This discussion re repeats all seems so....ahhh..."silly".  If you but look
at a composition such as Barhms' First Serenade for Large Orchestra, you'll
see (or should see) the utility and importance of repeats. Very often the
second time 'round the repeated section has an one or two bar "ending"
which is unique. This, of course, appears before the music "goes on" to the
next section. The composer obviously wanted the section in question (and so
marked) to be repeated --- with a different and unique termination.

There can of course be "nested repeats", so to speak. And the same logic
applies. In these cases (where there is a unique "2nd ending") there can be
no question of the composers intent and to argue otherwise is -- in my
opinion -- unwise.

This question of "to repeat or not to repeat" is -- in short -- needless.
Even in cases where the repeat is literal and without a unique 2nd ending,
the music is *probably* best served by playing what the composer wrote down
(What a concept!!).

There *may* be instances where a literal repeat *could* be unobserved but
these are, I contend, in the minority.

Dave Pitzer