The recent discussion of L. Couperin’s music made me look more closely at his pieces. I discovered (thanks to the note in Moroney’s edition) that J.-H. d’Anglebert wrote a double for Couperin’s allemande #82. I am puzzled about the second ending for the B section in this double. The measure ends in the r. h. with what looks like a lead-in to the following measure (see screen shot). But this is the end of the piece, as shown by the flourishes and by the overall structure. The only place that has the correct G chord shown by the directs is the first measure in the A section (which rules out a petite reprise). The segno at the end of the first ending takes one back to the beginning of the B section (as is typical).
I suppose it might just be a mistake, but it seems a strange one: d’Anglebert had to write four notes and four directs (not the kind of thing one would do by accident). The following piece in d’Anglebert’s MS does not have the right chord, nor does Couperin’s next piece. Any ideas?
Yes. I’ve just edited this. It could, actually, suggest a repeat of the whole double, though it’s more likely to be an error when Rés 89ter was prepared: it is a fair copy.
I seem to have a dim recollection that sometimes, in French music, binary music (ie dances) could be repeated by returning to the A section, perhaps without repeats the second time? Did I make this up or is there a source for this?
Decades ago I remember a musicologist telling me that there are sources for no repeats in Da Capos, for either Dance I and II or Dance and Double, but this evidence was post-Baroque.
More recently in my book “Playing …” I scrutinised a slightly different case, the Rondeau.
My conclusion is that as a general rule (and there are written-out directions for this) the Rondeau is to be repeated only the first time, then is to be played without repeat between the Couplets and at the end.
HOWEVER, there are documented exceptions: in some Rondeaux the Rondeau is never repeated, in others it is repeated every time, yet in others it is repeated every time except the final one.
Le 09/08/2022 22:08, Douglas Amrine via The Jackrail écrit :
I seem to have a dim recollection that sometimes, in French music,
binary music (ie dances) could be repeated by returning to the A
section, perhaps without repeats the second time? Did I make this up
or is there a source for this?
Many of d’Anglebert’s binary dances have repeats at the end of the
second section sending back to the beginning of A.
The first Allemande, for instance. The first Courante has a Double, and
both are to be played AABBAB A’A’B’B’A’B’.
Thank you for this, Dennis, since I have rarely played D’Anglebert’s works (that may change now!). In the examples you cite, there are no directions in words or signs to go back to the beginning, but the directs are very clear. So it seems that D’Anglebert liked to create larger structures by using additional repetitions.
Since he did this with his own compositions, he may have played L. Couperin’s pieces in similar ways. Whether Couperin himself did this, we don’t know, but it seems entirely possible to me; I believe L. C. and D’Anglebert moved in the same circles in mid-17th c. Paris.
In regard to the double for L.C.'s allemande that I first posted about, I now think that the ending is an indication to repeat the original dance. (The directs work for either the double or the original.) This seems more sensible than calling the 16th notes and directs an error. Performers have the final say, of course, but they should at least consider doing this.
I did some digging around and found my last comment to be incorrect. This is a paragraph from my edition of the Louis Couperin harpsichord music referring to D’Anglebert’s double of Couperin’s allemande (I included this and a version in GB-Lbl Ad. Ms. 39569, which was copied by Charles Babell in c. 1702. It seems
A notational feature of D’Anglebert’s double (no. 82c) demonstrates an aspect of performance that is largely overlooked today. It finishes with the same suspirans that begins the piece, suggesting a renvoy (‘return’) to the beginning, whereby the whole dance is played a third time without repeats. The practice is recommended by Saint-Lambert (1702, Chapter XII), and while he indicates this further playthrough using dal segno symbols, these might not have been afforded much attention in manuscript copies made by composers for their own use.
If Saint-Lambert writes of the practice forty years after Couperin died, it must be that it was pretty common practice. There is no reason to think otherwise: doubles might have taken the role of renvoys, though it is more likely that these were regarded as separate pieces in their own right. A double provides the possibility to ‘show off’ one’s skills in embellishing a piece, and I suspect that nearly all did them, with just a few bothering to write them down, probably for the growing market in amateur music making that flourished after 1660. More on that another time …
I don’t know what “my last comment” refers to, but Saint-Lambert says
nowhere in Chapter XII that the “Renvoy” is a return to the beginning,
and in the example he mentions (Gavotte) the piece is NOT played a third
time. The repeat starts from the “Renvoy” sign, wherever it is. It could
be used for instance for a “petite reprise”.
Le 24/07/2023 10:14, Jon Baxendale via The Jackrail écrit :
Also in orchestral music. Georg Muffat (who spent years in Paris) mentions that in his Florilegium (Overtures « à la française"), saying (I’m quoting by memory) : repeats are to be made 2 or 3 times. Even In the end of the Sarabanda in G minor from the Armonico Tributo (which is more syncretic style), there is written : da capo.
I do it sometimes in Couperin’s music, especially in Les Nations. Even in my recording of Bach’s Partitas ( Menuet in D). It seems to me very natural in some cases.
