Gary Evoniuk <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Being of the "what works musically here and now" (vs.  "thall shalt
>not ever goes against the composer's original intention"[whatever that
>was])school of thought, I think that the role of recorded music and the
>generally increased access to music we have in this century should not be
>underestimated.

Given that great music is great music regardless of when it was composed
and when it is heard, what worked then IS what works now.  And there is
no question about "whatever that was" when it comes to the issue of the
composer's instruction to repeat a passage, as it is irrefutably specific.

>This certainly enters into the equation if one subscribes to the theory
>that the exposition repeat was included primarily to allow the educated
>listener to assimilate the main themes prior to hearing their development.

That is one purpose, but not necessarily the "primary" (whatever that
means) one.  It is certainly not the only one.

>Recordings (which composers pre 20th century had probably never dreamed
>of) change the equation - pure and simple.

The repeat sign has not changed in the past several centuries.  If
the repeat is not played, whether it is on a recording or in a live
performance, then what is being presented is a blatant misrepresentation of
the composer's work, and the listener is being deprived of the opportunity
of hearing it as written, just as surely as if a passage marked "fff" is
played "ppp" or one marked "presto" is played "largo."

>Who can say that Mozart ever intended for us to listen to his symphonies
>in our homes?

That is highly speculative, at best.  The meaning of the repeat sign,
however, is unambiguous.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series