Jocelyn Wang writes:

>>A performance that does not observe all repeats as intended by the
>>composer cannot possibly be superb because it is patently contrary to
>>what the composer has made clear the piece should be.

Berbnard Gregoire comments:

>Given the fact that repeats indicate a certain lapse in the creative
>process or just plain laziness on part of the composer, I see no problem
>in editing repeats from certain performances.  Perceived "purity" of
>performance seems unnecessarily precise when differences in instrumental
>style may simply overwhelm whatever the composer MAY have "intended" in
>the first place.

I haven't been following this thread that closely, so apologies if this has
already been mentioned.  If I am correct, one reason for repeats was that
in earlier times audiences might not have heard a piece of music prior to
a performance.  Consequently, the repeatrs help solidify critical thematic
material in their minds.  This was also important in preparing them for
development sections which assumed increasing importance as concert music
developed.

Again, apologies if I am misinformed or if I am repeating something already
said.

Ed