# Rhythmic alteration and articulation in 18th-century French flute music: a reappraisal of Jacques Hotteterre le romain ![[flute-player.jpg]] --- > [!call-out]+ **Abstract** > The practice of playing the rhythm of notes differently from how they are notated is one of the most controversial areas of Baroque performance practice. > >This case study is about the French convention of ***notes inégales*** (unequal notes). > > After giving some context and background information, I look in particular at what Jacques Hotteterre has to say in his treatises and what we can learn from his published music.  > > I also look at Hotteterre’s articulation syllables (_tu_ and _ru_) and how they apply to different degrees of inequality. This is an updated, online version of an article published in _Context: Journal of Music Research_ (Uni. of Melb.), No. 9, Winter 1995: pp. 32–42. It is based on research undertaken for my Masters thesis. > [!call-out]+ **In this article** > - Historical Performance Practice > - Jacques Hotteterre le romain > - Rhythmic Alteration > - Hotteterre on *Notes Inégales* > - An Examination of Hotteterre’s Music > - Varying the Degree of Inequality > - The Notation (or Not) of Inequality > - Unequal (or Not) Disjunct Intervals > - Unequal slurred pairs > - Inequality with Long Slurs > - Inequality and Articulation Syllables > - Conclusion --- ## Historical Performance Practice During the 1980s, numerous writings appeared which looked critically at the state of research into what has been termed historical performance practice.[^1]  A number of authors are critical of the ‘positivist’ or ‘objectivist’ goal of amassing more and more facts. This approach was aimed at providing the ‘scientific’ support for a ‘code of performance’ of universal applicability ‘into which the score need only be plugged to set the music aglow with authenticity’.[^2] Laurence Dreyfus believes that, by itself, this empiricist methodology is unhelpful in the study of performance practice, and that a new approach should acknowledge that ‘historical performance…\[is] an evolving and necessarily incomplete paradigm rather than a set of documented index cards set atop inferences culled from freshman logic texts’.[^3 ]  Richard Taruskin is ‘convinced that ‘historical’ performance today is not really historical; that a thin veneer of historicism clothes a performance style that is completely of our own time, and is in fact the most modem style around.’[^4] [^1]: For example: **Laurence Dreyfus**, ‘Early Music Defended Against its Devotees: a Theory of Historical Performance in the Twentieth Century’, _The Musical Quarterly_ 69.3 (1983), pp. 297–322; ‘The Limits of Authenticity: a Discussion’, _Early Music_ 12 (1984), pp. 3–12; **Joseph Kerman**, ‘The Historical Performance Movement’ in _Musicology_ (London: Faber/ Collins, 1985); **Nicholas Kenyon**, ed., _Authenticity and Early Music: a Symposium_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988); **Harry Haskell**, ‘Playing Bach “his way”’ in _The Early Music Revival: a History_ (London: Thames and Hudson, 1988); and **David Fuller**, ‘The Performer as Composer’ in _Performance Practice: Music after 1600_, eds. Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 130–139. [^2]: Fuller, ‘The Performer as Composer’, p. 117. [^3]: Dreyfus, ‘Early Music Defended’, p. 313. [^4]: Richard Taruskin, ‘The Pastness of the Present and the Presence of the Past’ in Kenyon, _Authenticity and Early Music_, p. 152. Nevertheless Taruskin sees value for the modern musician in the study of historical evidence: ‘Really talented performers are always curious, and curious performers will always find what they need in the sources and theorists—what they need being ways of enriching and enlivening what they do.’[^5]  ‘It is not the elimination of personal choice from performance that real artists desire, but its improvement and refreshment. And for this purpose original instruments, historical treatises, and all the rest have proven their value.’[^6] [^5]: Taruskin, ‘The Pastness of the Present’, p. 203. [^6]: Taruskin, ‘The Pastness of the Present’, p. 206. --- ## Jacques Hotteterre le romain Jacques Hotteterre le romain (1674–1763) was a composer, theorist, teacher, performer and instrument maker. Happily, much of the relevant source material relating to these activities has survived. Of particular importance to the present study are his three didactic treatises:  - _Principes de la flûte-traversière_ (1707),[^7] - _L’Art de preluder_ (1719)[^8]  and - _Methode pour la musette_ (1737).[^9] [^7]: *Principes de la flûte traversière ou flûte d’Allemagne, de la flûte a bec ou flûte douce, et du haut-bois, divisez par traitez* (Paris: Christophe Ballard, 1707). Facsimile reprint of 1720 _nouvelle edition_, Genève: Minkoff, 1971. Facsimile reprint of [1710] Amsterdam edition with German translation, Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1941; reprinted 1958. <br> **Modern English translations**: <br>• David Lasocki, _Principles of the Flute, Recorder and Oboe_ (London: Barrie & Rockliff, 1968; London: Barrie & Jenkins, 1978).<br>• Paul Marshall Douglas, _Rudiments of the Flute, Recorder and Oboe_ (New York: Dover, 1968).<br>• Gregory Dikmans, _Principles of the Transverse Flute, Recorder and Oboe_ in ‘The Performance Practice of Early 18th- Century French Flute Music: a Critical Translation of Jacques Hotteterre’s _Principes de la Flûte Traversière_, Commentary and Recording of Selected Works’ (Diss. La Trobe University, 1991). [^8]: *L’Art de preluder sur la flûte traversière, sur la flûte-a-bec, sur le haubois et autres instruments de deßus* (Paris: Auteur and Foucault, 1719). [^9]: *Methode pour la musette* (Paris: J.-B.-C.Ballard, 1737/8). _Principes_ is the best known and most influential of the three, as the flute treatise (which occupies 34 of the 52 pages of text) was the first set of instructions ever published specifically for the transverse flute.[^10]  In addition to explanations of the technicalities of flute playing (holding the instrument, posture, embouchure and fingerings), it includes important information about the more general aspects of performance practice, such as articulation, rhythmic alteration and the _agréments_ that Hotteterre considered ‘necessary for playing correctly and with taste’.[^11] [^10]: Thomas E. Warner, _An Annotated Bibliography of Woodwind Instruction Books 1600–1830_ (Detroit: Information Coordinators, 1967), p. xiii, notes that Jambe de Fer’s _Epitome musical_ (1556) contains ‘the first fingering chart and printed mention of the transverse flute so far discovered. In addition, Jambe de Fer briefly describes correct flute embouchure; but even so, his treatise primarily discusses theoretical aspects of music and, therefore, is not intended as a woodwind tutor’. [^11]: *Principes*, p. 3: ‘les agréments necessaires pour joüer proprement & avec goût’. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. The instructions contained within the pedagogical works can be supplemented by an examination of his published music, in particular his first book of _Piéces_ (Op. 2) for flute and basso continuo.[^12]  This was published the year after _Principes_ and includes an _Avertissement_ that expands on material discussed in _Principes_. [^12]: *Pièces pour la flûte traversière, et autres instruments, avec la basse continue… Livre premier. Oeuvre second* (Paris: C. Ballard, 1708). In 1715, when Hotteterre published his second book of _Piéces_ (Op. 5),[^13] he reissued Op. 2 in a newly engraved edition.[^14] This *nouvelle edition* has a table of *agréments* added to the *Avertissement* and contains a large number of changes to the score of the 1708 edition, especially additional *agréments* and other clarifications of the original text.[^15] [^13]: *Deuxième livre de Pièces pour la flûte-traversière et autres instruments, avec basse… Oeuvre Ve* (Paris: Autheur, Foucault, 1715). [^14]: *Premier livre de Pièces pour la flûte-traversière, et autres instruments, avec la basse… Ourvre second. Nouvelle edition. Gravée sur l’Imprimé, et augmentée de plusieurs agréments, et d’une demonstration de la maniere qu’ils se doivent faire* (Paris: Autheur, Foucault, 1715). [^15]: Consequently these two editions of Op. 2 represent an extremely useful source for the study of the tasteful application of *agréments* in a musical context. Hotteterre’s instructions relating to rhythmic alteration are brief and quite simple, and should cause us no problems if we are willing to accept the simple meaning of his French.[^16]  Unfortunately, he does not answer every question the modern performer needs to ask, and it is beyond the scope of this study to offer definitive solutions (if this is at all possible). I will, however, briefly address some of them by drawing on other relevant primary sources, as well as offering my own suggestions and those found in the secondary source material. I will also suggest how this information may help us come closer to an understanding of the tasteful application of Hotteterre’s principles of articulation. [^16]: Much of the controversy this century \[20th century] surrounding rhythmic alteration has arisen when scholars have attempted to read extra meaning into the language and terms used by the French theorists. --- ## Rhythmic Alteration Rhythmic alteration has become one of the most controversial areas of Baroque performance practice. In its broadest sense it includes all the expressive fluctuations of tempo and rhythm which Riemann called agogics.[^17]  However, the issues which concern us here are more specific.[^18]  These are: 1. the application of the French convention of inequality or _notes inégales_, especially when the composer does not indicate its use either by an instruction, such as _croche inégales_, or by writing it out in dotted rhythms; 2. the degree of inequality when its use is appropriate (whether indicated or not); 3. inconsistency of notation: for example, when dotted rhythms are written, whether this is an indication of inequality or double dotting; 4. inequality on disjunct intervals; 5. inequality with slurs. [^17]: H. Riemann, _Musikalische Dynamik und Agogik: Lehrbuch der musikalischen Phrasierung_ (Hamburg, 1884). [^18]: There is another issue: whether or not to resolve clashes between binary and ternary rhythms. This is not an issue in Hotteterre’s music, so we need not concern ourselves about it here. For a summary of the debate on all aspect of rhythmic alteration in Baroque music see Fuller, ‘The Performer as Composer’, pp. 130–139. In practice these issues are closely related, or even linked.[^19] [^19]: For an account of these issues, which presents the evidence, outlines the arguments, offers sound solutions and gives references for the most important primary and secondary sources, see John O’Donnell, ‘The French Style and the Overtures of Bach’, _Early Music_ 7 (1979), Part 1: pp. 190–196, Part 2: pp. 336–345. This article also contains important information on other aspects of French style, the overture and tempo. Inequality is usually defined as the uneven performance of evenly written values.[^20] The following definition by David Fuller provides a useful background to the issues discussed in this study: > As it existed in France from the mid-16th century to the late 18th the convention of _notes inégales_ was first of all a way of gracing or enlivening passage-work, especially improvised diminutions. As styles changed and the figurations born of diminution entered the essential melodic vocabulary, inequality permeated the musical language. Its application was regulated by metre and note values; it always operated within the beat, never distorting the beat itself. > > The degree of inequality (i.e. the ratio between the lengths of the long and short notes of each pair) could vary from the barely perceptible to the equivalent of double dotting, according to the character of the piece and the taste of the performer. > > Inequality was considered one of the chief resources of expression, and it varied according to expressive needs within the same piece or even within the same passage; where it was felt to be inappropriate it could be abandoned altogether unless explicitly demanded. > > Although the practical problem is certainly that of deciding when to alter what appears on the page, the rhythmic convention itself is independent of questions of notation. French composers frequently wrote out inequality with dotted figures, sometimes to resolve doubt, sometimes to ensure a sharply dotted effect, and sometimes for no apparent reason.[^21] [^20]: For a summary of the evidence relating to _notes inégales_ and its application within and outside France see David Fuller, ‘Notes Inégales’, _The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians_, ed. Stanley Sadie, vol.13 (London: MacMillan, 1980), pp. 420–427. This article should be read in conjunction with Fuller, ‘Notes and _Inégales_ Unjoined: Defending a Definition’, _Journal of Musicology_ 7.1 (1989), pp. 21–28, where the author revises some of his statements and clarifies some points. For an opposing, and now largely discredited, view see Frederick Neumam, ‘The Notes Inégales Revisited’, _Journal of Musicology_ 6.2 (1988), pp. 137–149. Neumann’s other writings on performance practice, including articles on inequality and dotting, have been brought together in Neumann, _Essays in Performance Practice_ (Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1982). [^21]: Fuller, ‘Notes Inegales’, p. 420. --- ## Hotteterre on *Notes Inégales* Hotteterre first mentions inequality during his discussion of the articulation of quavers in Chapter 8 of _Principes_. He writes: > You would do well to observe that you must not always play the quavers equally, [but] that, in certain time signatures, you make one long and one short, which is also regulated by their number. > > When [the number of quavers] is even, you make the first [quaver] long, the second short, and so on for the others. > > When it is odd,[^22]  you do exactly the opposite: this \[practice] is called dotting (_pointer_). > > The time signatures in which this is most usually done are 2 time, simple 3 time and 6/4 time.[^23] [^22]: That is, a group of quavers beginning after a quaver rest placed on the beat. [^23]: _Principes_, p. 28: ‘On sera bien d’observer que l’on ne soit pas toûjours passer les Croches également, & qu’on doit dans certaines Mesures, en faire une longue & uue [sic] breve; ce qui se regle aussi par le nombre. Quand il est pair, on fait la premiere longue, la seconde breve, & ainsi des autres. Quand il est impair, on fait tout le contraire; cela s’appelle Pointer. Les Mesures dans lesquelles cela se pratique le plus ordinairement, sont celles à Deux temps, celle du triple simple, & celle de six pour quatre.’ In other words, the metrically strong quaver is long, and the metrically weak quaver is short. Hotteterre calls this practice _pointer_. Literally this means ‘to dot’, that is, to add a dot to a note.[^24]  So _pointer_ can be translated as ‘dotting’ (noun) or ‘to dot’ (verb). He also uses the adjectival form _pointée_, as in _croche pointée_ (dotted quaver). [^24]: In some sources there is confusion about where the dot is placed: above the note, to indicate staccato (or in some cases equality—in practice this amounts to the same thing), or after the note, to indicate rhythmic alteration. For example, Sebastian de Brossard, _Dictionaire de musique_ (Paris: Christophe Ballard, 1703) equates both the terms _pointer_ and _piqué_ (from _piquer_ to prick) with the Italian _staccato_ or _spiccato_. O’Donnell, ‘The French Style and the Overtures of Bach’, p. 338, explains this equivalence as follows: ‘_Piquer_… is another word describing articulation, indicative of very detached performance, similar to the Italian _stoccata_ (translated by \[Roger] North as “stabb”)… Its application to the “piquant” French dance style led to its equation with _pointer_, “to dot”’. _L’Art de preluder_ includes a chapter which explains the various time signatures, including instructions about which notes are equal and which are dotted in each. For example, in discussing slow common time (_Mesure à 4 temps lents_), Hotteterre says: ‘the quavers here are equal and…the semiquavers here are dotted, that is to say, one long and one short’.[^25]  In cut common time (_Mesure du C barré_) he says: ‘the quavers here must be equal…unless the composer puts dots’.[^26]  Again this implies that inequality is the result of adding dots. [^25]: _L’Art de preluder_, p. 57: ‘les croches y sont egales et…les double croches y sont pointée c’est a dire une longue et une breve.’ [^26]: _L’Art de preluder_, p. 57: ‘les croches y doivent estre egales…a moins que le Compositeur n’y mette des points.’ Lastly, in _Methode pour la musette_ Hotteterre includes a section on note values. After explaining the relative values of the notes, he goes on to describe two meanings of the dot found after a note: > \[1] You sometimes put dots after the notes, which augment them by half of their value: thus a dotted minim is worth three crotchets; a dotted crotchet is worth three quavers, etc. > > \[2] In time signatures where the quavers are unequal, the dot which is after the crotchet makes the equivalent of a dotted quaver; the sort of quaver which follows [such] a dotted crotchet is always short.[^27] [^27]: _Methode pour la musette_, p. 35: ‘\[1] On met quelque fois des points après les Notes, ce qui les augmente de moitié de leur valeur: ainsi, une Blanche pointée vaut trois Noires; une Noire pointée vaut trois Croches, &c. \[2] Dans les mouvements où les Croches sont inégales, le point qui est après la Noire, fait un éqivalent à la Croche pointée; de sorte que la Croche qui suit une Noire pointée, est toûjours brève.’ In the first case, the dots (whether written or added by the performer) behave as we would expect. Note that Hotteterre says the dots ‘you put’ or ‘one puts’ (_on met_). It is not clear whether he means the dots the performer adds when playing _pointer_, or the dots added by the composer. He probably means both. In the second case, the written dot added to a crotchet does not behave as we would expect. This is in fact a description of double dotting which can be notated as in **Example 1**.[^28] Note that Hotteterre is specific about the effect the dot has on the length of a note (in the first case) and about the length of the dot itself (in the second case), but he is not specific about the quaver following the dotted crotchet (second case). He does not say it becomes a semiquaver, only that it is ‘always short’. This raises further questions. [^28]: This passage has been quoted by several modern writers in support of double dotting. See, for example, O’Donnell, ‘The French Style and the Overtures of Bach’, p. 337. Perhaps he did not need to be specific about the quaver becoming a semiquaver, because he thought it was obvious that this was the case. Or perhaps he left it open, because the short quaver is not always exactly a semiquaver. --- **Example 1**: Hotteterre’s description of double dotting. ![[example-1.png|350]] --- ## An Examination of Hotteterre’s Music The above is all Hotteterre has to say about rhythmic alteration in his didactic treatises. More information can be deduced by examining his published music. A comparison of the two editions of his _Pièces_ (Op. 2) reveals a number of differences. Hotteterre obviously took the opportunity, in preparing the engraved 1715 edition, to clarify certain points. --- **Example 2**: Hotteterre, Allemande _La Royalle (Gracieusement)_ from _Pièces_ (Op. 2) 1708, bars 1–2. ![[example-2.png|350]] **Example 3**: Hotteterre, Allemande _La Royalle (Gracieusement)_ from _Pièces_ (Op.2) 1715, bars 1–2. ![[example-3.png|400]] --- **Examples 2 and 3** bear directly on the present discussion. The time signature is 2, in which, according to Hotteterre, the quavers are normally played _pointer_. In the 1708 edition, he has added dots (and shortened the following quaver to a semiquaver) in the bass line in the first bar, and in the 1715 edition he has done the same in both bass and flute lines. So the quavers, written equally in the flute line of the first edition, are played dotted (_pointer_) as shown in the 1715 edition. Hotteterre does not continue this in the following bars—the first bar is sufficient reminder of what he wants. As we have seen, Hotteterre uses _pointer_ to describe both a note value and the convention of _notes inégales_. He does not make a distinction, so it is probable that there is none: a dot is a dot. If there were an important distinction (for example, that the dot means something different in each case), we could reasonably expect that he would mention it in his books intended for beginners. Hotteterre does in fact attempt to clarify two particular cases. When using the term to describe a note value, such as a dotted crotchet, all such notes will have a dot; however, when using the term to describe the practice of inequality, only every second note will have a dot. Hotteterre clarifies this latter situation by adding that ‘one is long and one is short’. Note that this is a clarification of application and does not imply that the dot is different in each context. The second clarification is the particular case, found in the passage describing double dotting, of the dot after a crotchet in time signatures where the quavers are unequal. In this case the dot does behave differently, so Hotteterre explains the difference (see **Example 1**). From the above evidence we can conclude that for Hotteterre a dot after a note, whether written or added by the performer, creates a degree of inequality between the lengths of the long and short notes of each pair that can be expressed as a ratio of 3:1 (3 semiquavers to 1 semiquaver in a pair of quavers—see **Examples 2 and 3**). In the case of double dotting, the ratio is 7:1. This also has the effect of making the short quavers (the semiquavers) synchronise.[^29]  So a passage of music which had one line moving in equally notated quavers with another line moving in dotted crotchet-quaver rhythm can be written, following Hotteterre’s explanations, as in **Example 4**.[^30]  **Example 5** shows how Hotteterre could have continued the passage quoted in **Example 3** to indicate the inequality and synchronisation of semiquavers. [^29]: Graham Pont has put forward a ‘paradigm of inconsistency’ which argues against the need to make such a synchronisation or regularisation, that composers may have intended the inconsistencies found in their scores. This paradigm goes against what Hotteterre is saying about the performance of his own music and can create unnecessary problems of ensemble. See Graham Pont, ‘Rhythmic Alteration and the Majestic’, _Studies in Music_ 12 (1978), pp. 68–100, and ‘Handel and Regularization: a Third Alternative’, _Early Music_ 13.4 (1985), pp. 500–505. For responses to this last article see Frederick Neumann, ‘Graham Pont’s “Paradigm of Inconsistency”’, _Early Music_ 14.3 (1986), pp. 403–406; David Wulstan, ‘Glorious Uncertainty’, _Early Music_ 14.3 (1986), pp. 406–409; and Graham Pont, ‘A Third Alternative’, _Early Music_ 14.3 (1986), pp. 409–411. [^30]: Michael Collins, ‘A Reconsideration of French Overdotting’, _Music and Letters_ 50 (1969), p. 118, uses a similar example to demonstrate synchronisation. He comments: ‘It no doubt seemed quite obvious that if four even quavers were played alternately long and short, then the quaver following a dotted crotchet had to be played shorter than its normal value to keep the parts synchronized’. --- **Example 4**: Synchronisation of _notes inégales_ following Hotteterre’s explanations. ![[example-4.png|600]] **Example 5**: Hotteterre, Allemande _La Royalle_ from _Pièces_(Op.2) 1715, bars 1–4. ![[example-5.png|600]] --- ## Varying the Degree of Inequality Hotteterre does not discuss the possibility of varying the degree of inequality. The only passage which may allow for the possibility of a different ratio between the long and short notes is the one describing double dotting, in which Hotteterre does not specify the note value of the quaver following a dotted crotchet, saying only that it is ‘always short’. However, Fuller’s aforementioned definition of inequality states that ‘the degree of inequality…could vary from the barely perceptible to the equivalent of double dotting, according to the character of the piece and the taste of the performer’. Therefore we need to examine the relevance of this statement to Hotteterre. **Étienne Loulié** (1654–1702) includes an often quoted discussion of even and uneven notes in his _Elements ou principes de musique_ (1696).[^31]  He describes four manners of performance. The first manner concerns disjunct intervals and will be discussed below. The fourth manner, a short-long performance notated as a 1:3 ratio in his example, is not relevant to Hotteterre. The second and third manners, however, bear directly on the present discussion: > Sometimes the first half-beat \[quaver] is made a little longer than the second. This manner is called _lourer_; it is used in melodies in which the sounds follow each other in conjunct motion… There is yet a third manner, in which the first half-beat is made much longer than the second, but then the first half-beat should have a dot. This third manner is called *piquer* or *pointer*.[^32] [^31]: Étienne Loulié, _Eléments ou principes de musique_ (Paris: Christophe Ballard, 1696). Facsimile reprint (Genève: Minkoff, 1971).Translated by Albert Cohen as _Étienne Loulié. Elements or Principles of Music_ (New York: Institute of Mediaeval Music, 1965). Loulié (c1655-c1707) was a ‘musician and theorist…who published three theoretical works and also left unpublished studies in MSS… His writings contain practical, systematic and enlightened contributions to the prevalent musical ideas of the time’ (Albert Cohen, ‘Loulié’, _The New Grove Dictionary_, vol. 11, p. 256). [^32]: Translation: Cohen, _Étienne Loulié_, pp. 29–30. In his unpublished _Supplément des Principes ou Elémens de Musique_,[^33] Loulié includes [Example 6](http://earlymusic.dikmans.net/hotteterre-on-rhythmic-alteration/#example-6) with the text just quoted. His description of the third manner and the example (_Piqué_ in **Ex. 6**) are in accord with Hotteterre and the 3:1 ratio. Loulié’s description of the second manner (_Louré_ in Ex. 6) indicates a milder ratio of 3:2. [^33]: This is an incomplete revision of the 1696 edition. Cohen, _Étienne Loulié_, incorporates the pertinent emendations and additions into his translation. Example 6 is transcribed on p. 67. --- **Example 6**: Loulié, _Supplément des Principes ou Elémens de Musique_ ![[example-6.png|650]] --- In arguing against the 3:1 ratio for _notes inégales_, Frederick Neumann has used this passage to suggest that ‘clearly only the _lourer_ with its mild unevenness represents _notes inégales_, since the concept of _inégalité_ refers solely to evenly written pairs of notes’.[^34]  John O’Donnell answers this argument conclusively: ‘\[b]ut this is impossible, since the literal meaning of _lourer_ is ‘to slur’, and no contemporary writer limits inequality to slurred notes. It was unnecessary for Loulié to define _lourer_, for he would simply have been saying ‘to slur’ means ‘to slur’.[^35] [^34]: fn3 in Neumann, _Essays in Performance Practice_, p. 120. [^35]: O’Donnell, ‘The French Style and the Overtures of Bach’, p. 338. So Loulié supports the more vigorous 3:1 ratio for _pointer_, which is tongued, and allows a milder ratio of 3:2 for slurred pairs. In light of Hotteterre’s vagueness about the length of the quaver following a double dotted crotchet, it is possible that he might also have used the milder inequality when tonguing, if the character of the piece and taste so dictated. Betty Bang Mather quotes Marie Dominique Joseph Engramelle’s _La tonotechnie, ou l’art de noter les cylindres_ (1775) as allowing > a possible ratio of 3:1 in his text, but his examples showed only the less unequal ratios of 2:1, 3:2 (the most frequently used), 5:3, 7:5 and 9:7. The latter three relationships may be perceived simply as an agogic accent to our ears, and that is their function and effect.[^36] [^36]: Betty Bang Mather, _Interpretation of French Music from 1675 to 1775: for Woodwind and Other Performers_ (New York: McGinnis & Marx, 1973), pp. 3–4. Engramelle (1727–1805) was a ‘French builder of mechanical instruments… The description (in his _La tonotechnie_, 1775, and Bédos de Celles) of his invention of a numbered dial (_cadran_) and its use in “notating” the studded barrels of mechanical musical instruments were important in his own time and constitute an invaluable source of information today on French late Baroque performing practices’ (Hans-Peter Schmitz, ‘Engramelle’, _The New Grove Dictionary_, vo1. 6, p. 202). But agogic accent is not inequality as defined by Hotteterre and Loulié. The confusion of the two has no doubt led to the ‘generalized rubato’ and ‘audible analysis’ which Fuller says is ‘practiced by modern players of Baroque music \[but] which has nothing to do with _notes inégales_ and cannot be justified as a rendition of it or a substitute for it’.[^37] [^37]: Fuller, ‘The Performer as Composer’, pp. 138–139. --- ## The Notation (or Not) of Inequality In his definition of _notes inégales_ Fuller also states that this ‘rhythmic convention…is independent of questions of notation’, and elsewhere that ‘there was no clear boundary between dotted rhythms, whether exaggerated or not, and _notes inégales_’.[^38]  Hotteterre sometimes writes the dots and sometimes does not, often within the same piece, and often on notes which would normally be played _pointer_ anyway. There seems to be no consistent logic in his notation. [^38]: Fuller, ‘The Performer as Composer’, p. 135. The problem, then, is to decide whether the notated dotting - is a reminder to make the rest of the short note values unequal (as I have suggested is the case in the Allemande _La Royalle_); - indicates a contrast of mild and vigorous inequality; - or whether, following Graham Pont’s ‘paradigm of inconsistency’, the undotted notes are to be played as written. In the absence of any instructions from Hotteterre we will have to judge each case on its context and let taste decide. I do believe, however, that the last possibility is least likely because Hotteterre is so inconsistent that it would be impossible to establish any coherent character in a piece if the notated rhythms were followed exactly. --- ## Unequal (or Not) Disjunct Intervals The unequal performance of disjunct intervals is possible, as shown in the Allemande _La Royalle_. Hotteterre sometimes indicates the equal performance of disjunct melodies, or parts of melodies, by instructions in the score such as _croches égales_ (equal crotchets) or by adding dots above the notes. The problem is knowing his intention when he does not give an indication. Some theorists did associate inequality with conjunct motion and equality with disjunct motion in those situations where inequality would normally be the case. For example, Loulié explains his first manner of performing the half-beats (mentioned above) as follows: > They are sometimes made equal. This manner is called “to detach the notes” (_détacher les Nottes_); it is used in melodies in which the sounds follow each other in disjunct motion, and in all sorts of foreign music, where one never alters them rhythmically except where indicated.[^39] **Example 7**. [^39]: Translation: Cohen, _Étienne Loulié_, p. 29. --- Example 7: Loulié, _Elements ou principes de musique_ (1696). ![[example-7.png|450]] --- Hotteterre makes no specific reference to this practice in _Principes_, but there is one reference in _L’Art de preluder_. In his discussion of simple 3 time, where the quavers would normally be unequal, he includes an example from the beginning of a couplet in a _passacaille_ by Lully together with a brief explanation: > \[Here is an] example in this same time signature with equal quavers… The quavers are made equal for this reason: it is firstly that they leap by intervals, and over and above this, that they are mixed with semiquavers.[^40]  **Example 8**. [^40]: _L’Art de preluder_, p.58: ‘Exemple, de cette même espece de Mesure avec les croches egales… Ce qui fait que les croches sont egales dans cette occasion, c’est premieremt. de ce qu’elles sautent par intervales, et par dessus cela de ce qu’elles sont mellées avec des doubles croches’. --- Example 8: Hotteterre, _Couplet de la Passacaille d’Armide_ in _L’Art de preluder_, p. 58 ![[example-8.png|600]] --- This is too brief a reference to allow us to take it as a rule with general applicability. Also the language used implies that the more compelling indication of equality in this example is that the quavers are mixed with semiquavers. Hotteterre often shifts between conjunct and disjunct motion within the same piece, where there are no smaller note values mixed in with the normally unequal notes. This may or may not indicate that the equality and inequality should also shift. For example, a melody which moves in disjunct quavers against a bass moving in conjunct quavers probably implies inequality in both. Again each case needs to be judged on its context with taste being the arbiter. --- ## Unequal Slurred Pairs The practice of performing slurred pairs of notes unequally, which Loulié and others called _lourer_, has already been mentioned.[^41]  Confirmation of this practice can be found in Hotteterre’s music by comparing the two versions of the Sarabande _La Fidelle_ from Op. 2 (**Examples 9 and 10**). In the 1708 edition the instruction is to play _Coulé & Pointé_ (slurred and dotted) and in the 1715 edition it is _Croches inégales et coulées_ (quavers unequal and slurred).[^42]  Hotteterre has also added the slurs above the quavers in the first bar of the later edition, thus pairing them. As mentioned earlier, Hotteterre does not discuss a degree of inequality other than 3:1; either this or possibly Loulié’s 3:2 would be appropriate in performing this _pièce_. [^41]: Mather, _Interpretation of French Music_, p. 39, explains the origin of this practice as follows: ‘This practice…came from attempts to imitate the non-detached, slightly long-short and loud-soft performance of the instruments known as the _loure_, _cornemuse_, and _musette_ (all members of the bagpipe family) and the _vielle_ (hurdy gurdy). These instruments possessed a drone and were therefore incapable of clean articulations. The only means players of these drone instruments had of defining the beat was to lengthen and strengthen the long first note of pairs fitting within the beat.’ [^42]: These instructions could be a warning not to play the quavers in the bass line equally as would normally be the case in an Italian sarabande with similar constant quaver motion, as Hotteterre explains in his discussion of simple 3 time in _L’Art de preluder_, p. 59. --- Example 9: Hotteterre, Sarabande _La Fidelle (Coulé & Pointé)_from _Pièces_ (Op. 2) 1708, bars 1–2. ![[example-9.png|375]] Example 10: Hotteterre, Sarabande _La Fidelle (Croches inegales et coulées)_ from _Pièces_ (Op. 2) 1715, bars 1–2. ![[example-10.png|375]] --- ## Inequality with Long Slurs Hotteterre does not discuss the effect of slurs over more than two notes; neither do other French sources of the time. However, the issue has been taken up in the modern literature. Fuller is correctly cautious when he states that ‘the long slur seems at times to be intended to cancel pairing and to suggest to the player that only the first note should be emphasized’,[^43]  whereas Mather is unequivocal: ‘\[s]lurs over more than a pair of notes also signalled equality’.[^44] [^43]: Fuller, ‘Notes Inégalés’, p. 422 [^44]: Mather, _Interpretation of French Music_, p. 3. The evidence provided by the music is also unclear. In the Musette from his second suite for two flutes Op. 6, Hotteterre slurs the quavers in groups of four and gives the instruction to play _Doucement, et les croches pointées_ (sweetly or softly, and the quavers dotted). Unfortunately, it is not clear whether Hotteterre is reminding the player of the normal practice or whether he is asking the player to employ a special practice in this specific case (**Example 11**). --- Example 11: Hotteterre, Musette (_Doucement, et les croches pointées_) from _Deuxième suitte de pièces a deux dessus… Oeuvre VIème_ (1717). ![[example-11.png|375]] --- ## Inequality and Articulation Syllables Various authors have put forward the view that there is a relationship between Hotteterre’s articulation syllables (_tu ru_) and inequality.[^45] Others have gone a step further and argued that the use of _tu ru_ causes inequality.[^46]  However, Fuller argues against this view, saying: > there is no necessary connection between playing technique and rhythmic unevenness unless the tempo is very fast or the player unskilled… Inequality was essentially a matter of rhythmic style, not performing technique, and it obeyed laws of metre and expression, not of fingers or tongue.[^47] [^45]: See, for example, Mather, _Interpretation of French Music_, p. 32. [^46]: See, for example, Bradford Arthur, ‘The Articulation of Hotteterre’s _Tu-Ru_’, _The American Recorder_, 14.3 (1973), p. 81. [^47]: Fuller, ‘The Performer as Composer’, pp. 137–138. In a footnote to this passage he cites other sources that have argued that inequality is the consequence of playing techniques: Sol Babitz, _Rhythmic Freedom: a Historical Table in the Light of Wind-Instrument Tonguing_ (Los Angeles, 1974); N. Powell, _Early Keyboard Fingering and its Effect on Articulation_ (diss., Stanford U., 1956); and G. Houle ‘Tonguing and Rhythmic Patterns in Early Music’, _American Recorder_, 6 (1965), pp. 4–13. Fuller’s case is supported by the evidence in _Principes_. Hotteterre uses _tu ru_ in both its **normal** and **reversed** forms for the articulation of unequal notes.[^48]  What we can say is that the more vigorous type of inequality (including double dotting) is more easily expressed with the normal form of _tu ru_. This is not so much because of the speed with which one can move the tongue from _tu_ to _ru_, but because of the articulation silence which precedes _tu_, the length of which can be varied at will. Indeed, this type of inequality needs the articulation silence. So a figure such as (a) in **Example 12** can be played as shown in (b) or even (c), which also creates an agogic accent. This type of phrasing is not possible if the reversed form of _tu ru_ is used. [^48]: The following list (by no means complete) gives some of the most important studies that deal with Hotteterre’s articulation syllables: **Arthur**, ‘The Articulation of Hotteterre’s _Tu- Ru_’, pp. 79–82; **David Lasocki**, ‘The Tonguing Syllables of the French Baroque’, _The American Recorder_ 8.3 (1967), pp. 81–82; **Lasocki**, ‘Pronunciation’, ‘History of _tu_ and _ru_’ and ‘Articulation’ in _Principles of the Flute, Recorder and Oboe_; **Mather**, _Interpretation of French Music_, pp. 32–39; **Betty Bang Mather with Dean M. Karns**, ‘Articulation of Dance Rhythms in Concert Pieces’ (Ch. 14) and ‘Grouping Unslurred Quick Notes’ (Ch. 16) in _Dance Rhythms of the French Baroque: a Handbook for Performance_(Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987); and **Dikmans**, ‘The Performance Practice of Early 18th-Century French Flute Music’, pp. 93–110. --- Example 12: Articulation silence with _tu ru_ (normal form). ![[example-12.png|700]] --- Hotteterre explains the use of the reversed form at the end of the section on articulation in _Principes_. He says that ‘although these rules \[governing the normal form of tu ru] apply generally, there are nevertheless some exceptions in certain passages, as you can see here’.[^49]  (**Example 13**) [^49]: _Principes_, p. 30: ‘Quoyque ces Regles soient générales, elles admettent cependent quelques exceptions, dans certains passages, comme on le peut voir icy’. --- Example 13: The use of _tu ru_ (reversed form) in exceptional cases. ![[example-13.png|700]] --- These passages can be played just as easily with the normal form of _tu ru_; however, Hotteterre says that the reversed form (that is, without the articulation silence between the long and short notes) is used ‘for a greater softening or sweetening \[of the articulation], and it is taste which decides it’.[^50]  The implication is that he equates softness or sweetness with a more legato effect. He then goes on to say: > you must consult this same taste when the tongue strokes seem rough doing them in the way that I have explained in the first examples, and you must decide upon that which seems most agreeable to the ear, without regard to the arrangement of the notes [that is, whether they are odd or even in number, and whether they move by leaps or conjunct intervals], nor the different passages.[^51] [^50]: _Principes_, pp. 30–31: ‘Cela ce fait pour un plus grand adoucissement, & c’est le goût qui en décide’. [^51]: _Principes_, p. 31: ‘On doit donc consulter ce même goût, lorsque les coups de Langue paroîtront rudes en les faisant de la maniere que je les ay expliquez dans les premiers Exemples, & l’on doit s’arréter à ce qui semblera le plus agréable à l’Oreille, sans avoir égard à l’arrangement des Notes, ni aux differents mouvements’. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that in pieces with indications such as _gayment_ or _majesteusement_ the more articulated normal form of _tu ru_ is appropriate, while in pieces with indications such as _tendrement_ or _douloureusement_, the more legato reversed form of _tu ru_ is suitable. It is also possible that the use of the reversed form of _tu ru_ implies a milder degree of inequality, such a s Loulié’s _lourer_ ratio of 3:2. --- ## Conclusion In this case study I have confined myself to a very specific problem: how one particular performer approached rhythmic alteration in the performance of his own music.[^52]  In so doing I hope also to have addressed the need for the specialised and critical study that should support a new approach to historical performance practice, an approach that exploits two modes of interpretation: restoration of meaning and demystification of meaning. [^52]: I am not proposing, however, that the results of this research are necessarily relevant to all French Baroque music, or even to all French Baroque flute music. --- > [!link] Related Links > - [[§ Hotteterre on Performance]] > - [[Hotteterre - Principles of the Flute]] > - [[Hotteterre - Suite 1 for two melody instruments]] > Recording > - [[Hotteterre - Suite 3 for flute with bass]] > Recording --- <small>[[AI Use Statement]]</small> <small>© Greg Dikmans. Licensed under [CC BY-NC 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). [[Rights and Sharing]]</small>