I'm with you -- about straight tempo with an elastic sound. However, I still love rhythmic sophistication of the sort that can only be done by a soloist (say Leonhardt on harpsichord) or the chamber works for two instruments (harps. and violin, harps. and viola de gamba).
Sometimes a conductor or soloist has a nice rhythmic feel, but the result is still monotonous. Trevor Pinnock strikes me this way. He is not metronomic (not stiff), but the sections are not differentiated enough.
Mozart really needs rhythmic differentiation. I just listened to Mitsuko Uchida play some of the piano sonatas. I'm sorry, it's not differentiated enough. There is not enough contrast in feel between the sections. On the other hand, I listened to the Hagen Quartet and they take too many liberties. Mozart is rich enough! There is no need to add all these effects that aren't in the score. Brendel (as a SOLOIST) does the same thing -- way overinterpreted. (I like him as an ensemble player or in the concertos.)
Bach does stick to the same texture throughout the entire piece, for the most part. The Prelude in C Major sure seems minimalist. I like the term "essential" better than minimalism -- the latter term implies there isn't much richness to the music (to me anyway).
For Mozart, I very much like Maria Joao Pires... although to be honest I haven't listened to as much Mozart enough to judge. While Mozart has made some very (almost spiritual) impressions on me from time to time, I still find it hard to believe why so many composers have worshiped him over the centuries as much as they did. Well I'm only 18 so I have many years left to understand the greatness of Mozart :P