DURING the last decades an interpretative movement appeared, decided to show us where the composer stops and where the performers start, assuring us that it knows the single corresponding to a composer's will sonic form of a musical work, as well as the degree of the arbitrariness of all the previous interpretative traditions. The ensued performances have been called, with arrogance and inaccuracy, authentic, a term by which even today, we insist to describe them. Great composers like Bach, Mozart or Beethoven are known to have been respecting less the works, either their own works or the others', and more the will and ability that brought them to light. Since they had a powerful creative ability, they were not interested in strictly preserving the, at any rate, insufficient images of this ability, the specific works of theirs. The tendency to identify a work with those constitutive elements, of which we can be provably sure that, either the composer had suggested them or the epoch impelled, a tendency akin to the modern authenticists' choices, first appears with romanticism. Yet, it was not about a restoration of inherited masterpieces. Romantic composers themselves turned carefully to their musical tradition, to a past still present, because they did not see it to bring forth, or at least to prepare, an end full of truth and meaning, because on the contrary that past implied, and it implied as natural, the impending horrible domination of null in history and artistry. The turn to the past had been done in order to give a meaning to chaotic shreds, not to preserve any monuments. This is also the reason of some assimilation of the past in new compositions. Who, in our days, would dare to transcribe Beethoven's symphonies with the self-confidence of a Liszt? It does not seem like a simple coincidence that authenticists' movement counts the same span of life that separates us from Stravinsky's death.