Ian Crisp wrote:

>That fine cellist David Runnion:

Oh, my, now you've gone and made me blush.:-)

>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.

And the point that I'd like to make is that if he's dead we should give him
the benefit of the doubt as far as repeats are concerned.  Conjecture about
context and "intent" isn't enough reason to so fundamentally change the
structure of a work.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is my last post as well on this thread,
it's been fun.  I wasn't around the first time through and it's been an
interesting, if, uh, repetitive debate, though I think few minds have been
changed.  And I will forever think of this thread when I skip the repeats
in the Da Capo of a minuet!

 ||: David Runnion :||