Len Fehskens replies to Felix Delbruck:

>>what justifies the repeat (other than the fact that Schubert wrote it!)?
>
>What other justification is necessary?

Another question is why is this justification enough?

>Once we feel free to second guess the composer's justification for any
>aesthetic decision, how do we decide how much second guessing is legitimate
>and how much intrudes on the composer's prerogative as the composer? Again,
>I believe that where the composer wishes the interpretor to exercise
>judgment, the composer gives clear indication thereof (e.g., ad lib, ossia,
>...)

We're not talking about any aesthetic decision.  For example, we're not
talking about calling Uri Caine's Mahler takeoffs Mahler.  I'm surprised
I let myself be suckered down this byway.  We're talking about repeats
as conventional signs.

I must say that I grew up with the composer-knows-best, obey-the-score
dogma, reinforced by my years in Cleveland and listening to Szell and the
Cleveland.  I still believe it unlikely that someone will make a better
decision than Mozart or Schubert, but I certainly don't rule it out.
Besides, for all the talk, Toscanini, Reiner, and Szell - the main icons
of the dogma - took their share of liberties.  I can't bring myself to
say they were insensitive boors, so my next question is why not following
repeats in every instance might be musically justified.

Steve Schwartz