Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Skipping Part of a Piece

Not really. I didn't attend any of the above performances but I can guarantee Liszt played for more than 5 minutes.

Mandela Effect all right. You, precise, and maybe some others collectively recollect some definition of 'recital' which is duration constrained, but actually the reality is that none of the published definitions of 'recital' actually are duration constrained! And don't you think if there was any accepted definitions with duration as part of the definition, it would have been captured and put on display by the venerable OED? LOL

Wait. Who are you? Are you a member? This is a private club!

Venerable OED...hum
If you pay to go to a piano recital, for example, and it lasts 25 mins, then you'll throw that OED out of the window

Only if that is written into the urtext score, since I'm in the Historical Informed Performances (HIP) crowd.

Back to the TOPIC - what about repeats? You could argue that leaving out the repeats is skipping part of a piece. How many of us always take the exposition repeat in classical piano sonatas? When I played Mozart k332 in my "half" recital for school I did not take the repeats, but I had to make everything fit in the time limit.

Sam

Well, and this is just my personal view, I am good with what Stubbie said here:

I mean, your recitals are for school. They have to be fair and so give everyone the same amount of time. Otherwise, it's not fair. So special rules apply. Sometimes, you can even not play entire sonatas I believe (maybe that is only under certain conditions and at certain schools). And earlier, pianoloverus posted some recital rules that said performances had to be a minimum of 25 mins at that one school, but again, it's trying to establish some minimum bars to be fair and to have a basis for assessment and evaluation (since all schools have to do that with their students - assess, evaluate, and grade)

When music schools/conservatories allow rule breaking for recitals, then an entire different set of circumstances prevail, making some students very unhappy.

Again, just my opinion and rationalization of how these student recitals go.

No, I don't some remember some definition how the R word is used as you suggest.To put it bluntly, I know how the word is correctly used based on a lifetime of experience with other serious musicians. And you ignored the example I quoted where the length of the recital was mentioned.

The historical examples at the end of the definition you gave were not for 5 minute recitals. So I think you need to read my comments to bennevis more carefully. No one would go to a 5 minute recital by a single person so that it doesn't have to be stated explicitly in the definition that a recital needs to be longer than 5 minutes.(The 5 minute recitals I mentioned giving at a senior center were for people who were already in the dining room.They obviously didn't show up especially to hear someone play for 5 minutes.)

As I said several times already I can guarantee that no professional would call playing a 5 minute piece a recital because they understand how the word is used. I have explained how "recital" should correctly be used when talking about performing as part of or in a teacher's recital which was how the discussion started.

Finally, I don't appreciate your several instances of sarcasm with the smilies/comments in your responses. They were inappropriate even if you had been correct.

I'm with Brahms, who said something to the effect that there's no point in taking the repeats in music that is familiar. That's Brahms, mind you, the great classicist.

Of course, I don't know what would have happened if he heard anybody play his stuff without repeats.

Then can you explain to me why there is no definition anywhere, including in my music dictionary, that says recitals must be a certain minimum duration? You think you know the definition of recital, and you think other musicians around you know the definition, but isn't this the definition of the Mandela Effect? When everyone thinks it is "Berenstein Bears," when actually it is "Berenstain Bears?" You say all of you collectively know that recitals have a minimum duration, but no one can point to a definition of that.


I acknowledge that. But this is obviously not the salient feature distinguishing a recital in the view of OED, is it? Because if the OED editors thought that duration was a salient feature, don't you think they would have included it in the definition, being as thorough as they are that the word 'set' has 200 definitions in the OED?


And I agree. I certainly wouldn't go to a 5 minute recital either! But how does this affect the definition of 'recital'? I would also not buy a book with only 10 words. But do you think that in the definition of book, we should say that books must have a minimum of 1,000 words? The fact is, I can write a book of 10 words, call it a 'book' or even a 'novel', and market forces will determine whether it sells, and critics can say it is the worst book in the world. And both of those events (not selling, and critics panning it) will not affect in any way whether my 10 word novel is really a book or not.


And good! They shouldn't play a recital of only 5 mins. People pay good money to attend and they would feel cheated by a 5 min recital. And I would feel cheated by a 10 word book. And this is relevant how to the definition of 'recital' or 'book'?


Based on the OED definition, I see that part of your proposed usage is absolutely consistent.

OED:
Therefore, teacher's recital should be one recital with different performers within. Individually, they should not be called recitals. You have OED on-side on that. But OED is not on-side with your idea that recitals must have a minimum duration. Oh, no one is arguing that short recitals are bad when you are charging money for them and hopefully market forces (people and their wallets) will ensure that recitals are long enough, even without someone trying to establish a minimum timeframe.

Some things are just not rules, no matter how hard you wish them to be. As a mathematics person, you should understand that. The Axiom of Choice is indeed independent of the other axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, and wishing it could be proven on the basis of the others is just that, wishful thinking. Recitals are not defined to have a minimum duration, at least not in any of the places I looked. And no matter how much you wish it to have a minimum duration, you can't make it so. What you can, and your fellow musicians can, is to make your own recitals a minimum duration, and to boycott short recitals or toss rotten fruits, and like conservatories, you can require any recitals under your control to have a minimum duration, whether 25 minutes, 45, or 70. And if you disagree and think it is integral to the meaning of 'recital' to have a minimum duration, which is your right to disagree, especially as you have more experience than me in music, I have only been asking you to show me where it says that recitals have to have a minimum duration? Because I was open to the idea recitals might have a minimum duration (after all, what do I know - I've been a beginner in music such a short time)[/b], until I looked myself and found nowhere was a minimum duration required by the definition of 'recital'. Not in my [I]Elson's Music Dictionary, not in the OED, not in any of the 3 definitions bennevis produced.

You, sir, look straight at incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong about this and deflect. Despite your obvious error, I put smilies because we are having a friendly conversation here. Of course, if you don't feel it is a friendly conversation, that is your right. But I will put as many emoticons as I want to on here as I am not trying to insult you in any way. But be that as it may, you are welcome to take umbrage and virtually "slap me in the face with your glove" if you wish, and ask for satisfaction. I get that this is how some people like to escalate when they lose the upper hand in intellectual discussions. If people didn't behave that way at all, then a number of classic works of art and music would never have come into being.

I will absolutely back down on this, if either the mods tells me to or if you show me evidence that the definition of recital has a duration constraint. I am trying to be nothing, if not reasonable about this. But don't show me recitals with duration constraints and say "there, you see!" Because all I will see is a recital with a duration constraint. I won't see that recitals must have duration constraints in order to even be a recital.

I'm sure there's a quote in CPE Bach's Essay: 'For any recital of less than twenty-five minutes, defenestration of the OED is widely prescribed'...or words to that effect I can find no earlier authority, alas...



NVB

BTW, if you want to modify your original assertions about recitals to be something like "reasonable public recitals people pay to attend should have a duration long enough to make it worth attending," instead of any absolute statement that all recitals must have a minimum duration, then I will absolutely agree you are correct. Reasonable public recitals which people pay to attend should be long enough to make it worth the admission. I have no question about this and would hardly want to argue against such an obvious point.

That will have to do then. I guess I should always carry the OED on a CD-ROM with me to 'recitals' as a tossed disc will fly further!

I rather doubt the existence of that quote or any quote resembling it in CPE Bach's writing, since the OED wasn't even conceived until 1857 and it didn't begin to appear in print until 1884 and continued to appear in fascicles until 1928.

And why would CPEB reference an English-language dictionary?

Regards,

precise and I were exchanging light-hearted banter which included jokes. that was a joke!

As was mine, in a sober-faced way! Did I forget to add a smiley?

Aha! I got precise's joke but missed yours. oops.

In other words, I'm not to quit my day job, huh?



Cheers!