Very Early French Organ Fugues and Their Registrations
Pietro's latest upload (https://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/63621) of an early French Baroque fugue by Louis Couperin has elicited many questions and a hearty discussion. I summed up my research findings in the comment section there, but I'd like to go into more detail here.
When I have a question about Baroque music registration from any country, I first turn to the impeccable scholarship of Barbara Owen, who literally wrote the book on The Registration of Baroque Organ Music. It's published by Indiana University Press, and it came out when I was an undergraduate student in 1997, thus serving me very well. This book and another about the organs of Europe pre-1850 are now no longer mere theory for me. With the advent of Hauptwerk, many (not all, but many) of the organs and their dispositions listed in these books are now available for us as performers. It's literally a whole new world available for us. So, what was once before an informed historical performance practice can actually be an almost actual historical performance should we choose.
Regarding the registration, then, of Louis Couperin, Barbara Owens has this to say: the privately owned manuscript book (the Oldham Ms., which is what Pietro's working on for us to hear and enjoy) of organ pieces falls within the decade of 1650-60. "Along with retrospective fugues and fantasias related to the style of Titelouze and his predecessors, this manuscript also contains duos, trios, and several pieces with registrational titles such as Fugue sur le Cromhorne, Fugue sur la Tierce (with and without Tremulant) and Basse de Trompette. The registration for the Fugue sur la Tierce must almost certainly be the combination of unison flutes, upperwork, and Tierce later known as the Jeu de Tierce." Owens says that with Couperin's mid-century book, which followed the publications of Titelouse and Mersenne, it is able to be seen that "some of the conventions that would govern French registration for the next century and a half were rapidly flaling into place, at least in Paris."
This one short paragraph dedicated to L. Couperin's memory and contributions in the entire book, then, seems to lend credence to the many comments about him being a transitional figure and that the "rules" weren't quite in place yet.
And because one book is never enough, musicologists are always finding out more, and no one person can ever have the entire truth about a topic, I flesh out my resource library with others in more niche details when possible. So I also own the book called "French Organ Music in the Reign of Louis XIV" by David Ponsford, a renowned British harpsichordist and organist and musicologist. This is from 2011, published by Cambridge University Press.
His book is the first (maybe still only) one to actually address the French fugue as a genre itself. It was, for example, very different in concept and development and ending design than the fugues of Northern Germany and eventually Bach. Thus, Ponsfod has a lot more detail about registration and history for us than Owens did in her one paragraph, 34 pages worth! And L. Couperin makes up four of those pages on his own, not to mention the weaving in and out of him and Froberger in the story of fugue itself.
I'll summarize these four pages for us all here. I'm not going to put quotes around everything, but please know this is all from the same source and not my words. Thanks.
Froberger's influence on Louis Couperin was of greater significance for the French fugue, as significant as Couperin's influence on Froberger with respect to French harpsichord suites and tombeaux. Couperin's fugues date between 1650 and 1658. And in 1656, Froberger's Libro quarto was half dedicated to ricercares and capriccios. Couperin used the word fugue from 1654, but the title was not standard until 1656. Earlier examples were titled Fantaisie. Froberger fueled Couperin's interest in counterpoint.
The Italian canzona principle allowed Couperin tod ouble the length of his fugues by the process of paraphrase, see Nos. 11, 18, 20, 28, 57, and 62. (Maybe Pietro can point these out to us as he presents them?). Essentially, the paraphrase means there is a cadence about halfway through the fugue, which divides the fugue proper form a second fugue on the paraphrased subject. No. 62 in particular, a fugue grave from 1656, shows a marked increase in density of figurae and rhythmic complexity, as well as chromatic elements that give rise to highly charged harmonies.
Two more paragraphs describe Couperin's fugal composition technique in detail now, and at the end of the second, another parallel with Froberger is drawn. Then yet a third paragraph about the fugal developments from Couperin appear.
Of interest (to me) is the next paragraph where Ponsford mentions that Couperin's fugues nos. 11 and 62 recall Jean Le Gallois's (1632-1707) description of L. Couperin's manner of playing, which he called "doctes recherches" or "learned inventiveness." He says it is "full of chords and enriched by beautiful dissonances, structural designs, and imitations." Note, there's nothing about registration here.
Ultimately, L.C. restricted himself mostly to simple fugues (per definitions laid out in the earlier part of the chapter) with entries on the tonic and dominant. There is one fugue renversee (no. 60), but no double fugues. L.C. titles the two fugues on Urbs beata Jherusalem as Fugues grave, but no others. And fugues like 11 and 11 qualify as legeres.
Again, Froberger's influence is mentioned with his toccata-fugues and their continuous semi-quavers beginning off the beat (see Froberger's first four toccatas and the imitative sections in those from 1649). These influences can be seen in L.C.'s pieces like his Fugue sur la tierce (no. 64). More similarities are to be found between L.C.'s two fugues no. 2 and no. 47 and certain gigues by Froberger.
After another paragraph about these similarities and their differences, the remarks abou
