An extremely problematic notion, usually identified as historically authentic performance practice, is very often applied to music of the relatively distant past. As an example of the problems that such a notion embodies, consider that Piatigorsky and Casals were once regarded as impeccable interpreters of Bach but now their recordings are widely considered to be hopelessly anachronistic. One wonders whether the same may not, in the future, be said for today's authentic or historically informed performances. Indeed, I believe it is quite certain that this will some day be the case; though for precisely what reason cannot be predicted.
The tension between "historian" and "performer" can never completely be resolved, even when both are housed in the same human body, because they have utterly different roles. The performer has certain responsibilities, and these MUST eventually culminate in a set of practical choices and decisions on his/her part.
One of the performer's responsibilities is to try new things: new instruments (they MAY be in fact chronologically old), new repertoires (they MAY be in fact chronologically old), new modes of interpretation (which may or may not be "historically informed"). In other words, it is the duty of a performer constantly to stimulate and reinvigorate his/her imagination. Obviously, I believe that serious historical study must be a part of this process.
On the other hand, the performer's primary responsibility is to maintain his/her personal aesthetic integrity, and here we have only our ears and our souls to guide us. Ultimately we must make our final practical decisions based on what SOUNDS most satisfying TO US. If we choose something else, we are neglecting our primary responsibility. Thus, I feel that a performer has the duty NEVER to perform (on) anything (instrument, reed, piece, tempo, articulation...) BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE LIKED IT THAT WAY. And I believe that this extends even to what THE COMPOSER MAY HAVE LIKED (assuming we could ever know this with certainty anyhow which we cannot).
