Although we still seem to be in the majority, the position of those who believe all music that isn’t contemporary is necessarily early music shouldn’t be ignored, which thus creates a host of problems when it comes to defining what is understood as contemporary.

The truth is that problems also crop up on the other side when borders have to be drawn at some point during the second half of the eighteenth century. While no-one would dispute that the music of Bach (1685-1750) is early music, despite its very early revival, it isn’t as clear if that of the generation of the three Viennese classicists, Mozart (1756-1791), Haydn (1732-1809) and early Beethoven (1770-1827) is or is not.

Some rather Sibylline distinctions can be made with respect to the latter, as there is a tendency to term works by classical composers "early music" when they are performed on period instruments. Actually, this is what occurs today. For example, listening to certain Beethoven piano sonatas performed on a fortepiano gives us the sensation that they are early music, while if we hear them performed on a magnificent Steinway, this is transformed into another (if not contrary then at least different) sensation. There is an obvious contradiction in that at least in theory, the one work can be classed as "early music" or not depending on whether it is performed on a period piano or a more modern instrument, although in this case the problem is purely terminological. In fact, no one seems to want to relinquish listening to masterpieces of the recent past on instruments that enhance their quality, while at the same time we are unwilling to give up the opportunity of hearing them performed on period instruments.

In pre-classical music, the use of extemporal instruments or even instruments pertaining to other cultures by modern-day performers isn’t infrequent at all. For example, the viola da gamba is widely used in the early renaissance repertoire, although it first appeared at the end of the fifteenth century, while the presence of the lute is almost inevitable in the medieval repertoire when, in fact, barring exceptions, it doesn’t seem to have been used in the performance of Western art music until the 1430s. The reason why these instruments are used instead of others that are more appropriate, such as a lira da braccio in the first instance and a harp in the second, is probably the same as why a grand piano is used to perform music from the classical period: for no other reason than to (relatively) reinforce its sound and musical meaning. And herein lies the problem: while anyone with a reasonable knowledge of music is capable of distinguishing between a performance using original instruments and one which doesn’t when it comes to a classical keyboard sonata, it is rare to find someone who is able to provide arguments in favour or against a viola da gamba accompaniment for the non-sacred repertoire of the Montecassino Chansonnier, from the period of Alfonso the Magnanimous (d.1456) or troubadour songs being sung to the sound of the lute, to give just two examples.

n general terms, current information about how early music should be performed -limited to the use of the instruments at that- doesn’t seem to go much further back than to the generation of madrigalists from the second half of the sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. While no one would ever dream of performing Monteverdi’s madrigals with piano accompaniment nowadays, as the legendary Nadia Boulanger’s ensemble did around the 1930s, Masses and other sacred works by the great Spanish polyphonists of the sixteenth century accompanied by authentic renaissance symphonic "orchestras", are performed to almost unanimous critical and public acclaim. Among the many striking cases are the exquisite songs of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, whose texts are often omitted in order to add splendour to the diverse instrumental ensemble entrusted with the performance. The more instruments and the stronger and faster they play, the better, according to René Clemencic’s old motto, because the Middle Ages seems to have become a synonym for rowdiness for certain musicians supposedly specialising in the performance of this music.

f course there are scrupulous performers who try to revive the medieval and early renaissance repertoire, generally the most manipulated, taking heed of the information that exists in this respect. Even when this information is scarce, there are those who experiment with various options, in an attempt to come as close as possible to historical veracity. The odd thing about this is that today audiences are barely able to differentiate these kinds of performers from those who seek to form part of the competitive world of music performance at any price, some without even informing themselves about the repertoire they perform. In fact, only a very small percentage of the medieval and early-renaissance repertoire (except Gregorian chant, which is a completely separate case) that is heard is "authentic". It’s as if the early-music market were saturated with "fakes", which in my opinion, don’t seem to be declining in number.

It’s impossible to stem the tide, as the popular saying goes, but it is just as erroneous to open the floodgates without any kind of criterion, unless we are not at all concerned about obtaining one product instead of another while the results remain moderately satisfactory. If this is the case, there is nothing to complain about. If not, some measures have to be taken, and these are basically in the hands of sensible and well-informed music critics, managers and programmers.

It’s not a matter of no longer performing according to basically individual criteria, because when it comes to art everything is free and open to a variety of opinions. It’s about gradually showing and learning how to distinguish between two types of performances of early music, those that respect rigorously historical criteria and those that don’t, beginning with the use of certain musical instruments in preference to others.
Maricarmen Gómez Muntané