Steve Schwartz wrote:

>Justifications:
>
>1.  We don't know what the composer's will is, only what he wrote - quite
>another thing.

How? What is the composer's will other than what he wrote??? This makes no
sense at all.

>2.  The composer may want something worse than is possible.  In that case,
>since aesthetics is about better and worse, go with better.

Then that's the composer's problem, not the performer's.  Your or my
aesthetics have nothing in the least to do with a composer's intentions;
they're his/her aesthetics, not ours, and we have no right to intrude on
them.

>3.  The composer cannot know everything, including a later change in
>attitude toward certain conventions, like repeats.  Consequently, it makes
>little sense to contribute to the ruin of the composer's reputation under
>the banner of honoring him.

This seems strange in this day of HIPness, when every last detail of
a composer's intention is respected, as well as the instruments, is
faithfully recreated.  In this atmosphere it strikes me as odd that a
thinking music-lover would favor going against a composer's wishes.

>4.  Even if the composer wants it and you know exactly what it is he wants
>and it's better than anything anyone could think up (and that's everything
>you claim), you may simply want to hear it the way you want to hear it -
>eg, the Eroica played by a kazoo band (no repeats, thank God).  There
>are lots of people eager to limit one's musical choices for all sorts of
>virtuous reasons which will undoubtedly reward them in musical heaven.
>They are free to disapprove.  However, music isn't about approval, but
>enjoyment.

The Eroica with a kazoo band.  I'm sorry, but this crosses into the absurd.
We love music because we get to see into the mind of a great artist.  We
admire works of art that have lasted centuries.  We can play little games
for our own "enjoyment" but classical music is about art and creation.
Nobody, but nobody, has the right to tamper with a work of art for puerile
"enjoyment."

>And, just so you don't think I've gone napping, your position does not
>agree with the composer's intent, but only with what he wrote.

?? But what is the composer's intent other than what s/he wrote? Let's
examine the word "justification" for a moment.  For me none of the above
statements qualify as justification for omitting repeats.  They're
rationalizations, perhaps, silly mind games certainly, but far, far away
from artistic justification for disregarding what is plainly on the printed
page.

Another thing that has been bothering me for days now.  I read in a post on
another thread, I don't remember the author, a reference to "repeat-Nazis."
I find this offensive to the extreme.  It is typical of people trying to
defend the indefensible to resort to this kind of KKK namecalling, and I,
for one, object.

David Runnion
Mallorca

 [It is extremely offensive, and an example of the hyperbole that creeps
 into the diuscussion.  FWIW, the original author wrote privately to
 explain it was a playful reference to the "soup Nazi" from the Seinfeld
 show.  Still given that most people on the list would get the association,
 it was entirely inappropriate.  -Dave]