I take your point, but hearing these suites played on the Baroque shoulder cello is worthwhile nonetheless. Also, Malov explained why he chose to not take the repeats, seeking to create an overall unity in the work by truncating the length. You may reject his reasoning, but his interpretive decision was not slipshod.I think he omits almost all repeats in this recording. However a few years ago he recorded suites 1, 2 and 6 for Pan Classics doing all the repeats. Except for suite 6 his playing is better and more committed in the recording without the repeats, but its truncated almost fragmentary nature can't be ignored. The repeats were of course indicated because they were meant to be done.
I was unclear in my previous post, but understood that to be his meaning, i.e. unity across all six suites. He probably thinks, and I agree, that when all the repeats as are taken it makes a performance of all six suites too long for the unity he is striving for to be felt.The form he’s talking about isn’t a form within a movement, neither is it the form of a whole suite. It’s the unspecified form of the set of six suites
I don’t think any “justification” is necessary beyond the fact that he hears them that way. It’s an interpretation. If you don’t like it, that’s fine - move on.He says
In this recording I consciously have skipped the repeats in order to preserve the clarity of the form and wishing to embrace the entire cycle of the Suites as one great story.
The form he’s talking about isn’t a form within a movement, neither is it the form of a whole suite. It’s the unspecified form of the set of six suites, which he thinks makes one single story - a complex and contentious claim he asserts with no justification.
Is it really one story? And if yes, how does playing the repeats make that less clear?