Dave Lampson replies to Ian Crisp:

>We can't hear music in exactly the same way that someone in 1750 heard it,
>and they couldn't have possibly heard music in the same way we here it.
>Now what? Do we take the repeat or not?

I have two simple questions:  1) Why would you take the repeat? 2) Why
wouldn't you take the repeat? Most people would answer on the basis of
the effectiveness on them of the performer's decision.  I admit this is
a pretty weak reason, but I haven't seen a better one.  As you point out,
we can't know how dead listeners heard a piece, although we might guess
brilliantly.  As I point out, we can't know a dead composer's intent,
although we might guess brilliantly.

>>The grounds for making those choices will be many and various, and
>>ultimately based on the aesthetic responses of modern and living
>>audiences, not ancient and dead ones.
>
>Who has ever argued otherwise?

Certainly not me.

Steve Schwartz