Ian Crisp <[log in to unmask]> replies to David Runnion:

>The point I want to make, and which has been capably argued elsewhere,
>is that the presence of a sign (either kind) may be known beyond doubt,
>but the reason behind putting it there is not completely knowable if
>the composer cannot speak for himself because he's dead.

That does not mean that they should be ignored.

>To pick up an example from Deryk Barker, can we know for absolute total
>certainty that Mozart put all his repeats in for good musical/structural
>reasons, or is it just slightly possible that he may have put even just
>one repeat in against his musical judgement but just to make a piece last
>a bit longer because that was what the patron paying the bill for a bit of
>dance or background music wanted?

Without word from the composer, this is speculation, without basis for a
conclusion that the composer did this.  The presence of the repeat sign,
however, is not speculation, and should be given the benefit of
performance.

>Even if 99.999+% of the time the result of that interpretation is "as
>written", there is still a chasm of logic between those who say "Play
>what's there, irrespective of everything" and those who prefer "Play
>what helps the piece to work best".

The composer is the one to decide what works best for his piece.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: www.bigfoot.com/~CulverMusic