I believe we can consider music which today lacks an oral tradition as “early music”, although in a somewhat rigid way. At the moment I would say that Wagner is half way to becoming “early music”. The oral tradition is already so far away that it can be considered as extinguished. For me Wagner is already “early music”: you have to find the instructions in a non-verbal, written manner. And I believe a musician’s duty is sacred: to bring together all the information, and not to bask in Wagner’s glory. For that he should compose something himself, that would be braver. In the past it was much more common for performers to compose their own works. This has also developed in a very different way.

It’s interesting that these artists performed, composed and improvised their own music. Today this is almost confined to jazz or other types of music. What do you think will happen in the future?

It’s true. There is an element of danger: for a long time I have tried to persuade Alfred Brendel to play the fortepiano. He said: “Yes, yes, it’s interesting, but I think Beethoven would have been very happy if he had had the opportunity to hear a Steinway, let me do it on a Steinway”. Then I thought, Brendel, you’re a fantastic pianist, but you haven’t even tried the fortepiano. It all depends on who says what. If Brendel would had said: “I’ve tried it on many occasions but I couldn’t find anything. And I tried again, during a minor concert. I’ve thought it over and I have decided not to do it”. Then it would be completely different. But if the response is simply: “No, let me do it on a Steinway” I don’t believe this is the correct approach to this music, him being strictly a performer. Ensembles and orchestras specialising in this type of repertory are increasingly freer. It’s a question of taste: either you like it or you don’t. Why don’t you like it? Because you find it academic. But what is really academic anyway? It’s difficult [laughter]. But getting back to your original question about the future of all this. I think it can only get better, technically it has already reached a much higher level than in the recent past.

What did the Brüggen-Bylsma-Leonhardt trio mean to you?

Well, it was a pleasure making music for the three of us. It was fantastic. And it also involved a lot of detective work. One of us discovered that the tempo chosen was incorrect because he had read in one or another treatise that it should be quicker. It was all very emotional.

It has sometimes been said that many groups try to be innovative for the mere fact of being innovative.

The mere fact of being different doesn’t make something good. But if these groups need to experiment for a certain time, I don’t think they can be criticised for it. Often this is part of the process.

What are your plans for the orchestra?

We are preparing the Beethoven piano concertos. We have found the solution: two good instruments, more or less period instruments, appropriate to the concert hall as long as it is neither too big nor too small, and the balance between the orchestra and the piano is ideal. We have already started work and next year we will perform them. We’ll continue to perform works by Rameau, which sound very good with this orchestra. In fact, we are three orchestras in one, with three different instruments for each musician. We have a Bach orchestra, the one you saw, with period instruments and old standard pitch. We have the orchestra for Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, which uses different instruments and is tuned to a different pitch. And finally we have a very special orchestra that is an imitation of the orchestra of the Paris Opera in Rameau’s time, again, using different instruments and a very low standard pitch, a whole tone below the standard modern concert pitch. This is more than enough, given that we are frequently on tour. Often our concerts are programmed in this way—a Rameau suite in the first half, and a Beethoven symphony in the second.