeat, he puts it in.  If he doesn't, he doesn't.  If you find that you must omit a repeat in a performance -- not a test or something of the sort, but a real performance -- the repeats should be included, unless you have a very good musical reason to make a cut (this applies to any cut, and cuts are made sometimes in any music).  In earlier music the composer assumes that the repetition will be varied in some way; more ornamentation, sometimes different notes entirely (in the proper relationship as to harmonics etc.).  In later music, if the man put in a repeat, that's exactly what he meant, although you still should consider varying the dynamic or mood if that seems right.  But the bottom line here is if you are going to make a cut, whether it's omitting a repeat or simply dropping a few measures, you should have a very good theoretical understanding of the music and what the effect of your cut will be on the music.

A second thing comes in: in my opinion it is bad practice to not play the repeats while you are practicing.  Even if the first and second repeats do not end differently, which is very common (Schubert Op. 90 no. 4, B section comes to mind immediately), the transition from the end of the repeated section back to the beginning is likely to be very different from the repeated section to the following section.  If you do not practice both of these, it is almost inevitable that when you do go to play the repeat as it should be, you'll have a stumble.

Just a couple of thoughts.