In my research I try to analyse the largest amount of material possible, rather than looking directly for a score, which is something I never do. I have read a lot of music in the archives, I have spent hours and hours studying manuscripts, and every time I have chosen a musical score it was because it had seemed to be of particular value. I do not take into account other factors such as anniversaries, or that they might be composers from this or that region. My criterion has been, and remains, that of artistic quality.

And with this dual role as researcher and musician which side do you favour?

I am not a musicologist. Yes, I do the work of accessing the sources and carrying out research, something that means that I need to take on other roles. Many of today’s serious interpreters have this musicological approach, that is to say a scientific and erudite attitude towards music, increasingly distancing themselves from the image of the virtuoso whose sole and exclusive interest is in the technical accomplishment of a “finished” score. I on the other hand need to understand the factors that surround the notes. The social and artistic contexts, the iconography and even the personal backgrounds are as important to me as the score. In short, I have been a musicologist because I had no alternative, but it is not my vocation.

You mean that you carried out the musicological work because you hadn’t met anyone else who could do it.

Not when I started fifteen years ago. Now there could be, but I am now used to this type of work and I bring to it a very personal dynamic. In my career I have not really collaborated with musicologists, but have done the research and transcriptions myself. I still have the impression that there are not enough people that seriously respect the score. They grope in the dark, delving into aspects of little musical interest. What are scarce are musicologists who research subjects that while adjacent, are directly linked to the music, subjects such as instrumentation, the basso continuo and tuning.

You seem to feel particularly close to the idiom of 18th century Spanish art?

With regard to this subject something fundamental has to be cleared up. When one speaks of 18th century Spanish music one immediately stresses the Italian influence; on the other hand when one speaks of Handel one does not stress this influence quite so much. If there is any composer influenced by Italian techniques then it is Handel. It’s logical to say that Lliteres shows Italian influences, but who in 18th century Europe does not show Italian influences?

But you don’t consider this influence to have been a negative one.

Certainly not, using the same criteria one could even devalue Bach for having taken on Italian influences. An aria by Lliteres, for example, in no way resembles an aria by Alessandro Scarlatti, his most immediate contemporary. The characteristics are very personal and individual. The prevailing style in 18th century Spain was a blend of French and Spanish styles; one cannot simply limit it to a national style.