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

关于音乐表演的专家话语和流行话语是高度分歧的。一段时间以来，学术界对这一学科的兴趣一直在上升。讨论音乐的演奏，特别是那些以乐谱的形式记录和历史地传达的经典作品的演奏，已成为当今音乐学的重要组成部分。对不同的美学和分析立场以及属于音乐执行或“解释”的信念的诊断现在是“最先进的”。在许多情况下，他们沿着声称在20世纪历史上（重新）构建演出概念的深刻变化。这种诊断通常从所选择的声音中呈现的不同音景开始。（canonized）录音和/或从（描述）现场表演，使用两极分化的术语来创建类型学：分析性的客观处决和主观的，自世纪以来，在所谓的“Vortragsleh-ren”中记录的“纸音乐”的听觉体现-形成了一种话语传统，反映在20世纪20年代，表现风格和新客观性的对立（参见。Detlef Gieses“Espressivo”vs.“（Neue）Sachlichkeit”，and，相应地，Jürg Stenzl）.莉迪亚·格尔（Lydia Goehr）在谈到音乐表演的两种相互冲突的概念时，尖锐地指出了这种对比：她讨论了一种“完美的音乐表演”的理想，其中表演者的个性消失在“作品背后”的某种无形的东西中，以及“完美的音乐表演”的事件，其中表演作为一种仪式性的景象，往往本身就成为一种（社会）作品。Hermann Danuser对表演模式的三部分分类（“传统”，“实现”和“历史重建”）以及Christoph Hugig对音乐在每次表演中的“再潜力化”的观点允许将音乐表演的战场称为永久竞争中的话语交叉。音乐会和录制的声音与它们作为固定“文本”的执行的地位相关，似乎是“事实”。把它们看作历史文献，可以直接比较历史与现实的重大差异。很多时候，这是没有反映特定的视野和家谱的历史连接的话语。在我的研究中，我试图揭示相关的话语模式，这些模式与关于乐谱地位的音乐反思、对“作品”一词的看法（参见《音乐与艺术》）有关。Goehr等人），与表演机构以及不同类型的表演者和听众的个人能力有关的社会方面。对于某些作品和时代，肯定会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？大部分公众所期望的充分的音乐表现力，最好通过阿多诺的“姿态模仿”概念来探讨。这一概念反过来又必须在《音乐社会学的理论》（特别是其听众类型学）、阿多诺的“再现论”片段和他晚期的美学理论中所描绘的社会和认识论背景中加以理解。阿多诺的论点--包括他关于伟大的艺术作品永远需要现实化的假设--在20世纪世纪关于表演实践的许多争论中熠熠生辉，有时在音乐学和批评家中建立了“音乐解释”的历史专家话语，有时在批评中与竞争实践本身相悖。例子，包括“历史上知情的绩效实践”的例子（参见Peter Kivy的Authenticities）在研究的第三部分进行了讨论。许多工作是通过检查中心但非常成问题的术语“Werktreue”及其在不同表演概念中不断变化的视野来完成的：音乐表演被证明是在一个开放的空间中解决的替代语言和音乐话语，作为古代文本和当前声音纹理的“再潜力化”。“作品”于是在传统、历史记忆和现实之间，在分析和模仿之间，在配乐和壮观的表演之间精确地摇摆。

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.