Hi Everyone,
I don't think it makes sense to be critical of Dogperson in this discussion. It is a normal expectation with romantic style music to have a fair bit of interpretive detail in a score. Especially with a great composer [which I am not, being just a humble amateur], the more one can know about the composer's own ideas on the performance of the music, the better.
There are some issues that I keep running into, and mostly connected with pianists thinking that whatever is in the score is the way the music has to be performed, and this is based on the idea of "the composer's intentions" - and this thinking tends to be applied in a prohibitive manner.
For instance, a passage may be marked to crescendo from f to fff, and a pianist might want to pull back somewhere along the way. But if the score doesn't indicate to do this, then it is considered prohibited. And if it is indicated, then it always happens. And it is cumbersome to try and overlay several different interpretations of a composition onto a score - the pull back might only make sense if the ending, pages later, is played differently, et c.
Since it seems fairly clear what dynamics are appropriate overall, and since tempo is so personal - as is pedaling - and, again, these things can be different for varied interpretations, the simplest solution is just to leave all interpretive indications out.
I would hope that pianists would even be willing to rewrite the music - at least a bit - to suit their interpretive instincts.
I like to be surprised with good ideas that I could not on my own have imagined.
Thanks again everyone for listening.
Mvh,
Michael