Hi to all, Interesting point of view from François-Pierre Goy, which doesn't surprise me at all ;-) ! As Goran wrote, there is no place for a "confrontation" or anything of the sort, so let me simply underline what my intimate belief is : there is quie a significant corpus of music in manuscripts in old tuning attributed to "Gaultier", whatever spelling they may have chosen at the time, and starting from this observation I started to ask mlyself serious questions about Old Gaultier's music in d minor tuning. His (estimated) date of birth and known date of death, make him an almost exact contemporary of Robert Ballard who did not leave a single piece in d minor tuning, and only a few pieces in a transitional tuning, included the 1631 anthology published by the royal printer Pierre Ballard, his brother. In the article Goran refers to, I tried to put facts on my intuition, showing that the continued connection of Old Gaultir and the Queen Mother may be one reason why he was not represented in the Ballard editions, as Ballard was the officila riyal printer and Marie de Medicis, whose opposition to Richelieu eventually resulted in her exile, so that she was obviously not well regarded by the King and his entourage. Gaultier's retirement in his native Dauphiné, after the Queen's death, is another argument pointing to his relative isolation and estrangement from the dominant currents in lute fashions whiich gradually led to the adoption of one of the transitional tunings, the d minor tuning, as the new norm. Of course, I can be objected that the name Gautier could apply to different persons... Intuition and musical feeling can and will come to the rescue then, plus a few more objective facts. For instance, some people tend to attribute the Gaultier pieces in Cherbury to Jacques because he was a resident in England at the time. This is a bit too fast and too simple in my opinion : Cherbury visited France twice and he was there when Jacques Gaultier murdered a gentleman and had to run away from the country to avoid a certain death penalty. Cherbury belonged to the aristocratic circles and was very critical of Gaultier's criminal act. It is difficult to imagine he would copy so many pieces in his manuscript by a man he despised openly... As Ennemeond was already in Paris, serving the Queen mother, at the time Cherbury was in Paris for the second time. It does not seem far fetched to think he had access to some of his music then and chose to copy that in his book.
Anyway, whatever the conclusions may be, I think this question about Vieux Gaultier, is worth asking and this period (first half of the century) is far from having delivered all its secrets ! Best wishes to all, Jean-Marie Poirier -------------- > Hi, > >  > > I don't think one can accuse Denis of having "hijacked" or "passed on > works by Ennemond as his own". On the contrary, he was careful to > distinguish their respective works in the Livre de tablature (for which > he took a privilege as early as December 1669 > ([1]http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90632544/f89.item), but which > appeared only after his death. Most confusions in the attributions are > due to people who copied the pieces into their lute books, often years > after their composition, and also that the editors of the CNRS Vieux > Gaultier volume included in their edition everything they found > attributed to him at least once, without questioning the accurateness > of the attributions. > >  > > As to Ennemond's pieces being transcribed from earlier tunings, this > undoubtedly occurred for one of them, but not necessarily for many > more. When I studied the repertoire in accords nouveaux, almost thirty > years ago, I was surprised to find how few pieces had versions in both > old tuning and accords nouveaux or in both accords nouveaux and d-minor > tuning. Of course, many sources have been lost, but none of those which > has reappeared since has contradicted this notion. Add to this that the > d-minor tuning must have appeared shortly before 1638, when the first > pieces on this tuning appeared, and that Ennemond lived until 1651 and > had thus time to compose in this tuning. > >  > > I would understand Smith's sentence, as he speaks of "fine" music, as > expressing rather his personal appreciation. But there are ways to know > how Denis Gaultier was appreciated by his contemporaries. > 1) Both Gaultiers are the only identified composers whose works were > copied, in addition to their own works, by three lutenists-composers > whose hand may be identified with confidence in lute manuscripts: > Charles Mouton, Henry de Launay and Pierre Dubut le fils (the latter > has also copied works by his father) ; Julien Blouin, by whom only a > few works are known and who on the contrary copied works by a greater > number of composers, made a complete copy of the "Pieces de luth" in > one of his manuscripts, adding to them pieces by various other > composers. > 2) But the manuscript "La rhétorique des dieux" has been designed as > "un assemblage des plus belles pièces de luth de l'illustre Denis > Gaultier", even if at least one piece by Ennemond seems to have slipped > among them (there is no proof that Denis had any role in the choice of > the pieces). > > 3) Likewise, Pierre Baudouin de Montarcis (the one mentioned in the > preface of the Livre de tablature) refers to Denis as "l'Orfée de > notre siecle", but ignores Ennemond (see > [2]http://msl.cat/revista/56%20Goy.pdf, pp. 87-92). > 4) Three tombeaux were dedicated to Denis in addition to the one he > wrote for himself: by Jacques Gallot, Charles Mouton and a lost one by > his pupil Marianne Plantier. No tombeau appears to have been dedicated > to Old Gaultier. > >  > > Thus, it would seem that on one hand, the output of Ennemond and Denis > may have been more or less considered as a whole by 17th-century > lutenists, as their pieces are often mingled in the manuscripts, often > without a clear attribution to either of them, or with conflicting > attributions, and on the other hand, there really was a high regard for > Denis in the second half of the century, maybe from people who knew him > and had heard him in person. > >  > > Best wishes, > >  > > François-Pierre Goy > >  > >  > > 02.12.2017, 23:39, "G. C." : > >    Claude Chauvel: >    We may also recall the anecdote told by burlesque D'Assoucy, > in which >    old Gaultier was given a good thrashing by the people of his > village >    who, "catching sight of the dusky face of this blackamoor" , > mistook >    him for the werewolf... The man's appearance : a surly yet > sensual >    fellow, independent-minded, even slightly misanthropic, > conscious of >    his art and refusing any subservience, he was often caustic > about his >    colleagues such as his cousin Denis whom he thought "fitt to > goe along >    with a buriall". >    ... However a hundred or so of his [Ennemond's] pieces have > survived - >    all of them written in the OLD TUNE and collected in several >    manuscripts from the early XVIIth century; ... it was not > until 1672 >    that fifteen of old Gaultier's best pieces were engraved in > the Livre >    de Tablature compiled by his cousin Denis ; these pieces were > to figure >    high up among the best ones in many collections of German > origin well >    into the XVIIIth century. >    [1988] CD Booklet Astree E 8703 >    On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Jean-Marie Poirier >    >    :-D !!! >    > Le 2 déc. 2017 à 20:40, G. C. a écrit : >    > >    > So did Denis pass on works of Ennemond as being his own, and > not >    only >    > transcribing them from vieil tone and getting huge credit > from D. >    A. >    > Smith 40 years ago for that? >    > >    > -- >    > >    > > >References > > 1. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b90632544/f89.item) > 2. http://msl.cat/revista/56 Goy.pdf > > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
