Musik-Interpretation als "tour de force" Diskursformationen und "aufführungsästhetische" Positionen nach Adorno

专家和大众对音乐表演的看法大相径庭。一段时间以来，学术界对这一问题的兴趣一直在上升。讨论音乐的表演，特别是被奉为经典的“古典作品”的表演，已经成为当今音乐学的一个重要组成部分。诊断不同的美学和分析的立场和信仰属于音乐执行或“解释”现在是“艺术的状态”。在许多情况下，他们都主张从历史角度（重新）构建20世纪表演概念的深刻变化。这种诊断通常从选择的（规范化的）录音和/或现场表演的（描述）中呈现的不同音景开始，使用极化术语来创建类型学：分析的、客观的执行和主观的、自然的“纸音乐”的体现之间的对抗——自18世纪以来被记录在所谓的“Vortragsleh-ren”中——形成了一种话语传统，反映在20世纪20年代，这是对浓缩风格和新客观性的反对（参见Detlef Gieses“浓缩”对“（Neue） Sachlichkeit”，因此，j<s:1> rg Stenzl）。Lydia Goehr在谈到音乐表演的两个相互矛盾的概念时，加深了这种对比：她讨论了一种“完美的音乐表演”的理想，在这种理想中，表演者的个性消失在“作品背后”看不见的东西中，以及一种“完美的音乐表演”的事件，在这种情况下，表演作为一种仪式性的奇观倾向于成为自己的（社会）作品。赫尔曼·达努瑟（Hermann Danuser）对表演模式的三部分分类（“传统的”、“现实的”和“历史的重建的”），以及克里斯托弗·胡比格（Christoph Hubig）对每一场表演中音乐的“再潜能化”的观点，都允许将音乐执行的战场称为永久竞争中的纵横交错的话语。就其作为固定“文本”执行的地位而言，音乐会和录制的声音似乎都是“事实”。作为历史文献，我们可以直接比较历史和现实的差异。通常情况下，这样做并没有反映历史相关话语的特定视野和谱系。在我的研究中，我试图揭示相关的话语模式，这些模式与音乐对乐谱状态的反思、对“工作”一词的看法（参见Goehr等人）、与表演机构相关的社会方面以及不同类型的表演者和听众的个人能力有关。对于某些作品和时代，当然可能有特定的主题或音乐表达和声音的理想可以改变和已经改变-但如何和为什么？通过阿多诺的“手势模仿”（gestic mimesis）概念，可以最好地探索大部分公众观众所期望的充分的音乐表达。反过来，这个概念必须在社会和认识论的语境中被看到，在《音乐社会学》（尤其是它的听众的理论）中，在阿多诺的“再生产理论”片段中，在他后期的《美学理论》中。阿多诺的论点——包括他的假设，即伟大的艺术作品永远需要实现——在20世纪关于表演实践的许多辩论中闪耀着光芒，有时在音乐学和评论家中建立了“音乐解释”的历史专家话语，有时则是反事实的，因为竞争实践本身站在批评中。本研究的第三部分讨论了一些例子，包括“历史上知情的绩效实践”的例子（参见Peter Kivy的《真实性》）。许多工作都是通过对核心但非常有问题的术语“Werktreue”及其在不同表演概念中不断变化的视野的检查来完成的：音乐表演被证明是在一个开放的空间中解决了替代语言和音乐话语，作为古代文本和现在声音纹理的“再潜在化”。于是，“作品”恰好在传统、历史记忆和现实之间、分析和模仿之间、配乐和壮观的执行之间摇摆。

Experts’ and popular discourses about musical performances are highly divergent. Scholarly interest in the subject has been on the rise for some time. To discuss performances of music, especially per-formances of canonized “classical works” notated and historically conveyed as scores, has become a substantial part of musicology today. Diagnostics of different aesthetical and analytical positions and beliefs belonging to the musical execution or “Interpretation” are now ‘state of the art’. In many cases they go along with claims to historiographically (re-)construct profound changes in perfor-mance concepts during the 20th century. Such diagnostics often start from divergent soundscapes presented in selected (canonized) recordings and/or from (descriptions of) live performances, using polarizing terms to create typologies: Confrontations between analytical, objective executions and subjective, auratic embodiments of “paper music” – which are documented in so called “Vortragsleh-ren” since the 18th century – have formed a tradition of discourse reflected during the 1920ies by the opposition of espressivo style and new objectivity (cf. Detlef Gieses „Espressivo“ versus „(Neue) Sachlichkeit“ and, accordingly, Jürg Stenzl). Lydia Goehr has sharpened this contrast speaking of two conflicting conceptions of musical performance: She discusses an ideal of “perfect performances of music” in which the personality of the performer vanishes into something invisible “behind the work”, and the event of a “perfect musical performance of music” in which the performance as a ritualistic spectacle tends to become itself a (social) work of its own right. Hermann Danuser’s three-part classi-fication of performative modes (“traditional”, “actualizing”, and “historistically reconstructive”) as well as Christoph Hubig’s perspective of “repotentializations” of music in every performance allow to speak of battle fields of musical execution as a criss-cross of discourses in permanent competition. In correlation to their status as executions of a fixed “text”, concerts as well as recorded sound seem to be “res factae”. Seeing them as historical documents, we could compare pregnant historical and actual differences directly. Quite often, this is done without reflecting specific horizons and genealo-gies of historically connected discourses. In my study I attempt to uncover pertinent discursive pat-terns that are bound up with musical reflections about the status of musical scores, perceptions of the term “work” (cf. Goehr et al.), social aspects connected to performance institutions as well as to individual capacities of diverse types of performers and listeners. For some works and times surely there may be specific topics or ideals of musical expression and sound which can change and have changed – but how and why?The point of adequate musical expression expected by great parts of the public audience is best explored through Adorno’s notion of “gestic mimesis”. That notion in turn must be seen within the social and epistemological contexts drawn out in Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie (especially its ty-pology of listeners), in Adorno’s fragments of a „Reproduktionstheorie“ and in his late Aesthetic Theo-ry. Adorno’s arguments – including his postulate that great works of art permanently need actualiza-tion – shine through many debates concerning performance practice in the 20th century, sometimes founding the historical expert discourses of “musical interpretation” in musicology and critics, some-times counterfactual as the competing practices itself stand in criticism. Examples, including exam-ples of ‘historically informed performance practice’ (cf. Peter Kivy’s Authenticities) are discussed in the study’s third part. A lot of the work is done by an examination of the central but very problemati-cal term “Werktreue” and its changing horizons in different performative concepts: performances of music are proven to be settled in an open space of alternative verbal and musical discourses as “re-potentializations” of ancient texts and present sound textures. The “work” then turns out to oscillate precisely between tradition, histori(sti)cal remembrance and actuality, between analysis and mimesis, between score and spectacular executions.