This essay aims to explore the roots and limits of the dominant performance ideology in the Western art music tradition. Starting from an analysis of the key concepts of interpretation, execution, and reproduction, it offers a reconstruction of the emergence of interpretation as the “reproduction” of an inviolable text — a notion that has become deeply entrenched in contemporary performance practice and reception. While “execution” originally denoted the material realization of the notated score, the idea of “reproduction” takes to an extreme the modern effort to render performance infinitely repeatable, shifting the centre of gravity from lived sound to written sign. Yet such a paradigm aligns only weakly with practices in use until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — as documented in historical sources and early recorded evidence — and it proves equally incompatible with the lived experience of listening, which constantly reveals performance’s contingent nature. Far from safeguarding the vitality of the repertoire, a strict fidelity to the text ultimately impoverishes its cultural and social significance, confining it to an elite of listeners and performers convinced of the existence of a single “correct version”. Drawing on contemporary anthropological and philosophical perspectives, the essay argues that variability, unpredictability, and the performer’s relational responsibility are not threats but the very space in which music continues to signify, transform, and survive — and where it may now be urgent to intervene by recovering practices of extemporization and improvisation also in the performance of nineteenth-century music.
Il saggio si propone di analizzare le radici storiche e i limiti delle pratiche e delle concezioni della performance attualmente diffuse nella musica classica. Muovendo da un’analisi dei concetti chiave di interpretazione, esecuzione e riproduzione, si ricostruisce l’emergere dell’idea di interpretazione intesa come “riproduzione” di un testo inviolabile — una nozione che si è profondamente radicata nelle pratiche esecutive e nelle modalità di ricezione contemporanee. Se in origine il termine “esecuzione” designava la realizzazione materiale del dettato notazionale, l’idea di “riproduzione” conduce alle estreme conseguenze lo sforzo moderno di rendere la performance infinitamente ripetibile, spostando il centro di gravità dal suono vissuto al segno scritto. Un simile paradigma, tuttavia, risulta poco coerente con le pratiche in uso fino alla fine dell’Ottocento e agli inizi del Novecento — come attestano le fonti storiche e le prime testimonianze mediali — e si rivela altresì incompatibile con l’esperienza vissuta dell’ascolto, che mette costantemente in luce la natura contingente della performance. Lungi dal salvaguardare la vitalità del repertorio, una fedeltà rigorosa al testo finisce per impoverirne il significato culturale e sociale, confinandolo a un’élite di ascoltatori e interpreti convinti dell’esistenza di un’unica “versione corretta”.
How We Got into the Reproducibility Canon and Why We Need to Get Out / Pasticci, S.. - In: CHIGIANA. - ISSN 0069-3391. - 55:Terza serie(2025), pp. 297-317.
How We Got into the Reproducibility Canon and Why We Need to Get Out
Susanna Pasticci
2025
Abstract
This essay aims to explore the roots and limits of the dominant performance ideology in the Western art music tradition. Starting from an analysis of the key concepts of interpretation, execution, and reproduction, it offers a reconstruction of the emergence of interpretation as the “reproduction” of an inviolable text — a notion that has become deeply entrenched in contemporary performance practice and reception. While “execution” originally denoted the material realization of the notated score, the idea of “reproduction” takes to an extreme the modern effort to render performance infinitely repeatable, shifting the centre of gravity from lived sound to written sign. Yet such a paradigm aligns only weakly with practices in use until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries — as documented in historical sources and early recorded evidence — and it proves equally incompatible with the lived experience of listening, which constantly reveals performance’s contingent nature. Far from safeguarding the vitality of the repertoire, a strict fidelity to the text ultimately impoverishes its cultural and social significance, confining it to an elite of listeners and performers convinced of the existence of a single “correct version”. Drawing on contemporary anthropological and philosophical perspectives, the essay argues that variability, unpredictability, and the performer’s relational responsibility are not threats but the very space in which music continues to signify, transform, and survive — and where it may now be urgent to intervene by recovering practices of extemporization and improvisation also in the performance of nineteenth-century music.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Pasticci_How-we-got_2025.pdf
solo gestori archivio
Note: Pasticci_How-we-got_2025
Tipologia:
Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione
894.81 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
894.81 kB | Adobe PDF | Contatta l'autore |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


