Stirling Newberry <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Composers are not always correct about what they compose, nor is the
>contents of the score immutable.
>
>It might seem that music needs no such "translation".  But this is
>not the case. ...
>
>If a musician is ready to have the results of their work judged, they may
>do as they please.  But those decisions made out of artistically coherent
>ideas will be the ones which find favor.

Wow, what a terrible argument, for more than one reason.  Music does not
need translation, as would a work in a different language, ancient or
otherwise.  Secondly, when we are reading such a translation, we know it,
for it is presented as such, and we are aware of the fact that what we are
getting might well be different from what the author expressed, given the
very nature of translation.  This is not the case when someone alters
music, as they do not present it as "Beethoven's music butchered as the
performer sees fit" but, rather, simply Beethoven's music.  As for an
"artistically coherent" reason to ignore a repeat, no one has presented one
yet.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series