Len Fehskens <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>One recurring position I heard was "repeats served a useful purpose
>when music was being heard for the first time, but now that the music is
>so familiar, they're useless/irrelevant".  This is a variation of "the
>composer knows best", i.e., "the composer knew best then, but this is now".

This argument holds no water for several reasons.  Any great piece of music
holds new revelations upon each hearing to an appreciative listener,
regardless of how often one has heard it.

Also, it may be familiar to some, but, let's face it, at any given concert,
there are people who are experiencing any given work for the first time,
and they are being deprived of hearing the work as the composer intended
(as are those who are hearing the work for the umpteenth time, and do not
appreciate a cranial/anal performer deciding that he knows better than the
composer whether a passage should be repeated).

And, as was pointed out then, the logical conclusion to this arguement
was that if it's THAT familiar that one's reaction is "We've heard it
all before," why bother playing it at all?

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series