Bill Strother wrote: >However, if an interpreter cares to create an interpretation wherein the >first runthrough is played straight, and the repeat is a variant in terms >of -- emphasis, phrasing? -- that might be a worthwhile experiment. That's a very good point and one that I've made repeatedly - but with the proviso that the variants should always contribute to the musical narrative, one must take great care not to let them become steriotyped or mechanistic or otherwise an end in themselves. Playing straight first time, spicing things up the second can't be the invariable rule. Certain passages can be intensified the second time to highlight their cumulative effect, in other cases, where you have a surprise of some sort, a sudden caesura, an unexpected outburst or other abrupt change in dynamic, it would appear to make greater sense to make more of that shock effect the first time and to play through it more on the repeat, when the listener already knows what to expect. It all depends on the context - what one has to keep in mind is always the psychological effect of hearing a certain passage twice. And of course the performer's variants must never distract from the composer's written in variants or otherwise confuse the actual musical structure. In a sonata movement, for instance, any changes in emphasis in the exposition repeat must strike the listener as a much smaller event than the composed variants in the recapitulation. Small wonder that with all these dangers many people take the safe route and play carbon copies, but a shame nevertheless. Felix Delbruck [log in to unmask]