Len Fehskens replies to me:

>>Every little nuance a performer puts in not already part of the score,
>>every micro push and retard of tempo - everything that makes music alive,
>>in short - goes against the doctrine of faithfulness if these expressive
>>devices don't appear in the score
>
>No, because you can't be faithful (or unfaithful) to something that
>isn't there.

Wait a minute.  You've told me that you know the composer's intent because
the composer's intent is the score.  The additions aren't in the score.
Therefore, you're playing what the composer intended.

>You can, I suppose, presume that the composer was lazy or incompetent
>in failing to notate every nuance, but it is convention that what's not
>spelled out is open to interpretation; indeed, much that *is* spelled
>out is understood to be open to interpretation.  But, again by convention,
>there are some things that, once spelled out, are assumed to be unalterable
>-- the (relative) pitches of the notes, the ordering of the notes, the
>ordering of the measures.  Some things are subject to interpretation
>withing reasonable bounds -- tempo and dynamics.  Gross distortions of
>these are generally recognized as such.

So then what the composer intends is not necessarily identical with the
score.  My question becomes how you know what the composer intends.  I
Suspect what you're really doing is what most people do - listening to
a performance that either works for you or doesn't.

>So, you don't want to take repeats, don't take them.  Fine.  But don't
>say this is better because you know what the composer "really" meant.

In fact, I've been saying the opposite.  I have no idea what the composer
really meant.  For you, this means that you have to cling to the anchor
of a score as much as humanly possible.  For me, it means that each
realization must be heard and judged.

Steve Schwartz