On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Len Fehskens wrote:

> 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.
>
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?

Bill S