I don't have a stake in whether AI could or could not interpret a score, but it's still more than "learned patterns". Some performers imbue an interpretation depending on:

- the instrument

- the room or hall

- their personal experiences

- their personal philosophy of music (e.g., Gould and his anti-hedonistic philosophy)

- cultural norms and explicit respect paid thereof (e.g., in the interpretation of a Chopin mazurka)

- available recording technology and expertise

- available audio engineering technology and expertise

- what emotion they want to invoke or evoke to contextualize the music

- their patience

- their willingness to experiment

- etc.

It is not at all farfetched that a performer is taking most of these into account, directly or indirectly, to render a live or recorded performance.

It's not as if there's just this tradition of unwritten rules about interpreting a score that music students learn from their teachers, rather, it's that an interpretation is an amalgamation of experience, context, and on-the-spot reactive decision-making.

For an AI to successfully achieve this, they'll need the same variety of inputs and contexts to learn from.