Mats replies to me replying to him:

>>>Interesting that you are so concerned about observing the rests, but not
>>>the repeats.
>>
>>In both cases, the same principle applies: finding out the (or a)
>>musical reason for the mark.  One difference, however, is that a repeat
>>is "binary": you take it or you don't.  ...
>
>Once again you are saying that you don't want to hear the repeats.

I've never said that at all.  In fact, I'd be very interested to hear all
the repeats of the Schubert 9 or the Mozart Jupiter, since I've never heard
them before.  Unfortunately, my record budget is temporarily shot.  What I
have been saying is that it takes absolutely no musical insight at all to
observe a repeat simply because the composer put it there.  I want to know
what the *musical* reason is - that is, based on the music so far and the
music in totality and the section in itself to be repeated, what does the
repeat contribute other than simply make the work longer?

>Can I ask you a question which is related to this topic? Answer it
>honestly:  What do you think about Allan Petterssons music?

I love Allan Pettersson's music.  Actually, I find many procedural
similarities between Pettersson and another favorite of mine, Robert
Simpson.  Among other things, I find both have strong affinities with
the music of Beethoven, without imitating Beethoven.  That takes brains,
at least.

Steve Schwartz