MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735200414 · doi:10.1353/not.2017.0097

Premier Livre d'Orgue (1699), with references to the copies of J. S. Bach and J. G. Walther. Musical text eds. by Wayne Leupold and James David Christie

2017· article· en· W2735200414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNotes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusicalExtant taxonArtArt historyBaroqueClassicsSAINTPhilosophyHumanitiesLiteratureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Premier Livre d'Orgue (1699), with references to the copies of J. S. Bach and J. G. Walther. Musical text eds. by Wayne Leupold and James David Christie Edward Higginbottom Nicolas de Grigny. Premier Livre d'Orgue (1699), with references to the copies of J. S. Bach and J. G. Walther. Musical text edited by Wayne Leupold and James David Christie. Preface by H. Joseph Butler, Lenora McCroskey, and Sandra Soderlund. Colfax, NC: Wayne Leupold Editions, 2015. [Acknowledgments, p. iv; preface, p. v–lxxiii; editorial principles, p. lxxiv–lxxv; score, p. 1–121; editorial and interpretive commentary, p. 122–59; bibliog., p. 160–62; appendix, p. 163–66. Pub. no. WL 500025. $55.] The extant repertory of French baroque organ music is substantial. The contents of various livres d'orgue, from Guillaume Gabriel Nivers to André Raison, published between the 1660s and the 1710s, number well over one thousand pieces. In addition, there are significant collections in manuscript, notably the 400 works of the so-called Livre d'orgue de Montréal. And yet this represents but a tiny proportion of the music turned out by Parisian, let alone French organists over this period. The alternatim performance of liturgical items at First Vespers, Matins, Lauds, Terce, the Mass, and Second Vespers, and maybe also Compline required on a principal feast day the performance of some one hundred separate organ versets. There were many feast days during the year. And the ordinary Sundays were also celebrated with much organ music. In the course of a year, an organist would be required to turn out thousands of pieces. He could not survive such demands without being a fluent improviser. Which raises the question, what were all these published livres d'orgue for? Or more interestingly, how did their contents relate to the music commonly improvised within the liturgy? Insights into this aspect of the practice are afforded by the manuscript collections, some of which provided very clearly working musical resources for the loft, used by their owners, on the job. Such a collection might be MS Paris Conservatoire, Rés. 476, which reveals two important aspects of the practice: the first, that organ versets were ordinarily short (the Mass Offertory always the exception) taking up scarcely more time than the plainchant with which they alternated (bearing in mind the slow tempo adopted in those days for the chant); the second, that the level of musical development was modest. We can also see something of these characteristics in the printed sources, in for instance the first and third livres d'orgue of Nivers, collections of versets gathered together according to their church tone. It does not mean that the music lacks interest, sophistication, or indeed beauty, but it does mean that it is modest in scope. After all, it has a clear role to play in the liturgy, part of which is to not unreasonably extend the ritual. But as we get to the end of the seventeenth century, we encounter in the 1690 Pièces d'orgue of François Couperin a new development in the tradition. Couperin's organ versets (for the Mass) are at least twice as long, and twice as elaborate, as Nivers's (a tendency also revealed in the contemporaneous published work of Jacques Boyvin and Gilles Jullien, 1689 and 1690 respectively). Couperin was twenty-one, but now well-established at St. Gervais in Paris, where he had been playing since his early teens. He was clearly a remarkable musician, and fluent improviser. Why did he choose to publish a book of pieces which on the face of it were too elaborate for normal use, or which at least pushed the boundaries of what was required of alternatim practice? The preface by Michel Richard de Lalande makes that clear: to project to a wider public his superlative qualities as an organist and composer. Lalande's approbation speaks of the pieces as being "very beautiful and fully worthy of publication." And the gambit paid off. Three years later, in 1693, Couperin was appointed one of the king's organists at Versailles. So, a publication could be as much about showing off prowess as about providing for the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it