The viola da gamba was replaced by the violin and the cello. Just as the bourgeoisie took over from the aristocracy, the viola da gamba, the most refined expression of aristocratic music, went with it. The viola da gamba, while perfect for making music for small audiences, is not so appropriate for the masses. Le Blanc writes in horror of the enormous and rigid strings used by violinists and cellists. And the calluses caused by playing these instruments. This never happened to gamba players because the strings were much finer. As Le Blanc explains, the strings of the viola da gamba have to be fine enough to keep vibrating after the bow has been passed over them and the desired resonance produced: more tension in the strings equals less resonance. The viol fought to hold its place in modern music and therefore turned to the use of stronger strings. And that’s what is happening at the moment in Europe. Gamba players are using increasingly thicker strings so as to almost sound like a cello and this makes me laugh because it doesn’t make sense. The viola da gamba is a completely different instrument.

And how can this music, which was originally conceived for a select few in the past, be performed for so many today?

If you decide to play a beautiful theorbo fantasia by Visée, you are not going to perform in a concert hall built to house 3000 people, unless the hall has an incredible acoustic. For many, this music is incomprehensible. An example of intellectually aristocratic music is perhaps a polyphonic repertory with purely formal ideals, such as one of Gesualdo’s works. Or I could mention twentieth-century music, in which communicating with the audience is not the most important issue. Those adept to these kinds of works are the musicians themselves, who can detect the sounds and appreciate fine details, but it is really music for a chosen few. My manner of interpreting aristocratic music always places man at the centre. Of course, an initial cultural input is needed, but not one as extraordinary as that needed to listen to music by Stockhausen, for example. I believe Renaissance and Baroque music is perfectly comprehensible. It is more natural, similar to the naturalness of much pop music or jazz, where the problem of emitting such an enormous sound is irrelevant because there is amplification. The problem is how to convey the precise details of what one is singing or playing, in the same manner as prior to the existence of problems relating to the projection of an enormous quantity of sound, such as whether to sing louder or to pause for a while. Like one of those singers who practically devours the microphone, and every word is heard in all its sensuality. Where is this found in a nineteenth-century opera? It’s impossible!

I believe Renaissance and Baroque music is perfectly comprehensible. It is more natural, similar to the naturalness of much pop music or jazz

“Classical” musicians are, in general, reluctant to use electric amplification.

I remember a few concerts I gave at St John’s in Smith Square, London, which is enormous. Playing there, knowing that you have filled such a big hall with your sound, is something to be proud of. The level of sound is only a marginal value.