In general, building a performance implies sharpening perception of key elements in order to determine the line of coherence which will guide the performer, and later the listener, through the musical discourse. Within this domain, we can allude to Schoenberg’s considerations regarding (a) phrasing, which from his standpoint is “solely” connected to performance - with the purpose of helping the audience to understand a piece of music; (b) consciousness of the piece’s centre of gravity, its location and occasional shifting, which he considers more important than knowing the way notes are joined; (c) his concept of “developing variation”, based on changing features of a basic unit, and ultimately resulting in a distinct style of continuous development, i.e., musical prose; and finally, (d) his mentioning of op.11 as “relatively easy to understand” (Style and Idea, p. 79). After a first perusal of the first two pieces, we could agree with the composer; however, the third piece is better illustrated by his claim that his intention was “not having any intention”(Busoni, 187, p.389). Based on performers’ necessity to make sense out of the music they play in order to communicate, our contribution to this paper is describing one possible way to explore this controversial piece supported by concepts of form, structure, free thematic development (as Musical Prose), and tempo.