Jocelyn replies to me.

>>I too believe that a score should carry great weight.  However, it's
>>arrogance of another kind to justify repeats or not repeats on the basis
>>of knowing the composer's intention.  One should be able to justify one's
>>decision on the musical implications of the score.
>
>The "repeat" sign is not a mere implication.  It says unambiguously to
>repeat the passage.  You even admitted as much in the following exchange:

I agree that's what it says and that it's not an implication, but a sign.
A question to ask at this point might be why conductors of such culture as
Walter and Szell didn't observe some repeats.  Of course, we'll never know
exactly why, but do you believe they had absolutely no musical
justification whatsoever?

>>In spite of what may have been attributed to me, I don't hold an
>>anything-goes approach.  Just because it's done doesn't mean it should
>>be done.  On the other hand, I can't tell whether it should be done
>>until I hear it.  All experiments do not succeed, but failure should
>>not discourage experiment.
>
>Like nitroglycerine in a blender, not all experiments should be done just
>for the sake of doing them.

Okay.  But this is hyperbole for the sake of I don't know what.  I can't
think of a musical experiment that dangerous unless Monty Python could make
a sketch of it.

Incidentally, at this point, it's taking the repeats in the Jupiter that
would constitute the experiment, since the "performing tradition" is at
this point mainly on the side of not taking the repeat.  Is taking the
repeat nitroglycerine in a blender? Surely you wouldn't object to hearing
someone conduct it that way.

Steve Schwartz