I’m not referring, for example in the vocal world, to the demands of a particular repertoire with respect to the evolution of the voice, but to what is derived from the singer’s free choice of a specific style or composer. In regard to early music, this issue centres the appropriateness or otherwise of venturing beyond the limits of this territory. This leads to the question as to whether or not specialists in this period should choose works that don’t fit into the "historical basket" or whether or not, with their experience, they should tackle other worlds or ambits. Orchestral conductors are not afraid to do so, as in the case of Harnoncourt or Herreweghe. Although, on the other hand, there are others who rarely decide to cross their limits: William Christie or Antonio Florio, to name just two. But the question that immediately comes to the fore is why do so many specialists feel inextricably tied to a specific repertory and attempt to escape any way they can? Do these attitudes form part of the need for an evolution in interpretative criteria, or should they merely be considered personal issues, part of the will, plainly and simply, to broaden one’s horizons?

Clearly, the status of the expert shouldn’t necessarily be associated with remaining in a ghetto. The harmful effect isolation often causes in contemporary music has been proven and it’s not a question of reproducing this in early music. With all due respect for those who prefer to concentrate on what they know and do best, artistic exchange usually implies enrichment, both for the artists themselves and their audiences. Or in other words, it isn’t such a bad thing that both the spectator and the artist have a general knowledge of all kinds of music and all existing interpretative approaches, even though they subsequently choose what they believe is best. Both are perfectly within their rights.

All of these considerations can be applied to the American countertenor David Daniels’ recent recital inaugurating this year’s prestigious Teatro de la Zarzuela Lied Cycle on 7 November in Madrid. It is a well-known fact that the countertenor voice is associated with early music for historical and aesthetic reasons and, in particular, with the Baroque period at its most splendid. In fact, only Andreas Schöll is the only countertenor to have previously participated in the Lied cycle.

The concert was a test for both the singer and the audience, and lends itself to a discussion of the some of the tiniest details and reactions. To start with, the programme. Appearing before an audience familiar with artists like Matthias Goerne, Thomas Hampson, Ian Bostridge or Barbara Bonney, or composers including Schubert, Mahler, Brahms or Richard Strauss, David Daniels chose a selection of early Spanish and English songs by composers including Alonso Mudarra, Juan de Anchieta, Francisco de la Torre, Gabriel Mena and Purcell. But in doing so, he didn’t forget the mélodies of Gabriel Fauré and Maurice Ravel, a few Mozart Lieder, and a tailor-made contemporary song cycle by Theodore Morrison. Aside from Handel, the encores even included Falla’s Nana.

This was a positive move in both directions. On the one hand, the spectator had the possibility of hearing a repertoire he or she was more or less familiar with, in a different vocal colour and interpretative style. On the other, it required the singer to broaden his outlook by venturing into very different aesthetic worlds to those he normally inhabits. Daniels is not unique in regard to these peculiar "adventures". Proof of this can be seen in the shifts from Vivaldi or Victoria to Schumann by countertenors including our own Carlos Mena, for example. But Daniels creates the sensation that he has made breaking down barriers his trademark.

The audience of the Madrid Lied cycles accepted the incursions closest to the world of the countertenor very well; that is to say, the offerings from the Renaissance and, above all, the Baroque era, but their reaction to the Impressionists or Falla had yet to be tested. (In Morrison’s case, they had no hesitations as this work was commissioned -a gift for the artist to show off his talent). Well, the overwhelming majority of those who attended the recital warmly received what they heard. And they did so in a very balanced manner, without discarding their pre-established preferences, but accepting that there are other valid ways of unravelling artistic beauty.

Early music specialists have made numerous contributions to other areas of music in recent years. Theirs have not been leaps in the dark and are not merely limited to changes of colour through the use of original instruments or reproductions of them. Harnoncourt has provided new interpretations of Schubert and Brahms, just as Herreweghe has done with Tchaikovsky and Bruckner, to cite perhaps the two most obvious names in regard to this kind of re-examination. In the opposite direction, looking inwards and exclusively at the most popular composers of the Baroque, the change of perception that has come about in recent years couldn’t be any greater. There are so many differences from I Musici’s Vivaldi to Fabio Biondi’s and from Biondi’s to Ottavio Dantone’s and from Dantone’s to Christophe Spinosi’s, that one can only be astonished by the richness, innovative character and vitality of the varying interpretations. Or at the very least, impressed by the talent coming out of early music. There is a goldmine of creativity, limited only by the amount that can be assimilated.
JUAN ÁNGEL VELA DEL CAMPO