Jocelyn Wang wrote:

>Donald Satz <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>>Jocelyn Wang responds to Bill Strother:
>>
>>>>Why can't anyone read what is written?
>>>
>>>That is a rather ironic complaint coming from someone who says he doesn't
>>>mind if composers disregard a repeat sign that a composer has plainly
>>>written.
>>
>>That's quite a stretch.  Bill didn't say he wanted readers to repeat
>>what he wrote, just read it carefully enough to understand it.
>
>But he did gripe about people disregarding it.  How about reading a score
>carefully enough to heed those two lines and two dots that mean "Play that
>last part again?"

My gripe was about someone responding not to what I had said, but to what
he assumed I had said, when careful reading would not have led to his
misunderstanding.

Well, hell, it's probably my fault for not being as clear in my writing as
I try to be.

I wouldn't characterize it as 'disregarding' something, but of having me
say something I did not say.

>People can prefer whatever grabs them, but they should acknowledge
>disregarding repeats for what it is:undermining the composer's intent,
>and, yes, classical music does suffer for it.

It is my opinion that ruling out a performance for the sole reason that a
repeat was not played is pedantry going wild.  I don't expect you to agree,
however.  Somehow I think your ideas are different.  Not better.  Not
worse.  Just different.  Live and let live.

Bill S