Date: |
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:01:44 -0800 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Len Fehskens wrote:
> William Strother writes:
>
> >The composer could never have imagined a time would come when the music
> >would become so familiar. The repeats were there to help listeners to
> >follow the structure of unfamiliar music
>
> I find both these assertions remarkably presumptuous. Can you provide any
> evidence that any composer wrote assuming that his/her music would always
> be "unfamiliar"? And if the repeat plays a structural role, wouldn't
> omitting it at least betray, if not destroy, that structure?
>
> len.
>
I imagine that any 18th century composer would find it impossible to
believe that music of Brahms or Beethoven (or name your own choice of a
common name) would be so readily available either in concert or on record
as is now the case.
And I still believe that, especially in sonata form music, repeats were a
convenience to listeners.
You find that presumptuous? Tough. What does 'presumptuous' mean in this
context anyway?
Bill S
|
|
|