Ulvi Yurtsever <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>But the question is not whether the repeat mark itself is ambiguous, but
>whether its meaning is ambiguous.  Suppose we know from historical research
>that composer A always insisted on observing his repeat signs (it appears,
>from posts in this thread, that Beethoven could have been such a composer),
>and composer B often disregarded his repeat marks while performing his own
>music (it could be that Mozart was such a composer).

Personally, I remain skeptical on that one.  I'm still waiting for someone
to point to some documentation.

>Now suppose you are performing a work by composer C, on whom historical
>scholarship is scarce and there is no consensus on whether he insisted
>on observing repeats in his scores or not.  What makes it a sin, then,
>to adopt a flexibile attitude towards repeats in C's music?

given that the repeat sign is unambiguous, it would be incumbent upon
the composer to indicate by way of a performance indication, a preface,
or otherwise, that he regarded the repeat sign to be optional.  (Some
instances of just this have been given in this thread, and I, for one,
have not quibbled with omitting those repeats.) Otherwise, we then put
the composer in the position of having to say "Yes, I really DO mean
repeat it." This is as unreasonable as requiring him to say, "Yes, I
really DO mean eighth-note."

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