Dave Lampson writes, among other things:

>Nope, never said I wanted all repeats to be followed.  But what is
>interesting is that the anti-repeat arguments so far have barely even
>touched on the real problems of the "all repeats, all the time" approach.
>I believe strongly that the score should carry great weight, and that it
>is arrogant to assume that it's just a guideline.  But there are too many
>practical problems for me to want to make any blanket statements
>about what always should happen.

In spite of any resolution I could muster, I find myself drawn in yet
again (groan!), under the sanctioning example of the list moderator, yet.
So here goes:  I too believe that a score should carry great weight.
However, it's arrogance of another kind to justify repeats or not repeats
on the basis of knowing the composer's intention.  One should be able to
justify one's decision on the musical implications of the score.

>>It appears that a broad segment of the art-music community has bought
>>into the "if it sounds good, it is good" viewpoint, judging from the
>>extraordinary variety of interpretation that exists in record and
>>performance, especially of the deeply-loved works of the past.  Do
>>you really see this as a disagreeable state of affairs?
>
>Experimentation is a good thing.  Question authority and all that.  But
>the anything-goes mentality is not the only way to go.

In spite of what may have been attributed to me, I don't hold an
anything-goes approach.  Just because it's done doesn't mean it should
be done.  On the other hand, I can't tell whether it should be done until
I hear it.  All experiments do not succeed, but failure should not
discourage experiment.

Steve Schwartz