This was the brilliant premise, but over the years something else happened, the musical environment slowly changed towards marketing and, as my studies progressed and researches deepened, the task to give an authentic interpretation became more and more complicated, ambiguous and the results took unpredictable directions.
This raised a series of questions that were not easy to answer. Without going into technical details, some statements in vogue and some purism among the philologists were fiercely denied or proved false. Then the supposed correct interpretation of some musical signs (metronomes, dynamics, phrasing etc.) gave rise to doubts, ambiguities and perplexities. Was also this new school subjected to the ephemeral empire of fashion and marketing instead of being the advocate of the truth? How was it conceivable that there were new critical editions of the same score so different from each other? After careful analysis these seemed even more arbitrary than those belonging to the past so criticized.
How is the quality of the sound of vintage instruments affected during their restoration, such as adjusting harmonic table or changing the hammers? Have the villas or castles kept the same acoustics of two or three hundred years ago? Even moving a furniture can sometimes change considerably the overall effect. We have to keep in mind that what we perceive during a performance is not exactly the pure sound of the instruments, but the sound mixed with the reflections in the hall. There is always an unpredictable subtle difference between the sound imagined and created by the interpreters with the one which actually reaches the public. This leads to the necessity to clearly separate the philological executive practice from the reality of playing exclusively on ancient instruments, whose sound’s quality is practically lost in some modern concert halls.