Len Fehskens replies to Felix Delbruck:
>>what justifies the repeat (other than the fact that Schubert wrote it!)?
>What other justification is necessary?
Another question is why is this justification enough?
>Once we feel free to second guess the composer's justification for any
>aesthetic decision, how do we decide how much second guessing is legitimate
>and how much intrudes on the composer's prerogative as the composer? Again,
>I believe that where the composer wishes the interpretor to exercise
>judgment, the composer gives clear indication thereof (e.g., ad lib, ossia,
We're not talking about any aesthetic decision. For example, we're not
talking about calling Uri Caine's Mahler takeoffs Mahler. I'm surprised
I let myself be suckered down this byway. We're talking about repeats
as conventional signs.
I must say that I grew up with the composer-knows-best, obey-the-score
dogma, reinforced by my years in Cleveland and listening to Szell and the
Cleveland. I still believe it unlikely that someone will make a better
decision than Mozart or Schubert, but I certainly don't rule it out.
Besides, for all the talk, Toscanini, Reiner, and Szell - the main icons
of the dogma - took their share of liberties. I can't bring myself to
say they were insensitive boors, so my next question is why not following
repeats in every instance might be musically justified.