HPSCHD-L Archives

Harpsichords and Related Topics

HPSCHD-L@LIST.UIOWA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Davitt MORONEY <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Harpsichords and Related Topics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:24:28 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (81 lines)
Or perhaps, as with JSB, someone might hope to make the case that the
harpsichord pieces must all have been written by Louis Couperin's wife --
except that he never married!

Just to whet the appetite, one of the complex issues at stake (not, as far
as I can see, explored fully by Glen Wilson) is that in the hypothetical
case that they were not by Louis -- which I don't accept -- it isn't even
clear that Charles is the most likely other Couperin candidate for the
handful of dubious harpsichord pieces...

However, I have for many years maintained that Charles is probably the
author of the simple organ arrangement (in two parts) of the Carillons
(no., 139 in my edition), and implied as much in the edition.

DM





*Davitt Moroney​​Professor Emeritus Department of Music*

*Morrison Hall*


*​University of California, Berkeley​CA 94720-1200*

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:21 PM, J. Claudio Di Veroli <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> > Davitt wrote: Thanks, Claudio for these points, most of which I agree
> with. ... On close scrutiny, I see no other possible alternative than to
> attribute the harpsichord pieces to Louis Couperin, not to his younger
> brother Charles. The argument for Charles leaks hopelessly all over the
> place. ... I feel frustrated saying all that here so baldly ... So I
> realize
> this remains just an assertion on my part, with little serious value ...
> for
> the moment. ...
> I'd be happy to write a reply article for the Early Keyboard Journal,
> however, if it seemed there was enough interest in the matter.
>
> I for one will certainly be very interested Davitt, and will much
> appreciate
> your effort.
>
> Prima facie, with most pieces likely to be by Louis, and perhaps only a few
> by Charles, there seems to be no room for further hair-splitting.
>
> However, a serious investigation, the sort that only somebody the calibre
> of
> Davitt can produce, may well yield many details that are interesting per
> se,
> regardless of whether or not it is possible to progress too much further in
> the Louis vs Charles attribution.
>
> Best
>
> CDV
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
> tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
> versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
> [log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ATOM RSS1 RSS2