106 Jan Giffhorn 2 VENI, IGOR SPIRITUS In his writings Igor Stravinsky used to be very polemic. He explicitly defended his polemic in his Poetics of Music: The given circumstances, i.e. » this shady collusion of ›ignorance, infirmity, and malice‹« , » justify a rebuttal, a loyal and vigorous de-fense « , and » [t]hat is how I understand the term ›polemic‹.« [8, p. 8]In his autobiography, Igor Stravinsky remembers Pierre Monteux, a conductor whose skills the composer deeply appreciated:» Thus he [Monteux] was able to achieve a very clean and finished execution of my score. I ask no more of a conductor, for any attitude on his part immediately turns into interpretation, a thing I have a horror of. The interpreter of necessity can think of nothing but interpretation and thus takes on the garb of a translator, traduttore-traditore, this is an absurdity in music, and for the interpreter it is a source of vanity inevitably leading to the most ridiculous megalomania. During the rehearsals I had the great satisfaction of seeing that all my intentions with regard to sound effects were amply confirmed.« [7, p. 34]A few pages later, Stravinsky describes » the admirable conductor « Ernest Ansermet and speaks in high terms » how faithfully he could transmit my musical thought to the public, without ever falsifying it by personal or arbitrary inter-pretation. For, as I have already said, music should be transmitted and not in-terpreted, because interpretation reveals the personality of the interpreter rather than that of the author, and who can guarantee that such an executant will reflect the author’s vision without distortion? An executant’s talent lies precisely in his faculty for seeing what is actually in the score, and certainly not in a determination to find there what he would like to find. This is Ansermet’s greatest and most precious quality, and it par revealed itself while we were studying the score of the Soldat. From that moment dates an intellectual under standing between us which time has only increased and strengthened.« [8, p. 75]1 Stravinsky’s views on interpretation are radical; ›interpretation‹ does not even seem to be the term of choice, he prefers » execution « . Anything that goes beyond – i.e. when it » turns into interpretation, a thing I have a horror of « – will render the performer an interpreter and thereby a traitor (» traddutore – traditore « ) and a » source of vanity « . A good conductor only does what is necessary and nothing more, that is, » transmit […] musical thought to the public, without ever falsifying it by personal or arbitrary interpretation.« And since performing must not be more than the mere execution of the score » an executant’s talent « is only characterized by his » faculty for seeing what is actually in the score « .We might disagree with Stravinsky’s polemic, but in general most of us tend to share his appreciation of the composer’s status. The composer as creator seems like a mystical figure; he has a much higher standing than any conductor, performer, interpreter could ever have. The performer plays a minor role, he is just means to an 1 Later in his life, Stravinsky relativized his radicalism but did not abandon it, for more details see [3, pp. 183f.]