Yet, as Reinhold Friedl, leader of zeitkratzer points out, 'the pieces give the impression of an artistic approach which has never been as strict or ideologically restricted as German electronic music or French concrete music. It seems to me that none of the musicians connected with this studio have had the tendency to limit him/herself to 'electroacoustic music', rather they all have a natural and holistic approach to composing' [see: BR ES03]. This is why the releases give us opportunity to revisit our historical ideas of XX century music with a fresh and inspiring insight.

Polyversional compositions were defined by Bogusław Schaeffer already in the 1960s. They were pieces written down not as 'definite aggregates' being an obligation towards an interpreter to perform the sounds composer had in his mind but rather potential aggregates encompassing variety of possible versions. After nearly half-century, a couple of notes should be added to the definition, even if they are nothing more than questions on its margins. They are not rooted in any theoretical insight but only in working on that particular album.
The question is: if the score is missing, can polyversionality mean improvising the soloist part upon listening to a fixed tape? (see: Heraklitiana - the composition for tape and soloist. There is possibly a score for this piece somewhere but a few month long search, with assistance of its author, gave no desired result.) If close listening to an 'original' version (based on a score) leaves a lot of doubt about the faithfulness to the score, do other more loose versions have to be mere variations? (see: o.t. dec. 2011 by Thomas Lehn.) And finally: does changing a title free us from an obligation of a faithful performance or is it only a misuse and attempt to pretend that a particular performance which is nothing more but one of possible realizations of Schaeffer's compositions is a creation of a different composer?