The differences between several interpretations of an incomplete work are sometimes considerable. What allows such differences? Who are they from? What are the motivations of their authors? The observation of the interpretative choices facing incompletion reveals extremely varied positions. From an attitude of extreme devotion, which consists in not intervening on the score and in playing the work as it is, to a “reorganization” which makes it an other work, room to manoeuvre seems infinite. Such interpretative choices come from various actors of musical life: publishers, musicologists, performers, conductors, artistic directors, composers... Sometimes, these categories overlap (when, for instance the conductor works as a composer), and the borders between the ones and the others become blurred. Besides, the motivations of the interpreters are not always purely musical, they can also be cultural, commercial or even political. The ability of an unfinished work to spark off such surprising results is due to its lack of the same « safeguards » benefitting a finished work: a beginning, an end and, in between, a continuity of speech. Thus, more creative imagination is required from the interpreters in such cases, and the absence of clearly defined limits is felt as an additional freedom. As a result, the questioning of such a work is a never-ending process, as one person’s solution will often be undone by the next: every artist, every period has its own contribution to the knowledge of unfinished work. The construction of a “final version” seems endless and discussion on what can be made out of it seems to remain open for ever and ever.
