Although it may seem a little strange, I’m going to speak about his cello suites. These works are very well known, as is their tremendous importance. What interests me about Bach is that he conceived them within the polyphonic style of the viola da gamba. The dance suite is the most popular form in the viola da gamba repertory. I believe the cello had the good fortune to inherit this incredible music and make it its own. Bach knew that the viola da gamba was destined to disappear and that the cello would replace it, so to speak. Today we can turn things around and recuperate an enormously rich body of works.

Modern stringed instruments have also inherited this repertory. What are the most notable differentiating factors?

I believe the modern concept of bowing developed something incredible: the ideal of continuous bowing, the production of unending sound. This comes from the late-Romantic tendency of increasingly longer phrases. An instrument like the modern cello has practically nothing in common with the Baroque cello. A completely different instrument has been invented, which is marvellous. Of course there are many differences between the various modern string schools and there are fantastic modern performers. You were speaking to me before about a violinist who gives incredible performances of the Bach partitas and sonatas. What was his name?

Bretislav Novotny

I’m going to rush out and buy his recordings. But speaking of famous string players, Jacqueline du Pré is one example of masterful playing.

Frans Brüggen once said during a conference that one of the most terrible things about modern instruments, which are poorly understood, was their homogeneity of sound, the fact that the “noises” caused by articulation tend to be eliminated.

Another reaction has been the widespread use of metal strings since the 1930’s. This radically changed orchestral colour. The advantage of metal strings is obvious: the orchestra’s tuning is more stable and the metal strings are more subtle, flexible and finer than gut strings, meaning that they last longer. But this has acted like a Dolby system on orchestras. The woodwind followed suite, the reeds becoming stronger and losing their individuality. You no longer know whether an oboe or a clarinet is sounding.

Do you think that at the beginning of the twenty-first century musicians will begin to borrow something more of their respective styles of music?

Careful with the risk of homogenization! We live in a civilisation in which now more than ever, we run this risk in every field. Everyone knows a lot about his/her particular field, but almost nothing about the others. The mass media and particularly television are to blame. The same tomato is eaten in Italy and Amsterdam, which is probably the result of genetic engineering carried out in Philadelphia or who knows where! This homogenization occurs in all fields because there are very strong models proposed by mass media that have an enormous impact. There are fewer models to follow than before. Less communication would foster the development of individual characteristics. But this sounds reactionary and is currently a totally utopian belief, because we are fighting against progress that can’t be stopped. I’m just about to go to New York and I know I can watch my favourite Italian TV channel there. This globalization threatens to lead to the loss of the cultural heritage of groups, regions and individuals.