Ian Crisp writes:
>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".
While I appreciate this distinction, "what helps the piece work best" is
likely to vary (perhaps considerably) from one individual to the next.
What the composer wrote at least has the "virtue" of being objective.
Once more, with feeling: if you want to leave the repeat out, fine.
Admit that that's *your* preference, that it improves the work in *your*
judgement. If you insist that the score cannot be construed as an
incontrovertible representation of the composer's "intent", then don't
imply that you have access to that intent, or to some "truer" vision of how
the work "should have been written", via some other "out of band" channel.