In the philosophy of music, the concept of *Werktreue*—the imperative that performers adhere strictly to the composer's intentions as codified in the musical score—has long been treated by audiences as a transcendent, timeless ethical standard. However, musicologist Lydia Goehr argues in her "imaginary museum" thesis that this concept is not a universal constant of musical practice, but rather a historically contingent regulatory paradigm that coalesced around 1800. Prior to the late eighteenth century, music was largely functional, tailored to specific liturgical or courtly occasions. Composers of this era did not conceive of their compositions as autonomous, reified "works" meant for permanent exhibition, but rather as adaptable templates. Borrowing material from oneself or others was standard practice, and performers were expected to freely ornament and improvise, altering the text to suit the venue and the available instrumental forces.
The paradigm shifted decisively with the advent of early Romanticism and the socio-economic transition from aristocratic patronage to public concert life. Beethoven is frequently cited as the pivotal figure in this transformation. By explicitly demanding that his sonatas and symphonies be performed exactly as written, without performer-interpolated cadenzas or omissions, Beethoven championed a new ontological status for music. The score was no longer a mere blueprint; it was the definitive embodiment of the composer's inviolable genius. Consequently, the ideal performer’s role was theoretically demoted from a collaborative co-creator to a transparent executor.
Critics of Goehr’s thesis, however, caution against a monolithic interpretation of the post-1800 landscape. While acknowledging the broad ascendance of the *Werktreue* ideal, scholars note that the reality of nineteenth-century performance practice frequently contradicted this rigid theoretical framework. Virtuosos such as Franz Liszt routinely took immense liberties with scores, rearranging and embellishing established pieces to showcase their own technical prowess. These virtuoso practices were not viewed by contemporary audiences as transgressions against the musical work, but rather as legitimate extensions of a performer's interpretive mandate. Thus, the regulatory ideal of the autonomous musical work did not immediately eradicate the older traditions of performer agency. Furthermore, the institutionalization of the musical canon—which required the retrospective application of the *Werktreue* standard to pre-1800 composers who had never operated under such strictures—highlighted the artificiality of this paradigm. The very act of enforcing strict textual fidelity on a Bach fugue during a nineteenth-century concert arguably violated the historical conditions of its original creation, imposing anachronistic constraints under the guise of respecting the composer's purported authoritative voice.
Based on the passage, which of the following is explicitly stated regarding the retrospective application of the *Werktreue* standard to pre-1800 composers?
- AIt successfully eradicated the older, more fluid traditions of performer agency that had previously dominated liturgical and courtly musical occasions.
- BIt demonstrated the inherent artificiality of treating nineteenth-century virtuoso compositions as definitive blueprints rather than adaptable templates.
- It imposed historically uncharacteristic constraints on performance practice while ostensibly honoring the original intentions of the composer.Cevap
- DIt caused contemporary audiences to view the interpretive embellishments of performers like Franz Liszt as illegitimate transgressions against a composer's inviolable genius.
- EIt elevated the status of earlier composers by transforming their functional liturgical pieces into permanent exhibitions of performers' technical prowess.