When searching for something else this morning, I ran into this page titled "The Case Against Over-notation: A Defense and a Diatribe" by Kyle Gann. I enjoyed reading it, since I've been dealing with notation more than usual recently, as reflected in my thread "With Renewed Respect for Notation Users." I'm sharing it, thinking others here will also find it interesting.
After pointing out that there has been a modern trend towards scores with scant notation, like in the days of J.S. Bach, Gann says:
"...And yet, in the award-giving and commission-granting sectors of the music community, heavily nuanced notation is still reflexively equated with professionalism. Composers who sit on panels have admitted to me that, when a score comes through that doesn't contain new dynamic markings in nearly every measure, with interpretive crescendos and decrescendos and slurs and verbal directions, it is automatically tossed into the rejection heap. When one can see at a glance that the composer isn't 'professional,' there is no need to waste further time trying to discern the work's content..."
Whether I'm motivated by laziness, or rebelliousness, I think the Philip Glass style of restricting notation primarily to just the notes and rhythms is a valid one and which gives the composer "...the opportunity to rely on the performer's instincts..." as Gann puts it. I also think there's plenty evidence that even music which is highly detailed in its score markings is still interpreted in widely different ways, depending on the conductor and the ensemble, and that's only possible because the notations aren't strictly adhered to.
At the very least, this is interesting food for thought:
The Case Against Over-Notation