Well, there is a problem with the Ockeghem repertoire which is that to actually reconstruct a mass would be very difficult—I don’t think the scholarly world is capable of doing that for Ockeghem’s music in the same way as that wonderful reconstruction of the Taverner Missa Gloria tibi Trinitas which Andrew Parrott did. The contexts are very different; these are masses composed for a court circle for which the liturgy remains fairly obscure. We really don’t know very much about it, so to satisfactorily reconstruct a mass as it might have been heard in Ockeghem’s day would be rather more of a scholarly feat than I think is possible. There’s another issue here too, I think. It doesn’t seem to me that recording the music in its plainchant context really draws you in any more to what one might call an authentic experience. This music is in any case withdrawn from its context. The way people thought about their devotions in the 15th century is utterly different. The whole idea of recording a piece of music, even performing a piece of music—and take the word performance—would they have really understood what a performance was in the context of devotional music? So it seems to me there are so many issues which cut us off from the sensibilities of 15th-century singers and worshippers that just pushing in a bit of plainchant doesn’t cure anything in my view. Having said that, what is nice is that when the polyphony is particularly similar in, say, a parody mass, where you have the same music re-composed movement after movement, dividing it up with plainchant does seem to me a sensible thing to do, simply from a natural performance point of view. But in Ockeghem’s music I don’t think you have the same problems; there was no such thing as a parody mass at that time and those issues just don’t arise.