I have had nothing to say on this debate because I haven't done enough
research.  We can debate repeats until we're blue in the face, but what
do we really know about them by just looking at a score? I believe one
dangerous assumption is that all repeats are in the music for purely
musical reasons.  But, I don't know.  Remember in the 1800's you might hear
a famous symphony six times in your lifetime, if you lived in an area with
an orchestra and you attended a lot of concerts.  But now, with recording
technology, anyone with a couple of bucks to spare can obtain a familiarity
with a work that in the previous century was only afforded to performers.
Can we be sure that if they were selling Sony Discmans in the streets of
Salzburg, that Mozart would have directed that all recordings of his works
have the repeats relentlessly observed?

Also was it not the Baroque style, approved by composers, to use the
repeat or dal segno as an opportunity to embellish and ornament? But as
the literalists seem to suggest at times, we should take the work exactly
as written in the Autograph (no extra ornaments) and tediously observe
all the repeats.  Wouldn't that be a course very much at odds with the
composer's expectations?

And of course, if we're to insist on taking the repeats in Bach's
concertos, make sure they're played on harpsichord, too.

Now, don't think that I'm violently opposed to repeats.  For example, I
agree with the general notion that without the repeat at the opening of
Beethoven's Fifth, the exposition is too short, not taking it's proper
weight against the other sections of the movement.  But the repeat in the
last movement, to stick with the same example, I think would be up to the
conductor.  I, were I to pass my conducting class and someday be handed the
heavy responsibilty of being handed the baton and asked to say something
new about the work, would probably be not to include the repeat.  There is
little else in music that we have been as saturated with as this work, to
the point that we are all quite familiar with what sort of interpretation
suits us, and immediately pick up nuances in a performance new to our ears.
OTOH, I might take the repeat anyway.  A second time around may help to
endear the listener to the peculiarities of my own interpretation.  And
although in Beethoven significant differences in the approach to the
material in the repeat would no doubt be inappropriate, it may delight the
more refined ear to take the sforzandos a little more forcibly, to take
broaden the ritards a hair more, and such.  And of course, the chord change
at the beginning of the development is exciting when we were expecting it
to lead to back the the tonic.  (The first hundred times, anyway.)

I think each individual case is different, and it's up to the performer
to research.  Of course, my favorite pianists include Friedman and
Moiseiwitsch, so I rarely to object to *informed* taking of liberties.

Michael Cooper
[log in to unmask]