Some of the discussion on this thread has turned toward the larger question
of alterations made to an artist's work, such as changing colors on a
painting, or editing films, music and whatnot.

Have such wholesale alterations on works of art been done in the past?
Goodness, yes--look at the way Haydn's symphonies were "corrected" in the
19th century.  Listen to recording of one conducted by say, Beecham (using
the old bowdlerized scores) and a more modern one using the corrected
Robbins-Landon scores, and you'll hear what was involved.

Certainly, paintings have been altered, though perhaps not always with the
intent of changing the message--wasn't Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" found
to be aptly misnamed when the darkened varnish covering the painting was
removed during a post-vandalism restoration?

And nowadays, films are "edited" by major studios looking to make sure that
a more marketable audience rating is obtained (pleasing Jack Valenti is no
easy thing), to let them get past censors in various countries (including
the US), or to shorten them so that the running times fit better into a
moviehouse showing schedule, or even to change the endings to make them
"happier" (remember what happened to "Brazil" or "Blade Runner"?).  Perhaps
that's why one sometimes sees "Director's Cuts" versions of movies in video
stores.

I don't know if the situation in the music world is of the same magnitude,
or frankly, to what extent the question of repeats enters into all of this.
Each of us has to decide how it colors our view of a performance of a piece
of music.  But overall, I'd say that Art doesn't necessarily follow a
democratic path, subject to voting.  Unfortunately, I'm somewhat
pessimistic that it even follows an (unaltered) artistic one, at least
some of the time.

Bill H.