CARWOOD: The group started in 1989, when David and I were at Christ Church as lay clerks. The formation of The Cardinall’s Musick came about because we both liked the idea of a group specialising in 16th century music which didn’t just sing very well, but also had a very sound academic backbone. We felt that our differing personalities could bring those two concepts together well, that we had the ability and the interest to do it. So that’s how it started and we’ve maintained that throughout our 16th century work. David and I get equal credit on the front of our discs because we think the scholarly input is very important. Yes, the singing’s very beautiful and the interpretations are important, but it’s the academic work that helps to make us different from other groups.

So let’s just clarify this. The musical direction is in Andrew’s hands, while the musicology side is yours, David? [Nods of assent]. And you of course, David, are a long way from home. I believe you hail originally from California. How did you come to land up at Christ Church?

SKINNER: Well, I’m a singer, too—a countertenor. And there’s no place in California for countertenors, or least there wasn’t in the 1980s. I also had this exceptional love for English music, and ultimately wanted to come here to sing it. I took a little sojourn in Edinburgh to do my M. Mus. and then applied to Oxford and Cambridge. Christ Church gave me the first offer, so I came here and met Andrew during my first year. I just haven’t left—I’m like a bad penny! Very early on I was working for groups like The Tallis Scholars and The Sixteen. This was the time that Andrew was beginning to sing with many of these groups, so we saw the opportunity, recognising that we were already doing the job, but not together and for our own benefit.

I know you are both probably already tired of answering the next question, but there is obviously a strong element of Oxbridge surrounding The Cardinall’s Musick. It is a tradition that has a very specific image in the minds of many people, who often feel there are both advantages and disadvantages to the tradition. Would you agree, and if so, how do you view them?

CARWOOD: Oxbridge is a dangerous word. However, if we talk about it in the generally accepted sense for a moment, the good thing is that it is a kind of gold-standard word. You know that if something is labelled as Oxbridge, it’s going to be of high quality—that it’s going to be in tune, together and so on. The bad side, and I think this is appreciated among the musical community, if not always by critics, is that it tends to be sometimes associated with, dare I say it, a superficial, surface-deep interpretation of the music. The Oxbridge choirs get through so much music on a daily basis, they sight-read so much and work so hard at that sort of thing, that quite often they’re just getting the notes right and then they’re on to the next project.

This seems to be a suggestion that frequently comes up—the idea that because sight-reading skills are so highly developed, there is this ever-present danger of superficiality.

CARWOOD: Well, that’s true, but I don’t believe it’s an Oxbridge problem. It’s an English problem. In fact the word Oxbridge is meaningless in musical terms. Think back, let’s say, thirty years, to the choirs you had in Oxford and Cambridge. In Cambridge there was King’s College, Cambridge under Stephen Cleobury and St. John’s College, Cambridge under George Guest. You could not find two more different choirs. Then when I came to Oxford you had Christ Church under Stephen Darlington and New College under Edward Higginbottom. Again completely opposite ends of the spectrum. So what is an Oxbridge sound, in that sense?