Len Fehskens <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Let's see if Steve Schwartz statement makes good sense, after a more or
>less by rote replacement of "repeat" by "note":
>
>   "What I have been saying is that it takes absolutely no musical
>   insight at all to play a note simply because the composer put
>   it there.  I want to know what the *musical* reason is - that is,
>   based on the music so far and the music in totality and the note
>   in itself to be played, what does the note contribute other than
>   simply make the work longer?"

Makes perfectly good sense to me.  Any "idiot" can play a note simply
because the composer put it there; what distinguishes a good performer
is the ability to make that note sound right and inevitable, rather than
arbitrary and perfunctory.

I have no problem in principle if the performer decides, after careful
consideration, to omit or change a note, any more than a repeat sign,
meaning that I would withold judgement until I hear the results.  However,
performances where notes are omitted/changed are overwhelmingly rejected
by listeners, whereas most listeners have a lot more tolerance for the
omission of repeats.  This shows to me that the parity you are trying to
imply between repeat signs and notes (in terms of their contribution to
the "fidelity to the score") is an abstraction rejected by most listeners
in the real world.

Ulvi
[log in to unmask]

 [Or a subtlety that eludes them...  -Dave]