William Strother wrote:

>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?

You ARE being presumptuous, or, rather, assumptuous.  You are assuming
that the composer would not have included the repeats had the works been
composed under circumstances in which the music is as readily available
as it is today.  You are assuming that there are no
musical/structural/artistic reasons for the composer to have included the
repeats.  Your assertion is highly speculative at best and you have no
evidence to back them up.

Our assertions that the composer put the repeats in for
musical/structural/artistic reasons is backed up by the fact that there
were times that the composer did NOT choose to put them in, as the musical
structure did not warrant it, by the fact that the structures become
misaligned when the repeats are ignored, the fact that composers continued
to employ the use of repeats after the advent of readily available
commercial recordings, and they continue to use them.

The idea that composers were sitting around thinking to themselves "Darn,
I can't wait for a time when my works are readily available through
commercial recordings so I can stop putting in these pesky repeats"
is absurd.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series