Is this about 'authenticity'?

The concept of 'authenticity' in early music has a rather mixed reputation. It started out as a generally positive idea of exploring the performance of period music using instruments and ensembles more appropriate to the time the music was written, such as harpsicord vs. piano for early keyboard works, and small (e.g. one part to a line) vocal groups. But then there was a reaction against the implicit judgement that more authentic is more 'correct'; disagreement as to the extent to which musicians should feel constrained by the available information (and required to keep up as scholarship changes); and also inevitable realisation that if 'perfect authenticity' was the goal, this was impossible for a modern musician in a modern world to reach.

However, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we should "make the best the enemy of the good", i.e., abandon any attempt towards authenticity because the ideal cannot be obtained. A more popular phrase in recent times is "historically informed performance" (yes, we play "hip" music) which suggest that the performer has paid some at least some attention to the period context of the music they are presenting, but might pick and choose which parts of the available information to apply, or ignore. In this regard, having more information is not seen as a constraint but an opportunity.

And besides, I love information! For example, I'd recommend anyone who gets the chance to see Leah Stuttard perform her concert 'The Wool Merchant and the Harp' (there's also a CD), in which she explores a 15th century account book detailing the payments made by a young merchant in Calais for harp lessons - from which emerges a fairly clear picture of what repertoire a 15th century amateur harpist would have attempted to acquire. Fascinating stuff, and not bad as guide for any bray harpist to emulate.

Tomorrow I'll discuss the specific case of instrumental performance of (medieval) vocal music.