The patronage of classical music comprises a large, eclectic spectrum of people. There are amateur musicians, devoted fans with no practical musical experience, and experts with years of musical study or performance.
Among all these groups, there are those who are intimately acquainted with certain pieces of music, who know exactly which note comes next, who could play this or that symphony or concerto in their heads.
And then there are those who are hearing certain works for the first time, along with those who wouldn't know the difference even if they had heard the pieces before. It seems to me that when deviations are made from the score as left by the composer, performers are banking on the assumption that most listeners belong to these groups. Which, in many ways, is insulting to those who do not.
There are many reasons for making cuts and emendations to scores, some more legitimate than others. It could be musician stamina. It could be a union contract that stipulates concerts must not go over a certain time limit. It could be the performer's personal taste. But cuts always kind of stink, no matter why they are made. Something is lost, and the motivations are not always justifiable. And it always involves at least a slight degree of disrespect for the composer's intentions.
Yes, I know that there are times when composers have devised, sanctioned, or even performed abridgments to their scores as printed or published. Even then, the result is often unfortunate, as evidenced by Rachmaninoff's own recording of his Third Piano Concerto.
I'd like to talk about two of the most common types of cuts: exposition repeats in multi-movement works and the removal of certain numbers from operas. Performers and scholars have argued about the former for years.
The exposition repeat, typical in first movements of symphonies, string quartets and other chamber pieces, as well as sonatas and other solo works, is a part of the standard "sonata form." For these movements, developed in the 18th century, it was a way of establishing the main themes in the listener's mind before going on to develop them. In Haydn, Mozart and even some early Beethoven, there would often be a second repeat of all the music after the exposition. Such repeats were not limited to the first movement. They could show up in the finale or slow movement, as well.
Use of the exposition repeat persisted through the 19th century and even into the 20th, but with more care and less frequency. Composers were often surprisingly artful in devising different passages for approaching the repeat as opposed to the continuation. Actual performance of these repeats fell out of favor in the mid-20th century and the age of early recording. Leonard Bernstein and others were considered bold for restoring the repeats. It took the era of the compact disc to make them really common in recordings.
In live performance, local conductors and performers have been ambivalent about exposition repeats. Colorado Music Festival director Michael Christie often zealously observes them, as he did in this summer's Mozart mini-festival. At other times, he surprisingly omits them, as he did in his 2010 Brahms cycle. This was disappointing, since Brahms wrote contrasting approaches to repeats in the first movements of his first three symphonies -- actual music that was lost.
I am of the opinion that when a late 19th-century composer such as Brahms indicated an exposition repeat, at a time when such repeats were becoming less common, that the composer really meant it. Boulder Philharmonic director Michael Butterman has always been reluctant to take repeats. The Takács Quartet, by contrast, usually takes them.
In general, the rule should be that if the composer included a contrasting first ending, the repeat should be taken, especially if it is an interesting variation. Sometimes, even without such variance, repeats add balance to the piece. If length is not a huge issue, the indicated repetition should be the default.
Cuts in opera are an even larger issue. In longer operas, they are even expected. While I cringe before the very concept of "standard cuts" or "traditional cuts," these ideas are readily accepted in the opera world. Richard Strauss, whose masterpiece "Der Rosenkavalier" has been mercilessly abridged since his own day, once said, "If I had wanted passages in my operas to be cut, I shouldn't have bothered to compose them." It seems self-evident, but it is not.
Two arias are consistently removed from Act IV of Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro." Both CU Opera and Opera Colorado staged the opera last season. Both productions cut the arias. One of them, for the character Marcellina (the only solo aria for this fine mezzo-soprano role, whose evolved character could use it at that point) is an excellent piece of music and is often included in European productions. It would be nice to see a local company be adventurous and give the mezzo this gift.
In hindsight, my review of Opera Colorado's "Il trovatore" last May was far too positive. The chorus was phenomenal, as were the lead singers. But the cuts to Giuseppe Verdi's score, especially an entire "cabaletta," or aria extension, for the soprano in Act IV, were largely unnecessary. Upon further research, I discovered that this cabaletta is no longer so "standard" a cut. Maria Callas included it when she sang the role.
In short, I realize that cuts are sometimes necessary. And I realize that I am probably a purist. But if you're going to omit a repeat or make a cut, the reason had better be sound, or as a critic, I'll probably call you out for it.