William Strother writes:

>The composer could never have imagined a time would come when the music
>would become so familiar.  The repeats were there to help listeners to
>follow the structure of unfamiliar music

I find both these assertions remarkably presumptuous.  Can you provide any
evidence that any composer wrote assuming that his/her music would always
be "unfamiliar"? And if the repeat plays a structural role, wouldn't
omitting it at least betray, if not destroy, that structure?

len.