There is an entire division of academic study in music devoted to how works ought to be played, outside of technique. Some scholars specialize in particular composers, others in entire stylistic periods. The goal of all is to determine the correct, consistent way of interpreting the music. In terms of what the average concert-goer hears when arriving in the auditorium, this may be one of the most philosophically influential areas for what affects the audience’s perception of one piece of music from concert to concert and performer to performer.

Performance practitioners consider an array of factors when determining the “correct” way of interpreting music. Taking out the subjective aspect for a moment, let us consider the keyboard music of a baroque composer; Couperin for instance.

The purest of the purists would say that given Couperin’s specification of an instrument in his compositions, they should be played on that instrument—in this case, it was often the harpsichord (clavecin in French). Let’s listen to the same piece, the famous “Les Barricades Mystérieuses”, by Couperin played by two different instruments:

Bruno Procopio playing harpsichord.

George Cziffra playing piano.

Taking things like expression and tempo out of the question for the moment, the effect of the instrument itself is quite striking. So which is the proper instrument? Those same purists would say Procopio’s performance was more true to the music. Others would point out that the music did not change; a gender neutral song does not become another song when it is sung by a tenor in the written range of the original alto. But this brings into question the intent of a composer. A harpsichord is similar to but certainly not the same as a piano, and given that both were available in some form or another at the time of Couperin’s compositional process, his choice of harpsichord seems important. Perhaps he may have written this music to be played instead by a violin and gamba? The authenticity of a performance seems, according to that question, to depend on the instrument on which the piece is played. But does the music cease to be meaningful if it is not played on its intended keyboard? Certainly not, though it may change somewhat. Ravel’s orchestration of Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition is just as effective as the original piano version, or perhaps more effective. The degree of expression changes a great deal in the transition from a harpsichord to a piano; a performer is able to include dynamics and sustain to great effect on the latter. And as an effect, the sentiment changes a great deal, likely in a way that the composer did not intend. At this point, the composer’s control over what is heard is greatly diminished, and this is one of the great conundrums of composers that has been relevant since music moved out of prehistory into written form.

To that I end, the onus falls to the listener to know that which they have been presented, to know whether what one hears is exactly what the composer intended (if such a thing is possible when music is played by anyone but the composer) or an artist’s interpretation of the notes on a page. An anachronistic performance does not necessarily change the music itself, the notes are the same, but it could very well change the meaning of the performance.