The theorbo pieces by De Visée exhibit a level of artistry that is comparable to the most excellent instrumental pieces of its time. His preludes retain the unmeasured character of the French lute literature—like those of lutenists Charles Mouton, Jacques Gallot—with increased harmonic inventiveness, interspersed with the most poetic melodies. The expressive qualities of his tombeau, evoke strong feelings of loss and grief, not unlike that by that other great composer of tombeaux, violist Marin Marais. His transcriptions of pieces by Louis XIV’s composer Jean Baptiste Lully and harpsichordist François Couperin demonstrate his genius in the art of composition, transcribing music for the opera and court into the intimate idiom of the solo plucked instrument, while still retaining all of its charm and allure.

De Visée’s music is extant in a small number of manuscripts, which I consulted in preparation for this recording.(1) Unfortunately, it does not seem that these manuscripts are in De Visée’s hand. Furthermore, as they were all written around the same period, it is difficult to deduce which manuscript is more ‘authoritative’. The one feature that all these manuscripts share is that none of them are the same. The same pieces in the different manuscripts, while generally having the same musical material, exhibit differences such as the title, notation and ornamentation. Unlike other composers of the time, who were beginning to compose in the suite form, none of these manuscripts contain the usual number or order of dances that we associate with the French suite. While some dances may have been left out in a particular manuscript, some movements might appear in one manuscript but not in another.

As the performer, I am tasked with deciding which versions from the different manuscripts to include in the recording. The Saizenay manuscript is full of the detail that one expects from the music of the period, but all that precision almost feels a little didactic. Res 1106 lacks this precision, but often does not include the ornamentation found in Saizenay. Vm7 6265 contains features present in both the aforementioned manuscripts, as if the copyist took what material he liked from the two. Manuscrit d’Agen contain only a few works by De Visée, but the style is more simple and plain. In the end, I used Res 1106 as my primary performing edition, while adding features from all the other manuscripts to vary the expression. Naturally, I included some improvisatory elements to the music, as one might expect from a performer of the time.

Gut Strings on the Theorbo

Besides being the historical option, gut strings possess superior acoustical qualities compared to synthetic strings. When I first installed gut strings on my instrument, I immediately noticed a warmth and brilliance to the sound. As gut is not an entirely smooth material, I also noticed a certain dampening effect to the sound that does not occur on a synthetic string. This dampening effect promotes clarity on an instrument like a theorbo, with long unfingered strings. I also felt that the textured quality of gut also helped me execute ornaments, especially trills, where the hammering of the string against the roughness of the flesh of the left hand enables the string to ‘speak’. Of course, there are downsides to gut. The slightest movement of my fingers against the string creates noise. This noise is most noticeable when I remove my left hand from a barre chord: no matter how hard I try to release the string quietly, there will always be some noise as the string slowly ‘peels’ itself away from my fingertips. Then there is the problem with keeping gut strings in tune especially when temperature and humidity changes: a common complaint of modern players on gut strings. No problem for the historical solo theorbist, who could sneak in a retune during the many occasions when an audience might not be listening. He could after all allow all his strings to slowly descend in pitch throughout his concert, and make minor adjustments when necessary. Finally, gut is not as physically resilient as a synthetic string. My theorbo’s top string, only 0.50mm thick, can start to fray after a couple of hours of playing and lose its tone. Generally, I expect the top string to last no longer than a month. Synthetic strings on the other hand almost never break, but never sound as ‘good’ as a gut string.

Right-Hand Technique and a Historical Sound

Compared to other instruments of the time, like the harpsichord, viola da gamba and lute, very little is written about how to play the theorbo. In 1623, the Italian Alessandro Piccinini writes in his publication Intavolatura di Liuto e di Chitaronne (a synonym for theorbo) about the right hand technique required on the lute and theorbo, with the right hand held ‘between the rose and the bridge’, with the ‘little finger positioned on the belly’ of the instrument. Piccinini also talks about what is nowadays called the thumb-out technique, where the thumb is ‘stretched out’. This technique is a departure from earlier renaissance lute technique, where the thumb is held ‘inside’ the fingers. In the later technique, the fingers are brought closer to the bridge as the thumb is stretched out closer to the rose. The fingers are now closer to the bridge, resulting in a brighter (and harsher) tone.

More evidence suggests a preference for this quality by advocating playing even closer to the bridge. The Mary Burwell lute tutor, a document from the late 17th century, states that the right hand is held ‘between the rose and the bright but nearest to the bridge’. Despite the same tutor advising ‘never lay the little finger upon the bridge or behind the bridge’, other evidence shows that certain players did this. In 1640, the Austrian-Italian Giovanni Girolamo Kapsperger writes in his Libro quarto d'intavolatura di chitarrone (1640): ‘rest the fourth finger of the right hand on the lower part of the bridge, and not the fifth [little finger]’. This technique brings the fingers even closer to the bridge, while limiting the use of the fingers to only the thumb, index and middle. While not explicitly instructed to lie behind the bridge, the little finger is situated in that very position.

In modern research, string maker Mimmo Peruffo has uncovered evidence of finger marks on original instrument close or even behind the bridge. Furthermore, these bridges possess small holes, suggesting that thin or low-tension strings were used: an aspect of instrument setup that supports playing close to the bridge. Low-tension strings would be too slack to produce a decent volume if played somewhere other than close to the bridge.

In addition to playing on low-tension gut strings, my little finger rest mostly on the bridge for this recording. If it does travel, it travels behind the bridge. As a result, many of the resonant high notes in the recording are plucked right next to the bridge with my middle finger. The extra ‘give’ in the string because of the low tension allows for a more articulate sound, but the technical requirements of the right hand are more demanding, especially when manipulating this thin string. The occasional departure of my little finger from the bridge to behind the bridge enables me to pluck my bass strings closer to the bridge, producing a strong, brilliant, harmonic-rich sound.

Shaun Ng

1 ‘Vaudry de Saizenay’ manuscript, Bibliothèque de la ville de Besançon; Res 1106, Bibliothèque nationale de France; Vm7 6265, Bibliothèque nationale de France; ‘Manuscrit d’Agen’, Archives départementales du Lot-et-Garonne.