CC BY
75
2018
ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА ИСКУССТВОВЕДЕНИЕ
Т. 8. Вып. 3
МУЗЫКА
UDC 781.15
"L'Ornement mystérieux" and Mark Kroll's revision of the French baroque performance practice*
A. A. Panov, I. V. Rosanoff
St. Petersburg State University,
7-9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
For citation: Panov, Alexei, and Ivan Rosanoff. "'L'Ornement mystérieux' and Mark Kroll's revision of
the French baroque performance practice". Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Arts 8, no. 3 (2018):
328-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu15.2018.301
The interpretation of ornaments has always attracted much attention of scholars and performers. Many Baroque musicians in their turn took pains to provide an explanation of ornaments realized in notation. Tables of these musicians have been thoroughly studied over the last one hundred fifty years, particularly, François Couperin's table "Explication des Agrémens, et des Signes" which he included in his "Pieces de Clavecin" (1713). The authors of the present article came across a paper "L'Ornement mystérieux" by Mark Kroll published in Early Music 45, no. 2 (2017): 297-309. At first glance this work seemed to present a solidly founded hypothesis pertaining to the execution of one of Couperin's ornaments, namely, to the "compound ornament" marked by the combination of a trill with a turn written above it: According to M. Kroll's new hypothesis, this compound ornament should be performed not in the traditionally accepted manner when the trill is performed first, and the turn — afterwards, but in the reverse order. Practically everywhere Kroll names this ornament also in the reverse version: "doublé/tremblement". The purpose of the present article is to prove that the new hypothesis is basically unacceptable. Kroll did not pay due attention to the research of sources, relying only on four of them, while there were many more. In addition, the study of other very important historical sources showed that the turn was performed at the end of the "compound ornament" marked by the sign 2?. Therefore, this conclusion also attests that the previous recommendations by A. Farrenc, A. Dolmetsch, P. Brunold, A. Geoffroy-Dechaume, K. Gilbert, Fr. Neumann, D. Tunley and other musicians, despite the fact that they were criticized by Kroll, on the whole, were correct.
Keywords: French Baroque music, French harpsichord music, Baroque performance practice, François Couperin, L'Ornement mystérieux, ornamentation, Tremblement et Double, the compound ornament, doublé/tremblement.
*The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 18-012-00208. © Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, 2018
In the vast field of Early Music the interpretation of ornaments has always attracted much attention of scholars and performers1. Many Baroque musicians in their turn took pains to provide an explanation of ornaments realized in tabular form. Among the most important and most complete tables2 with the execution of ornaments created during the period of 1650-1760 were those written by Christopher Simpson [3], Jacques de Chambonniéres [4], André Raison [5], Jean-Henry d'Anglebert [6], Michel LAffillard [7; 8], Charles (François) Dieupart [9], François Couperin [10], Johann Sebastian Bach [11], Jean-Phillippe Rameau [12], Gottlieb Muffat [13], Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg [14-16], Francesco Geminiani [17; 18], Pierre-Claude Foucquet [19], Johann Joachim Quantz [20], Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach [21].
Tables of these musicians have been meticulously studied over the last one hundred fifty years, with special emphasis on Couperin's table Explication des Agrémens, et des Signes, which he included in his Pieces de Clavecin [10]. Throughout this period, from one decade to the next, many inaccurate solutions have been corrected, and the music, which previously sounded convincingly, acquired a new audio image. In the course of history there have also been many erroneous interpretations. No wonder that Michael Collins, for example, devoted his article exclusively to a special issue, i. e. to the performing of trills, in order to correct numerous inaccuracies and mistakes which have arisen, and called his article In defense of the French Trill [22].
Recently, a paper with an intriguing title "L'Ornement mystérieux" written by Mark Kroll [23] attracted our attention. An innovative hypothesis is formed on the pages of this work pertaining to the execution of one of Couperin's ornaments, namely to the compound ornament marked by the combination of a turn written above a trill: 2?3. It is this ornament which evokes associations with something mystical in Kroll's paper because of the alleged impossibility to determine the way of its performance. The author calls it "mystérieux" most probabaly because, notwithstanding its very frequent use by Couper-in, it was not explained either in the Explication des Agrémens of the great French musician or in his treatise [24; 25]. As Kroll [23, p. 302] also states, "the use of the ornament was relatively infrequent" in the harpsichord music of Couperin's time. Earlier, A. Geof-froy-Dechaume [26] used a somewhat similar term, "secrets", to characterize hidden rules and conventions in the interpretation of the music of the XVI, XVII and XVIII centuries.
The basic aim of Kroll's publication is to convince the readers that the previous, universally accepted, execution of this compound ornament was wrongly approached and now requires a radical reconsideration. Kroll [23, p. 300] demonstrates the (generally accepted) interpretation as shown in the next example in a schematic
1 Since the grand publications (for those times) of Jacques Hyppolite Aristide Farrenc [1] and Jean Amedee Mereaux [2], musicians have started to study Baroque ornamental symbols to be able to interpret these signs accordingly in the music.
2 Not to mention the multitude of Early music treatises and other publications, in which the art of ornamentation is discussed in detail both theoretically and practically.
3 The term compound ornament will be exclusively used in our paper to designate the ornament marked by the sign
form:
, and presents his new "alternative realization", thus:
The execution in the first example begins with a trill starting from the upper auxiliary and ends with a turn, but in the second example, according to Kroll's new hypothesis, this compound ornament should be performed in the opposite order, that is, as a turn followed by a trill.
However, if we resort to scholarly materials, it turns out that Kroll was not the first musician to recommend such a manner of performing Couperin's compound ornament. Some fifty years ago the renowned musician, scholar and editor Thurston Dart had already formulated it orally (1969) and stated it in writing [27, p.219]. In the summarizing
"Table 4" added to his paper, it is said that "Couperin's special ornament r appears to
mean (roughly)
But this version of interpretation did not receive sup-
port and further spreading.
Then again, for example, even in the middle of the XIX and in the first decades of the XX centuries, scholars recommended to execute the compound ornament beginning from the trill and ending with a turn, and this recommendation was authoritatively confirmed. In Aristide Farrenc's Le Trésor des Pianistes [1, p. 14], a fairly detailed explanation of the compound ornament is provided, and it is said there that the trill termination (in other words — turn) is required even when it is not written "or iwhen] one encounters these two
signes where the represents [the trill]
named double or group, must be rendered as
and the other which is
therefore, the unity of
the two signs must produce the following result
Within the period of forty years (1895-1935) three monographies specifically written on the subject of ornamentation were published: by E. Dannreuther in English [28], by A. Beyschlag in German [29], and by P. Brunold in French [30]. The work of the latter is especially important to our case because it deals exclusively with the ornamentation of French clavecinistes. The § II on p. 35 is devoted to the Tremblement et Double marked by
the sign —'p:
i . In the accompanying text, the explanation reads: "This ornament, which is frequently encountered, can be made [performed] as an open trill [tremblement ouvert] despite its different sign"4 [30, p. 35]. The tremblement ouvert is, indeed, a frequently met ornament. In Couperin's table it is shown in the Explication des Agrémens
as \ rrsmùum.;«- ouvert f [io, p. 74]. A more detailed execution of the tremblement ouvert is given by François Dandrieu in his table Exemples des Signes d'Agrèmens:
4 The same explanation is given by K. Gilbert in his edition of Fr. Couperin's Pieces de Clavecin, where under the second point it is written: "a compound sign for the tremblement ouvert (2?)" [31, pp. xv-xvi], cit. by Mark Kroll [23, p. 309, note 5].
_7>w.■nXrfcjn&n fr
u
[32, without pagination]. From the above mentioned facts it becomes clear that it is necessary to find an explanation why the outstanding musicians-scholars adhered to their principles, especially Farrenc in 1861. There should be a convincing explanation, as well as a convincing decisive confirmation of Kroll's hypothesis which refutes the previous practice.
At the very beginning of the article, Kroll defines this ornament as consisting of a "doublé and tremblement" and adds that it will be "henceforth called the doublé/tremblement" [23, p. 297]. Naming this compound ornament (2?) doublé/tremblement brings about to a number of contradictions. Just one example: discussing contemporary studies in Couperin, Kroll refers to the book published by David Tunley. In this work, Tunley is very succinct when he comes to the part on ornaments. However, the compound ornament is sufficiently accurately defined as "a trill to be combined with a turn" [33, p. 106]5. However, Kroll, for his part, uses the wording "this ornament" in his discussion. We read "Couperin failed to specify how to play this ornament" (here and further our underlining). From the previous text the reader knows that the words "this ornament" are to be understood as the doublé/ tremblement. Unwillingly, a question arises: how is it possible that the ornament consisting of a "doublé and tremblement" ("this ornament") can be realized as a "trill to be combined with a turn" (Tunley)? Here our analysis distinctly identifies a contradiction. The same contradictory situations occur repeatedly throughout the text of Kroll's paper.
In the second half of the named paper it becomes clear from the context (especially when many examples are brought forth from Couperin's harpsichord music as arguments) that the doublé/tremblement is used mainly in the "alternative" sense, meaning a turn followed by a trill. All realizations of the compound ornament in these examples suggested by Kroll begin with the turn and end with the trill. It is distinctly visible already in the first example [23, p. 301, illustration 2, example 4: "Realization of illus. 2"]: François Couperin, La Badine (ordre 5, Book I), bars 14-15.
14
irpu
- - -----
V
It is strange but Kroll perceives practically all cases through the lens of his approach, whereas even in the XVIII century the compound ornament was originally called tremblement/doublé (de Montéclair: "Tremblement Doublé"), thus "Trill Turned" [35, p. 84].
5 Tunley addresses the reader to the example from Couperin's Passacalle [34, Huitième Ordre] where the compound ornament is found. In the footnote [33, p. 119] Tunley has the next critical comment about Couperin's notation: "Couperin was often extremely inconsistent in his notation, especially of ornaments". Curious enough, Tunley himself allows quite a blunder in the example where instead of Couperin's sign it;
(—\—) the opposite is printed: "Ti [33, p. 113]. Similar cases occur in the publications by some other authors (they will be referred to here below).
A cursory reading of the article reveals various questions (as the one above). A more detailed study of its content clearly shows that it is necessary to check every argument put forward by Kroll in justification of his new hypothesis.
Let us return to de Montéclaire mentioned previously. It is evident from iKroll's text that historical sources play a very important part in his article. Having said that "the use of the ornament was relatively infrequent", Kroll [23, p. 302] states: "Of all of the clavecinistes of the era, François Couperin's doublé/tremblement is found, in various configurations, in the works of only four other French composers: Nicolas Siret, Pierre-Claude Foucquet, Louis Marchand and Jean Henry D'Anglebert". In the footnote 9 [23, p. 309] Kroll specifies: "Michel Pignolet de Montéclair, <...> also uses and describes the ornament in a manner quite similar to Couperin's [sic]. He calls it a 'Tremblement Doublé' [sic], precedes the turn with a port-de-voix [sic] and adds a termination ('Tour de Gosier'). See Michel Pignolet de Montéclair, Principes de musique (Paris, 1736), p. 84"6.
This statement requires a detailed consideration. Firstly, it is necessary to address a comment to the place where it is alleged that de Montéclair "also uses and describes the ornament". From Kroll's quote the reader should infer that the word "ornament" means doublé/tremblement. But de Montéclair uses and describes a compound ornament called in the opposite order: Tremblement Doublé7. The sign of this ornament in de Montéclair s treatise also differs: instead of Couperin's de Montéclair's sign is marked by a letter "t" as " t ". Next, Kroll mentions that this ornament is described "in a manner quite similar to Couperin's". Couperin's manner, as it was argued by Kroll, consists of executing the doublé/ tremblement beginning with the turn and ending with the trill. Checking de Montéclair's explanation and the accompanying note-examples, we shall find that the realizations (Kroll's and de Montéclair's) differ in a very important detail: in the absence or presence of the ornament ending. The main idea behind Kroll's hypothesis was to exclude the turn from the end of the compound ornament (£?). However, the example in de Montéclair's treatise with the execution of this compound ornament, on the contrary, has a written out turn (Tour du gosier) at the end, as shown in the next illustrations. Kroll noticed this but did not draw any conclusions from it. ■, Z
The comparison of Kroll's new "alternative" realization: ft J = with
the realization by de Montéclair:
clearly shows this difference.
The letters "D, E, F, G, H" in the example correspond to de Montéclair's text with the verbal explanation, where the letter "D" stands for the upper auxiliary (D — "le degré
6 Our exclamation marks in brackets show the points in the quotation which will be analyzed lower.
7 E. L. Hays clarifies that "according to Putnam Aldrich (op. cit., p. 707), Michel Pignolet de Montéclair appears to be the only one to have employed the classification "tremblement doublé" but he did indeed use it to designate trills which possess a suffix, and Marpurg must have been acquainted with this work ([de Montéclair:] Principes de musique (Paris, 1736), pp. 81 and 84" [36, p. IX-65].
superieur'), "E" — for the main note (E — "la note tremblée"), "F" — for the lower auxiliary (F — la note "un degré plus bas"), "G" indicates once more the main note (G — "la note du tremblement"), and "H" stands for the next lower or higher note on which one rests (H — "se reposer sur une note forte"). In our opinion, to be exact, de Montéclair's execution in its basic characteristics reminds — not d'Anglebert's and not Couperin's — but J. S. Bach's [11] second version of the "doppelt cadence und mordant" (see example):
Bach's execution especially resembles the second part of de Monteclair's example, only with lesser repercussions of the trill. It can be explained by the fact that in Bach's example this ornament pertains to a quarter note with a dot, and in de Monteclair's — to a minim (in one place and to a whole note in the other place). Therefore, it is clear that Kroll's reasoning concerning de Monteclair and Couperin, as far as the comparison of the compound embellishment is concerned, is not entirely appropriate. De Monteclair's and Couperin's principles (the latter in Kroll's treatment) of executing this ornament have only some external resemblance.
Secondly, a comment should be made on the next part from Kroll's passage where it is said that de Monteclair "precedes the turn with a port-de-voix". The matter concerns the initial, small sixteenth note in the realization of the Tremblement Double in the examples
from de Montéclair (
"). This small sixteenth note is never called "port-de-voix" in
scholarly works on de Montéclair's embellishments (and similar ornaments of many other French Baroque musicians). Nevertheless, Kroll names all appoggiaturas in his study, without any distinction, by the French term port-de-voix. However, in France of that period appoggiaturas were differentiated quite strictly in no less than four categories.
In de Montéclair's treatise the appoggiaturas from above (as in the next example) were termed "coulé". This is distinctly seen in the following example:
I ecu.te. couit^YyJ^ B
PI
-M-33T
¿'ajaj-'^ ta0 [35, p. 78]. The letter "A" stands for "une petite notte", the letter "B" — for the "la notte forte" (i. e. the note written in the main text). In the cited example from de Montéclair with the Tremblement Doublé there are no port-de-voix. De Montéclair [35, p. 79] expressly shows the difference between the port-de-voix and the coulé in a separate example:
X> , E, F X) , 3C , , p&rfc d£ ,
xt
£
id
re
rd
S3
H
i-Vvy- de.
"K
m
s
m
w
Z3
z fa
tnv /a- a,
p OKtrdt -vmcc*
l ^fii^-cv fa-
It follows that the use of the term port-de-voix cannot be applicable to all appoggiaturas in this particular context.
Now let us turn to the important part of Kroll's statement where the sources are named: "Of all of the clavecinistes of the era, François Couperin's doublé/tremblement is found, in various configurations, in the works of only four other French composers: Nicolas Siret, Pierre-Claude Foucquet, Louis Marchand and Jean Henry D'Anglebert".
Firstly, it is necessary once more to consider briefly the point related to the manner of presenting the material in the article. Similarly to some other places in Kroll's text, here too there is inaccurate usage of wordings. Kroll uses his newly invented term doublé/tremblement, and writes that this ornament is found in "various configurations". Previously, Kroll [23, p. 297] took pains to define his use of this term. It was specified as meaning an ornament "found throughout all four books of Couperin's harpsichord pieces" and "shown in example 1". An ornament found in all four Couperin's books and not explained in Couperin's table — considering the topic of Kroll's paper — could only be the one marked by the sign A question arises as to how it is possible for this sign to be "found, in various configurations"? And further: if Kroll names the ornament marked as by the term doublé/tremblement, then why is this sign — as we see from Kroll's further arguments — never found in the harpsichord music of Louis Marchand and Jean-Henry D'Anglebert? If Kroll uses the term doublé/tremblement meaning some other embellishment sign, then it should not be called by this term, and the clarification "various configurations" instead of elucidating the issue confuses it. Thus, it turns out that the sign 2? is found not in four works of the French musicians but only in two.
As far as the names of four authors (in our opinion, only two) are concerned, there are some doubts. Does the impressive statement correspond to reality, namely, that "of all of the clavecinistes of the era, François Couperin's doublé/tremblement is found <...> in the works of only four other French composers: Nicolas Siret, Pierre-Claude Foucquet, Louis Marchand and Jean Henry D'Anglebert"? According to our information, there were at least eight more French composers who used the sign in their harpsichord pieces. We must emphasize that we don't have in mind "various configurations" but, actually, the certain sign alone. Those authors are: Christophe Moyreau, Philippe-François Veras, Josse [Charles Joseph] Boutmy, Bernard de Bury, Durocher, François D'Agincourt, Louis-Antoine Dornel, Joseph Hector Fiocco.
It seems strange that there are no articles in MGG2, in Riemann's Lexikon, in The New Grove Dictionary about Christophe Moyreau, despite the fact that he published five Œuvres [37] of harpsichord music. A short article about Moyreau can be found in R. Eitner's Quellen-Lexikon where it is stated that the works were published in 1754 [38, p. 89]. RISM itemizes five editions, but does not give any dates. In all five Œuvres the compound ornament is used.
In c1740 Philippe-François Veras published his Premier Livre of Piéces de Clavecin containing four Ordres [39]. It was uncommon for other composers to name the suites by the term Ordres, as Couperin did, but here it is used. The sign ™ is met in many pieces, however, there is no table with the explanation of ornaments, and, thus, as with Couper-in — no information concerning the performance of the compound ornament. The same can also be said about the Piéces de clavecin of the other authors whose works will be mentioned below . Beginning from the second piece Les Brunnes from the Premier Ordre, Veras often uses the trill + turn sign. Just as in Couperin's pieces, the next note after the note with the compound ornament sign is a higher note.
The "Maitre" and organist Josse [Charles Joseph] Boutmy is mostly known for his Pieces de Clavecin [40-42]. The sign 2? is used already in the first suite in the piece La Dandrieu [40, p. 11], then - in the Sarabande [40, p. 13], and in many other pieces. The second book was engraved by Mme Leclaire more carefully. Here the sign is placed in the Premiere Suitte in the second piece and in other places.
The young prodigious Bernard de Bury published his first book of harpsichord pieces [43] at the age 15-16 (no information about the second book)8. The sign of the compound ornament (2?) is used in the Premiere Suite in the piece Les graces Badines, in the third suite - in the very first bar of the piece La Séduisante, and in other places.
In 1733, Durocher, an organist of Saint Jean de Lus, published a book of harpsichord pieces [45]9. Nothing is known about this musician (see D. Fuller's article in the New Grove Dictionary [46, p. 753]). R. Eitner [47, p. 264] suggests that the name of the author could have been "Rocher". However, if we compare the available information, it will show that his suggestion is hardly correct. The compound ornament is used on p. 3 in the Premier Menuet Les Faciles (Gravement), in the piece named L'Indifferente, and in other pieces. Our attention was drawn to the way of writing all trill signs with a horizontal line printed through the wavy sign: %. The writing is exactly like the one in de Saint Lamberts treatise (c 169710/1702) also published by Chr. Ballard: " t* " [50, p.44]. The sign of the turn is printed in the reverse manner (w>): instead of beginning printing the turn from below — it is notated as beginning from above. It is impossible to ascertain whether this meant that the turn should be played from the lower auxiliary note11.
In the same year the "organiste" of the "Chapelle du Roy" François D'Agincourt (his name is written here as in his published work) released the collection of Pieces de Clavecin [51] naming the suits as Couperin — by the word "Ordre". In many apsects the 43 pieces in this collection resemble those of great Couperin, whom D'Agincourt admired. Among the multitude of ornaments in the Allemande La Sincopée from the Premier Ordre D'Agincourt employs the sign of the compound ornament (2f). There is an interesting point in the usage of this ornament in bar 18 here. It is placed before a note with a pincé thus:
x H - *
.
If this ornament is to be realized in the way Kroll recommends (performing the turn first and ending with a trill), then the trill and the mordent will be leveled in one similar beating. In other words, the mordent will be neutralized.
8 De Bury's harpsichord music is studied in detail by Ruta Bloomfield [44].
9 The fact that Durocher printed his harpsichord pieces at the prestigious printing house of Chr. Ballard indicates a well established position of the author.
10 For the approximate date of the first edition, see: [48, p. 427; 49, p. 32].
11 This situation is rather confusing because, for example, in Charles Dieupart's Six suittes de Clavessin [9] most signs of the turn are written beginning from above. This, however, contradicts the sign given by the author in the Explication des Marques <...> Rules for Graces from the same edition where the turn is printed
beginning from below. The turn itself is realized by Dieupart in d'Anglebert's manner:
Louis-Antoine Dornel, the organist of Saint Genevieve in Paris, being Maître de Musique du Roy and of the Academie Françoise, published a collection of six suites of harpsichord pieces in c1731 (the "Privilege" is dated "27 avril 1731") [52]. The compound ornament is used in the first Allemande Le Bouquet from the Premiere Suitte, and in many other pieces.
Joseph Hector Fiocco, the "Maitre de Musique de l'Eglise Cathedrale d'Anvers" and "Vice Maitre de la Chapelle Royale de Brusselles" in c1730 added to his Pieces de Clavecin [53] a table with the explication of ornaments because, as he pointed out, there were many "ignorant persons" who did not know how to perform them. But there is no example with an explanation of the compound ornament. His richly ornamented harpsichord pieces were possibly influenced by Couperin's music but only once did Fiocco use the sign of the compound ornament (Sarabande from the Seconde Suite, p. 21). It should be pointed out that the following note after the one with the sign 2? is not a step higher. It is being suspended by a slur:
rgi:
Jêë
■ . This could mean that there might be a stop on the last note.
Having outlined some aspects, we must return to the reason for our exploration of this issue. It was triggered by our bewildered reaction to such phrases in Kroll's paper as: "we discover, somewhat surprisingly, that the use of the ornament was relatively infrequent" and that "Of all of the clavecinistes of the era, François Couperin's doublé/tremblement is found, <.. .> in the works of only four other French composers <...>". These statements from Kroll's publication show that the author was not acquainted with the historical sources. Further, it shall be stated that the compound ornament marked by the sign 2? was often used in the works by Johann Gottfried Walther and other composers.
However, the survey of sources could not provide enough evidence to solve the issue of how to perform the compound ornament marked by the sign The survey only showed that many French harpsichordists used this ornament in their pieces.
If we address ourselves to other publications "of the era" and extend the research of sources by referring to organ compositions and to non-French music as well, it might bring about some new important results. Our longing to search "deeper" is encouraged by the belief that Couperin was not the first musician to have introduced this ornament. If it had been so, he certainly would have told it, as he had (proudly) written in his treatise LArt de toucher le Clavecin [24; 25] about the "deux agrémens" invented by him, i. e. "La cessation; et à la suspension".
One of the first French organists who used the sign 2? in his music was Jacques Boyvin in 1700 (!) — thirteen years earlier than Couperin. Especially noted is the edition of Boyvin's Seconde Livre d'Orgue [54] published by Jean Saint-Arroman in 2004 [55] with a detailed examination of Boyvin's instructions on performing ornaments taken from his Premier Livre d'Orgue (c 1689/90) [56]. Unfortunately Boyvin, alike all the above-mentioned authors, does not explain the execution of the ornament marked by the sign 2? in the part titled Des Agréments from the Avis in the Premier Livre d'Orgue. It might indicate that in 1689/90 this compound ornament was not known yet. But in the last decade of the XVII century it was used, and Boyvin included it in his pieces. When the time comes, the
source, or sources before 1700 (as we hope), where the compound ornament was used and explained, will be discovered.
This compound ornament is found only once, i. e. in Boyvin's Seconde Livre d'Orgue in the piece composed on p. 28 in the "third tone" (see Ex. 1).
Example 1. Jacques Boyvin. Seconde Livre d'Orgue, 1700, p. 28, line 1, bar 5. The turn in Boyvin's book is
written vertically or slanted
As we presume, Saint-Arroman is the only scholar who explored the problem connected with the earliest known application of the compound ornament in music. Documentary information is very scarce. In Boyvin's first book there is an explanation of the performance of the turn (Double Cadence — see Ex. 2) which is executed according to
é
r-ND
DoubL. Ca2.
main note ( :
m
— Chambonnières. "Demonstration des Marques").
Example 2. Jacques Boyvin. Premiere Livre d'Orgue. Paris, c1689/90. Avis <...> Des Agréments
On the basis of the realization of the turn (Double Cadence — Ex. 2) in Boyvin's instructions from the first book of organ pieces, Saint-Arroman [55, p. XII] suggests executing the compound ornament in the following manner as in Ex. 3.
i f i p i m #
Example 3. Jacques Boyvin. Second Livre d'Orgue. 1700
By the time when Boyvins collection had been published in 1700, there was no information whether the ornament marked should be interpreted beginning from the turn or from the trill. Saint-Arroman recommends beginning the ornament by playing the turn first, but then in the melodic line the note "c2" will be repeated three times. Along with this, if the compound ornament is played from the main note, it will produce a fifth with the other voice, which will sound not as good as an interval of the sixth. The harmonic sequence
will be less vivid too if the compound ornament starts from the turn:
It should also be noted that in either case the ending of this ornament has a written out suffix, which in Mark Kroll's interpretation is superfluous because, according to the author's new theory, it is the trill which should slide into the next note.
In Germany, Johann Gottfried Walther was the musician who used the compound ornament quite often in his organ music (Choralvorspiele). We might assume that Walther was following Couperin in this regard. Max Seiffert, who was preparing volumes XXVI and XXVII of the Denkmäler Deutscher Tonkunst for publication in 1906 [57], drew attention to this ornament in Walther's music. Apparently, most of the Choralvorspiele were composed during the period 1713/45. Only two of the Choralvorspiele are with original dates, i. e. Meinen Jesum laß ich nich [57, p. 167] — 1713, and Wie soll ich dich empfangen [57, p. 229] — c1745, but in these sets of variations the sign of the compound ornament is not used.
Seiffert supplied the edition with an expanded introduction, but containing only a relatively modest part dealing with ornamentation. The instruction for performing the compound ornament is still shorter: "the trill which begins from the main note is [marked with] the double-mark [Doppelzeichen] [57, p.XXII]12. This interpretation is opposed to the performance of the ordinary Triller which, according to Seiffert, should be resolved beginning from the upper auxiliary note. The beginning of the compound ornament from the main note can supposedly be explained by the fact that in the second half of the XIX century (possibly, earlier) a new manner of performing the compound ornament was formed. This assumption is confirmed by the fact that in the Neues Universal-Lexikon der Tonkunst edited by Eduard Bernsdorf [59, p. 713] the ornament is realized in the following
®djreifrart.
¡¡ÜÜ
«uifül>runfl.
manner: ' I "I IsaS . Approximately the same main recommendations for interpreting the compound ornament are offered in Riemann's Musik-Lexikon, beginning from the edition of 1900 [60, p. 263] to the edition of 1967 [61, p. 239-40].
12 Neumann [58, p. 309-10] has the next comments "Max Seiffert <...> claims that this symbol stands for a main-note trill, but he does not substantiate this assertion".
Example 4. Interpretation of the compound ornament in Riemann's Lexikon:13 a) in the Lexikon of 1900, p. 263, b) in the Lexikon of 1967, p. 240.
However, still another important feature of interpreting the compound ornament in these editions should be noted, and it concerns the turn which comes after the trill but not in the reverse manner, as Kroll might have hypothetically put it.
In the first Choralvorspiel Ach Gott, erhör mein Seufzen und Wehklagen [57, p. 3] the compound ornament is entered in bar 6. An identical melodic pattern is found in bar 10, but here Walther does not use the sign It is very strange that in two similar melodic patterns
C-1" Cj'—I ^ ancj ^ ^ ¿ffi' tjgf^ r- two differently written
ornaments are used. In the treatment of these passages we tend to agree with the consideration suggested by Kenneth Gilbert in analogous passages from Couperin's pieces, when he writes, "Indeed, one must accept the idea that Couperin sometimes uses two different signs to express the same meaning" [31, p. xvii; cit. by Mark Kroll: 23, p. 300]. Most probably, Walther's approach was the same as Couperin's. Kroll, however, does not agree with this opinion, believing, on the contrary, that the use of different ornamentation signs in relation to similar music patterns demands different interpretations. In our view, Gilbert's suggestion is fully applicable to the two passages from Walther's organ composition. In addition to this, it can be concluded that it is more than likely that in bar 10 Walther provides
a possible resolvation of the compound ornament met in bar 6 (see Ex. 5).
fcp^
a., b. 6
b., b. 10
Example 5. Johann Gottfried Walther. Ach Gott, erhör mein Seufzen und Wehklagen, Chorale Prelude No. 1, p. 3: ex. a — from bar 6; ex. b — from bar 10
The same situation occurs in Walther's Choral variation War Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit [57, p. 213, bars 12 and 22]. But this time the compound ornament is followed by a written out suffix in small type. Neumann [58, p. 310] cites bars 12 and 22, and comes to the conclusion that there is some "incongruence" in Wather's ornamentation indications: "There are, however, some puzzling instances, of which Ex. 28.25 [see Ex. 6b here] gives two specimens, where this compound symbol is followed by a two-note suffix that would
13 In example "b" the execution given in Riemann's Lexikon [61] follows C. P. E. Bach's interpretation of the compound ornament.
conflict with the original French trill-plus-turn meaning. This incongruence may be due to inadvertence (only these two cases could be found), or else Walther may have used the symbol in the reverse order of a trill preceded by, instead of followed by, a turn". We might suggest that the named "inadvertence" is most likely related to a misunderstanding of this sign by the printers in the printing house, where it might have been decided that this sign presents a usual trill, after which a trill-ending is required.14
y
Example 6. Johann Gottfried Walther. Wär Gott nicht mit uns diese Zeit, Chorale Prelude No. 88, p. 213: ex. a — bars 11-12; ex. b — bars 10 and 22 as cited by Neumann
Neumann concentrated exclusively on the figures where the sign 2? is entered. In our example (6 a) we showed bars 11-12 one after the other. The melodic lines in these two
oc
bars are similar ; * m m**\ * i. Alike the previous example 5, it is
most probable that the compound ornament in the second melodic pattern should be performed as in the first one, i.e. as a trill with a "trill ending". The small notes placed after the sign of the compound ornament are written to confirm the necessity of a suffix.
In Walther's Choralvorspiele there are several places which definitely suggest the interpretation of the compound ornament beginning with the trill and ending with a turn. An analogous passage has been discussed above when d'Agincourt's pieces were mentioned. Just two more examples from Walther where the compound ornament is followed by a mordent placed on the next note (see Ex. 7).
a. b.
Example 7. Johann Gottfried Walther: a. Jesus meine Zuversicht, Choralvorspiel No. 56 [57, p. 137, bars 6-7]; b. Wir glauben all an einen Gott, Schöpfer, Choralvorspiel No. 102 [57, p. 242, bars 5-6]
If in such note contexts the compound ornament is performed with a trill at the end, then the oscillations of the following mordent will be perceived as a continuation of this trill. In Ex. 7 a it might be possible to make a stop before playing the mordent, but in Ex. 7 b — there is no time to stop. This might mean, as we presume, that the compound ornament was performed as a trill + turn.
14 The trill sign at the last third is omitted in "m. 12" in Neumann's example.
Now it becomes quite clear how it happened that J.S.Bach — godfather to one of Walther's sons — wrote the sign in the C major Prelude BWV 933:
Walther used this sign fairly often, and Bach also tried it, but since in the music of the latter the sign of the compound ornament is applied only once — to our knowledge — it may be assumed that Bach preferred other, similar ornamentation signs, and this passage is unique. In one of the first publications of the Six small Preludes [62], the sign was printed, as we believe, according to the original source, because Bach wrote the sign of the turn in his ms of other compositions not hori-
zontally but vertically or somewhat slanted: ^ . This is dis-
tinctly seen, for example, in the Air from the Clavier-Buchlein vor Anna Magdalena Bach
[63, p. 42]:
Georg von Dadelsen [64, col. 1544-45] mentioned Bach's Prelude, and showed how
this ornament should be performed: \ Lj /. Unfortunately Dadelsen marked
the sign (or it was marked in this manner in the printing process) of the compound ornament further in reverse order, placing the trill above the turn with the next comment:
"im Pradudium BWV 933 z. B. dürfte das Takt 4 verwendete
T
f
nach Ph. E. Bachs
Anweisung (Versuch, 92, § 27) als Pralltriller mit Nachschlag , also
ähnlich dem Couperinschen aT" auszuführen sein [in the Pradudium BWV 933 the <...> which is used in the 4th bar should be performed as a Pralltriller with a suffix according to Ph. E.Bach's instruction (Versuch, 92, § 27) <...>, hence, similar to Couperin's ST]". Some pages earlier Dadelsen [64, col. 1540] actually refers to Couperin: "den Triller mit Nachschlag (d'Angleberts Tremblement et pincé) bezeichnet Fr. Couperin in seinen Werken gelegentlich mit der Signen-Kombination aT" [the trill with a 'trill-ending' (d'Angleberts trill with mordent) Fr. Couperin occasionally marked in his works with a combined sign «*?]".
The first scholar to have mentioned the compound ornament used by Bach (as we may presume) was Edward Dannreuther [28, p. 185]. His recommendation is completely in accordance with the stylistic tendency of the end of the XIX century: "A combination of Doppelschlag and Pralltriller preceded by an appoggiatura, the whole of rather doubtful authenticity, appears in 6 Kleine Praeludien, No. I., bar 4:
Played.
"15. This manner of performing the trill-like ornament is in conformance with the ones shown earlier (Bernsdorf, Seiffert, Riemann). The most stable part in the execution of the compound ornament is its ending with a turn.
Following the chronological order of the second part of our survey — from Boyvin to Walther and then to J. S. Bach — it is understandable that the next sources to be commented are those which were published in the middle of the XVIII century, that is by Pierre-Claude Foucquet, Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach.
Of all the early authors of the first four decades of the XVIII century mentioned above, Foucquet [65, p. 5] was the first who provided a table with the execution of all main ornaments fully written out in notes including the compound ornament. From this point of view, it should be considered as a unique source. Such a source is extremely important, and it explains why we will carefully check every allegation in Kroll's [23, pp. 303 and 309] presentation of the material concerning Foucquet's treatment of the compound ornament. As previously, Kroll's text at first glance seems very convincing. It reads:
"Pierre-Claude Foucquet also uses Couperin's ornamental sign in his Méthode of Les caractères de la paix (Paris, 1749), calling it a 'Cadence Et redoublé' in his Méthode. The interpretation he offers, however, is somewhat curious. As we can see in illustration 7, [the "illustration 7" on p. 304 presents in full the first part of Foucquet's table] the turn + trill symbol is placed over a crotchet preceded by a port-de-voix, but the realization begins with the port-de-voix acting as the upper auxiliary to a nine-note oscillation between the main note and its upper neighbour(footnote 10). The turn is thus completely ignored, leading us to conclude that Foucquet has either made a mistake here, or is not a reliable source. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Frederick Neumann misreads Foucquet in his book on ornamentation, changing the final four-note trill of Foucquet's Cadence Et redoublé into a turn. A decade later, writing about Couperin's doublé/tremblement in his Performance practices of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Neumann concludes that 'the trill comes first, the turn second'."
In footnote 10, p. 309 there is an important addition:
"As can be seen in the illustration, Foucquet provides another example that might fall into this category, which he calls Pincé et redoublé. This variant, however, is not relevant to our discussion of the doublé/tremblement, since it does not involve a trill".
The main argument in Kroll's reasoning concerns the realization of the Cadence Et redoublé in Foucquet's table where there is — as we judge — a typographical error. But Kroll does not want to treat it as a typographical mistake16. If the material was treated as an error
15 It is difficult to explain why Dannreuther names the compound ornament here "Doppelschlag and Pralltriller" because in the chapter on Fr. W. Marpurg's ornaments it is written as in the original source - "der getrillerte Doppelschlag".
16 Kroll has many "sic" remarks in quotes from early French authors who for some reason did not want to follow the French spelling and orthography of the XXI century. In this way, Kroll is trying to instill a stable distrust in the reader to the content of these quotes also.
then the whole construction in Kroll's hypothesis would fall apart. His verdict reads: "The turn is thus completely ignored, leading us to conclude that Foucquet has either made a mistake here, or is not a reliable source". As a result, none of the specific characteristics in Foucquet's realization are examined. Before turning to the consistent consideration of the issue, we should stop for a moment on the word "mistake". The fact is that practically no one is immune to mistakes. In Kroll's paper, there also are a few. The most queer one is found on p. 303 where the text placed under the example reads: "6. François Couperin, Les Gondoles de Délos (ordre 23, Book IV): left: part 1, bars 1-2 (above); right: part 2, bars 1-2 (below)". Strange, but in these examples there is absolutely nothing which could be "above" or "below":
I™Forte, —
Serfantdt
=* >n —^-J . It is Selfe-
vident that this is some kind of an editorial mistake, but would it mean that Kroll's paper because of this and some other errors must be considered as "not a reliable source"?
Frederick Neumann was not the only scholar who understood that in Foucquet's realization there was a typographical error. The example from Foucquet's work with this error
is next: ' ^/F^ . Here, notwithstanding that in the text the indication "Et re-
doubt is written, there is no turn (redoube) in the realization. Brunold [30, p. 57] cites this example from Foucquet17, but instead of the final four-note trill he writes a turn as it
is indicated verbally in the text:
Cadeneo cl Redouble
". Earlier [30, p. 35] Brunold
began his explanation of the compound ornament ( f — ) turning explicitly
Effet
to the same Foucquet's realization: W I LLLI L-kssid 1 . Thus, the example from Foucquet can be found twice in Brunold's book, and the author could not help
17 The fact that Brunold writes the word Redoublé with a capital letter, and in the original it is written in a lowercase one, does not make any difference because Foucquet himself writes this word differently in his "METHODE pour apprendre à connoître le Clavier <...>".
but pay attention to the typographic error. However, this error was so self-evident that Brunold did not even find it appropriate to note that there was a typographical misprint.
The same approach is seen in different contexts in Jean Saint-Arroman's Dictionnaire [66, pp. 141, 404 and 407]. In all places the redoublé is written at the end of the ornament
as a turn:
m
% '¡ai lar
. Having Foucquet's
table before you, it is easy to verify that there is de facto a typographical error (see Ex. 8).
a. b. c.
Example 8. In ex. a. Foucquet shows the realization of the Redoublé (turn) separately; in b. — the Pincé et Redoublé (mordent and turn) separately; in c. the Cadence Et redoublé (trill and turn) and Pincé et redoublé are placed side-by-side
Four times the redoublé is realized as a turn. Only in the example with the Cadence Et redoublé the redoublé is missing, and instead there is a continuation of the trill which is erroneously printed because in all other examples the redoublé stands for a turn. The review undertaken here proves that there was no "complication" brought forth by Frederick Neumann, and that the latter did not "misread" Foucquet.
In Foucquet's Methode a first unique realization of the Cadence Et redoublé (trill and turn) is found, and as Brunold, Saint-Arroman and Neumann show, this ornament marked by the sign 2? should be performed as a trill followed by a turn. To the list of these scholars we should add the names of Kenneth Gilbert and David Tunley, mentioned by Kroll, who also treat Couperin's compound ornament as a trill + turn. The name of the ornament Cadence Et redoublé (trill and turn) also points to this sequence of ornaments. Our comparison of the examples with the execution of the redoublé from Foucquet's works presents a compelling argument, too. Kroll names his recommended version of performing the compound ornament the "proper" one, and states: "as I hope to demonstrate, the proper performance of this ornament can in fact have a significant impact <...>". On the contrary, this will not lead to a "proper" result, but to an improper one, as will also his remark at the end of the article: "I am, of course, not claiming that the doublé /tremblement must always be played this way, every time in every piece <...>".
In the passage quoted above from Kroll's article, the port-de-voix somehow plays an important role ("the turn + trill symbol is placed over a crotchet preceded by a port-de-voix, but the realization begins with the port-de-voix acting as the upper auxiliary"). However, in Foucquet's table the port-de-voix presents exactly a one-note-grace (term used by Fr. Neumann) proceeding from below. In the Cadence Et redoublé the
grace-note is written not below the main note, but above it. The port-de-voix is found in Foucquet's Methode together with a mordent (pincé) and slurred to the following
(J. ,i
Y Tort de Voioo PorbcUVoicc
j JLb^^cé Coule
note: ryjeu . Thus, in Foucquet's Cadence Et redoublé this small
note should not be called a port-de-voix, and the realization does not "begin with the port-de-voix", as Kroll stated. It should also be particularly stressed that, unexpectedly, this small eighth note in the example with the execution of the Cadence Et redoublé is neither a port-de-voix, nor any other kind of one-note-grace in Foucquet's understanding. Further Foucquet [65, p. 6] explains that such small eighth notes are marked alongside the trills "in order not to leave a choice to people who are not sufficiently advanced in the harpsichord", and to be sure that the trills would be played beginning with the upper auxiliary note. This fact concerning the "small note" was already explained in 1925 by Brunold [30, p. 57]. In the footnote Brunold added that one should "consider this small note as conclusive proof that the trill should always start with the upper note. Thus this little note should have the same value as the battements [oscillations of the trill]".
There is still one more explanation in Kroll's passage which needs to be commented on. This explanation reads: "As can be seen in the illustration, Foucquet provides another example that might fall into this category [i. e. of the Cadence Et redoublé], which he calls Pincé et redoublé. This variant, however, is not relevant to our discussion of the doublé/ tremblement, since it does not involve a trill." In our discussion above, the Pincé et redoublé played an important role showing how the redoublé should be performed. Truly, the Pincé et redoublé does not involve the trill, but it involves the turn, which in the context of Kroll's article (devoted to the compound ornament marked by the sign 2?) is exceptionally important, while the ornament "mystérieux" consists of two equally significant parts: the trill and the turn.
Next, there is a phrase where Kroll — continuing to criticize Neumann — states that the latter "writing about Couperin's doublé /tremblement in his Performance Practices of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries [67], <...> concludes that 'the trill comes first, the turn second'." The last part of this phrase was checked, and the analysis showed that Neumann's judgement was correct. But in Kroll's phrase, it is also said that Neumann wrote about "Couperin's doublé /tremblement". This is not so because Neumann wrote about Couperin's tremblement/double (thus, the trill and turn) but not about the doublé/tremblement (the turn and the trill) — our comment pertains to the adequate use of terminology.
In the study of Foucquet's Cadence Et redouble, there is one more very important (one may say: conceptual) point which does not receive any solid comment in Kroll's reasoning, but when it is touched upon, the author skillfully changes the subject, as we have seen — to the port-de-voix and to Neumann's understanding of the compound ornament. Kroll is not discussing the beginning of the execution of Foucquets Cadence Et redouble, that is, its start with a trill, and not with the turn, but he concentrates on the "crotchet preceded by a port-de-voix" and on the port-de-voix "acting as the upper auxiliary". To emphasize that
Foucquet's realization starts with the trill is destructive for the new hypothesis suggested in Kroll's paper.
Our analysis has shown that the Cadence Et redoublé was performed as a trill + turn. Foucquet's other examples in the Methode in many places resemble Couperin's examples, and it might be stated that the compound ornament in Couperin's harpsichord music in its main features should be performed according to the same principle.
Kroll further mentions in the text of footnote No. 13 [23, p. 309] the works published by Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. It is said there: "At least two other German composers also use and discuss the doublé/tremblement in the same manner, although not by that name: C. P. E. Bach, in all editions of his Versuch <...>, and Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, in both his Anleitung zum Clavierspielen (Berlin, 1755) and Des critischen Musicus an der Spree erster Band (Berlin, 174918)".
Chornologically, the next works to be discussed in our survey are, indeed, the ones published by Marpurg (see Ex. 919). In Kroll's statement cited above it is claimed that both Marpurg and C. P. E. Bach "also use and discuss the doublé/tremblement in the same manner, although not by that name". This is misleading because these musicians do not discuss the doublé/tremblement. The reversed ornament is discussed in their treatises, i. e. not the doublé/tremblement but the tremblement/doublé. It is true that in Germany in the middle of the XVIII century many ornaments had their own names — chiefly in the Berlin School of Gallant Mannerism (Neumann's term). The ornament when the tremblement is named first and the double — second can be found in Marpurg's own French translation of his Anleitung20 [16, p. 67]: "Le tremblement double; quand le tremblement finit par un double [when the trill ends with a turn]" that absolutely does not coincide with Kroll's explanations. Kroll also states that the doublé/tremblement is treated by these German musicians "in the same manner". Which "same manner"? If it is the manner of Kroll's new hypothetical "innovation", then it does not concur with the previous term "tremblement double" used by Marpurg, if it is understood in the sense of Brunold, Neumann, Gilbert and others, then it contradicts the essence of Kroll's concept. In Marpurg's and C. P. E. Bach's treatises the ornament marked by the signS? is realized as a trill + turn (see Ex. 9).
Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach devotes much space to the explanation of the turn21 (Doppelschlag). When discussing the compound ornament, Bach tries to facilitate the perception for the reader by clarifying: "When the first two notes of the turn are repeated with a sharp snap [ein scharfes Schnellen] [and played] with the utmost speed, then it [the turn] is interconnected with the Prall=Triller. One can imagine it much easier as an
18 To be exact, the volume was published in 1750. The article on ornamentation pertains to 1749, and the part is titled "Der Kritische Musicus an der Spree. Siebendes Stück. Berlin, Dienstags, den 15. April 1749".
19 The examples in both Marpurg's treatise (German — 1755 [15] and French — 1756 [16]) are identical.
20 One can note that the terminology used for the compound ornament in Marpurg's German treatises evolved, and only in the fourth edition of Die Kunst das Clavier zu spielen [68, p. 26], where a chapter on ornamentation was added, he used the wording "getrillerte Doppelschlag [the trilled turn]." In 1749, it was named "einen Doppeltriller [a double-trill]", in 1755 — "Doppelt oder zusammengesetzte [doubled or compound/composite]".
21 In Bach's first edition of the Versuch (1753) the numeration of the pages in the fourth section Von dem Doppelschlage is mixed up: from p. 85 — to 96, then from p. 79 — to 80, next follows the part Von den Mordenten pp. 80-86-105, etc.
a. Marpurg, 1756, Tab. IV, Fig. (e).22 b. [Marpurg], Des critischen Musicus (1749/50)
3) ©er getHtfeiteSDoppdfctyteg, ungemein Boppetoilletv Fig.
Fig--
___.._ ——.H ---—_l_ . ______.... _ h-e--j.
f ---¡1 • ---• 9.......■ -: • JJ
ffg-—> ---- t-r-p^; 1 b —H
rf--• » *
ttjj— 1
c. Marpurg, Die Kunst <...>, 1762. Example 9. Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg: compound trills
ornament united together if one thinks that it is a Prall=Triller with a suffix [Nachschlag]." [21, p. 92].22
In the following paragraphs with explanations of the compound ornament Bach calls it a "prallende Doppelschlag" [21, p. 93]. Both explanation and the name of the compound ornament given by Bach definitely indicate that the ornament begins with the trill23 and ends with a turn (see Ex. 10). Compared with Foucquet, where the small eighth note placed before the note with the sign indicates that the ornament should solely begin with the upper auxiliary note, the Vorschlag in Bach's examples represents an appoggiatura from above:
Example 10. C. P. E. Bach. Versuch, Tab. V, Fig. LXIII-LXV
22 It is rather curious that in a very late French edition of Marpurg's the Art de toucher le Clavecin [69, p. 33] there is a typographical error similar to the one that was in Foucquet's Pieces de Clavecin discussed earlier. In Marpurg's example explaining the Tremblement double where all ornaments with trill-ending
(turn) are mentioned, their performance is without the turn:
23 Mitchell [70, p. 121] translates Bach's term Prall=Triller as a "short trill".
Marpurg and Bach must have come to the interpretation of the compound ornament as beginning with the trill and ending with a turn for a good reason. The manner of resolving this ornament in such a way had been customary to all musicians, and the resolution of the Cadence Et redoublé (trill and turn) in Foucquet's Methode presented one more proof.
Next, we will only cite examples from the authors of treatises and collections of pieces for the harpsichord showing the performance of the compound ornament in the period approximately from the middle of the XVIII century to the publication of Farrenc's Le Trésor des Pianistes in 1861.
During this period there had been several different approaches to realization the beginnings of the compound ornament. To avoid confusion, the following examples have been gathered in separate groups.
In Bach's examples, as it has been shown, notwithstanding that there is a slur from the Vorschlag to the main note, both notes are played in his realization (the Vorschlag and the upper auxiliary note of the trill). This pattern is followed by Georg Joachim Joseph Hahn
[71, pp. 10 and 12]:
The difference
here is that in Bach's example there is a Vorschlag. The same mode in resolving the compound ornament is recommended by Georg Friedrich Mehrbach [72, p. 30]:
. In an anonymously published manual for children, the compound ornament is realized as in Bach's Versuch, save for the absence of the slur:
[73, p. 37].
Despite the fact that by now (owing to the above cited examples) everything has become clear, we believe that there remains some such indicative material that it would be incorrect to omit it, especially because it pertains to J. S. Bach's son Johann Christian. J. Chr. Bach and F. P. Ricci published in c1786 a Methode <...> pour le Forte-Piano ou Clavecin [74] for the Naples Conservatory. What is of interest is that in the practical part Philipp Emanuel Bach's pieces are included without naming their author. Among them there are the Sonatas from the Exempel nebst achtzehn Probe=Stucken [75]. It is well known that Ph. Em. Bach frequently used the sign S? in these Sonatas. The comparison of the texts of the original Sonatas with those published by Bach and Ricci surprised us: the signs of the compound ornament were changed to trill signs. Evidently, the authors of this Methode thought that the sign S? would be somewhat difficult for the students of the Conservatory. But it also shows that the trill-sign could interchangeably signify a compound ornament (trill with a turn). In C. P. E. Bach's original work, the pattern with the compound
*(r*
ornament is written as
£
3 2
while in the Methode — thus:
. We searched for the
example in Bach and Ricci's Methode to know how they realized this trill sign. The performance of the trill sign is explained in the Methode in No 29 "Allegro non molto" on
. Logically, this could mean that J. Chr. Bach and
F. P. Ricci understood C. P. E. Bach's compound ornament as a trill with a trill-ending (a turn). This conclusion coincides with the ones made earlier and is fully consistent with the concept of performing the compound ornament.
T> + £
sosienalo.
a. C. P. E. Bach. Sonata No 2, Adagio sostenuto.
N • IOJ • At'ilt/lt?
fosfctutto
b. J. Chr. Bach et F. P. Ricci, p. 51. Example 11
To above-mentioned the list of the authors who performed the compound ornament beginning the trill from the upper auxiliary, the names of Georg Friedrich Wolf [76, p. 73; 77, p. 51], Franz Paul Rigler [78, p. 91] may be added. Here we would especially draw attention also to Muzio Clementi — a true pianist by 1801 — in whose keyboard manuals the next execution of the compound ornament can be found. Just two examples:
[79, p. 11]. In the German edition it is printed in another manner but there is no change
of the concept:
. In the accompa-
nying explanation on p. 15, it is written: "The trill with a turn [Fig. 24] should be thus played [Fig. 25], sometimes also as [Fig. 26]" [80, p. 17]. Here, similarly to all other examples, the trill begins the realization and the turn ends it.
Along with this manner of performing the compound ornament, beginning the trill with the upper auxiliary, there was another one, when the upper auxiliary note of the trill was tied/slurred to the previous note. Such a manner of performance is recommended in J. Chr. Fr. Bach's Musikalische Nebenstunden [81]. The table of ornaments is in the Vorbericht, where it is written: "Anweisung, wie die über den Noten befindliche Manieren augeführet werden müssen (Instruction on how the ornaments located above the notes should be executed"). The compound ornament is under No 11 where it is called (as in C. P. E. Bach's Versuch) "Der prallende Doppelschlag". Its realization is the following:
. The same interpretation is given in the theoretical and practi-
cal Klavierschule by Daniel Gottlob Türk [82, p. 291]:
1ÜMI
. This manner of performing the compound ornament can be found in the Kurzgefasste Anfangsgründe by Christoph Benjamin Schmidtchen [83, p. 10], in Johann Friedrich Nagel's Kurze Anweisung zum Klavierspielen [84, p. 65], in August Eberhardt Müller's edition of Georg Simon Löhlein's Klavierschule [85, p. 44].
The third manner is not presented by many authors. Here the compound ornament is performed beginning the trill from the main note, which is slurred (legato), to the previous one. This manner of executing the compound ornament is given in all editions of Löhlein's treatise. The next example is from his Clavier-Schule [86, p. 15]. It should be noted that Löhlein calls this ornament in a different way, thus: "Der Abzug mit dem
SlbiUd mit be in Qtaffef&taa'e.
Nachschlage":""^ 1 1 " . This manner will lead to a new interpretation of
the beginning of the compound ornament, in which the trill will start from the main note.
A somewhat bizarre interpretation of the compound ornament is given in Justin Heinrich Knecht's Kleine Theoretische Klavierschule [87, p. 62]:
ü
s ♦
3 s 3
i H--e--f—
The ornament begins, as Knecht explains, with a "Mordant" (turn, in Knecht's terminology) which "ends with a simple and short trill [welcher mit einem einfachen und kurzen Triller endigt]". The Mordant was previously [87, p. 55-6] understood not only as a usual three-note mordent with the lower auxiliary note, but also as a turn24. The examples show that this "Mordant" could represent both ordinary turn and a turn which begins from the main note. The trill is treated in the traditional XVIII-century way:
X>orfa>.
2l«etr.
, but — again — in the realization of the trill in the context of the compound ornament it represents a four-note (true) mordent. The verbal explanation and the execution shown in the example do not coincide. It is more than likely that this is some kind of a typographical error. Anyhow, Knecht's resolvation of the compound ornament "has a Mordant [at the beginning] which ends with a simple and short Triller"25.
It might seem that Heinrich Christoph Koch is following C. P. E. Bach's principles of performing ornaments in his famous and solidly founded Musikalisches Lexikon, but in realizing the prallende Doppelschlag his interpretation differs [89, col. 453]:
24 Carl Czerny also calls the turn as Mordent [88, p. 80].
25 This is exactly the ornament which (excluding the typographical mistake, as we presume) could be used by Kroll as a historical argument for his new hypothesis.
The new trend outlined in Koch's Lexikon is found in J. G. Werner's Musikalisches
Abc=Buch: ~ ^ ""^sd" [90, p. 32]. This corresponds with the new principles of performing the trill when most often it was played from the main note.
Johann Nepomuk Hummel, for example, explains: "In general, therefore, the shake [i. e. trill] must begin with the principal note, and always terminate with the same (1). If the composer desires that it should commence with the note above or below, he must indicate this by an additional small sized note [i. e. appoggiatura], above or below." [91, Part III, Section First, Chap. 2, p. 3; 92, p. 386].
The situation began to change towards the previous early tradition in the middle of the XIX century, mainly (as it has been pointed out above) due to the publication of Aristide Farrenc's Le Trésor des Pianistes in 1861. A major role in this process of the revival of the early music tradition in ornamentation should be ascribed to the works by (although not without many shortcomings) Edward Dannreuther (1895), Adolf Beyschlag (1908) and Paul Brunold (1925). The pioneer monograph by Arnold Dolmetsch (1915) must be singled out. In all these scholarly works the compound ornament is resolved as a trill + turn.
CONCLUSION
Due to the lack of sources on the topic, Kroll was compelled to try to prove the correctness of his hypothesis resorting to the study of the music context in harpsichord pieces by Couperin, d'Anglebert and Marchand. For practitioners who are not experts on source studies and to whom, in fact, Kroll's article is addressed, the proposed analysis may seem both interesting and convincing. However, we will not elaborate on it and discuss all the arguments. It is all the more unnecessary because the examined sources have proved that the hypothesis put forward by Kroll was incorrect and misleading.
In the more recent studies mentioned by Kroll and criticized by him — Gilbert, Tun-ley, Neumann — the recommendations of performing the compound ornament are substantially correct: the compound ornament marked by the sign should be performed in the context of early music, beginning with the trill (played from the upper auxiliary) and ending with the turn.
References
1. Farrenc, Jacques Hyppolite Aristide. Le Trésor des Pianistes. Collection des Œuvres choisies des Maitres de tous les Pays et toutes les Époques <.. .> Paris: Farrenc, Philipp; Londres: Cramer; Leipzig: Breitkopf et Haertel, 1861.
2. Méreaux, Jean-Amédée Lefroid de. Les Clavecinistes de 1637 à 1790. Paris: Heugel et Co, 1867, vol. I.
3. Simpson, Christopher. The Division-Viol <...> London: William Godbid, 1659.
4. Chambonniéres, Jacques de. Les Pieces de Clauessin <...> Paris: Jollain, 1670.
5. Raison, André. Livre D'Orgue <...> Paris: LAutheur, n. d. [c1688].
6. D'Anglebert, Jean-Henry. Pieces de Clavecin <...> Paris: LAutheur, n. d. [c1689].
7. LAffillard, [Michel]. Principes Tres-Faciles Pour Bien Apprendre La Musique <.> Seconde Edition, re-vuë, corrigée & augmentée. Paris: Chr. Ballard, 1697.
8. LAffillard, [Michel]. Principes Tres-Faciles Pour Bien Apprendre La Musique <...> Cinquiéme Edition revûë, corrigée & augmentée. Paris: Chr. Ballard, 1705.
9. Dieupart, Charles (François). Six Suittes de Clavessin <...> Amsterdam: Estienne Roger, n. d. [c1701].
10. Couperin, François. Pieces De Clavecin <...> Premier Livre. Paris: LAuteur, Foucaut, 1713.
11. Bach, Johann Sebastian. Clavier-Büchlein vor Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Mus. Ms., 1720.
12. Rameau, Jean-Phillipe. Pieces De Clavessin Avec Une Methode Pour La Mechanique Des Doigts <...> Paris: Charles-Etienne Hochereau, Boivin, LAuteur, n. d. [1724].
13. Muffat, Gottlieb Theofil. Componimenti Musicali <...> [Augsburg: Johann Christian Leopold], n. d. [c1739].
14. [Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm]. Des critischen Musicus an der Spree erster Band. Berlin: [s. n.], [17491750].
15. Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Anleitung zum Clavierspielen <...> Berlin: A. Haude und J. C. Spener, 1755.
16. Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Principes du Clavecin <...> Berlin: Haude et Spener, 1756.
17. Geminiani, Francesco. A Treatise of Good Taste in the Art of Musick <...> London: [the Author], 1749.
18. Geminiani, Francesco. The Art of Playing on the Violin <...> London: [the Author], 1751.
19. Foucquet, Pierre-Claude. Les caractères de la paix, pieces de clavecin. Paris: LAuteur et d'autres, Lion: de Bretonne, n. d. [c1751/52].
20. Quantz, Johann Joachim. Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen. Berlin: Johann Friedrich Voß, 1752.
21. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Versuch über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen. Berlin: der Autor, 1753.
22. Collins, Michael. "In Defence of the French Trill." Journal of the American Musicological Society 26, no. 3 (1973): 405-39.
23. Kroll, Mark. "L'Ornement mystérieux". Early Music 45, no. 2 (2017): 297-309. doi: 10.1093/em/cax022
24. Couperin, François. LArt de Toucher le Clavecin <...> Paris: LAuteur, Foucaut, 1716.
25. Couperin, François. LArt De toucher Le Clavecin <...> Paris: LAuteur, Boivin, 1717.
26. Geoffroy-Dechaume, Antoine. Les "Secrets" de la Musique Ancienne. Recherches sur l'interprétation. XVIe, XVIIe, XVIIIe siècles. [Paris]: Édition Fasquelle, 1964.
27. Dart, Thurston. "Quelques Précisions sur la Notation des Pièces de Clavecin de François Couperin." In L'Interprétation de la Musique Française aux XVIIème et XVIIIème siècles: Paris, 20-26 Octobre 1969, edited by Ëdith Weber, 213-20. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1974.
28. Dannreuther, Edward. Musical Ornamentation (Part I). London & New York: Novello, Ewer and Co., n. d. [c1893/95].
29. Beyschlag, Adolf. Die Ornamentik der Musik <...> Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1908.
30. Brunold, Paul. Traité des signes et agréments employés par les clavecinistes français des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Lyon: Les Éditions Musicales Janin, 1925.
31. Gilbert, Kenneth. "Preface." In François Couperin: pièces de clavecin, premier livre, ed. Kenneth Gilbert. Paris: Heugel, 1982.
32. Dandrieu, Jean-François. "Préface." In Livre de Pièces de Clavecin <...> [Paris]: Rue St. Honoré à la Regle d'or, 1724.
33. Tunley, David. François Couperin and 'The Perfection of Music'. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004.
34. Couperin, François. Second Livre depiéces de Clavecin <...> Paris: LAuteur, Foucaut, n. d. [c1716/17].
35. Montéclair, Michel Pignolet de. Principes de Musique. Paris: LAuteur, n. d. [c1736].
36. Hays, Elizabeth Loretta. "F. W. Marpurg's Anleitung zum Clavierspielen (Berlin, 1755) and Principes du Clavecin (Berlin, 1756)." PhD diss., Stanford University, 1977, vol. 2.
37. Moyreau, Christophe. Six Simphonies, Pieces de Clavecin <...> Paris: Bayard, Le Clerc, et al., n. d. [c1753/54].
38. Eitner, Robert. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker und Musikgelehrten <.> 7. Band. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Haertel, 1902.
39. Veras, Philippe-François. Piéces de Clavecin <...> Premier Livre. Lille: L'Hauteur [sic]; Paris: Le Clerc; Vve Boivin, n. d. [c1740].
40. Boutmy, Charles Joseph Judocus. Premier Livre de Pieces de Clavecin <...>. Paris: La Veuve Boivin, Le Sieur Le Clerc, 173.
41. Boutmy, Charles Joseph Judocus. Second Livre de Pieces de Clavecin <...>. Paris: LAuteur, La Ve. Boivin, Le Sr Le Clerc, n. d. [c1740/5].
42. Boutmy, Charles Joseph Judocus. Troisième Livre de Pièces de Clavecin <...>. Bruxelles: LAuteur, J. J. Boucherie, n. d. [c1749/50].
43. Bury, Bernard de. Premier Livre de Pieces de Clavecin <...>. Paris: La Veuve Boivin, Le Sr Le Clerc, et al., n. d. [c1736/37].
44. Bloomfield, Ruta. "Bernard de Bury's Premiere Livre de Pièces de Clavecin: Critical edition and commentary". DMA diss., Claremont Graduate University, 2008.
45. Durocher. Pieces de Clavecin <...> Premiere Suite. Paris: Chr. Ballard, 1733.
46. Fuller, David. "Durocher." In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie. 2nd ed. New York, London, &c.: Oxford University Press, 2001, vol. 7.
47. Eitner, Robert. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Quellen-Lexikon der Musiker und Musikgelehrten <.. .> 8. Band. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Haertel, 1903.
48. Panov, Alexei, and Ivan Rosanoff. "Sébastien de Brossard's Dictionnaire of 1701: A comparative analysis of the complete copy." Early Music 43, no. 3 (2015): 417-30, doi: 10.1093/em/cav044.
49. Panov, Alexei, and Ivan Rosanoff. "De Saint Lambert and de Brossard: unknown and known". Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Arts 2, no. 1 (2012): 28-44. Accessed July 04, 2017. https://cyberleninka. ru/article/v/neizvestnye-izvestnye-de-sen-lamber-i-de-bross-ar.
50. Saint Lambert de. Les Principes du Clavecin. Paris: Chr. Ballard, 1702.
51. D'Agincourt, François. Pieces de Clavecin <...>. Paris: Le Sr. Boïvin, Le Sr. le Clerc; Roüen: lAuteur, 1733.
52. Dornel, Louis-Antoine. Pieces de Clavecin <...>. Paris: l'Auteur, n. d. [c1731].
53. Fiocco, Joseph Hector. Pieces de Clavecin <...> Œuvre Premier. Brussels: Jean Laur[en]t Krafft, n. d. [c1730].
54. Boyvin, Jacques. Seconde Livre d'Orgue <...>. Paris: Chr. Ballard, 1700.
55. Saint-Arroman, Jean. "Présentation." In Jacques Boyvin. Second Livre d'Orgue. 1700. Présentation par Jean-Saint Arroman, V-XIII. Courlay: Fuzeau, 2004.
56. Boyvin, Jacques. Premier Livre d'Orgue <...>. Paris: Mr. de Baußend, Mr. le Maire; Roüen: lAuteur, n. d. [c1689/90].
57. Walther, Johann Gottfried. Gesammelte Werke für Orgel herausgegeben von Max Seiffert. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1906.
58. Neumann, Frederick. Ornamentation in Baroque and Post-Baroque Music. With Special Emphasis on J. S. Bach. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
59. Bernsdorf, Eduard. Neues Universal-Lexikon der Tonkunst <...> Erster Band. Dresden: Verlag von Robert Schaefer, 1856.
60. Riemann, Hugo. Musik-Lexikon. <...> Fünfte vollständig umgearbeitete Auflage. Leipzig: Max Hesse's Verlag, 1900.
61. Riemann Musiklexikon: In 3 Banden. Bd. 3: Sachteil. Mainz, &c.: Schott, 1967.
62. Bach, Johann Sebasian. Six preludes à l'usage des commençants pour le clavecin <...>. Leipsic: Ambroise Kühnel, n. d. [c1802].
63. Bach, Johann Sebasian. Clavier-Büchlein <...> Mus. Ms. Bach P 224, 1722.
64. Dadelsen, Georg von. "Verzierungen." In Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart <.> hrsg. von Friedrich Blume, 1544-45. Kassel, &c.: Bärenreiter, 1966, vol. 13.
65. Foucquet, Pierre-Claude. "Methode pour aprendre à connoître le Clavier <...>." In Foucquet, PierreClaude. Les caractères de la paix, pieces de clavecin, 3-7. Paris: LAuteur et d'autres; Lion: de Bretonne, n. d. [c1751/52].
66. Saint-Arroman, Jean. L'interprétation de la musique française 1661-1789. Dictionnaire d'interprétation (initiation). Paris: H. Champion, 1983.
67. Neumann, Frederick. Performance Practices of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. New York: Schirmer, 1993.
68. Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Die Kunst das Clavier zu spielen <.> Vierte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Berlin: Haude und Spener, 1762.
69. Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Art de toucher le clavecin selon la maniere perfectionnée des Modernes. Paris: Naderman, Made. Le Menu, n. d. [c1797].
70. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments. Translated and edited by William J. Mitchell. London: W. W. Norton & Co., 1948.
71. Hahn, Georg Joachim Joseph. Der nach der neuern Art wohl unterwiesene General=Baß=Schüler, oder Gespräch zwischen einem Lehrmeister und Scholaren von dem General=Baß <...> Zweyte verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Augsburg: J. J. Lotter, 1768.
72. Mehrbach, Georg Friedrich. Klavierschule für Kinder <...>. Leipzig: zu finden bey dem Verfasser, 1782.
73. [Petschke, Adolf Friedrich]. Versuch eines Unterrichts zum Klavierspielen <...>. Leipzig: Adam Friedrich Böhme, n. d. [c1785].
74. Bach, Johann Christian, and Francesco Pasquale Ricci. Methode ou Recueil de Connoissances Elemen-tairespour le Forte-Piano ou Clavecin <...>. Paris: Le Duc, n. d. [c1786].
75. Bach, Carl Philipp Emanuel. Exempel nebst Achtzehn Probe=Stücken in sechs Sonaten zu Carl Philipp Emanuel Bachs Versuche über die wahre Art das Clavier zu spielen auf XXVI. Kupfer=Tafeln. Berlin: der Autor, 1753.
76. Wolf, Georg Friedrich. <.> Unterricht im Klavierspielen. Erster Theil. Dritte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Halle: Johann Christian Hendel, 1789.
77. Wolf, Georg Friedrich. Kurzgefaßtes musikalisches Lexikon <.> Zweite, und vermehrte Auflage. Halle: Johann Christian Hendel, 1792.
78. Rigler, Franz Paul. Anleitung zum Gesange, und dem Klaviere, oder die Orgel zu spielen <...>. Ofen: Univ.-Buchdruckerei, 1798.
79. Clementi, Muzio. <.> Introduction to the Art of playing on the Piano Forte. London: Clementi, Banger, Hyde, Collard & Davis, n. d. [c1801/3].
80. Clementi, Muzio. <.> Einleitung in die Kunst das Piano-Forte zu spielen. Gera: C. G. Menzel, n. d.
81. Bach, Johann Christoph Friedrich. "Anweisung, wie die über den Noten befindliche Manieren aus-geführet werden müssen." In Musikalische Nebenstunden. Erstes Heft. Rinteln: Anton Henrich Bösendahl, 1787.
82. Türk, Daniel Gottlob. Klavierschule, oder Anweisung zum Klavierspielen für Lehrer und Lernende <...>. Leipzig: Schwikert; Halle: Schwetschke, 1789.
83. Schmidtchen, Christoph Benjamin. Kurzgefaßte Anfangsgründe auf das Clavier <...>. Leipzig: Sch-wickert, 1781.
84. Nagel, Johann Friedich. Kurze Anweisung zum Klavierspielen für Lehrer und Lernende <...>. Halle: Johann Christian Hendel, n. d. [1791].
85. Georg Simon Löhleins Klavierschule, oder Anweisung zum Klavier= und Fortepiano=Spiel <...> Sechste Auflage, ganz umgearbeitet und sehr vermehrt von A. E. Müller. Jena: Friedrich Frommann, 1804.
86. Löhlein, Georg Simon. Clavier=Schule, oder kurze und gründliche Anweisung zur Melodie und Harmonie, durchgehends mit practischen Beyspielen erkläret. Leipzig und Züllichau: Waisenhaus- und From-manische Buchhandlung, 1765.
87. Knecht, Justin Heinrich. Kleine Theoretische Klavierschule <...> IIte Abtheilung. München: in der Falterischen Musikhandlung, n. d. [c1802].
88. Czerny, Carl. Vollständige theoretisch-practische Pianoforte-Schule <...> Op. 500. Wien: Diabelli & Comp, n. d. [c1839].
89. Koch, Heinrich Christoph. Musikalisches Lexikon <...>. Frankfurt am Main: August Hermann dem Jüngern, 1802.
90. Werner, Johann Gottlob. Musikalisches Abc=Buch oder Leitfaden beim ersten Unterricht im Klavierspielen <...>. Penig: F. Dienemann und Compagnie, 1805.
91. Hummel, Johann Nepomuk. A Complete Theoretical and Practical Course of Instructions, on the Art of Playing the Piano Forte <...>. London: T. Boosey, n. d. [c1828/9].
92. Hummel, Johann Nepomuk. Ausführliche theoretisch-practische Anweisung zum Piano-Forte-Spiel <...>. Wien: Tobias Haslinger, 1827.
Received: 30.03.2018 Accepted: 31.05.2018
Author's information:
Alexei A. Panov — Dr. Habil., Professor; [email protected] Ivan V. Rosanoff — Dr. Habil., Professor; [email protected]
