Steve Schwartz wrote: >In spite of any resolution I could muster, I find myself drawn in yet >again (groan!), under the sanctioning example of the list moderator, yet. Oh, come on. You know you love it. >So here goes: I too believe that a score should carry great weight. >However, it's arrogance of another kind to justify repeats or not repeats >on the basis of knowing the composer's intention. One should be able to >justify one's decision on the musical implications of the score. Of course, and this is by far your best (and perhaps only) rational argument for not taking a repeat. If something works musically, then no further justification is required. But who decides what "works"? This is, as a matter of practicality, a completely personal reaction. I say it works, and you say it doesn't. Or you say it works and I claim it fails. Now what? What does this tell us about the role of the repeat in the composition? What torpedoes any further discussion is this idea of intentions. I must admit I've become quite confused over where you stand on this. Forgive me if I mis-characterize here, but at times you seem to admit that the score captures at least part of the composer's intent, and at other times you seem to claim we can know nothing about the composer's intent. Let's take a hypothetical example (but one for which we could probably find a close, real-life parallel). We have the composer's notebooks, his sketches, and the fair copy of a work in the composer's own hand. Further we have a letter from the composer to a long-time confidant that the work is complete, and the composer is comfortable that the piece could not be improved by changing a single note. When published, the composer once again writes to his friend that though several mistakes crept into his score when typeset by the publisher, he has now corrected all of these errors and is now content that the published scores represent his best efforts as a composer. Further, we can compare the manuscript we know to be the composer's fair copy with the published version, and they match. Finally, we have yet more correspondence from the composer describing rehearsals and his reactions to the interpretations of the performers. In this example, I think we know a great deal about the composer's intentions for the work. We can't have perfect knowledge of anyone intentions, so that's not an issue. What is at issue is whether a score captures some of the composer's intentions (within the limitations of the notation, etc.), and what are the implications of following or not following instructions in the score. In general, I think the idea that a score captures musical intent - at least some of it - is unassailable. What might be in question is providence of the score. For example, I believe we have very few (if any) of Vivaldi's works in his own hand, and we know almost nothing about the providence of most of his works except that some played a didactic role or were written for specific ensembles. If it weren't for the fact that about 10% of his works were published, we'd have almost no idea even when any of them were written. So, for the published scores and contemporaneous manuscripts we do have, are the repeats the composer's, the copyist's, the publisher's or were they put there by someone else? Is the work even by Vivaldi? It is these unknowable circumstances that render the "all repeats, all the time" approach impracticable. >In spite of what may have been attributed to me, I don't hold an >anything-goes approach. Just because it's done doesn't mean it should be >done. On the other hand, I can't tell whether it should be done until I >hear it. We violently agree on this point. Though the "ends justify the means" aspect does make me a bit uneasy. >All experiments do not succeed, but failure should not discourage experiment. Actually, one of the main goals of good experimentation is to identify failures and discourage further experimentation along fruitless lines. If we are going to buy into the experimental model as a desirable model for composition or performance, then we have to buy in all the way. Unfortunately, neither the development of 20th century classical music, nor the deluge of nonsensical cross-over releases, indicate to me that such an adoption has occurred. Therefore, I must say I turn a rather jaundiced eye towards musical experimentation for it's own sake. It seems that learning from failures is not classical music's strong point. Dave [log in to unmask] http://www.classical.net/