Some questions I've been asked, and my rather quick replies.

Looking back over the last 10 years in the Early Music sector, and looking forward to the next 10�

Over the past 10 years would you say that it has generally become easier or harder for �classical� musicians generally to survive?

Harder. So it seems from my point of view anyway. Concert fees have not kept pace with inflation. They haven't even stayed the same, thereby dropping in real terms. They've actually gone down. We are going out for less than we were ten years ago, and, what's more, there seem to be fewer promoters willing to risk performances that are not guaranteed to be extremely popular.

How does the Early Music scene compare with that of mainstream classical music performers?

Dunno.

To what extent, if any, is the Early Music �scene� becoming integrated into the classical mainstream? Are Early Music groups more frequently performing what used to be �mainstream� repertoire? Conversely do you find early repertoire more integrated into mainstream concert or festival programming?

Don't know much about this, but my impression is that a certain amount of integration is taking place, and that the answer to both of your questions is yes. Mainstream orchestras have learned a lot about style from period orchestras, for example. And "period" conductors are guest conducting modern orchestras a lot. Conversely, in some respects performance practice in the period repertoire has taken some steps backwards: e.g., lots of inappropriate "modern" voices and singing styles in early music, lots of percussion where it doesn't belong, in order to spice things up and keep audiences happy, lots of people under the guise of being "authentic" ensembles doing whatever they fancy, regardless of whether or not it's got much to do with historical performance practice. (Don't get me wrong. People can do what they like. But it can be misleading.)

A number of performers have been widening their repertoire, either into the mainstream or sometimes to include new contemporary repertoire. Does this reflect the demands of the market or some sense of boredom or dissatisfaction with the now widely explored Early Music repertoire.

In my case, widening into contemporary music has had one reason only: an interest in, and love of, contemporary music. OK, two reasons: the other is a belief that it's quite nice to have new repertoire for the lute, so that it's more than a historical instrument, and becomes a modern one as well. Not that there's a shortage of first-rate repertoire from the renaissance for me to play--there's several lifetimes' worth.

To what extent is �authenticity� still of primary importance within early music performance? Have you found yourself more often involved in work outside the world of standard �authentic� concert performance. For example performing or recording in �crossover� music, World music, jazz etc? Perhaps you do more film, TV music. Do groups you work with feel less constrained by the rigors of �authenticity�?

I don't know for sure, but I get the sense that performers who are truly interested in historical performance practice, and who want to understand the music on its own terms and in relation to its context of origin, and who are passionate about letting it speak in this form (as much as this is possible) to modern audiences, are increasingly in the minority. I think it's a shame, because a lot of what gets done is simply an arrogant appropriation and adaptation of something that had integrity. It's easy to take a musical text and appropriate it or adapt it. It's more difficult (and, I personally think, more rewarding), to take a musical text and delve into it, and inhabit it, and maybe make the attempt to understand it on its own terms. The latter approach, at its best, can show us other worlds, whereas the former can only reflect our own back at us. (By the way, I'm fully aware that everything I'm saying should be heavily qualified with philosophical disclaimers. I know perfectly well that, ultimately, the two approaches I'm outlining are not as distinct from one another as I'm making them out to be in this shorthand account, and that, in fact, every modern approach to an old musical text is, to some degree or other, appropriated and adapted for modern use.)

These days most performers have a web page and email facilities? In your opinion / experience, has the internet had much impact for Early Music performers, either as a marketing tool / business card, or simply as a means of replacing printed material (brochures etc.) or traditional forms of communication (letter, fax, phone)? Do you need to check your email as often as your answerphone?

The answer to all of these questions is yes, probably.

Is the internet an area that is likely to expand in significance as a medium for promotion and communications within the Early Music field over the next 10 years?

I expect so.

Does income from recordings represent as significant a part of your earnings as in the past or do you see making CDs more as a necessary promotional tool? Are record contracts and royalties generally becoming less lucrative? Are you more likely to be �bought out� than before?

Income from recordings has certainly dropped. I'm making far fewer CDs than I used to as a free-lance player, because the groups I worked a lot with in the past are all working less now. As for my solo CDs, I make them (and pay for the privilege) because it means a lot to me to have a project to be working intensively on, and I learn a lot from doing it. I also have a small number of loyal listeners who value highly what I'm doing. I suppose the other reason I do it is that there's all this good music that no one is performing and recording, and I think it deserves to be heard. Am I more likely to be "bought out" than before? No. If anything, the reverse is true.

How would you describe the economic climate in the Early Music industry generally over the past 10 years? Has it become harder for performers to attract good fees? Has the amount of work and the demand for concerts generally remained consistent?

See above

Has the declining role of the Musicians Union been significant for performers in recent years?

Dunno

How do you see the next 10 years developing within the Early Music world from the point of view of the performer? Are you optimistic regarding the prospects for growth?

Not very optimistic. It's hard to say. Funnily enough, having said all this stuff about delving into old musical texts, and being true to them, I increasingly think that the same goes (or should go) for non-early-music performance. I have a feeling that the distinction may become less and less relevant between early music and non-early-music. As early musicians become less rigorous, and as mainstream ones perhaps become more so (not sure), maybe it's more and more relevant to say that all music is really early music.