Scott Russel Dissertation Gallay Pedagogy

THE HISTORY AND PEDAGOGY OF JACQUES-FRANÇOIS GALLAY’S
NON-MEASURED PRELUDES FOR HORN, OP. 27, NOS. 21–40
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
for the degree
DOCTOR OF ARTS
by
SCOTT RUSSELL
Approved by:
Dr. Fred Ehnes, Co-Chair Date
Dr. Peter McAllister, Co-Chair Date
Dr. John Seidel Date
Dr. Eleanor Trawick Date
Dr. Joseph Misiewicz Date
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
OCTOBER, 2004
THE HISTORY AND PEDAGOGY OF JACQUES-FRANÇOIS GALLAY’S
NON-MEASURED PRELUDES FOR HORN, OP. 27, NOS. 21–40
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF ARTS
BY
SCOTT RUSSELL
DISSERTATION ADVISORS:
DR. FRED EHNES AND DR. PETER MCALLISTER
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
OCTOBER, 2004
© 2004
Scott Edward Russell
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ABSTRACT
The Non-Measured Preludes for Horn, Op. 27, Nos. 21 – 40, by Jacques-François
Gallay are important tools for teaching advanced horn students to make music – not just
by playing the right notes and right rhythms, but by requiring students to make musical
decisions based on the contours of melodic lines and the characters implicit in the work.
There has been no single synthesis, however, of the issues performers face when trying to
interpret non-measured music. This study determines the most accurate published edition
and corrects or clarifies several items in that text, presents appropriate questions
regarding the interpretation of non-measured preludes through historical and contextual
analyses, and presents a sample of modern pedagogical opinions regarding performance
of Gallay’s Non-Measured Preludes.
I compared four published editions to the earliest available edition (published by
Gallet in 1933) and noted all differences. I then synthesized research from a wide range
of historical and pedagogical materials so as to provide a single source of information
regarding performance practice and interpretative issues. In addition, I took lessons on
the Gallay Preludes with three major horn teachers in order to collect and document a
sample of current pedagogical opinion.
Of the four later published editions, the Sansone edition of 1960 seems to be the
most accurate; the study includes a table of twenty-five corrections or clarifications to the
Sansone edition. The historical evidence points to the improvisatory nature of the original
non-measured preludes as one of the most important considerations in developing a
conceptual framework for interpretation. Other important considerations include hand
horn technique and the overall character of each prelude. The Non-Measured Preludes are
used to introduce advanced students to the more refined analytical and musical skills
required of professional-level playing.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A project of this scope is never undertaken or completed without the help of many
hands. I am grateful to all of them; a few deserve special mention.
First and foremost is my wife, Carol, for her never-failing faith and support of me
and of this project. To allow this to happen, she endured a leap of faith by making the
one-year move to Muncie and away from family, friends, and all the work we knew. Her
determination to see this finished was often reason enough to chain myself to the
keyboard and slave away for a few more hours. Thank you for your encouragement,
devotion, and love through this arduous journey. You earned the “A” in this D.A. long
ago. I’m glad I can finally finish my part!
I would also like to thank my parents for supporting me through the many years
of my musical education. Making a career out of music performance and education would
have been impossible without their unflagging support and confidence in my choices.
A strong debt of thanks is owed to Dr. Peter McAllister for keeping me on task
and persuading me that there is life after dissertation. I would also like to thank the other
members of my committee: Dr. Fred Ehnes, Dr. Eleanor Trawick, Dr. John Seidel, and
Dr. Joseph Misiewicz. Their questions, guidance, and prodding have allowed me to
stretch in some musical and academic ways I had not imagined possible.
Finally, I would like to thank Tom Sherwood, who demonstrates and teaches not
only the highest of musical standards, but the greatest of personal values, as well. Your
teaching, encouragement, and example have served as constant compass points in both
my musical career and in my personal life.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements iii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Introduction 1
Need for the Study 3
Purpose of the Study 5
Delimitations of the Study 7
Definitions 8
Chapter 2. Review of Related Literature 16
History of Non-Measured Preludes (Préludes non mesurés) 16
Definition, Description, and Function 16
Non-Measured Preludes for Lute (pre-1600 – 1700) 17
Non-Measured Preludes for Harpsichord (1650 – 1720) 20
Non-Measured Preludes for Woodwinds (1790 – 1830) 33
Gallay, Non-Measured Preludes for Horn (ca. 1839) 39
Horn History and Pedagogy 1800 – 1840 43
General Horn History 43
General Horn Pedagogy 51
Horn Professors of the Paris Conservatory 56
Gallay’s Life and Works 60
Performance Practice 62
General Remarks about Performance Practice 62
Issues Specific to the Horn at the Paris Conservatoire 69

v
Chapter 3. Methodology 74
Chapter 4. Results 80
Chapter 5. Discussion 94
Appendix A. Commercially Available Recordings of the Non-Measured Preludes 99
Appendix B. The Recorded Non-Measured Preludes 100
Appendix C. Published Editions of the Gallay Preludes, Op. 27 101
Appendix D. Availability of Published Editions 102
Appendix E. Numbering Discrepancies Among the Published Editions 103
Appendix F. Comparison of Published Editions 104
Appendix G. Transcripts / Notes of Lessons with Gardner, Hill, and Seraphinoff 149
Lesson with Randy Gardner (Notes) 149
Lesson with Douglas Hill (Notes) 155
Lesson with Richard Seraphinoff (Transcript) 159
Appendix H. Gallay: “On the Subjects of Taste, Style, Nuance, and Expression” 186
References 192
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
The Non-Measured Preludes of Jacques-François Gallay are considered by many
leading horn teachers to be of great pedagogical value for the modern horn player.
Douglas Hill, Professor of Horn at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, cites high-
range lyricism, endurance, and Romantic period cadenza studies as good reasons for
study of these preludes.1 He also recommends them as recital pieces for unaccompanied
horn.2 Likewise, Verne Reynolds, retired Professor of Horn from the Eastman School of
Music, lists four of the preludes as “unusual recital pieces,” in the best sense of the term.
He recognizes that their judicious study can help brass players “develop a solo style
tempered only by good taste and judgment.”3 Randy Gardner, Professor of Horn at the
University of Cincinnati, introduces all of his graduate students to these preludes. Add to
this auspicious list the name of Philip Farkas who considered the works of Gallay,
particularly these non-measured preludes, to be the “antidote to [the more technically
oriented] Kopprasch. … You do exactly what Kopprasch did not intend you to do. …
1
Hill (2001), 156.
2
Hill (2001), 138.
3
Reynolds (1997), 62.
2
Kopprasch made you a horn-playing machine. Gallay should bring out the gypsy in
you.”4
These preludes also highlight an interesting era in the horn’s development.
Gallay’s Preludes, Op. 27, written in ca. 1839 represent the pinnacle of hand-horn
writing. The year 1833 saw the appointment of Joseph Meifred to lead the first valved
horn class at the Paris Conservatory. From that point, the horn teaching world divides
into two camps: the conservative hand horn players and the revolutionary valved horn
players. The advent of valves allowed composers to explore new ways of writing for the
horn. In addition, these preludes are exercises written by the first cor alto to be appointed
as a Professor of the Paris Conservatory. Most of the important players before Gallay
were the more agile cor basse players. Gallay stood on the unpopular sides of both of
these schisms: first, he was a hand horn teacher in a world progressively accepting the
valved instrument; second, he was a high horn player in a position historically dominated
by low horn players.
The study of non-measured music is one of the greatest of pedagogical and
performance challenges. Realization of non-measured music requires a great deal of
musical knowledge, a keen understanding of rhythmic perception, and fine aesthetic
skills. Without barlines or the systematic alternation of strong and weak beats to which
one is normally accustomed, a performer must use other means of determining melodic
and harmonic accents.
4
Fako, (1998), 226.
3
Need for the Study
Gallay’s Non-Measured Preludes from Opus 27 can serve as models for many
musical and aesthetic problems. What we learn from them can be applied to many other
genres: unaccompanied solos (particularly those in the modern era), lyrical orchestral
solos, Romantic period cadenzas, and others. These preludes are most appropriate for
study by advanced high school students and collegiate players. They require a fluent
middle and high range, often ascending to c’’’, sometimes multiple times in a single
prelude. They are of variable length, but all require the confidence and experience of
students who have successfully performed intermediate and advanced repertoire.
To date, only a handful of recordings include any of Gallay’s Non-Measured
Preludes. The only solo recording of Philip Farkas contains four of the preludes;5 Lucien
Thévet has recorded two of them;6 and Richard Runnels, six.7 No other recording of these
works appears to be commercially available at the present time. This leaves eleven of
these preludes with no recorded precedents from which performers can learn. For a
complete listing of the recorded preludes, consult Appendices A and B.
What is also lacking is a comprehensive written guide to approach this
pedagogically daunting material. How are phrases determined? How do we separate
melodic and harmonic material? How do we distinguish consonances from dissonances?
How do we add appropriate dynamic nuances, rhythmic nuances, or rubato? While a
handful of teachers like Douglas Hill, Randy Gardner, and Verne Reynolds praise the
5
Philip Farkas, Shared Reflections (Tempe, AZ: Summit Records, DCD 176, 1995). This
CD contains material originally recorded in the 1960s.
6
Lucien Thévet, Recital 1 (Paris, France: Arpèges Diffusion, IMD 0003, 2000).
7
Richard Runnels, Hornocopia (Australia: Move Records, MD 3172, 1997).
4
non-measured preludes and use them in their own studios, the rest of us are left without
written resources and with only a very few recorded resources.
Finally, the most readily available modern editions contain alterations, additions,
or omissions of dynamic markings, articulations, and even notes. None of these editions
pretends to give an accurate representation of the original manuscript version, nor do they
indicate where an editor has made stylistic or other deviations from an earlier edition.
Performers attempting an accurate reproduction are left without guidance.

5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the historical and pedagogical issues
surrounding Jacques-François Gallay’s Non-Measured Preludes for Horn, Op. 27, Nos.
21-40. Several questions need to be confronted when beginning work on a non-measured
prelude: determining appropriate tempo, finding satisfying phrase structures, and shaping
melodic and harmonic materials to produce a coherent performance. The results of this
study will be a single comprehensive resource from which modern horn students and
teachers may draw information about these Non-Measured Preludes. The information
presented here will empower students and teachers to study and perform these preludes
with historical accuracy, not only in the details of the printed score, but also in recreating
the spirit in which they were created and originally performed. Of primary importance is
the raising of several pedagogical questions and addressing them in terms of modern
research and scholarship. The intent is not to provide definitive answers to these
questions, but instead to provide a knowledgeable context from which a discerning
teacher or student may draw. This study will examine the historical context in which
these pieces were written and the historical performance techniques that must be taken
into account when attempting a modern performance. The opinions of leading horn
teachers will also be presented: Randy Gardner (University of Cincinnati), Douglas Hill
(University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Richard Seraphinoff (Indiana University). All
three of these gentlemen are former students of Philip Farkas and are respected teachers
at the top of their field. Mr. Seraphinoff is recognized as an eminent hand-horn scholar
and performer.
6
Offering definitive answers to interpretive questions in a genre that is meant to
sound improvisatory, and which is thereby susceptible to the whim and fancy of the
performer, would truly be a dangerous and self-defeating goal. Such is not the task at
hand. What can be offered with greater assurance of certainty are not the answers to these
questions, but the questions themselves. When approaching such unconventional works
one must first begin the process of learning them by asking relevant, informative, and
insightful questions. Therefore, the purpose of this dissertation is threefold: first, to
compare all available published editions of the Préludes non mesurés (numbers 21-40) of
Gallay’s Op. 27; second, to present appropriate questions regarding the interpretation of
non-measured preludes through an historical and contextual analysis of non-measured
preludes, in general, and of Gallay’s Op. 27, in particular; and third, to present a sample
of modern pedagogical opinions regarding the performance of the Gallay, Op. 27 Non-
Measured Preludes.
7
Delimitations of the Study
For this study, I will compare the Non-Measured Preludes from all known
published editions of the Gallay Preludes, Op. 27, with the original manuscript in order to
determine the need for creating a new critical edition of these works. The five known
editions published between 1933 and 1976 are listed in Appendix C. In the absence of a
manuscript copy, I will attempt to construct a critical edition based on the best available
evidence.
While a thorough study of hand horn technique and performance practice is
essential for an accurate historical reproduction, this study will focus on the musical and
aesthetic information that modern players on modern instruments can glean from these
studies. Thus, discussions of hand horn technique will be limited to its impact on the
interpretation of these specific preludes. For more complete discussions of hand horn
technique and pedagogy, the reader is referred to the writings by Paul Austin, Thomas
Brown, Birchard Coar, Thomas Hiebert, Nancy Glen, Margaret Robinson, and Jeffrey
Snedeker.
8
Definitions
MUSICAL NOTATION
All references to pitch will be to the notated pitch, not the sounding (concert)
pitch. The octave notation system used throughout this paper will be the same as that of
The Horn Call, the journal of the International Horn Society:
NON-MEASURED PRELUDES (préludes non mesurés)
The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians defines prélude non mesuré
as “A term usually reserved for a body of 17th-century harpsichord preludes that are
written without orthodox indications of rhythm and metre.”8 Howard Ferguson amplifies
this somewhat by describing the notation and interpretation of these preludes:
“Unmeasured preludes consist essentially of long strings of unbarred

semibreves, whose rhythmic interpretation is left to the taste of the performer; but
smaller note-values are sometimes introduced, and occasionally a section in some
normally barred rhythm may occur. … Their rhythmic interpretation is therefore
expected to vary from occasion to occasion, and should never be exactly the same
twice running.”9
8
Moroney (2001), 294.
9
Ferguson (1975), 23.
9
Colin Tilney derives his definition from the “absence of barlines and time-
signatures”10 and Donna Beccia-Schuster includes the additional performance practice
that they are “intended to be played in a free, unmetrical style.”11
David Ledbetter, when speaking of non-measured lute preludes, distinguishes
between unmeasured and semi-measured preludes:
“Many of these preludes are without any rhythmic indication whatever, in which
case they may justly be called unmeasured. But there are usually at least some
rhythm stems above the tablature, generally to indicate a note or chord to be dwelt
on or to indicate broad tempo proportions; they very rarely indicate regular
rhythmic patterns. Preludes notated in this way are probably best described as
semi-measured.”12
Throughout this document I will rely upon the term “non-measured preludes” to
represent the full range of preludes discussed above. The terms ‘unmeasured’ and ‘non-
measured’ are used synonymously in the literature. I have chosen to use ‘non-measured
preludes’ throughout as a closer literal translation of the French préludes non mesurés.
While the distinction between completely non-measured preludes and semi-measured
ones is important in Ledbetter’s discussion of the lute repertoire, I will simply make note
of those preludes that are completely non-measured and those that contain some
measured portions. Ledbetter would term these latter examples semi-measured, but that
seems only to complicate the issue when regarding this limited amount of repertoire.
10
Tilney (1991), Vol. 3, 2.
11
Beccia-Schuster (1991), 8.
12
Ledbetter (1987), 40.
10
HORN
The complete ancestry of the horn probably predates civilization. Several authors,
including Janetzky and Brüchle, Morley-Pegge, and Tuckwell, have given rather detailed
accounts of the origins of the horn and its pre-musical use. My purpose in this section is
to examine the horn as a musical instrument; that is, to trace its development from its first
appearances as a solo and orchestral instrument to the present day.
What is, generally speaking, a horn? And how do we distinguish it from other
brass instruments?
“Essentially the French horn is a long, slender, conoidal tube, the bore of
which increases very gradually over the first two-thirds or so of its length and
then expands rapidly to end in a large everted bell. It is coiled in the form of a
hoop in one or more complete circles, the bore at the outset being about 9 to 10
millimetres and the diameter of the bell varying from about 16 cm. in the case of
17th-century examples to 30 cm. or a little more for modern horns of the German
model. The narrow end is provided with a mouthpiece that is more or less funnel-
shaped, the inner profile of which has a marked influence on the quality of the
tone emitted.”13
“… the conical shape of the bore is an essential characteristic of the horn: in this
respect the horn differs from the instruments of the trumpet or trombone families,
whose tubes are cylindrical throughout most of their length.”14
The horn was first used in the orchestra in 1757.15 At that time, the horn was what
we refer to as a natural horn, that is, “A horn consisting only of a pipe, with neither side
holes operated by keys nor additional tubing operated by valves.”16 The natural horn is
limited to the notes of the harmonic series:
13
Morley-Pegge (1973), 1.
14
Janetzky and Brüchle (1988), 57-58.
15
Coar (1952), 25.
16
Randel (1998), s.v. “Natural Horn,” 331.
11
The numbers refer to the specific harmonics. In order for a natural horn player to
play pitches from a different harmonic series, he would insert a length of tubing called a
crook to lower the pitch to the correct key. Natural horns were built so that they stood in
a relatively high key like C alto so that these crooks could correctly lower the pitch.
Between 1760 and 1795, Hampel conducted several experiments in hand
stopping,17 wherein the right hand or some other appliance was inserted into the bell of
the instrument, thus altering the pitch and producing pitches outside of the harmonic
series. Grove Online identifies Valentin Roeser as the first to offer a complete description
of hand horn technique.18
Hand stopping is the technique of placing the right hand in the bell of the natural
horn and partially closing off the bell to lower the pitch by as much as a semitone, thus
increasing the number of pitches that could be produced on the natural horn. The use of
this technique results in a difference in timbre between the open (or natural) notes and the
stopped notes.19 This was regarded as a minor disadvantage when weighed against the
novel possibility of playing an entire diatonic scale with only one crook. And, “within a
restricted range of about an octave and a half between the fourth and twelfth harmonics –
17
Coar (1952), 1-2.
18
Meucci and Rocchetti (2001), “Horn, 2. History to c. 1800, iii. Crooks and Hand
Technique,” page 2 of 4.
19
Randel (1998), s.v. “Horn,” 228.
12
the best part of the horn’s compass for solo work – a chromatic scale could be played
with almost even tone quality.”20
Teachers of the natural horn and of hand horn technique invariably classified
players into two categories: cor alto and cor basse. Cor alto players specialized in the
instrument’s higher range and played on a smaller mouthpiece; cor basse players
specialized in the lower range and played on a larger mouthpiece.
There is some slight disagreement about the real ranges of cor alto and cor basse,
but Morley-Pegge provides what is typically regarded as the normal range of the two
genres of playing: the cor alto range encompassing the fourth to sixteenth harmonics and
the cor basse range starting on the factitious note a perfect fourth below the second
harmonic to the 12th harmonic, as shown on the following table: 21
cor alto: c’ to c’’’
cor basse: G to g’’
Most horn teachers, including Gallay, referred to the genres as first horn (instead
of cor alto) and second horn (instead of cor basse), but the functional division was the
same. Most modern writers on the horn maintain the terminology of cor alto and cor
basse and I will follow in that tradition. With the advent of the double horn (see below),
modern players are expected to play with equal proficiency throughout the entire three-
20
Morley-Pegge (1973), 2-3.
21
13
and-a-half octave range (approximately F to c’’’, although professional players
commonly exceed this range on one end or the other). Nevertheless, modern orchestral
players tend to specialize in either low or high playing once they have begun a
professional career.
In the early nineteenth century there arose a new genre of playing called cor
mixte. Players in this style emphasized melodic playing, especially of solos, in the middle
range, usually on the F crook. In the octave and a half between the fourth and 12 partials,
the horn had become a chromatic instrument because of the improvements in hand
stopping. It was this range to which the cor mixte was limited. Its advocates were often
criticized because of this limited range.22 Morley-Pegge gives the range of cor mixte as
that wherein cor alto and cor basse overlap, that is, between the fourth and twelfth
harmonics. He cites the third harmonic, g, as exceptionally low:23
cor mixte (with F crook):
g (exceptionally low) to g’’
The invention of the valve in the early nineteenth century revolutionized brass
instrument performance and pedagogy techniques dramatically. The first person to hold a
patent on a valved instrument was the Irish inventor Charles Clagget with his “Cromatic
Trumpet and French horn” of 1788.24 Its practical value is severely denigrated by Morley-
Pegge, but it marks the beginning of the endeavor to make brass instruments fully
22
Robinson (1998), 14.
23
24
14
chromatic. The joint ten-year patent taken out by Heinrich Stölzel and Friedrich Blühmel
in 1818 marks the beginning of the practical application of valve technology to brass
instruments. In the 1820s, Louis-François Dauprat, Professor of Horn at the Paris
Conservatory, and Joseph Meifred, who later became Professor of Valve Horn at the
Paris Conservatory, experimented independently with designs for valve horns. Dauprat’s
1827 attempts to create a horn with square valves dissatisfied him immensely and he gave
up any further attempts. In the same year, Meifred designed a horn that won a silver
medal at the Paris Industrial Exhibition.25
By the end of the nineteenth century, the standard instrument was the three-valve
horn pitched in F. “Three dependent valves that lower the pitch respectively by a
semitone, a tone, and three semitones suffice for the production of a complete chromatic
scale from six semitones below the second harmonic upwards.”26 The three-valve horn in
F provides warmth of color in the middle ranges while allowing players to play in a range
from F# to c’’’ with relative ease.
In 1897 the horn-maker Kruspe designed a double horn in F and B-flat.27 The
switch between the two sides of the instrument is effected by use of a fourth valve
(operated by the thumb) which raises the pitch a perfect fourth. A second set of tubing is
installed for each valve, thus allowing the player to pitch the horn in F, E, E-flat, D, D-
flat, C, or B without the use of the thumb valve, or into the higher keys of B-flat, A, A-
flat, G, or F-sharp (then overlapping the F side of the instrument with F and E horns).
25
26
27
Meucci and Rocchetti (2002), “Horn, 3. History from c. 1800, ii. Valve horns,” page 3
of 3.
15
Modern instrument makers provide horn players with a wealth of choices,
including single horns in F, single horns in B-flat, double horns in F and B-flat, descant
horns in various combinations (most common are horns in B-flat/F alto or B-flat/E-flat
alto), and triple horns (F/B-flat/F alto or F/B-flat/E-flat alto). Most students begin on a
single horn in F or a double horn in F/B-flat. Usually by the time students are in high
school and certainly by the time they attend college, they are playing a double horn in
F/B-flat. Exceptions are rare. For the purposes of this paper, it is assumed that the student
performer is playing on a standard double horn in F and B-flat.

CHAPTER TWO
Review of Literature
History of Préludes non-mesurés
Definition, Description, and Function of Préludes non-mesurés
While the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians defines Prélude non
mesuré as “a term usually reserved for a body of 17th-century harpsichord preludes that
are written without orthodox indications of rhythm and metre,”28 the performance and
composition of non-measured preludes dates from the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
practices of Renaissance lutenists and continued for various instrumentalists well into the
nineteenth century.
The performance of preludes was originally an improvised art and its best
practitioners were highly praised for their artistic and technical skills. Davitt Moroney
quotes a description of preluding from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Dictionnaire de Musique
(Paris, 1768):
28
Moroney (2001), 294.
17
It consists of composing and playing extempore pieces which are filled with the
finest structure, fugue, imitation, modulation and harmony which are possible in a
composition. It is above all when preluding that the great musicians allow to shine
those extraordinary transitions which overpower the listener, for they are then
freed from the extreme subservience to the rules of composition to which the eye
of the critics constrains them when they write down their pieces. When preluding,
it is not enough to be a good composer, nor to be in complete control of the
keyboard, nor to have a good touch and to be in good practice; what is needed
over and above all that is to be overflowing with that fire of genius and that
inventive mind which make it possible to invent, and to handle on the spur of the
moment, ideas which can be well harmonized and which most enchant the ear.29
I will examine the development of the non-measured prelude historically and,
consequently, by instrument type. The first non-measured preludes were written in the
Renaissance for lute. (New Grove also mentions non-measured music that was written for
viol in the late 17th century, but the genre was extremely short-lived and the few
examples that remain exist only in manuscript.30) Improvisatory lute preluding influenced
17th- and early 18th-century composers to write non-measured preludes for harpsichord.
Finally, woodwind composers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries adopted non-
measured notation for preludes and cadenzas. Each of these three primary genres will be
treated in turn.
Non-Measured Preludes for Lute (before 1700)
An early lute prelude “was typically a short piece configured with scalar passages
and broken chords, wandering through various harmonies.”31 The first notated examples
of non-measured preludes come from two anthologies published in Paris by Pierre
29
Moroney (1985), 16.
30
Moroney (2001), 294.
31
18
Ballard32 in 1631 and 1638.33 These contain works by Mesangeau, Pierre Gaultier, and
others.34 These preludes, though notated, were meant to sound improvisatory and were
used by lutenists to loosen the performer’s fingers, to be sure of the instrument’s tuning,
to test the acoustics of the performance space, to establish the initial key of a work, and to
prepare listeners for the more formal music to follow.35
Non-measured preludes grew in length and complexity through the first half of
the 17th century. The earliest examples “are merely brief introductory flourishes that
recall the improvised origins of the genre. The larger ones … show a rhetoric and a care
for balancing movements and textures which indicate a decidedly compositional
approach.”36
By the middle of the 17th century, composers such as Ballard, Gaultier, and Pinel
were transforming the non-measured prelude from an opening flourish into a larger and
more complex vehicle for musical expression.37 The lute preludes of the 17th century
maintained the sound of an improvised work by remaining harmonically static within the
confines of the main tonal areas,38 but were otherwise developing into a full-blown genre
in their own right, as evidenced by Ledbetter’s comments:
[T]hose [lute preludes] of Pierre Gaultier (1638) are fully representative of the
mature style. Although cast in the mould of an improvised genre, they show
evidence of a careful compositional approach, and are of a scale and elaboration
which place them among the most important in the repertoire.39 …
32
Pierre Ballard, Tablature de luth de differents autheurs.
33
Tilney (1991), 3.
34
Ledbetter (1987), 40-41.
35
Ferguson (1975), 23; Donington (1992), 426.
36
37
Ledbetter (1987), 42 and 44.
38
39
19
The finest of these [lute] preludes – those by Pierre and Denis Gaultier and
by Pinel – demonstrate the variety of treatment and expression possible in this
form. Pierre Gaultier’s exploration of lute sonority and experimentation with
larger-scale forms, Pinel’s impulsive gestures and broad harmonic paragraphs,
Denis Gaultier’s refined and classical elegance: all transformed this originally
rather, [sic comma] unpromising genre into the most original embodiment of
these composers’ aesthetic.40
Other notable composers of non-measured lute preludes include Dufaut, Bouvier,
and Chancy. Those non-measured preludes composed by Gallot in 1684 and by Mouton
in 1698 are the latest extant examples of non-measured preludes for lute.41
Not all preludes at this time were completely non-measured. Ledbetter
distinguishes between unmeasured and semi-measured preludes. The semi-measured
examples may have some minimal rhythmic notation or general tempo indications, while
the unmeasured ones contain neither.42 He does assert, however, that there is “no
perceptible difference of character or figuration between the two types, although the
semi-measured ones here [in Pierre Ballard’s two published manuscripts] tend to be more
elaborate.”43
Performance of non-measured preludes for lute necessitates an awareness of the
improvisatory origin of the genre. Even those preludes with some rhythmic indications
(“semi-measured” in Ledbetter’s parlance) should be played with a “greater amount of
rhythmic freedom than ordinary measured music.”44
40
Ledbetter, 44.
41
Tilney (1991), 3.
42
43
44
Donington (1992), 426.
20
Non-Measured Preludes for Harpsichord (1650 – 1720)
The year 1650 can be assigned as the approximate earliest composition of non-
measured preludes for harpsichord because of the harpsichord preludes written by Louis
Couperin in the 1650s45 and because of the existence of harpsichord preludes in two early
manuscripts: the Bauyn manuscript of ca. 1660 and the Parville Manuscript of 1670.46
The same improvisatory and preparatory functions listed above concerning lute
preludes were retained when keyboardists began improvising, performing, and eventually
composing non-measured preludes. Initially, these keyboard preludes were not written
down, but were only improvised by the player. As the expectations upon the genre grew
more complicated, non-measured preludes began appearing more regularly in
manuscripts. Composers using non-measured notation often felt compelled to explain to
their readers the reasons for writing in such a manner, often citing the improvisatory
origins of preluding, as well as the functions of warming up, testing the intonation of the
instrument, and preparing the audience for the pieces to follow:
A Prelude is a free composition in which the imagination gives rein to any

thought that may suggest itself. (François Couperin)47
A prelude is nothing but a preparation for playing pieces in a certain key, for
trying out the instrument before you play the pieces and for exploring the key you
wish to use. (Nicolas Lebègue )48
Two different sorts of Prelude may be considered: one is the composed

Prelude which is normally the first piece of what is called a Suite or a Sonata, and
which is a genuinely formal piece… The other sort is the impromptu Prelude
45
Tilney (1991), 1.
46
Beccia-Schuster (1991), 9. The Bauyn manuscript is preserved in the Bibliothèque
nationale in Paris and the Parville manuscript in the Music Library at the
University of California, Berkeley.
47
Couperin/Linde (1933), 33.
48
Tilney (1991), 1; paraphrasing Gustafson (1977), 10 of translation of Lebègue’s letter.
21
(‘Prelude de caprice’), and this is really the true Prelude […] [This] Prelude
should be produced on the spot without any preparation. (Jacques Le Roman
Hotteterre)49
[The impromptu prelude] is quite simply an inclination to take the key of

the mode wherever one wishes to play. This is normally done as a consequence of
the power of the performers’ imagination at the very moment when they wish to
play without having written anything down beforehand. (Jean-Pierre Freillon-
Poncein)50
The prelude was originally a short improvisation played on the organ to indicate
to the intoning priest or the choir the pitch and ‘tone’ or mode of the music they
were about to sing. Similar pieces were later written down for the benefit for
those who were learning to improvise them, or were unable to do so….
… Their improvisatory origin is often reflected in both types of work
[preludes and toccatas] – particularly in French ‘unmeasured’ preludes. (Howard
Ferguson)51
Writers and performers have long been intrigued by the curious notation of non-
measured preludes. Ferguson writes,
In addition to these [non-improvised preludes, specifically those written by

François Couperin] and to genuinely improvised preludes there were imitations of
the latter – the puzzling-looking ‘unmeasured’ preludes written by various French
composers from Louis Couperin (François’s uncle) to Dandrieu.52
He goes on to describe Louis Couperin’s nearly completely non-measured
notation with greater precision:
Unmeasured preludes consist essentially of long strings of unbarred

semibreves, whose rhythmic interpretation is left to the taste of the performer; but
small note-values are sometimes introduced, and occasionally a section in some
normally barred rhythm may occur.53
49
Jacques Le Romain Hotteterre, L’Art de préluder sur la flute traversière, sur la flute à
bec, sur le hautbois et autres instruments de dessus (1719), quoted in Veilhan, 89.
50
Jean-Pierre Freillon-Poncein, La veritable manière d’apprendre à jouer en perfection
du hautbois, de la flute et du flagolet (1700), quoted in Veilhan, 89.
51
Ferguson (1975), 20-21.
52
53
22
Fuller and Gustafson describe the same notation of Louis Couperin’s préludes
non mesurés, which are
written entirely in undifferentiated semibreves threaded with long, sensuous

curves that show which notes are to be held. Graceful but baffling to the eye, they
demand a player with the talents of a composer to sort and shape the gestures, and
they tolerate no medium but the harpsichord; yet, given these requisites, melodic
lines and motifs emerge, part-writing is suggested and the textures coalesce into
luxuriant suspended harmonies.54
As was noted above, the Bauyn manuscript of ca. 1660 and the Parville
Manuscript of 1670 are the two earliest written sources of non-measured preludes for
keyboard.55 Twenty-two of the sixty-five extant non-measured harpsichord preludes were
written by Louis Couperin. Other non-measured harpsichord preludes were written by
Nicolas Lebègue, Elizabeth-Claude Jacquet de la Guerre, Jean Henry d’Anglebert, Louis-
Nicolas Clérambault, Louis Marchand, Gaspard le Roux, Jean-Philippe Rameau, and
Nicolas Siret.56
An end to the composition of non-measured preludes for harpsichord can be set
around 1720 and can be attributed to either Louis Couperin’s nephew, François, or to
Nicolas Siret. François Couperin published his L’Art de toucher le Clavecin in 1717, and
explicitly wrote all of the preludes in measured notation, but expounded upon the need to
play them with rhythmic flexibility so as to imitate the sound of an improvised prelude.57
54
Fuller and Gustafson (2001), “2. Works,” page 4 of 5.
55
56
Tilney (1991), 12-16.
57
Huggel (1988), 66.
23
Nicolas Siret’s Second livre de Pièces de Clavecin, published in 1719, is the last
publication of note to include non-measured keyboard preludes.58
But what influenced these pieces? How did they come into being? Howard
Ferguson describes non-measured keyboard preludes as descendants of the lute preludes
described above.59 Beccia-Schuster likewise maintains the direct influence of the lute
preludes.60 David Ledbetter, while acknowledging some surface similarities between non-
measured lute preludes and non-measured keyboard preludes, cites Johann Froberger’s
toccata style as the primary influence on Louis Couperin’s non-measured preludes. He
also cites the influence of Froberger’s teacher, Girolamo Frescobaldi.61 Davitt Moroney
concurs with Ledbetter concerning the influence of Frogerger’s toccatas.62
During the Baroque era, the pedagogy of preludes took two divergent roads. On
the one hand, great keyboardists improvised preludes freely. On the other hand,
performers of less skill or imagination, who were still required to perform preludes even
if their improvisation skills were not well-suited to the task, relied on pre-composed
preludes.63 For this latter group, a suitable way of notating improvisatory-sounding
preludes was required. To this end, several experiments were undertaken at notating the
flourishes and other irregular metrical figures that were part and parcel of the
improviser’s art.
58
Huggel (1988), 62; Tilney (1991), 1.
59
60
61
62
Moroney (2001), 294.
63
24
Louis Couperin’s preludes may be classified as purely non-metrical as well as
non-measured: not only are there no bar lines, but all of the preludes are written in long
groups of whole notes, connected in various figurations by long, elegant lines. Tilney
speculates that Louis Couperin adopted this novel form of notation because conventional
notation “must have failed to stimulate his imagination as he improvised.”64
Interpretation of these preludes has long been a subject of debate among keyboard
scholars. Only a recorded performance of these pieces can communicate a thorough
interpretation. Nevertheless, several scholars have attempted to formulate guidelines for
interpretation based on more or less objective criteria. Beccia-Schuster notes that short,
imitative motives would retain the same rhythmic interpretation for each occurrence;
“long, scalar passages would most likely be played quickly, probably emphasizing the
first and last note”; and shorter scalar passages and pairs of stepwise notes may serve as
either an elongated upbeat or could be interpreted in the notes inégales tradition of long-
short, long-short.65
One composer of particular interest to this study during this period was Nicolas
Lebègue. Lebègue was born ca. 1631 and died in Paris in 1702. Little is known about his
early life, but by 1661 he had lived in Paris long enough to have established a reputation
as a great organist. In the chapter records of Troyes Cathedral of that year, he is called the
“fameux organiste de Paris.”66 The number of surviving manuscript copies of his organ
64
Tilney (1991), 3.
65
66
Higginbottom (2001), 429.
25
pieces are far more numerous than any other French organist of the period. This would
seem to emphasize the contemporary respect he had garnered for himself.67
Lebègue’s primary contribution to the notation of non-measured preludes was the
use of mixed note values, indicating relative durations while still avoiding the use of bar
lines and regularly recurring meter. The five non-measured preludes in Lebègue’s Le
pieces de clavessin of 1677 were the first non-measured preludes to be published.68 The
notation of his preludes is very similar to, and could possibly have served as a model for,
the preludes of various woodwind composers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and
for Gallay’s horn preludes. Lebègue amplifies the function of the prelude and his
rationale for the use of non-measured notation in a letter written to an Englishman,
William Dundass:
The prelude is nothing else but a preparation for playing pieces of the
same Ton, or it is only for tasting (citation: i.e., to try-out) the key before ye touch
ye pieces, and to space yourself (citation: i.e., to proceed) in the Ton ye intend to
play upon: for this cause I was not at the pains to separate them by mesuré, as the
pieces are, because they have nothing of determined in them. 69
This letter survives in a unique format. Mr. Dundass apparently paid a copyist to
transcribe Lebègue’s letter in the original French into the cover of Dundass’s copy of the
1677 edition of Lebègue’s Le pieces de clavessin and then to translate the same letter into
English. Obviously, the translator’s English is quite rough.70
Lebègue attempted to clarify the completely non-measured notation of Louis
Couperin’s semibreves by indicating relative note values. However, these rhythmic
67
Higginbottom (2001), 430.
68
Beccia-Schuster (1991), 10; Tilney (1991), 13.
69
Gustafson (1977), 9.
70
26
notations “seem intended to represent approximate tempo indications rather than precise
relationships.”71 In the printed foreword, Lebègue offers what is almost an apology for
the use of unfamiliar non-measured notation:72
J’ay taché de mettre les préludes auec toute la facilité possible tant pour la
Conformité que pour le toucher du Clauecin, dont la maniere est de Separer et de
rebattre plus-tost les accords que de les tenir ensemble comme à l’Orgue si
quelque chose s’y rencontre vn peu difficile et obscure Ie prie messrs. les
intelligents de vouloir suppleer aux deffaux en considerant la grande difficulté de
rendre cette metode de Preluder assé intelligible a vn chacun.
I have tried to set the preludes with all possible ease, as much for conformity as
for the touch [action] of the harpsichord, of which the manner of playing is rather
to separate [make arpeggios] and to restrike the chords than to hold them together
as one would on the organ. If per chance some difficulty or obscurity occurs in
all this, I pray you, intelligent gentlemen, kindly to supplement the faults [to
correct the mistakes] by considering the great difficulty entailed in rendering this
method of preluding intelligible to all.73
Oddly enough, a second collection of Lebègue’s works published ten years later
does not contain any of the non-measured preludes.74
Moroney75 and Beccia-Schuster76 point out that the notation employed by Lebègue
was not adopted or developed by any later composer. While this may be true among
keyboardists, the obvious similarities between Lebègue’s notation and that of woodwind
composers of the 18th and 19th centuries and of Gallay’s horn preludes would seem to
belie these statements. These similarities will be discussed in full below.
71
72
73
Gustafson (1977), 7. English translation by Dr. Louis Mackenzie, University of Notre
Dame. Brackets are those of Dr. Mackenzie.
74
Tilney (1991), 13.
75
Moroney (2001), 295.
76
27
François Couperin effectively tolled the death knell of the non-measured prelude
in his L’Art de toucher le Clavecin of 1717 by composing several measured preludes and
explaining that, while they should sound improvisatory, they are measured to facilitate
learning and teaching.
Although these Preludes are written in measured time, there is,

nevertheless, a style dictated by custom, which must be observed. I will explain
what I mean. A Prelude is a free composition, in which the imagination gives rein
to any fancy that may present itself. But as it is rather rare to find geniuses
capable of production on the spur of the moment, those who have recourse to
these non-improvised Preludes should play them in a free, easy style, not sticking
to closely too [sic] the exact time, unless I have expressly indicated this by the
word Mesuré (Measured time): Thus one may venture to say that in many things,
Music (as compared with Poetry) has its prose, and its verse.
One of the reasons why I have written these Preludes in measured time
was to make them easier, as will be found to be the case, whether in teaching
them, or in learning them.77
Among non-measured keyboard preludes, only those of Nicolas Siret in his
Second Livre de Pieces de Clavecin of 1719 post-date François Couperin’s remarks.78
Several questions must be addressed when attempting to perform non-measured
keyboard preludes. The notation presents several ambiguities, and scholars have turned to
contemporary writings on toccatas and similar improvisatory pieces to help decode it.
The most relevant categories of interpretive guidelines for us to follow are those that
pertain to accidentals, rhythm, meter, and tempo. These categories remain more or less
constant and meaningful even when later composers attempted to clarify Louis
Couperin’s completely non-measured notation by adding note-values of different
durations.
77
Couperin/Linde (1933), 33.
78
Tilney (1991), 1.
28
Ferguson offers an extensive list of guidelines for analyzing non-measured
preludes as part of a comprehensive preparation for performance. Among the first
concerns are determining the harmonic structure and distinguishing between melodic and
decorative elements.79
Modern practice regarding accidentals (accidentals carry to the same pitch class
through the rest of the bar) is insufficient for dealing with these non-measured preludes
for the obvious reason that they contain few, if any, conventional bar lines. Therefore, we
must rely on our knowledge of the treatment of accidentals in earlier music. Common
early practice held that accidentals applied only to the note they preceded, unless the
same pitch is repeated immediately.80
Beccia-Schuster deduces that if a meter can be felt in the non-measured preludes,
one can generally regard that meter as duple. Some of Louis Couperin’s non-measured
preludes begin with a non-measured section and resolve to a measured section. When this
happens, the contrasting measured section is invariably in triple meter. Therefore, Beccia-
Schuster argues, “where meter could be felt at all, the unmeasured prelude was probably
duple.”81
Codifying the rhythmic implications of non-measured preludes is a task that has
started only recently. Thirty years ago, Ferguson was the first commentator to go beyond
simple statements that rhythmic treatments would differ at each performance, leaving one
to wonder if previous scholars imagined there could be no generalizations made about
rhythmic interpretation. He cautions that printed note values cannot be taken as strict
79
80
Beccia-Schuster (1991), 19; Ferguson (1975), 23.
81
29
determinations of the rhythm to be performed. “When smaller notes than semibreves
occur, their values are not meant to be read strictly, either with reference to one another
or to the semibreves.”82 Given this statement, it seems quite natural that he would repeat
the traditional wisdom that every performance will differ in rhythmic detail. Ferguson,
however, elaborates this statement by calling for the imitation of improvisatory
performance and flexibility and fluidity in the interpretation of rhythmic figures
depending upon the musical context:
When either a prelude or a toccata shows traces of its improvisatory

origin, this should be reflected in performance. The precise degree of freedom
needed depends on the musical context. Passages and sections that lack a clearly
defined theme, or consist mainly of brilliant flourishes, should be wayward in
rhythm; whereas those that are built on definite themes will tend to establish a
tempo and keep to it for as long as the theme persists. In the freer sections the
effect should be that of the player tentatively feeling his way towards some more
positive thematic idea, or of displaying his manual dexterity; and in the stricter
sections, that he is exploring the beauties and possibilities of the particular idea or
ideas that he has discovered. Sections will often dissolve and merge, rather that
being clearly separated like the movements of a suite; yet the performer must
always bear in mind their different functions, so that he may show both their
interrelationship and the essential contrast between them.83
He then cites several more concrete guidelines for rhythmic interpretation:
preludes may have irregular bar lengths, should have a constant beat, should include a
variety and balance of note-lengths, should preserve the harmonic structure, should honor
the rhythmic regularity of sequential passages, often include flourishes amidst groups of
conjunct notes, and should probably accent the second note of identical pairs:
The final [analytical] step is to supply the missing rhythms and phrases of
the prelude – always remembering that their details vary from performance to
performance. In this connection the following points should be borne in mind: (a)
82
83
30
a prelude is generally best interpreted within the framework of a fairly constant

beat, without which it is apt to sound incoherent; (b) its bar-lengths may vary, in
keeping with its free, improvisatory character; (c) its note-values should be nicely
balanced between variety and regularity; (d) the harmonic structure must always
be clearly preserved, the relative importance of each cadence and progression
being reflected in its rhythmic treatment; … [(e) and (f) are keyboard-specific] …
(g) sequential passages tend to fall into regular rhythmic patterns; (h) a group of
conjunct notes often includes a flourish in short note-values; and (i) the second
note of an identical pair is more likely to be accented than the first.84
Ferguson also cites specific guidelines relating to rhythm passed down from the
prefaces of Girolamo Frescobaldi’s Toccate e partite of 1614 and Il primo libro di
capricci of 1624:
iv. Pause on the last note both of shakes and of passage-work, even if
small in value, as this will avoid confusing one passage with another.
v. The ends of musical sections should be played ritardando, even when
the note-values are small.85
By 1991, Beccia-Schuster had come forward with opinions concerning rhythmic
interpretation in the non-measured preludes of Louis Couperin. She agrees with earlier
writers that non-measured preludes should “sound rhythmically free and
improvisatory,”86 but goes on to discuss rhythmic realization in terms of motivic unity,
scalar passages, and the French tradition of notes inégales:
As in measured compositions, short, imitative motives would most likely be

executed with the same rhythm in each repeated occurrence. According to the
French style of preludes, long scalar passages would most likely be played
quickly, probably emphasizing the first and last note. Short scalar passages would
be either a quick upbeat to a strong pulse, or a relaxed long-short, long-short
feeling, according to the tradition of notes inégales. Paired, stepwise notes could
also be played long-short, or short-long.87
84
85
86
87
31
Regarding the selection of appropriate tempos, most writers remain silent. Only
Tilney and Ferguson have advice to offer regarding tempo selection when approaching
non-measured keyboard preludes. Their directions are rather general and leave much
room for the performer’s discretion. Non-measured preludes are intended to be reflective
or meditative works. To play them with too much flamboyance is to strip all elegance
from them and to distance them from their improvisatory origins:
The preludes are better played too slowly than too fast. Froberger’s
direction ‘et se joue lentement’ [“and is played slowly”] is nothing but an echo of
numerous similar warnings by Frescobaldi in his prefaces, far more common than
encouragements to play brilliantly.88
The preludes must not be rushed. They require the amplitude and
meditative quality that is natural to an improvisation. … In performance the effect
should be poetical, yet imbued with a typically French sense of neatness and
clarity.89
The prefaces of Girolamo Frescobaldi’s Toccate e partite of 1614 and Il primo
libro di capricci of 1624 also point to generally slower tempos:
Sections of partitas and toccatas which include notes of small value or

expressive ornamentation should be played slowly, plainer sections more quickly,
the choice of tempo being left to the good taste of the performer.90
Recognizing the performer’s desire to dazzle even in pragmatic pieces, Tilney
warns about the hazards of rushing through unusual harmonies or of lingering too long in
simple ones:
88
Tilney (1991), 7.
89
90
32
It is particularly important to linger on pivotal notes before introducing a new

harmony, and also to ease the listener through chains of bizarre modulations….
Any unusually affecting melodic line or figure – Frescobaldi’s affetti
cantabili—must be brought out and savoured. On the other hand, emphasizing the
banal, the expected, the harmonically restricted is of no interest to anyone:
passaggi are there for display and to provide a change of pace from the generally
moderate overall tempo.91
Finally, Tilney compares non-measured preluding to vocal recitative, explaining
that “[r]ecitative, which uses speech rhythms to tell a story, is the vocal counterpart of the
unmeasured prelude.”92
In summary, the following generalizations apply to keyboard non-measured
preludes:
1) An accidental applies only to the note it precedes, unless the same pitch
follows immediately or in quick succession;
2) When meter is felt at all, it is probably duple;
3) Rhythmic interpretation is flexible, dependent upon melodic sequences and
figuration, harmonic structure and harmonic rhythm, and the performer’s ability to
capture the improvisatory spirit; and
4) Slower tempos generally capture the flavor of the preludes more exactly. Runs
and other decorative passages may be played quickly, but overall the tempo should honor
the meditative or reflective spirit.
The most theoretically inconvenient variable of non-measured interpretation is the
necessary reliance upon the musical taste of the performer. “As is so often the case in this
music, the player is free to infer what he will, relying upon le bon goût as his guide.”93
91
Tilney (1991), 7.
92
Tilney (1991), 7.
33
Non-Measured Preludes for Woodwinds (1790 – 1830)
The principal authors on woodwind preludes are Betty Bang Mather and David
Lasocki. Mather’s Interpretation of French Music from 1675 to 1775: For Woodwind
and Other Performers of 1973, and the two works co-authored by Mather and Lasocki
The Classical Woodwind Cadenza: A Workbook of 1978 and The Art of Preluding 1700-
1830: For Flutists, Oboists, Clarinettists and Other Performers of 1984 appear to be the
first and only real documentary exploration of this topic in any depth.
Publishing improvisatory-style preludes was a common practice among
woodwind writers of the Classical period. Woodwind preludes from ca.1800 had similar
functions to the earlier lute and keyboard preludes: they were part of the daily practice
regimen and could also be played on stage before the performance of a lengthier work.
Johann Wilhelm Gabrielsky is one composer whose preludes are well-suited to the daily
warm-up routine. “These preludes are unbarred, fanciful flourishes, often on Romantic
chordal progressions. They should be played freely in the style of a ‘warm-up’
improvisation.”94
One can presume that these woodwind performers would have had similar goals
to their keyboard counterparts: getting the feel of the performance space, limbering the
fingers and the embouchure, checking the intonation of the instrument, and setting a
mood for the work to follow.
Improvisatory preludes were more numerous than cadenzas in the

published Classical woodwind literature. Most tutors included at least a few
93
94
Mather and Lasocki (1984), 50.
34
preludes, and many were published in collections of pieces. Preludes were

evidently used as daily warm-up exercises, technical practice pieces, and on-stage
warm-up flourishes before a performance. Thus they were part of every Classical
player’s daily regimen.95
Improvisatory-style woodwind preludes were written out for the same reasons as
François Couperin’s preludes: to initiate the young performer into the general tonal and
technical vocabulary of the instrument, as well as to provide a jumping-off point for
inventing their own preludes.
From improvisatory preludes, the Classical performer learned the art of

improvisation in the Classical prelude/cadenza style. He learned the melodic
figurations used and how they were combined.96
Mather and Lasocki’s Art of Preluding provides several examples of woodwind
preludes from 1700 to 1830, including a handful of non-measured preludes, most of
which are from the latter part of this period. The examples span a diverse range of
function from etudes through cadenzas to miniature pieces.97 By the end of this period,
composers began to break more freely from the use of measured notation and from the
metrically-inclined preludes of the early Classical period.
While Mather and Lasocki (1984) provide examples of woodwind preludes dating
from 1700, the first non-measured examples they offer are those composed by J. Wragg
in his oboe98 and flute99 tutors published in London in ca. 1792. Together, the two
95
Lasocki and Mather (1978), 12.
96
97
98
Wragg, J. (1792). The Oboe Preceptor; or the Art of Playing the Oboe. London: self-
published.
99
Wragg, J. (ca. 1792), The Flute Preceptor; or the Whole Art of Playing the German
Flute. London: self-published.
35
collections contain 49 preludes. While the phrases are of irregular length, most motives
fall into typically metered patterns. Wragg does introduce passages of atypical groups of
eighth notes (a group of 21 eighth notes in the easy prelude in B-flat major for oboe,
groups of 9 and 10 eighth notes in the easy prelude in E-flat major for oboe, and a group
of 9 eighth notes in the flute prelude in F major). A handful of other composers (François
Devienne [Paris, 1792], Edward Miller [London, ca. 1799], Amand Vanderhagen [Paris,
ca. 1800], and Péraut [Paris, ca. 1800]) experiment with unbarred preludes, but rarely, if
ever, move away from regular metrical groupings.
Of the prelude examples offered by Mather and Lasocki, the final four composers
who used non-measured notation in their preludes started to break away from the sense of
a regular metrical pulse in favor of a more freely Romantic interpretation. Examples
written between ca. 1815 and 1829 by John Beale, Charles Nicholson, Johann Wilhelm
Gabrielsky, and Louis Drouet illustrate this evolution.
The two preludes by John Beale100 are very short and typically fall into regular
rhythmic patterns. Despite the fact that the first one is notated without meter and without
bar lines, a constant half-note beat can be felt throughout the beginning and body of the
work. Only at the end are we missing the value of one eighth note that would make the
half-note pulse complete and uninterrupted. The second prelude is also notated without a
meter signature and without bar lines. While it contains passages where regular rhythmic
pulses will be felt (especially at the end, which includes a passage of fourteen repetitions
of a four-sixteenth-note pattern), this prelude also contains atypical numbers of eighth
100
John Beale (ca. 1815). Second Edition of A Complete Guide to the Art of Playing the
German Flute. London.
36
notes beamed together. One group contains six eighth notes, and another contains
eighteen eighth notes in a descending ornamented one-octave scale.
The three preludes by Charles Nicholson101 are written without meter signatures
or barlines. However, they cannot be properly regarded as non-measured because a
constant half-note pulse can be felt without exception through each example. While a
performer may be given the freedom to make extensive use of rubato, metrical accents
remain clearly evident. One remarkable melodic figure caught the present author’s
attention in Nicholson’s flute prelude in F minor (page 48, example 61 in Mather and
Lasocki): six notes from the end, the pitch d-flat’’’ (“le” in f minor) leaps down to e’’
(“ti”) before resolving into the tonic. This leap down of a diminished seventh seems
remarkably similar to the leap down of an octave-and-a-half tritone (“fa” to “ti”) in a
similar position in Gallay’s 26th Prelude. One might conjecture from these two similar
examples that a large dissonant downward leap was a way to quickly build and release
cadential tension.
The five preludes by Johann Wilhelm Gabrielsky102 are also written without meter
signatures and without barlines. They are the first examples offered by Mather and
Lasocki that appear to avoid a deliberate and regular pulse. The flute prelude in G-flat
Major (page 51, example 69 in Mather and Lasocki) contains only two figures: a beamed
group of fourteen eighth notes followed by a beamed group of thirty-four sixteenth notes.
The other four Gabrielsky examples demonstrate more regularity in some of the beamed
101
Charles Nicholson (ca. 1816). Nicholson’s Complete Preceptor for the German Flute.
London.
102
Johann Wilhelm Gabrielsky (ca. 1825). 93 Progressive Preludes for the Flute.
London.
37
groupings, but all five preludes share a much more fluid sense of time and pulse than
those preludes by earlier composers. Fermatas indicate certain principal notes of figures
that are to be sustained, thus implying greater accent or emphasis. No other indications of
pulse are present.
The final non-measured examples in Mather and Lasocki are five preludes by
Louis Drouet.103 They, too, are written without meter signatures or barlines. Drouet’s
non-measured preludes are the first offered by Mather and Lasocki that consistently mix
note values of varying duration instead of simply beaming together large groups of notes
of equal value. While several passages still fall into regularly metrical patterns with a
discernible pulse, other passages lack this pulse entirely. His preludes are also the only
ones to include notated dynamic variations. “With their written-out long appoggiaturas,
fermatas, harmonic changes, and dynamic and expressive markings, these are dream-like,
Romantic pieces.”104
Lasocki and Mather discuss several formal and stylistic similarities between
Classical woodwind cadenzas and non-measured preludes: both genres are improvisatory
in nature, both share similar figuration, and both trace a similar harmonic outline (tonic –
dominant – tonic).105 In fact, composers often used the terms cadenza and prelude
interchangeably: “The 22 ‘preludes or flourishes’ in Beale’s flute tutor are called
cadenzas on its title page.”106
103
Louis Drouet (1829). 18 Preludes and 6 Cadences in the Most Familiar Keys
Composed for the Flute. London and Paris. Facsimile published by
Heuwekemeyer (Amsterdam).
104
105
106
38
In his flute and oboe tutor of 1700, Jean-Pierre Freillon-Poncein describes a
method for improvising preludes. He allows the performer great license in selecting the
length, tempo, and style while admonishing the performance to be purposeful and easy to
listen to. He also confirms part of the harmonic outline cited above (tonic – dominant –
tonic):
There is no special rule about the tempo or the length of Preludes; they are
done in various ways as the player fancies – perhaps tender, abrupt, long or short
– and in discontinuous metre; one can even pass through all sorts of modes
provided one arrives and departs to some purpose, in other words in such a way as
not to discomfort the ear; however, each Prelude must begin on one of the three
principal degrees of the mode one wishes to begin in and finish on any one of
these three, though it is always best to stop on the tonic.107
Composers used experimental non-measured notation to indicate effects not
allowed in standard rhythmic notation. Mather and Lasocki describe Beale’s
unconventional use of eighth notes and sixteenth notes as a possible indication of changes
in tempo:
Rhythms are notated only approximately. In Ex. 57 [flute prelude in

F-sharp minor], the change from sixteenth to eighth notes on the seventh “beat”
probably indicates a retardation rather than a halving of the time. The change back
to sixteenth notes five beats later probably indicates an acceleration.108
Mather advocates that long passages of slurred notes should be performed as
notes of equal value, as distinct from the conventional short-long inequality of Baroque
and Classical two-note slurs created by the then-standard tu ru woodwind articulation:
Longer slurs [longer than three notes] are found in improvisatory pieces
such as preludes, in embellished slow movements, and in other ornamental
107
Veilhan (1979), 89 quoting Jean-Pierre Freillon-Poncein, La véritable manière
d’apprendre à jouer en perfection du hautbois, de la flûte et du flagolet (1700).
108
39
passages. They were performed equally. The equality of notes found under longer
slurs is contrasted in this piece [Hotteterre, Prelude from L’Art de Préluder] with
the inequality of the two-note slurs and the inequality of the standard tu ru
articulation pattern.109
Gallay, Préludes non-mesurés (ca. 1839)
The Gallay Preludes for Horn, Opus 27, consist of 40 preludes of varying length
in two sections: measured preludes and non-measured preludes. The first 20 preludes are
completely measured; the last 20 preludes are the Préludes Non Mesurés, but these vary
in the proportion of truly non-measured music they contain. Ten of these are completely
non-measured, while the other ten begin with a non-measured section and resolve into a
measured section. Meters of resolution are limited to 4/4 (six occurrences), 6/8 (two
occurrences), 2/4 (one occurrence), and 12/8 (one occurrence). In only one instance
(number 24) does the intermediate measured section return to a non-measured section.
When discussing the preludes by number, one must be mindful of the fact that not
all of the currently available published editions of the Opus 27 preludes agree on their
numbering schemes. This author will use the numbering of the earliest available edition
(Gallet, 1933/1936) as the basis for reference. This numbering of the preludes coincides
with the numbering schemes used in the editions by Sansone (1960) and Chambers
(1968).
While the ordering of the preludes in the 1948 Alphonse Leduc edition edited by
Lucien Thévet remains the same as the Gallet, it contains one fewer measured prelude
than other editions. This inevitably causes a discrepancy with the numbering of the non-
measured preludes that follow. When consulting the Thévet edition, simply subtract one
109
Mather (1973), 41.
40
from the prelude number cited here; i.e., number 25 in Thévet corresponds with number
26 in Gallet, Sansone, and Chambers.
The ordering of the Leloir edition (1976) varies wildly from all other available
editions: only five of the non-measured preludes in the Leloir edition share the same
number as their counterparts in other editions. When consulting editions other than those
by Gallet, Sansone, or Chambers, the reader is referred to Appendix D: Numbering
Discrepancies Among the Published Editions.
The length of each prelude varies, but a safe estimation of performance time
would be no longer than about two minutes for each prelude. Those preludes which have
been recorded last between 53 seconds and 1 minute, 53 seconds.
Several relatively recent writers on the horn have identified the Gallay Préludes
non-mesurés as among the more important pedagogical works for advancing horn
students. As musical ‘diamonds in the rough,’ they offer young musicians the opportunity
to mature expressively and to apply fundamental skills in tempo and phrasing in novel
ways.
Morley-Pegge identifies Gallay’s studies, particularly the Op. 27 Preludes, as the
most important artifacts Gallay left: “Gallay’s chief legacy to horn players is his studies,
of which perhaps the best are the Trente Etudes and the Préludes mesurés et non-
mesurés, which are still used today.”110
In his treatise The Art of Musicianship, Farkas uses an example from the Préludes
non-mesurés to illustrate his main points in the chapter on phrasing. He remarks at how
110
41
spare the score is in terms of expressive markings and instructs the reader that Gallay is
forcing us to use our own imaginations to realize the full expressiveness of the piece:
It [Op. 27, No. 22] was expressly written without tempo, dynamic, or expression
markings for the purpose of developing the student’s imagination and
musicianship.111
He makes a similar point in the chapter on tempo:
In this composition [Op. 27, No. 26] Gallay has purposely refrained from writing
tempo marks, bar lines or even dynamic marks, precisely for the purpose of
exercising our own musical imaginations.112
Reynolds describes the non-measured preludes as unique not only in horn
literature, but more generally in brass literature. He advises horn students to play these
pieces as a way to help develop musical taste and critical musical thinking. His advice on
realization reminds the reader of the reason these preludes are unmeasured – their
musical character is completely dependent upon the lack of strict time:
Opus 27, containing forty etudes in the Chambers edition, is the most interesting
of all. The first nineteen [sic: 20] etudes follow the Kopprasch model and, from
their general appearance, could have been written by Kopprasch. Etudes No. 20
[sic: 21] through No. 40 are unmeasured and offer good training in imaginative,
free playing. Brass players, having no training literature comparable in musical
quality to that of pianists, for example, should welcome every occasion to develop
a solo style tempered only by good taste and judgment.…
… We should not try to “bar” these etudes or force them into the more
conventional groupings, thereby destroying the very quality that gives them
purpose and charm.113
Hill sees the non-measured preludes as a tool for breaking students out of a
mindlessly strict sense of metronomic time which can result from overzealous high
school marching band training. His interpretation of Gallay’s non-measured notation is
111
Farkas (1976), 10.
112
Farkas (1976), 19.
113
42
neatly summarized by his choice of verb in the following quotation: suggest. Hill’s sense
of time and interpretation in the preludes is very free, fluid, and flexible. Like Reynolds,
Hill notes the scarcity of pieces in the horn repertoire like these non-measured preludes,
thus placing them in a pedagogical niche of their own:
Of the many collected etude books by Gallay (eight opuses are known to
this writer [Hill]), the preludes [of Opus 27], especially the last twenty, very
successfully fill an important gap in horn etude literature. Students who have
grown up with a rigid attachment to the metronome-like exactness of many etude
books could benefit greatly from the last twenty unmeasured preludes. Note
lengths are printed but are meant only to suggest a general rhythmic relationship,
while the pulse and musical motion must be interpreted as if in a Romantic period
cadenza. … These etudes are highly recommended for the advancing student as a
set of high-range studies, cadenza studies, lyrical studies, and, with many of them,
as unaccompanied solos.114
114
Hill (2001), 156.
43
Horn History and Pedagogy (1800 – 1840)
General Horn History
Horns and horn-like instruments have long been used for utilitarian purposes,
such as hunting and signaling. These hunting and signaling horns were not true musical
instruments, in that they were not designed to be played with other instruments in
ensemble, or to play anything more complicated than rudimentary signals or hunting
calls.
Morley-Pegge divides the horn’s history into three primary periods: the first
period from the late 16th century to about 1750, the time before the horn was introduced
into the orchestra; the second period spanning approximately 1750 to 1850, in which
changes in manufacture and playing technique allowed the horn to become a viable
musical instrument, heard regularly in the orchestra and as a virtuosic solo instrument;
and the final period beginning early in the 19th century (overlapping considerably with
the previous period) when the introduction of the valve generated a radically new way of
performing on, composing for, and thinking about the horn115. Discussion in this study
will be limited to the developments in instruments and technique most germane to the
Gallay Preludes, specifically those developments that occur between approximately 1700
and 1850.
The first horn to find its way into the orchestra was the French cor de chasse.
With its compact design of a single or double loop, it was originally intended as a hunting
115
44
horn to be played by riders on horseback.116 This instrument could play only the open
notes of the harmonic series, limiting any sort of conjunct melodic motion to the top
register. A more or less complete diatonic scale can be played beginning on the eighth
partial. [Refer to the diagram of open harmonics under the heading “Horn” in the
Definitions section of Chapter One.] Even though it was first heard in the orchestra
around 1700, its ‘music’ was limited to hunting calls and other outdoor motifs. Musically
speaking, its “development was virtually confined to Bohemia and Saxony until about the
middle of the 18th century.”117 Nevertheless, the horn and other wind instruments did find
their way into the concert hall as a sort of special effect to evoke outdoor scenes:
That horns did, however, make exceptional appearances with orchestra at

a considerably earlier date is clear from the mention, in the Mercure de France of
23 April 1728, of a concert lately given at which was performed a concerto for
trumpets, cors de chasse, oboes, and timpani with orchestral accompaniment,
‘which gave great pleasure’. The wind instruments would, of course, have been
used purely in what may be called their ‘outdoor’ capacity, very different as far as
the horns were concerned from the refined style of playing that was even then
being cultivated in Bohemia.118
Of the early limitations of the horn, perhaps the most significant was its inability
to be played in multiple keys. “With their fixed mouthpipe, absence of tuning slide, and
unalterable length, however, these horns raised very real problems in concert
performance.”119 Instrument makers first attempted to solve this problem by building sets
of crooks of various lengths. These crooks were added individually or in combinations
between the body of the instrument and the mouthpiece, effectively lowering the pitch of
116
Humphries (2000), 27.
117
118
119
Humphries (2000), 27-28.
45
the instrument by increasing its overall length.120 At this point in its development, the
horn was still limited to playing only pitches of the harmonic series, but because of the
possibility of employing multiple crooks, the number of available harmonic series had
been greatly increased.
Near the end of the 18th century, another important discovery brought the horn
even closer to being a chromatic instrument: hand stopping. By placing the right hand in
the bell and varying its position by opening or obscuring the bell throat, players could
raise or lower the pitches of the open harmonic series, effectively making the horn a
completely chromatic instrument in the middle and top of its range.121
There is some uncertainty about the precise origin of hand stopping. Credit for its
invention is usually given to Anton Joseph Hampel (or Hampl), second horn in the
Dresden orchestra of Poland’s King Augustus III. While Morley-Pegge finds it unlikely
that he could have invented the technique from scratch, he does allow that Hampel was
the first player to codify the new technique, possibly extending an elementary practice
that was not yet in common use.122
Modern hand horn scholars are left without specific guidance from Hampel,
however, concerning the details of his hand horn method: Hampel’s horn tutor, available
only as edited and published by his star pupil, Giovanni Punto, lacks an adequate
description of the technique.123 The reasons for this obscurity are unknown, but Morley-
120
121
Austin (1993), 4.
122
Austin (1993), 4; Morley-Pegge (1973), 87.
123
46
Pegge theorizes that Hampel and other early practitioners of hand horn technique may
have been reluctant to make readily available what they considered a close trade secret.124
It is to this new technique that Morley-Pegge credits the ascent of the horn as a
solo and orchestral instrument in the late 18th and early 19th centuries:
Nevertheless, it was to hand technique, and especially to the improved

quality of tone due to the retention of the hand in the bell even for the production
of notes in the natural harmonic series, that the horn owed its initial success as an
orchestral instrument.125
Hand technique is also what brought the horn to maturity as an instrument equally
capable of solo, chamber, and orchestral playing:
Then it was that the horn achieved the ‘personality’ that gave it its unique position
in the orchestra. The value of the low register was recognized and appreciated by
musicians generally, hand-horn technique budded, flowered, and withered, and
the horn proved itself not only an ideal blending agent between the different
orchestral groups, but also a picturesque, if occasional, soloist in symphonic
music. It was the golden age of the virtuoso as well as that during which the horn
acquired its not wholly undeserved reputation of being the most difficult of all
instruments to master.126
A problem caused by hand stopping technique on a horn with interlocking crooks
at the mouthpipe was that as the instrument was crooked in various combinations, the
distance between the performer and the body of the instrument could vary considerably.
The nuances of hand stopping could not be accommodated in such a situation. Hampel’s
solution was to design an instrument whose crooks could be added to the middle of the
124
125
126
47
instrument.127 While this change improved the situation in many ways, the lack of space
in the body of the instrument limited the length of crooks that could be added to the horn:
The process of adding the crooks to the body of the horn, while leaving the
mouthpipe fixed, solved most of the problems associated with the master crook
and coupler system, but lack of space meant that it was now difficult – though not
impossible – to design an instrument which could accept both the longest and the
shortest crooks.128
Another major improvement from the period includes the addition of a tuning
slide. Around 1780, the Parisian instrument makers Joseph and Lucien-Joseph Raoux
then limited the number of crooks for this instrument to only five – G, F, E, E-flat, and D
(the most popular keys for solo and chamber playing). This limiting factor caused this
design to be known as the cor solo.129 Despite the fact that it was impractical for
orchestral playing, the cor solo was popular among soloists: “[T]he fact that the Raoux
cor-solo was also used by such eminent virtuosi as Dauprat, Puzzi, and Gallay is no mean
testimony to their excellence.”130 Gallay’s cor solo, built by Raoux in ca. 1822, is
pictured in Plate IV, 5 of Morley-Pegge.
To accommodate orchestral players, a different crook design was necessary.
Instrument manufacturers began building terminal crooks for each key into which the
mouthpiece would be fitted.131 Unlike the additive system of crooks and couplers, this
allowed the distance between the mouthpiece and the bell to remain the same. And
because the crooks were inserted at the mouthpipe, even the longest and shortest crooks
127
128
Humphries (2000), 28-29.
129
Humphries (2000), 29; Morley-Pegge (1973), 22.
130
131
48
necessary for orchestral playing (from B-flat alto to B-flat basso) could be
accommodated.132
During this period it became conventional for horn players to specialize in either
low horn playing or high horn playing, to an even greater degree than is common today.
The high horn was commonly termed cor alto and the low horn cor basse.133 The
techniques required for each species of playing were radically different from each other.
Low horn players were required to be very agile in order to negotiate the wide leaps
between the more distant partials; high horn players were required to develop a more
melodic technique in the extreme upper register. Late in this period a third type of player
evolved, the cor mixte. These solo players specialized in the relatively small range in
which cor alto and cor basse overlapped, i.e. the octave-and-a-half between the sixth and
twelfth partials. Gallay and Duvernoy were celebrated soloists who are sometimes
regarded as cor mixte players.134
In the early nineteenth century, a dramatic shift occurred in the ways that
composers wrote music for horns. As composers became more familiar with the evolving
hand technique, they began to write horn parts that reflected the new possibilities.
The period 1795 to 1820 was truly an era of transition. During this
comparatively short space of time all traces of the older conception of horn
writing had disappeared from musical scores, a new and refined type of horn
music was produced by the better composers and a firm foundation was laid for
the practical application of still more advanced ideas in the years immediately
following.135
132
133
Austin (1993), 5.
134
Austin (1993), 5.
135
Coar (1952), 59.
49
Part of this shift could be attributed to the development of cor mixte. Its narrow
range and reliance upon more virtuosic hand stopping techniques placed demands not
only on composers but also on instrument manufacturers to create better instruments
more suited to the chromatic horn parts being popularized by cor mixte players.
The perfection of hand horn technique enabled the horn to play

diatonic and chromatic melodies. This had an enormous impact on how
composers wrote for the horn. But cor mixte had its own independent
lasting influence, which can be seen in the increasing use of F horn
crooks, in F being the accepted standard key for the valve-horn, in the use
of conjunct melodies with chromaticism, and in the lowering of the first
horn’s range from one that was higher than C’’’ to the midrange of g to
g’’. Together, hand horn and cor mixte probably spurred the demand for a
better instrument that culminated in the invention of our modern valve-
horn. It must have been very difficult to gain enough mastery of the hand
horn to be able to play the extremely demanding and complex cor mixte-
style solos. This difficulty would lead to a wish for an easier instrument –
a chromatic one on which all the pitches could be played without the need
for hand-stopping. The valve-horn was the answer to this wish.136
The next important phase in the horn’s development came in the early 19th
century when the valve was invented. Current research points to two early pioneers in
valve technology: Heinrich Stölzel and Friedrich Blühmel. Both men developed valves
independently of each other in the early 1810’s: Stölzel’s valve as early as 1814 and
Blühmel’s around 1816. While research and production may have happened earlier than
even these dates, the first patent for a brass instrument valve was issued jointly to Stölzel
and Blühmel in 1818.137
As late as 1991, horn scholars were still lamenting the lack of research about the
period of transition from hand horn technique to the universal adoption of the valved
136
Robinson (1998), 99-100.
137
Tuckwell (1983), 41.
50
horn.138 Valve technology was actually very slow to catch on in some parts of the world.
While progressives would promote the extended lower range, the evenness of timbre, and
the convenience of playing without crooks, conservatives lamented the loss of
characteristic color and finesse as the end of horn playing as they knew it. While players
and teachers in most European countries were relatively quick to learn and promote the
valved horn, the hand horn remained the instrument of choice in France “for reasons that
encompassed both conservative attitudes and advanced technical skills.”139
One notable exception to this conservative French attitude was Joseph Emile
Meifred (1791-1867). Meifred and a Parisian instrument maker, Labbaye, collaborated
on the design and manufacture of a two-valve horn that won a prize at the 1827
Exposition of Industrial Products.140 In March of the following year, Meifred is listed on
the inaugural program on the Société Concerts du Conservatoire performing his own Solo
for valved horn. This concert is the “first recorded public solo performance of this valved
horn in France.”141 In 1833 Meifred was hired to teach the new valve horn class at the
Paris Conservatoire as a supplement to the standard hand horn classes. 142 This class
continued only until Meifred’s retirement from the Conservatoire in 1864. The valve horn
class was reinstituted in 1897 under François Bremond, running alongside the official
hand horn class. The valve horn was not to become the official Conservatoire instrument
until 1903.143
138
Snedeker (1991), v.
139
Snedeker (1994), 6.
140
Snedeker (1994), 6.
141
Snedeker (1994), 7.
142
143
51
Meifred and other early valve horn advocates continued to use hand horn
technique to color certain notes for expressive advantage because they primarily
considered the valves as a “quick and easy way of changing crook.”144 It is this expressive
quality of the natural horn with which many 19th century composers were enamored and
for which they wrote beautiful melodic lines:
Throughout the 19th century, the natural horn was favored by composers
and musicians because of its characteristic tone quality. Romantic composers
were fond of assigning dreamy and melancholy roles to the horn, and the natural
horn was popularly viewed as the most poetic and romantic brass instrument.145
General Horn Pedagogy
Unlike the major changes in instrument manufacture and performance technique,
most of the basic tenets of horn pedagogy have remained relatively unchanged over the
course of the past 200 years. In his study of ten horn method books from 1798 to 1960,
James Betts remarks upon the high degree of agreement shown by horn teachers in their
methods, regardless of their publication date, country of origin, or even compositional
stylistic context:
It is remarkable to note the degree of continuity shown by the comments

of these authors. Despite the differences in technique between hand and valve
horns, the similarity of concepts regarding range, posture and right hand position,
respiration, mouthpiece placement and embouchure formation, the use of
consonants in articulation, the varieties of articulation, lip trills, and even horn
chords, transcends both historical and international boundaries. This similarity
also exists between hand-horn writers regarding tone quality of crooks, and
between valve-horn writers regarding stopped-horn technique. … It even appears
to be independent of musical and compositional styles; Dauprat is a contemporary
of Beethoven and Berlioz, Franz of Wagner and Brahms, and Farkas of
144
145
Austin (1993), 5.
52
Stravinsky and Copland, yet all three espouse many of the same concepts of horn
playing.146
The study of hand horn has continued to influence horn teachers and players even
after the ascent of the valve horn as the predominant instrument. According to Betts’s
study, even methods books as late as 1951 incorporated significant sections devoted to
the study and performance of hand horn:
It is interesting to note the attraction that the hand horn maintained over
the period of time covered in this survey [1798 – 1960]. Almost twenty years after
the first didactic materials were written for valve horn, Gallay writes a method
that ignores the existence of the valve horn. Nearly forty years after this, Franz’s
method [1881] gives equal prominence to both instruments. Seventy years later
still, Ceccarossi [1951] devotes the initial section of the first volume of his
method to hand-horn technique.147
Etudes comprise the central focus of horn study. While there are many different
etude books currently available for the modern student, recent and modern teachers seem
to refer to the same basic few collections time and again: Kopprasch, Kling, Gallay, and
Maxime-Alphonse. Philip Farkas cites the Kopprasch, Gallay, and Maxime-Alphonse
etudes as a formal balance of technique, melodic phrasing, and practical playing:
There are many fine etude books. These should be chosen

carefully, with much thought as to their contents, style, and difficulty.
Rather than study these books one at a time until each is finished, a much
better plan is to take only one, or even part of one, etude from each of
several books at each practice period. For instance, if a student were to
study in one day from the Kopprasch, Gallay, and Maxime-Alphonse
books, he would obtain a bit of Kopprasch’s careful, mechanical discipline
– Gallay’s melodious style and phrasing – and Maxime-Alphonses’s
modern tonalities and rhythmic difficulties.148
146
Betts (1984), 117-118, 119.
147
Betts (1984), 106.
148
Farkas (1956), 31.
53
Later in the same text, Farkas includes Gallay’s Op. 27 Preludes in a list of
recommended etude books. Other etude books in the list include three other volumes by
Gallay, as well as etudes by Kopprasch, Maxime-Alphonse, Belloli, Blume, Muller,
Schantl, and Franz.149 As an additional endorsement of Gallay’s Préludes non-mesurés,
Farkas cites all twenty of them at the end of his chapter on ‘Musical Phrasing’ as “etudes
which should help in the development of musicianly phrasing.”150
Nancy Fako similarly recounts Philip Farkas’s views on teaching materials when
he presented them during a panel discussion moderated by Barry Tuckwell as part of a
professional symposium on brass instruments at Wittenberg University in 1979. Here, in
Farkas’s words, we see the same balance of etudes by Kopprasch, Gallay, and Maxime-
Alphonse for technique, melodic phrasing, and practical playing, respectively:
In my own teaching I like to think that every etude or everything

that is studied has a purpose, a reason. I like to work out of three books
that I am very familiar with. They are quite old because I am old. But the
fact is, I am a better teacher when I work out of books I know. I feel
familiar with the music so I like to work out of the same old books even
though there are many fine modern new books and I do teach out of them,
too. But basically I like to work with Kopprasch. Kids don’t like it
anymore and maybe I’m bored with it, too. But someday when they get a
man on Mars, they’ll see a little green man on a rock with some primitive
instrument and he’ll be playing Kopprasch. I’ll bet you! I tell them I want
you to play Kopprasch because I want you to be a robot. I want you to be a
machine that can play the horn like a machine. I don’t care if you have
expression or not, but play it clean and do what the music says. Then I
want you to play Gallay, perhaps an unmeasured prelude because I
consider that the antidote to Kopprasch. This frees your mind. There are
no bar lines. You’ve got to use your imagination. You’ve got to expand
your creativity. You do exactly what Kopprasch did not intend you to do.
Kopprasch made you a horn-playing machine. Gallay should bring out the
gypsy in you. Then perhaps Maxime-Alphonse for a more realistic
approach, the orchestra-type playing you are going to do. And the fourth
149
Farkas (1956), 44.
150
Farkas (1956), 56.
54
thing I would insist on your doing would be orchestra passages, orchestra

literature. I get criticized by a lot of people who say, ‘You emphasize the
orchestra literature too much.’ And I say, ‘Well, the horn player wants to
get into a symphony. I don’t know any way he is going to get in without
auditioning, passing the audition, and in so doing he is going to have to
play orchestra literature.’ The final thing on the program is the solo
literature. I would treat solo literature as though it were a dessert after a
meal.151
After reviewing nearly 100 etude collections by 45 composers, Marvin Howe lists
only etudes by Kling, Kopprasch, and Gallay as “ever useful” etudes and cites only two
additional etude collections as worthy of note in his summary at the end of Chapter VI:
Annotated Bibliography of French Horn Methods and Etudes Available in 1965:
Of all the etudes reviewed herein, this writer finds those by

Maxime-Alphonse to be the most musically rewarding, especially Books I
to IV. Of unique challenge and high musical value are the Hoss
transcriptions of the Bach Suites for Violoncello Alone. Ever useful are the
etudes by Kling, Kopprasch, and Gallay; the latter’s Twelve Etudes for
Second Horn are unique.152
Howe’s review of Gallay’s Opus 27 Preludes is rather unremarkable aside from
the fact that it lists as currently available only the 1948 Thévet edition and the 1960
Sansone edition (the Sansone edition is listed without date by Howe) while overlooking
the Gallet edition from the 1930s. His review reads:
Quite a bit of work in grace notes, turns, etc. No low register below
trumpet notation, rarely below treble staff. Goes to c’’’ but mostly high
middle register. Legato style predominates. Some lip trills; no
transposition, stopping, muting, no glissando, flutter tongue. Average
musicality. Recommended.153
151
Fako (1998), 226.
152
Howe (1966), 372.
153
Howe (1966), 352.
55
We have already mentioned in Chapter One the fact that Verne Reynolds believes
the non-measured preludes of Gallay’s Opus 27 “offer good training in imaginative, free
playing”154 and that they “very successfully fill an important gap in horn etude
literature”155 for Douglas Hill.
Modern horn pedagogical technique can be summed up by Philip Farkas’s The Art
of French Horn Playing. With chapters on Choosing the Mouthpiece and Horn, Care and
Maintenance of the Horn, Playing Position and Use of the Right Hand, Fingering and
Tuning, Embouchure, Correct Breathing, Practice, Legato and Legato Tonguing,
Tonguing, Staccato, Tone Quality, Musical Phrasing, Range, Endurance, Dynamic
Range, Mouthpiece Pressure, Accuracy, Transposition, Lip Trills, Muting and Stopping
the Horn, Miscellaneous Tips and Aids, and Selected Etudes, Farkas’s text provides
modern pedagogues with a comprehensive outline for horn instruction. Just as “the safest
general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a
series of footnotes to Plato,”156 so also can most contemporary horn pedagogy be related
to Farkas. Recent method books by Verne Reynolds and Douglas Hill, for example,
expand on various facets of Farkas’s teaching in many fascinating and enriching ways but
without radically changing course. All pedagogical texts seem to agree: for modern
players, a steady diet of technical and musical development can be found in balancing
etude work, orchestral studies, and solo and chamber literature.
154
155
Hill (2001), 156.
156
Whitehead (1978), 39.
56
Horn Professors of the Paris Conservatoire
As was mentioned earlier, the French were slow to adopt the valve horn in place
of the hand horn. And while the new vogue in pedagogy in the rest of Europe was to
produce a new method for the valve horn, French educators continued to write methods
for the hand horn:
The French players’ loyalty to the hand horn meant that it was still worthwhile to
produce tutors for the valveless instrument for most of the [19th] century, and
those who did so include Jacqmin (1832), Mengal (1835), Gallay (1845), Blanc
(1855), Mohr (1871) and finally Lagard (1878).
The French tutors are unrivalled by any publication from other
countries …157
Credit for the continued prominence of the hand horn in France can be attributed
to four Paris Conservatoire horn professors from the early 19th century: Duvernoy,
Domnich, Dauprat, and Gallay.
Also significant is the fact that the Method books [of Duvernoy, Domnich,
Dauprat, and Gallay] were written and used during a time when the valve horn
was being developed and introduced throughout Europe. The work of the four
authors in the present study was able to keep the active study of hand horn alive
within the Conservatoire throughout the nineteenth century and into the early
twentieth century.158
The first important hand horn tutor written by a Paris Conservatoire horn
professor was Frédéric-Nicolas Duvernoy’s Methode pour le cor of 1802.159 It was the
first to conceive of the horn as a completely chromatic instrument by providing
“chromatic hand positions for the entire range of the instrument.”160 It is partly because of
157
158
Glen (1996), iii-iv.
159
Glen (1996), 6.
160
Rekward (1997), 30.
57
this view of the hand horn as a completely chromatic instrument that later French
professors would see little, if any, advantage to adopting the nascent and technically
imperfect valved horn. Duvernoy was the first senior horn professor at the Paris
Conservatoire; his appointment lasted from 1795 until the end of 1815.161
Heinrich Domnich, a hand horn student of Hampel, was appointed professor of
cor basse at the Paris Conservatoire in 1795. 162 This appointment began the strong
Parisian tradition of hand horn playing and teaching. His Méthode de Premier et de
Second Cor, published in 1808, is considered the first definitive horn method.163 It was
adopted in 1807 as the official method book for horn of the Paris Conservatoire and
remained so until it was replaced by Dauprat’s 1824 Méthode de Cor Alto et Cor Basse,
even after Domnich left the Conservatoire in 1817. 164
Louis-François Dauprat first experienced the Conservatoire as a student. In 1797,
he won the first premier prix awarded to a horn student.165 In 1802, he was given an
honorary appointment and succeeded Duvernoy as full professor in 1816, an appointment
he held until 1842.166 His Méthode de Cor Alto et Cor Basse, published in 1824, replaced
Domnich’s Méthode as the official Paris Conservatoire tutor. It is highly regarded for its
comprehensive nature. It covers “every problem, technical and musical, likely to confront
the advanced hand-horn student.”167 It is because of the high caliber of Dauprat’s hand
161
Glen (1996), 5; Greene (1970), 29.
162
Rekward (1997), 27; Glen (1996), 3.
163
Glen (1996), 3.
164
Morley-Pegge (1973), 97; Coar (1952), 144; Greene (1970), 29.
165
Glen (1996), 7.
166
Glen (1996), 9.
167
58
horn performance and that of his students that the valve horn was so slow to gain a
foothold in France:
The performance level of Dauprat and his students attained such heights
that the hand horn was much preferred in French orchestras long after the valve
horn had replaced it in other orchestras on the continent. The French could not be
convinced of any advantages offered by the valve mechanism.168
Two of Dauprat’s students went on to teach at the Paris Conservatoire: Joseph
Emile Meifred and Jacques-François Gallay.169 Meifred taught the newly-founded valve
horn class from 1833 to 1864, and Gallay immediately succeeded Dauprat teaching hand
horn from 1842 to 1864.170
The first valve horn class was taught by Meifred beginning in 1833 and lasted
only until Meifred’s retirement from the Conservatoire in 1864.171 Meifred brought the
valve horn to the attention of Parisians when he performed one of his own compositions
for valve horn on the inaugural concert of the Société des Concerts du Conservatoire.172
He represents the first major break with hand horn pedagogy in France. After his
retirement, it was more than thirty years before another Conservatoire professor
reinstated the valve horn class.
Meifred’s Méthode pour le Cor Chromatique ou à Pistons is considered by
Morley-Pegge to be the “first important valve-horn tutor.”173 Meifred recognized the
supremacy of Dauprat’s hand horn method in terms of musical and pedagogical content:
168
Greene (1970), 30.
169
Glen (1996), 9.
170
171
172
173
59
Among all the methods written for the Horn, the most complete, the most
rational, and the most conscientious as well, is, without contradiction, that of Mr.
DAUPRAT, professor at the Conservatory….174
According to Snedeker, Meifred considered his method simply to be the ‘missing
valve horn chapters’ of Dauprat’s hand horn method:
It is more appropriate, then, to view this method in the spirit Meifred himself did:
as a supplement to a larger work, that of Dauprat, whose own Méthode…
represented a culmination in horn pedagogy, describing an instrument, the natural
horn, that was effectively complete, or chromatic.175
Although he can be regarded as a progressive because of his support for the valve
horn, Meifred actually took a very moderate view of the new instrument. Because of the
imperfections of hand horn technique and the imperfections of the nascent valve
technology, he advocated a middle approach, drawing from the best of both worlds:
Meifred’s choice of two valves is in his mind a practical one, based on the
minimum amount of technology required to produce the effects deemed desirable.
…
From careful inspection of his notations, it is clear that Meifred formulates his
practice on balancing old and new characteristics – finding the shortest workable
tubing, using handstopping for practical harmonic and melodic effects, and
achieving balance in volume and timbre between the parts, all for maximum
musical effect.176
This middle road allowed the horn to keep its characteristic voice while taking
full advantage of new technology to the benefit of the performer.177
174
Meifred (1840), translated in Snedeker (1991), 149.
175
Snedeker (1991), 115.
176
Snedeker (1994), 13.
177
Snedeker (1994), 15.
60
Gallay’s Life and Works
Jacques-François Gallay was born in 1795 in Perpignan, where he received his
earliest horn instruction from his father. At the age of 25, he was admitted to Dauprat’s
horn class despite the fact that he was above the normal age for admission. He won a
premier prix after his first year of study, and was soon performing regularly in
professional Parisian ensembles.178
Gallay was, by nature, a cor alto, but many of his exercises and solo pieces are
written in the relatively narrow range of the cor mixte.179 He is considered by some to be
the “last great hand horn virtuoso in France,”180 but Morley-Pegge cites mixed criticism
for Gallay’s cor alto style of playing: “[I]t was said of him that ‘il montait comme un
ange, mais il ne pouvait pas descendre’…”181 [he went up like an angel, but could not go
down]. Fétis suggests that the only justifiable critique of Gallay was his tendency towards
cor mixte playing:
The only adverse criticism of his [Gallay’s] playing which appeared justified was
in regard to the limited range which he used on the horn. He seemed to wish, like
Frédéric Duvernoy, to circumscribe himself within the limits of the Cor mixte,
which resulted in a certain monotony which the greatest perfection of detail could
not obliterate.182
Gallay was appointed to the Paris Conservatoire to succeed his teacher, Dauprat,
as professor of hand horn. His Préludes mesurés et non-mesurés, Op. 27 had appeared
only a few years before this appointment. Approximately three years later, in 1845, he
178
179
180
Glen (1996), 11; Rekward (1997), 31-32.
181
182
Fétis, F.J. Biographie Universelle des Musiciens et Bibliographie Generale de la
Musique, 2nd edition. Vol. III, p. 387. Cited in Coar (1952), 153.
61
produced his Méthode pour le Cor, “the last major hand-horn tutor in France.”183 Gallay
died in 1864 while still engaged in his position at the Conservatoire.184 It was not until
1903 that the valve horn became the officially recognized horn at the Paris
Conservatoire185 and many authors attribute the remarkable delay in its acceptance to
Gallay and his excellent hand horn playing and teaching. 186
Despite the fact that Morley-Pegge regards Gallay’s Méthode to be outdated and
subordinate to Dauprat’s Méthode, Gallay’s etudes remain of great value even to modern
valve horn players.187 Snedeker singles out the Op. 27 Preludes for special praise:
He [Gallay] composed concertos, solos and chamber music, primarily for horn,
and a considerable number of exercises, addressing technical and musical issues,
still widely used today. Most significant are his Préludes mésurés et non mésurés,
which provide insights into cadenza-type performing practices.188
183
Morley-Pegge, 100.
184
Glen (1996), 13.
185
Glen (1996), 26.
186
Rekward (1997), 32; Coar (1952), 94; Coar (1952), 107.
187
Glen (1996), 26; 59; Coar (1952), 107.
188
Snedeker (2002).
62
Performance Practice
General Remarks about Performance Practice
In order to construct a well-informed performance of Gallay’s Non-Measured
Preludes, it is imperative that we examine a few issues surrounding performance practice
and interpretation in the most general sense, as well as in the specific areas of late
Classical and early Romantic French instrumental practices. The most basic question of
interpretation is: Does an abstract entity called the “correct interpretation” of a given
work even exist?
For theorist Edward Cone, the ideal interpretation is an elusive Platonic-form-like
entity to which all performances are approximations and towards which all performers
must strive:
Sooner or later every discussion of the problems of musical performance seems to

raise the question of the ideal interpretation: is there such a thing? Does one
perfect performance of a composition subsist as the ideal toward which every
actual one should aspire? Is this true of every composition? Is it true of any?
Most people would probably agree that, even if a perfect interpretation is
conceivable, it is hardly possible of achievement, and that every actual
performance must be at best an approximation of it. Still, many of us are vaguely
comforted by the notion of one interpretation that, in some Platonic realm,
constitutes the music as precisely as a picture is a picture, a statue is a statue, and
a building is a building. According to this view, the space arts are fortunate, since
they are fixed and unchanging; the time arts (which would include drama and all
other forms of literature as well as music) are subject to readings, performances,
and interpretations, all of which distort the true essence of the work of art.
Nevertheless, this essence remains there, somewhere, to be discovered and, so far
as possible, exposed.189
189
Cone (1968), 32-33.
63
Cone goes on to decide that every valid interpretation finds its roots in this
essential nature of a work, but that its subjective value is a product of the way in which
the performer chooses to amplify or diminish one set of relationships over another:
The more complex the poem or composition, the more relationships its
performance must be prepared to explain – and the less likelihood that a single
performance can ever do the job. The composition must proceed inexorably in
time; we cannot go back to explain; we must therefore decide what is important
and make that as clear as possible, even at the expense of other aspects of the
work. After all, there will be other performances! Every valid interpretation thus
represents, not an approximation of some ideal, but a choice: which of the
relationships implicit in this piece are to be emphasized, to be made explicit?190
Historian Robert Donington asks the same types of question and his answers
provide performers with similar amounts of latitude. His view is that there is not one
ideal interpretation but that there exist several ‘correct’ interpretations whose possible
extremes are given by the score. Within these limits, all performances may be regarded as
correct. In the end, Donington admits of a subjective margin of error with which even he
is comfortable:
It was at this point that I asked myself the deliberate question: can we hear
something in the implications of the music which is not so much historical as
essential, having to do less with its origins in past history than with its timeless
essence? …
What astonishes me is not how much we fall out over our individual
interpretations, but how confidently we assume that there must be a right
interpretation implicit in the music, with all the others wrong. Our confidence in
the music itself telling us what to do with it is absolutely justified: in the long run,
there would be no other way of finding out. It is only that we do have to allow a
certain margin for temperament, this way or that. The music does not so much tell
us its own interpretation as tell us the outer boundaries within which our
interpretation may be congruous with its implications. This leaves room for a
considerable flexibility. But we can live with that.191
190
Cone (1968), 33-34.
191
64
Each piece has its own inherent properties, values, and sets of relationships that
direct a performer towards the goal of ‘correct’ interpretation or ‘correct’ performance.
According to Cone, the “all-embracing unity” of the stylistic elements of tempo, meter,
rhythm, melody, harmony, and form should interrelate in such a manner as to
“unequivocally imply its appropriate performance.”192 He asks if performers have a moral
responsibility to communicate musical style:
Style, according to Whitehead, is “the ultimate morality of mind.”193 If this

is so, then the comprehension and communication of musical style may well be
the ultimate morality of performance – that is to say, its final responsibility.194
Frederick Dorian suggests a three-fold approach to musical interpretation:
understanding the score’s notation, employing appropriate musical intuition, and
knowing the history, customs, and tradition of a given work.195 More specific musical
advice is given by Timothy Schultz in his book Performing French Classical Music:
Sources and Applications. In his section on musical phrasing he lists variety of attacks,
releases, and dynamic shaping to be the primary factors available in helping to shape a
musical phrase by selecting certain notes to emphasize more than others:
Assuming that phrase structures can be identified, the task of enlivening

them with character and nuance remains. For the most part, musicians control
these things by varying attacks and releases, making some abrupt and others more
tapered. Also, the dynamic shaping of notes between attacks and releases greatly
affects the way that character is perceived. … [I]n non-vocal music, it is up to the
performers to imagine patterns of syllabic stress. Once more, the observation of
192
Cone (1968), 58.
193
Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education, New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1929, p. 19, cited in Cone (1968), 57.
194
Cone (1968), 57.
195
Dorian (1942), 31.
65
ornament placement, rhythm and harmonic progressions can help musicians

decide which notes should be stressed and which unstressed.196
A common conclusion of many writers on performance practice and the art of
interpretation is that the modern performer is given much more musical instruction than
his predecessors. They cite this as evidence of a greater respect for performers in past
ages, signifying the composer’s confidence that their works would be rendered faithfully
and with all appropriate stylistic and cultural musical norms. In the early nineteenth
century, Anton Reicha described the scarcity of highly qualified musical interpreters and
enumerated the qualities such performers should have, balancing natural affinities and
musical training:
ON THE MANNER OF PERFORMING MELODY AND ON THE ART

OF EMBELLISHING IT
It is not sufficient to invent good melodies; they must also be performed
perfectly. If it is difficult to create them, it is no less difficult to execute them
well. The art of performance can in no way be compared with the art of simple
speech. Out of a hundred who speak well, one could scarcely find amongst them
two who could sing tolerably. To be an excellent singer, one needs, (1) a sonorous
voice, yet sweet, flexible, and pleasing, with a range both sufficient and even, (2)
a profound sensibility, (3) an exquisite taste, (4) a perfect schooling, and (5) a
well-trained, refined, and delicate ear. One could say that it is a rare phenomenon
for all these qualities to be found in a single individual. How many composers
have not been the victims of performances lacking in nuance, taste, feeling, or
finally, lacking a voice capable of charming or interesting us?197
Dorian describes the decided lack of choices presented to the performer of
modern music as a slight towards the performer/interpreter:
One thing is certain: modern composers do not have such faith in their
interpreters. This becomes clear by comparing the manuscripts of the scores of
old and modern times. Today, the interpreter of contemporary works frequently
196
Schultz (2001), 32.
197
Reicha (1814/1832), 65.
66
has little or no personal choice, as he is forced to follow the very strict directions
of the composer.198
Thurston Dart describes a similar attitude going so far as to question the regard
modern composers have for the intelligence of modern performers:
Moreover the performer was in earlier times regarded as a more intelligent

member of the musical community than he is now, if the markings of dynamics,
phrasing, tempos and what-not scattered over a modern work are any indication of
the composer’s attitude towards the performer; the further we go back in musical
history, the rarer such markings become and the more trust was evidently placed
in a performer’s training, his sense of tradition, and his innate musicianship.199
Clive Brown offers a less emotional appeal but recognizes the same trend of
earlier composers to supply fewer expressive markings, leaving more interpretive space
for contemporary performers:
Discussion of the subject [of oratorical accentuation] by Koch, Türk, and others of
their contemporaries makes it abundantly clear that the relative scarcity of
instructions for accent in eighteenth-century music carries no implication that
expressive accents were not envisaged where they are not specifically marked. As
with much else in the music of that period, even the more painstaking composers
only indicated the music’s most prominent and essential features, and many seem
to have neglected even to do that; thus it was left to the executant to supply most
of the accentuation necessary for a fine and tasteful performance.200
In addition to the stylistic elements of attacks, releases, and dynamic variety cited
by Schultz (above), most writers regard tempo and rhythm to be the principle means for
interpretation and artistic expression. Donington regards the maintenance of a good
tempo to be among the most difficult aspects of performance and that notation is of little
help, even when at its most specific. He explains that the selection of tempo is dependent
198
Dorian (1942), 29.
199
Dart (1967), 14.
200
Brown, Clive (1999), 29.
67
on so many variables that cannot be adequately quantified once and for all and that the
tempo of each performance will reflect these variable conditions:
To set a good tempo; to maintain it, flexibly, yet so that the piece ends at the same
tempo at which it started; to remember this tempo so as to be able to set it again,
within a reasonable margin, at the next performance: these are some of the hardest
things in music.
Notation is at its least helpful here. This is not because tempo cannot be
recorded in writing, but because, in practice, it is not an absolute but a relative
quantity.
The familiar story of Beethoven’s irascible inability to believe his own
previous metronome markings illustrates very well the fallaciousness of assuming
that a good tempo at one performance is a good tempo for every performance. It is
not so; there are too many variables which affect the case.
Some of these variables are physical. A room, hall or church with resonant
acoustics imposes a slower tempo than one with little echo. Large choirs and
orchestras make for a slower tempo than small forces in the same music.
The most important variables, however, are the temperament and the
passing mood of the performer. Fine music has depths and shades of meaning
which cannot all be fully brought out in the same performance. We can make the
most of its brilliant side, of its tender side and so forth, but not all at the same
time. Not only may different performers find different affinities in the same
music; the same performer may do so at different times. And one of the main
changes involved in such changes of interpretation is a change of tempo – as
Beethoven discovered.201
Donington also speaks on the importance of rhythm as a vital element of
interpretation. Given the precision of rhythmic notation, it would seem that rhythmic
interpretation would be a more exact practice than the selection of a suitable tempo. Not
so, argues Donington:
Rhythm is second only to tempo in importance, and like tempo, depends

eventually on the invisible clock which we carry inside us. But unlike tempo, it is
sufficiently involved in the structure of the music to have an outward shape which
can be, and since the middle ages normally has been notated.
The notation of rhythm, however, is necessarily mathematical, because our
notated time-values go by fixed multiples. The inner vitality of rhythm is not
201
68
mathematical; it is a variable reacting with other variables to embody the mood of

a given performance.202
Edward Cone expresses a similar sentiment about the importance of rhythm and
tempo in creating a valid interpretation by asserting that “valid performance depends
primarily on the perception and communication of the rhythmic life of a composition.”203
Schultz remarks on this most clearly and perhaps most pertinently when he says
that “Selecting appropriate tempos for historically informed performances of French
classical music is troublesome. It is not always easy to understand the intentions of early
writers, who indicated tempos in a variety of ways.”204
Quantz discusses the interpretation of cadenzas which, as was described above,
were very similar in structure to non-measured preludes. He comments on the role of
rhythm and tempo in playing cadenzas or any music without regular meter:
§16 – Regular metre is seldom observed, and indeed should not be

observed, in cadenzas. They should consist of detached ideas rather than a
sustained melody, as long as they conform to the preceding expression of the
passions.205
One of the most interesting statements by a nineteenth-century writer was made
by Anton Reicha who flatly denied the existence of melodic preludes: “There are no
melodic fantasies, let alone melodic preludes. However, this could be a genre of melody
to be developed, or at least attempted, even for the voice.”206 This seems like a curious
statement coming from such a learned source when we consider that the art of preluding
202
203
Cone (1968), 38.
204
Schultz (2001), 13.
205
Quantz (1752), 185.
206
Reicha (1814/1832), 60.
69
had existed for lute and harpsichord for more than 200 years before Reicha and that
preludes for woodwinds were written during his lifetime.
Issues Specific to the Horn at the Paris Conservatory
Some of the best information regarding the interpretation of Gallay’s Préludes
non-mesurés should come from horn methods contemporary to or slightly preceding
Gallay. These would give us an idea of the stylistic tradition that Gallay would have
inherited and would have passed on to his students through his own pedagogical works.
Sadly, very little was written on the subject of style and interpretation by any of these
writers. John Humphries explains one possible reason for this lack of stylistic information
by Paris Conservatoire horn teachers:
Domnich, Gallay and Meifred cover general stylistic issues only in very
broad terms, and later horn tutors limit themselves almost entirely to technical
matters. This may be partly explained by wider philosophical thinking, for while
eighteenth-century artists were concerned with reason, rational thought and the
need to overcome superstition and prejudice by raising the general level of
education, nineteenth-century Romanticism sought to free the human spirit, to re-
assert individuality of expression and to give full rein to the imagination. In this
culture didactic writing seemed out of place.207
From Gallay’s Méthode pour le Cor, we learn about taste, style, and expression in
the most sweeping terms. Taste, to Gallay, is a natural gift that can be shaped by good or
bad models. Style is “the way ideas are expressed” 208 and applies equally to composer
and performer. Expression seems to involve accent, nuance, articulation, and dynamic
considerations which are not necessarily printed on the page, but which the performer
207
208
See Appendix H for a complete translation of this essay.
70
may choose to add. All in all, Gallay’s principal advice is that the horn and all
instruments should strive to imitate the human voice in breadth of expression.
The most specific knowledge we have of performing and the advice given to horn
students in the nineteenth century is from Dauprat’s Méthode. In it, Dauprat gives not
only stylistic advice but also practical performing tips.
Humphries describes many of the contrived expressions a performer might
undergo that were frowned upon by Dauprat: “acquiescing gestures of the arms, rounding
in of the shoulders, and rolling of the eyes” as well as foot tapping, sucking water out of
the instrument, and preluding before the start of a piece.209 Dauprat’s comments would
seem to ban preluding altogether, but Humphries states Dauprat’s position on private
preluding as a more acceptable practice and one that is in line with the preluding
practices of earlier periods:
He does accept that ‘solitary preluding’, or warming up in private,

‘establishes the tuning of the instrument, and gives the lip suppleness and the
fingers dexterity’, but it should be completed off-stage: ‘If you go on and on
before the public, whether to amuse yourself, pass the time or show off, you can
only bore the listeners and make a fool of yourself.’ [footnote: Dauprat, Méthode,
p. 324, note 2] As the nineteenth century moved on, however, such idiosyncracies
[sic] became part of the mystique surrounding the performer.210
From Dauprat we also learn of the difficulty of writing out non-measured music,
particularly that of written-out cadenzas (a practice of which he approves), and thus
presumably of non-measured preludes which are very similar in character to cadenzas:
It is hard to write out this sort of ‘improvisation,’ considering that the kind
of disorder characteristic of it prevents regularity of tempo in both detail and
209
Humphries (2000), 70-71.
210
71
overall design. The differences in note values and the indication of dynamics and
articulation are all that can suggest suitable tempi and meters.211
Dauprat also provides a guide to calculating the articulation of passages based on
the relative tempo. Slower tempos demand more connection; faster tempos, less:
The slower the tempo, the more the notes must be connected; the swifter
the tempo, the further one can depart from this rule. … Several notes can be
tongued in sequence, but with such gentleness, and with each sound so sustained,
that they all seem to be linked together. This is especially true for the horn, the
sounds of which are more subtle than those of other instruments. Similarly, then,
in a swift tempo, one can alternately slur and tongue the notes of a melody or in
passagework.212 [Emphasis original.]
A few other specific practices bear mention at this point. The first is the rise to
prominence of the horn crooked exclusively in F. While nothing tells us explicitly about
Gallay’s preference for the horn in F, we have several clues that point in that direction.
One is the general rise of F as the key of choice for cor mixte players and among other
contemporary players.
Another characteristic of cor mixte was its almost exclusive use of the F
horn. Even when the music called for horn in E-flat or any other key, the cor
mixte player would use his F crook. This also met with criticism since it would
change which notes were played open and which required stopping. The idea was
to get composers to write for horn only in F because they thought this was the best
key for the true horn sound.213
Meifred, a contemporary of Gallay, fellow student of Dauprat, and advocate of
valve technology, also preferred the horn in F:
It is interesting to note that Meifred begins with a premise of the horn

crooked in F. This rationale is not explained and is a bit confusing, particularly in
211
Dauprat (1994), 331.
212
Dauprat (1994), 349.
213
Robinson (1998), 16.
72
view of Dauprat’s identification of E-flat as a good compromise key for alto and
basse. [footnote: See Dauprat, Méthode…, 13. In this discussion, Dauprat states
that E-flat was the crook of choice for Kenn (his teacher), Domnich and Punto,
recognizing that only cor mixte advocates support the use of the F crook.] Perhaps
Meifred’s choice is related to the traditional cor mixte use of the F crook for
timbre consistency, or perhaps it was an enticement to German players who
crooked their horns permanently in F.214
Another practice appears to have been the transposition of many exercises into
other keys, a practice Dauprat explicitly mentions in the foreword of his 20 Duos for
Horns in Different Keys:
For there are very few of these pieces that could not be played with the
most frequently used crooks – often with two identical crooks and in the most
common keys for the horn. Young performers, and amateurs who have had the
wisdom to adopt the “genre” of cor alto or cor basse (first or second horn) and
who want to improve in it, must perform these duos as they were composed: at
first, in the keys indicated at the beginning of each piece; later, in all the
transpositions presented in the examples. This practice enables them, first, to
become acquainted with all the crooks of the instrument; second, to read equally
well in all keys; and third, to perform the different keys practicable on each
crook.215
While this practice of transposing exercises into other keys is made plain to the
performer in Dauprat’s foreword and could be thought to apply in only those
circumstances where transposition instructions are given, an aside from Meifred in his
Méthode might suggest that it was a more common occurrence for exercises to be
transposed. His comments are directed chiefly towards promoting the valve horn as a
viable instrument and in making pedagogical material originally designed for hand horn
more practicable by valve horn players, but the easy reference to Gallay’s exercises
214
Snedeker (1991), 108-109.
215
Dauprat (1999), 20 Duos…, Foreword (no page number).
73
which can be played in two octaves suggests that transposition was more commonplace
than strict instructions in extant pedagogical materials might suggest:
I will give the same advice to Mr. GALLAY, [to write valve horn
fingerings] for his excellent exercises, some of which, those able to be played in
two different octaves, would be valuable to Low horn [players].216
216
Meifred (1840), translated in Snedeker (1991), 256.
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
The Gallay Preludes came to my attention through readings of many fine
pedagogical books, including those by Farkas, Hill, and Reynolds. As these Preludes
were reported to be highly musical studies that served as an ‘antidote’ to the repetitive
technical exercises most horn players are all too familiar with, I wanted to learn to play
them. I purchased the Chambers (International) edition because it was inexpensive and
readily available and proceeded to study them on my own. The Non-Measured Preludes
were (and remain) infinitely more fun to work on than the Measured Preludes (numbers
1-20) because of the inherent ambiguities and the ways in which they challenge the
performer to provide a convincing reading in performance.
I was also intrigued by the pedagogical possibilities of these pieces. In my studio
teaching, I enjoy leading students through difficult and often ambiguous questions of
musical realization (Where is this line going? What is the most important note in this
phrase, section, piece? How do the rhythm and melody of this passage confirm or
contradict each other? What can we do as performers to make these performances more
clear for our audience? What other readings or interpretations of this piece are possible or
75
credible? Do particular pitches or passages clarify or obscure the local tonal area? etc.). I
also enjoy helping students to discover the theoretical, practical, and intuitive means of
making music come to life. Gallay’s Non-Measured Preludes provide a wealth of these
musically challenging questions in a very compact and teachable format, thereby making
them a perfect resource for these kinds of intellectual and musical exercises.
I located published editions of the Preludes by consulting web-based and hard
copies of music publisher and distributor catalogs from around the world. Major sources
included Robert King, Theodore Presser, Paxman, Sheet Music Service of Portland, and
Southern Music Company. Other smaller publishers and distributors were also consulted
in the same ways. In addition, I used WorldCat to try to find records of other published
editions of these Preludes. I was successful in being able to purchase a copy of every
edition I found. Ultimately, I purchased copies through Robert King, Theodore Presser,
and Southern Music Company. [See Appendices C and D for a complete list of published
editions and their respective distributors.] Another printing of the Gallet edition was
generously loaned to me by Mr. Randy Gardner, Professor of Horn at the University of
Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. I photocopied this edition for use in my
research.
I began my search for the manuscript in the library of the Paris Conservatoire.
Information I found about the history of the library indicated that its collection had been
merged with the collection of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF) in 1964217. A
search of the online catalog of the BNF gave me only readily available published
217
http://www.bnf.fr/pages/collections/musique.htm under Le Fonds du Conservatoire,
accessed as recently as 21 June 2004
76
editions, all of which were in my possession. I then wrote to the Office of Reproduction
Services at the BNF asking if they could locate and copy the original manuscript in the
BNF’s special collection of Conservatoire documents. I was informed in a letter dated
October 2, 2003 from Bruno Baudry, Le chef du service reproduction, that the BNF
collection does not include this manuscript. Finding nothing in any secondary sources
that readily indicated the location of the manuscript, lacking the funds to travel to Paris to
investigate the BNF for myself, and armed with information from Rick Seraphinoff that
the Gallet edition already in my possession was probably a reprinting from the original
plates, I called off the search for the manuscript.
Most secondary sources were located in the Ball State University Library or could
be interlibrary loaned from other locations. I used several online sources, including
International Index of Music Periodicals (IIMP), RILM Abstracts of Music Literature,
WorldCat, and Digital Dissertations to find sources related to Jacques-François Gallay,
the Paris Conservatoire, horn pedagogy, horn history, non-measured preludes,
unmeasured preludes, and other similar topics. Another useful resource was the
repository of dissertations available for loan from the International Horn Society.
The one document that I could not obtain through interlibrary loaned was a copy
of the English publication of Grand Method for the French Horn by Meifred, Gallay, and
Dauprat. I drove to Urbana-Champaign to photocopy this item. Despite its claim to be a
compilation of methods by three Paris Conservatoire horn professors, it is essentially a
copy of the Gallay method with most, but not all, of the text translated into English. In
the front and back of this text are a few exercises by the other two professors.
Frustratingly, a handful of the text pages in the French version are absent from the
77
English translation. I was able to commission Dr. Louis Mackenzie, Associate Professor
of Romance Languages and Literature at the University of Notre Dame, to translate
Gallay’s essay “On the Subjects of Taste, Style, Nuance, Expression and on the Effect of
Stopped Sounds.” Discerning Gallay’s own views on stylistic playing would certainly be
an advantage to players attempting to create an accurate performance of his works. A
copy of this translation is included in Appendix H.
Among the published editions, I have sought to catalog differences in the
following details: layout (number of lines per page and location of line breaks), location
of barlines, dynamic indications, tempo indications, note durations, pitch, omissions or
additions of material, accidentals, phrase markings, breath marks, accents, beams and
groupings, and articulations. A few differences are not noted: stem direction, substitution
of “ƒ” for “Forte” or similar symbol/text substitutions, writing out turns, and any other
minor typographical changes that would not affect the outcome of a performance.
As part of my research, I sought out three former students of Philip Farkas from
whom to take lessons. I wanted to find Farkas students for the simple reason that Farkas
believed so highly in the teaching of these preludes that he taught regularly from this
book. Randy Gardner, Douglas Hill, and Richard Seraphinoff are all Farkas students still
residing in the Midwest who hold major university positions. Mr. Gardner teaches horn at
the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, and was Mr. Farkas’s
teaching assistant at Indiana University in 1974. Mr. Hill teaches horn at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison. He specifically mentions the Préludes non-mesurés in his
pedagogical book Collected Thoughts on Teaching and Learning, Creativity, and Horn
Performance. Mr. Seraphinoff is a renowned hand horn scholar, performer, and

78
instrument builder who teaches natural horn and valve horn at Indiana University,
Bloomington. I arranged for lessons with Mr. Gardner and Mr. Hill at the International
Horn Symposium at IU-Bloomington in June 2003. As Mr. Seraphinoff was one of the
IHS hosts, he was much too busy to teach during the event. I traveled to his home studio
in Bloomington a few weeks later to take a lesson with him.
I prepared for the lessons by asking each of these three teachers what preludes (if
any) they particularly preferred to play or teach. I selected about 6 of these on which to
concentrate my preparation and practice. Of those they mentioned, I selected preludes
based on a few other criteria: 1) prefer shorter preludes, 2) prefer completely non-
measured preludes, and 3) prefer a total collection of preludes that provide contrasts of
key, mode, and character. I deliberately selected preludes for each lesson by selecting one
or two in common for all teachers, and trying to find a different prelude for each teacher.
By keeping one or two the same each time, I was trying to achieve a more valid
comparison across specific preludes; by varying the rest, I was trying to achieve a
broader coverage of the literature. In the end, my lesson with Mr. Seraphinoff was
completely discussion-based, as he had many insights into natural horn playing, Gallay,
and other relevant topics that precluded the opportunity to play specific examples.
Each lesson was videotaped so that I could transcribe the content of each lesson
for later reference. I have cleaned up the texts of the transcripts or notes by removing
incomplete phrases and hesitant sentence beginnings without losing any of the essential
content. These transcripts or notes are located in Appendix G.
I have used the information gathered from various primary and secondary sources
to present an historical context for Gallay’s Non-Measured Preludes from several

79
perspectives: the development and perfection of hand horn technique, the development
and use of valves, and the evolution of non-measured preludes as a genre. I have also
prepared a pedagogical context built from the horn-specific sources as a guide to
understanding how these Preludes can be used as part of the regular horn studio
curriculum.
The musical examples in the main body of this work were created using Finale
3.5.2 for the Macintosh. The musical excerpts in Appendix F: Comparison of Published
Editions were created using LilyPond 2.0.1, an open-source GNU-based music typesetter.
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
This study had three purposes: first, to compare all available published editions of
the Préludes non mesurés (numbers 21-40) of Gallay’s Op. 27; second, to present
appropriate questions regarding the interpretation of non-measured preludes through an
historical and contextual analysis of non-measured preludes, in general, and of Gallay’s
Op. 27, in particular; and third, to present a sample of modern pedagogical opinions
regarding the performance of the Gallay, Op. 27 Non-Measured Preludes.
The Gallet edition of 1933/1936 is probably a printing from the original plates,
and is thereby the best available approximation of Gallay’s intent. After comparing the
other four published editions (Thévet, Sansone, Chambers, and Leloir) to the Gallet
edition, it seems that the Sansone edition published by Southern Music most accurately
reflects this Gallet edition. Since the Gallet edition is extremely difficult to locate and
purchase, my recommendation is for teachers and students to use the Sansone edition as a
standard for performance and study. This edition is most true to the Gallet edition, it is
exceedingly affordable, and it is readily available through Southern Music and its various
81
local distributors. I would suggest only the following changes or clarifications to the
Sansone text:
1) in number 21, the first two pitches should be whole notes instead of half notes;
2) in number 23, the accidental on the d’’ at (1, 23)218 should be clarified as d-
natural, not d-sharp;
3) in number 24, the duration of the f’ at the end of line 2 (2, 28) should be a half
note;
4) in number 25, there is no slash in the Gallet edition on the grace note d’’ at (5,
22);
5) in number 26, add a staccato dot to the a-sharp’ at (5, 13);
6) in number 28, add the accidental (sharp) to the f-sharp’’ at (5, 6);
7) in number 28, add the accidental (sharp) to the f-sharp’ at (5, 24);
8) in number 32, add the accidental (sharp) to the f-sharp’ at (1, 29);
9) in number 32, change the e’’ at (3, 26) to e-flat’’ (add flat sign to make pattern
identical to that of the previous bar);
10) in number 32, add the accidental (natural) to the e’ at (6, 27) [last note of line
6];
11) in number 33, add the accidental (flat) to the d-flat’’ at (3, 19);
12) in number 33, add the accidental (natural) to the e’’ at (3, 20);
13) in number 33, add the accidental (natural) to the d’’ at (3, 27);
14) in number 34, the quarter-note a-sharp at (8, 2) should be a dotted-quarter-
note;
218
See Appendix F: Comparison of Published Editions for an explanation of this notation.
82
15) in number 35, add the accidental (natural) to the e’’ at (5, 4);
16) in number 36, add the cautionary accidental (sharp) to the a-sharp’ at (4, 19);
17) in number 37, the “f” dynamic marking should appear at (4, 16), not (4, 17);
18) in number 37, the turn at (6, [7-8]) should have a sharp to indicate g-sharp’;
19) in number 37, the staccato pattern should continue to include a staccato dot on
a’ at (7, 29) and maybe even on the f-sharp’ and e’ at (7, [33-34]);
20) in number 38, add cautionary accidentals (natural) to the e’’ at (3, 24) and
(3, 25);
21) in number 38, add cautionary accidentals (sharp) to f-sharp’’ at (6, 5) and
(6, 8);
22) in number 39, correct ambiguous accidental on f’ at (3, 4) to a double-sharp;
23) in number 40, the accidental on the f’’ at (1, 12) should be a natural sign;
24) in number 40, the accidental on the d’’ at (1, 14) should be a sharp sign; and
25) in number 40, the articulation of bars 1 and 3 of line 9 should be
3 slurred + 1 tongued (staccato?), 2 slurred + 2 staccato.
One of the primary aspects to bear in mind when performing these preludes is that
they stem from an improvisatory tradition. They are meant to sound as if they could have
been improvised instead of fully composed. The performer must decide whether each
piece is perhaps whimsical, melancholy, or simply a vehicle for virtuosity. Fluctuations
in tempo are expected, but the overall character should remain uniform throughout each
piece. The degree of rhythmic freedom will vary from one performance to the next, and
this is acceptable because it fits in the nature of improvised music. Interpretation, in this
83
respect, relies more strongly on the performer than on the composer. This improvisatory
nature suggests that there is no single correct way to interpret these Preludes. Not only
might different performers conceive of different moods or characters for each Prelude,
but the same performer might highlight different nuances in character from one
performance to the next.
Some passages demand a great deal more rhythmic flexibility than others. For
instance, scales may be played quite rapidly, more or less as flourishes, perhaps
emphasizing by length or articulation the first and last notes. Tilney’s advice regarding
rhythmic interpretation of keyboard preludes, in which the performer is admonished to
play more quickly through passages with limited harmonic interest and to draw out more
melodically or harmonically enchanting lines, holds true for the Preludes of Gallay:
It is particularly important to linger on pivotal notes before introducing a new

harmony, and also to ease the listener through chains of bizarre modulations….
Any unusually affecting melodic line or figure – Frescobaldi’s affetti
cantabili—must be brought out and savoured. On the other hand, emphasizing the
banal, the expected, the harmonically restricted is of no interest to anyone:
passaggi are there for display and to provide a change of pace from the generally
moderate overall tempo.219
Players should choose a tempo which best represents the character of the prelude
in question. Reflective preludes, such as numbers 22, 30, and 39, would seem to benefit
most from a slow tempo. Likewise, the more showy preludes, such as numbers 25 and 27,
seem to want to press forward in tempo in many spots.
Generally, slower tempos tend to be more appropriate than faster ones for several
reasons. First, many of these pieces are introspective in nature and would be better served
219
Tilney (1991), 7.
84
by a reflective or slower tempo. Second, we must remember that these passaggi would
have been first performed on a natural horn, an instrument that even when combined with
fluent hand technique could not regularly produce sounds as accurately and quickly as
modern valved instruments. Several of the slurred groups, particularly those that employ
half-step lower neighbor tones, would have been inaudible or sloppy if played too quickly
on the natural horn. Third, these preludes arise from the historical tradition of being
improvised works. To perform them too quickly would remove all possibility of them
sounding improvised.
Tempos should generally remain constant throughout. This does not preclude the
use of rubato for rushing through scales or arpeggios, or for lingering on sweeter notes,
but does allow the rhythmic figures to bear some relationship to each other: we still want
half notes to be generally twice as long as quarter notes, and for whole notes to be
generally twice as long as half notes, etc.
Phrase breaks are determined by the presence of breath marks and the presence of
phrase indications (long slurs) above groups of notes. Parallel phrases should be accorded
similar treatment to amplify the similarities and differences between them.
The scarcity of expressive instruction does not imply a flat interpretation. As
Reicha, Dorian, Dart, and Brown suggested, earlier composers left more to the discretion
or intelligence of performers than modern writers tend to do. Thus, the absence of
expressive markings does not preclude the addition of expressive devices. It merely
reflects the fact that the composer would have expected the performer to insert
appropriate musical devices where necessary.

85
Performers should bear in mind several questions when attempting to add
expressive markings to the Gallay score. First, does this addition serve the character of
the piece? Does it confirm the overall character, or does it serve as a foil, providing a
moment of contrast with the principal character? Second, would this addition have been
idiomatic on the natural horn? If we are to approximate Gallay’s intent, we must consider
the fact that these are advanced hand horn works. Any expression that would run counter
to hand horn technique would probably not have been regarded as a legitimate
interpretation by Gallay.
Finally, does it augment or supplement the inherent drama of the piece? While
this question seems similar to the first, it is worth remembering that these preludes
already contain quite a bit of their own drama. As performers, we are trying to evoke an
improvisatory spirit when playing these pieces. It is not enough to consider if a crescendo
would sound good in this place or that place, but to question whether it seems the most
natural pairing of expression with the melodic and harmonic line. The performer must
always ask, “Is this the expressive shape that best fits this line in improvisation?”
Modern practices regarding accidentals apply to the measured portions of these
preludes. However, modern practices, especially that of canceling accidentals at barlines,
cannot apply to the non-measured portions of these preludes. Accidentals apply to the
note they modify in all octaves within a given phrase. Also, unless specifically cancelled,
accidentals continue to apply to modified notes within a phrase when immediately
repeated or repeated only a short span later. Accidentals are always cancelled by phrase
endings, as notated by the span of a phrase mark and/or by breath marks between phrases.
86
A clear example can be found in number 33 in B-flat major. In the third line, the
phrase after the breath mark (3, 13) begins on d-flat’’ and goes down and back up
through an octave-and-a-half full-diminished seven chord. The d’’ that appears later in
this figure should be d-flat; similarly, the e’’ that appears here should be e-natural,
despite the fact that only the e’ is so marked.
Students and teacher should also bear in mind that Gallay’s teacher, Dauprat,
advocated the transposition of exercises into many other keys so as to familiarize students
with all the different crooks of the natural horn. Since this goal is so explicitly spelled out
in the introduction to his 20 Duos for Horns in Different Keys, 220 it can be inferred that he
would have made this a common practice and that his own student, Gallay, would follow
that advice. As printed, the Preludes encompass only twelve written keys (of thirty
possible) using no more than three flats or sharps: C Major, a minor, F Major, G Major, e
minor, B-flat Major, g minor, b minor, E-flat Major, c minor, A Major, and f-sharp
minor. Since this would hardly prepare a student for playing in all keys, it stands to
reason that many of these Preludes could have been transposed or played on other crooks
as exercises in transposition.
Fitness for transposition might also explain the narrow range of just more than
two octaves (from b to c’’’) of the Preludes. If the F crook is taken as ‘normal,’ then this
narrow range would allow students to crook the horn as high as B-flat alto and as low as
B-flat basso and still produce tones required by the solo and orchestral music of the time.
220
Dauprat (1999), 20 Duos…, Foreword (no page number).
87
Some general comments can be made about alterations in the Thévet, Chambers,
and Leloir editions of the Gallay, Preludes. For a complete list of specific alterations,
please see Appendix F: Comparison of Published Editions.
Layout
The Thévet edition is the most compact, appearing in 99 staves on 7.25 pages
with an average of 13.7 staves per page. The Chambers and Leloir editions each appear in
121 staves on 11 pages with an average of 11 staves per page. The Gallet and Sansone
editions are the most spacious, appearing in 126 staves on 13 pages with an average of
9.7 staves per page.
Articulation
Several passages exist in the Thévet edition where beginnings of slurs have been
changed to align the beginnings of slurs with the first note of a beamed group. Thévet
also freely alters articulations, adding and removing staccato markings and slurs at
various points.
Leloir changes the articulations in several passages in similar fashions to Thévet.
In addition, he often changes the articulations on groups of four sixteenth notes to be two
slurred and two tongued (or staccato). This can be clearly seen in the fifth line of Leloir’s
number 26, the third line of number 27, the last line of number 31, and the last two lines
of number 40.
88
Dynamic Markings and Accents
Thévet adds dynamic indications and accents at several points. One highly edited
example is number 24 (number 25 in Gallet). In this Prelude, Thévet added eleven new
accents where none exist in the Gallet.
Chambers adds many dynamic indications to the score. With the single exception
of Prelude number 31, he adds dynamic markings to every Prelude. It is safe to say that
dynamic markings are the single most prominent expressive addition to the Chambers
edition. He also frequently adds agogic accents to particular notes to indicate additional
length or melodic accent. One particularly curious dynamic marking occurs in the final
phrase of Chambers’s number 26. Beneath the final ascending diminished triad,
Chambers has added a crescendo marking to forte. According to Mr. Seraphinoff, this
entire triad, including the climactic a’’ and the subsequent drop to d-sharp’, would have
been stopped with the hand. This crescendo and forte dynamic indication would seem to
contradict not only the generally reflective and calm character of the opening and closing
of this Prelude, but would also force an interpreter to produce these penultimate notes
with more vigor than the final (open) e’. It would appear that this crescendo and forte
indication would not have been characteristic of the natural horn, nor do they appear to
suit the character of the Prelude. Out of fear of self-contradiction, I cannot state that these
markings would be wrong in performance; to do so would be to imply that there are
certain fixed elements that are not subject to the improvisatory nature of these Preludes.
However, this addition probably does not match Gallay’s intent.
Leloir also adds some dynamic indications, but not as many as Chambers.
89
Beams and Groups
Leloir changes the beaming of some groups, occasionally breaking groups of six
notes into two groups of three or one group of two plus one group of four. He also breaks
long beams into shorter groups, or re-beams passages in other ways. Examples of these
changes occur in lines 1, 2, and 3 of Leloir’s number 21; lines 3 and 4 of number 22;
lines 2, 4, and 7 of number 23; lines 1, 2, 3, and 4 of number 29; and several others. One
might speculate that these changes are a limitation of the typography system employed
because no good musical or pedagogical reason seems apparent.
Omission of Material
Thévet omits four bars from the measured section of number 33.
In summary, the Thévet edition freely alters articulations, including adding and
removing staccato markings, and changing the beginning and ending points of slurs;
Thévet does add some dynamic markings; and it should be noted that in Prelude 33, he
actually removes some bars. The Chambers edition’s most notable feature is the addition
of many dynamic markings, some of which are questionable in terms of authentic
performance practice. Leloir’s changes include additions or alterations of articulation
markings, additions or alterations of dynamic and accent markings, and alterations of
beamed groups.
These non-measured preludes have several uses for teaching and performing. One
useful pedagogical function is to break students away from strict adherence to

90
metronomic time, as suggested by Mr. Hill. Many young students put little thought into
shaping phrases into melodic units based on any real musical understanding. Instead,
their most technical analysis of phrase beginnings and endings has little to do with music
making and everything to do with the physical requirements of breathing. By forcing
students to make musical sense of a line with fewer rhythmic and expressive indications,
instructors can hope that students will transfer these same phrase shaping skills to music
where those indications are more pervasive. In addition, it would be hoped that their
performance of metered works would carry less heavy-footed emphasis on every
downbeat and that their phrasing could be guided by these more musical decisions.
A second pedagogical use is with more advanced students, as Randy Gardner
relates. Like Mr. Hill, he wants to “open up people’s imagination”221 by beginning to
explore various conflicting, yet still valid, interpretations. They are appropriate as
musical studies for advanced undergraduates, and he uses them in his first lessons with
every new graduate student. Because the technical demands in these pieces are not the
most advanced, well-trained student performers are able to concentrate on the musical
questions of phrasing and interpretation.
Another use for these preludes is as an on-stage warm-up before a performance.
Mr. Seraphinoff describes how he has used number 22 as an on-stage warm-up before the
Beethoven Sonata Op. 17. In this manner it serves several of the functions of preludes as
mentioned by earlier writers: it allows the performer to get a feel for the performance
space, it allows the performer to test the mode in which the main piece will be performed
221
See Appendix G: Transcripts of Horn Lessons with Gardner, Hill, and Seraphinoff for
complete transcripts of these lessons.
91
(here, actually, the Prelude number 22 is in a minor and the Beethoven Sonata begins in
C Major, but the performer is still able to get a feel for the instrument and the crook in
this configuration), and it provides a musical contrast between this introduction and the
main piece (the more reflective and introspective Prelude number 22 with its sinuous
phrases, Romantic half steps, and a minor mode vs. the more aggressive and arpeggiatic
call in C Major at the beginning of the Beethoven Sonata).
These Preludes could also be short recital works in their own right. A collection
of two or three well-selected Preludes could serve as a welcome contrast to a program of
accompanied works. And with their short performance times (approximately two minutes
or less each), the performer can present a wonderful variety of moods and characters in a
very short amount of time.
Students who learn these Preludes will learn musical skills that are transferable to
several other settings, including unaccompanied solos, orchestral solos, Romantic period
cadenzas, and several other genres. Perhaps one of the primary skills that can be taught is
the ability to shape phrases based on rhythmic and melodic clues. Students who learn to
employ subtle accents, lifts, pauses, changes in dynamic, and changes in tempo in order
to create a coherent and expressive interpretation of these Non-Measured Preludes have a
large arsenal of expressive choices at the ready for works where some of these expressive
decisions have already been made.
Another lesson for students is that not all breath marks are created equal. In these
Preludes, students must decide how long of a break can be tolerated at each breath mark
or phrase ending. In some instances, performers can legitimately take a quick breath and
go on; in others, a longer pause may be more appropriate for dramatic effect or to
92
distinguish between larger phrase structures. By addressing questions of the length of
time allowable by different breath or phrase marks, students will be making decisions
based on formal structure and dramatic shape.
The value of applying these skills to other unaccompanied solos is fairly plain.
Many unaccompanied solos, such as the Buyanovsky Four Improvisations, Krol
Laudatio, Persichetti Parable, and Reynolds Elegy contain non-measured sections and
are thus very similar to the Préludes non-mesurés. One decision students must face when
working on unaccompanied solos is what I consider the story-telling aspect. Students
must identify what characters or dramatic effects the composer intended in the
composition and strive to re-create those characters or effects. Each of these Preludes is a
study in character development and expression. In order to create a musically sensitive
reading of the Preludes, students must be willing and able to communicate a very clear
and coherent set of musical ideas to the audience.
Romantic period solos also benefit from studies of the Préludes non-mesurés. The
Preludes are packed with melodic gestures and figures that are typical of early Romantic
writing. They also include ornamental neighbor tones and colorful uses of dissonances
typical of the Romantic period. Harmonically speaking, what listener is truly prepared for
the G Major flourish at the end of line 2 of number 39? Or for the g-sharp’ that follows
almost immediately on line 3? The quick harmonic moves can seem relatively foreign
and they move so quickly at the rate of one new key area per phrase (f-sharp minor, A
Major, b minor, G Major, A Major, and back to f-sharp minor), but the natural evolution
of the melodic line makes even the strangest modulations seem easy. Juxtapositions of
dynamics are equally Romantic in nature. The ‘hairpin’ crescendo and decrescendo on
93
the first notes of number 21 are certainly not Classical. Here we find expression for its
own sake.
Specifically, students can gain quite a bit of insight into Romantic period
cadenzas by working with the Préludes non-mesurés. Since prelude writing and cadenza
writing were often indistinguishable from each other, students can use the Préludes non-
mesurés as source material for the kinds of melodic figures, harmonic outlines, and
dramatic effects typical of Romantic period solo writing and could use these as aids to
writing their own cadenzas. Three solos that would benefit most directly from this kind of
cadenza treatment would be the two Richard Strauss concertos and the Gliere Concerto.
Similarly, the very short non-measured cadenza-like section at the end of the second
movement of the Franz Strauss Concerto gives students the opportunity to apply some of
the expressive devices learned from the Gallay Preludes.
The Romantic period is also the source of many of the great orchestral solos for
horn: the four Symphonies and two Piano Concertos of Johannes Brahms, Mahler’s
Symphonies number 1, 4, 5, and 7, and Tchaikovsky’s Fifth Symphony to name only a
very few. Studies such as the Préludes non-mesurés that prepare students for Romantic
harmonies and expressiveness will benefit the execution of orchestral solos from the
period.
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
There are a few ways in which this study could have been improved. One would
be to locate the manuscript or a first printing of the Gallay, Preludes, Op. 27. My belief is
that such an edition exists in the Bibliothèque nationale de France. If it had been a part of
the Paris Conservatoire’s library in 1964, it would have been part of the collection
merged into the BNF collection at that time. There appear to be special collections of
music from the Paris Conservatoire housed in the BNF, and it was a surprise to me to be
informed that a manuscript copy did not exist in the collection. It is possible that the
language barrier prevented an adequate description of the item, or that the BNF staff was
unwilling to go above and beyond the call of duty at the request of a non-French-
speaking American student. The earliest edition found for this study (Gallet, 1933) was
printed more than ninety years after the date of composition. An earlier printing from the
same plates or some other clue that pointed more closely to Gallay’s own time would be
welcomed. A future researcher may find it worthwhile to travel to the Bibliothèque
nationale de France in Paris to look through the special collections in person and try to
95
discover the manuscript or, at the very least, an earlier edition for more further
comparison.
Another benefit to this study would be an extensive knowledge of the technical
and musical aspects of the hand horn. While my lesson/conversation with Rick
Seraphinoff was very valuable in this respect, greater personal knowledge of the
instrument would provide greater insights into the mechanical workings of the instrument
and would also provide a closer understanding of Gallay’s writing. As part of this hand
horn study, intimate knowledge of the method book of Dauprat would provide the
researcher with a better representation of contemporary hand horn pedagogy.
Finally, an additional educational vehicle might have been a survey instrument to
distribute to horn faculty across the country to get a broader awareness of how many
teachers are currently using the Preludes in their regular teaching. The questions I asked
of the three professors I studied with for this paper would be equally appropriate for this
survey instrument:
• Do you use the Préludes non-mesurés as a regular part of your curriculum?
• For whom is the study of the Préludes non-mesurés most appropriate?
• How do you introduce the Préludes non-mesurés?
• What other materials do you teach in conjunction with the Préludes non-
mesurés?
• Do you insist on historically accurate performances? If so, how?
• Is a thorough knowledge of hand horn technique a prerequisite for learning or
performing the Préludes non-mesurés?

96
• Do you encourage your students to perform the Préludes non-mesurés on natural horn
or on a modern instrument?
• How do you decide on an appropriate tempo marking for each Préludes non-mesurés?
• How do you and your students collaborate on decisions regarding interpretation of the
Préludes non-mesurés? (tempo selection, length of pauses between phrases,
dynamics, etc.)
• In your opinion, is there a “correct way” to perform these Préludes non-mesurés?
There are several options available for further study in this area. As was previously
mentioned, one resource that is sorely missing is a complete recording of all twenty of the
Préludes non-mesurés. Only nine of the twenty Preludes have been commercially recorded (see
Appendix B), and those nine are on three different recordings. The possibility of having all
twenty Preludes on one recording would be of great benefit to the horn community.
Another option for future researchers to consider is to compare and contrast
Gallay’s Preludes with modern etude books from the Paris Conservatoire. Students and
teachers alike would benefit from an investigation of how Parisian etudes have changed
in light of the Conservatoire’s acceptance of the valve horn as its official horn
curriculum. Their relatively late acceptance of the valve horn (1903) places them in a
unique position among major universities. By 1903, the horn community had already
seen the invention of the double horn. By hanging on to hand horn pedagogy as part of
the official Paris Conservatoire curriculum beyond that point seems almost absurd from
our modern perspective of descant and triple horns, but it places the Parisians in the
position of carrying the hand horn tradition to the pinnacle of virtuosity and expertise.
97
The influence this perspective wields on newer pedagogical materials would prove a
fascinating study.
Yet another area of study might be the comparison of the Preludes to other works
from Gallay’s output. As the last major hand horn virtuoso, Gallay’s influence on hand
horn performers and pedagogues has been documented in several sources. His pieces for
hand horn warrant special consideration because of this influence and his high level of
virtuosity. A determination of what place these Preludes have in Gallay’s total output
would provide a context which teachers could then use to help students select preparatory
exercises for the Préludes non-mesurés and to direct their advancement through other
works by Gallay.
Future researchers could also compare these Preludes to etudes by Gallay’s
contemporaries. What was going on in other conservatories in Europe at the time? We
know the valve horn was ascending to prominence, and it would be interesting to note
how other method and etude books were changing to reflect that.
Finally, researchers could take more of a theoretical approach to the etudes,
studying the effects of rhythmic and metrical perception as a way to help create a
convincing interpretation of the Préludes non-mesurés. This author attempted to look into
the literature of rhythmic and metrical perception, but determined that the field of study is
too new at this point to provide many resources for practical applications. Only when
studies have been completed that can generalize more of the theoretical and
psychological research that has been published will writers in the performance arena be
able to take advantage of this area of study. At this point, published studies work so
thoroughly to isolate variables that there can be little, if any, generalization to musical
98
works outside of the contrived or carefully selected examples. This nascent field of
inquiry does not yet appear able to inform any real-world examples of musical
interpretation.
99
APPENDIX A
Commercially Available Recordings of the Gallay Non-Measured Preludes
Farkas, Philip (1995). On Shared Reflections: The Legacy of Philip Farkas [CD]. DCD
176. Tempe, AZ: Summit Records. numbers 27, 28, 35, & 37
Runnels, Richard (1997). On Hornocopia [CD]. MD 3172. Australia: Move Records.
numbers 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, & 31
Thévet, Lucien (2000). Lucien Thévet: Recital 1 [CD]. IMD 0003 CD. Paris: Arpèges
Diffusion. Numbers 26 & 31

100
APPENDIX B
The Recorded Non-Measured Preludes
22 Runnels
23 Runnels
25 Runnels
26 Runnels Thévet
27 Farkas Runnels
28 Farkas
31 Runnels Thévet
35 Farkas
37 Farkas
The following Non-Measured Preludes have NOT been commercially recorded:
Numbers 21, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, and 40
101
APPENDIX C
Published Editions of the Gallay Preludes, Op. 27
Year of Publication Editor Publisher Place of Publication
1933/1936 E. Gallet *1 Colombier Paris
1948 Lucien Thévet Alphonse Leduc Paris
1960 Sansone *2 Southern Music San Antonio, TX
1968 James Chambers International New York, NY

& John Cerminaro
1976 Edmond Leloir Billaudot Paris
NOTE 1: Richard Seraphinoff has suggested that the Gallet/Colombier edition might be a
copy of the manuscript. (See Appendix G for details.) It is currently available for
purchase through Theodore Presser but very few libraries seem to own this edition. I
purchased the 1933 printing from Presser, the 1936 copy was provided by Randy
Gardner, and an additional copy was supplied on loan from Florida State University.
NOTE 2: The 1960 Sansone edition is basically a reproduction of the Gallet/Colombier
edition. The very few alterations are noted in Appendix F.

102
APPENDIX D
Availability of Published Editions
Editor Distributor Cost on 4 January 2004
Gallet Theodore Presser $30.95
Thévet Robert King $20.60

Thévet Theodore Presser $28.75
Sansone Southern Music $10.00
Chambers/Cerminaro Robert King $9.50
Leloir Robert King $10.75

Leloir Theodore Presser $19.95
Robert King Music Sales Theodore Presser Music Stores

140 Main Street 588 North Gulph Road
North Easton, MA 02356 King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: (no phone) Phone: 610-527-4242
Fax: 508-238-2571 Fax: 610-525-0566
Web: www.rkingmusic.com Web: www.presser.com
E-mail: commerce@rkingmusic.com E-mail: retail@presser.com
Southern Music Company

P.O. Box 329
San Antonio, TX 78292
Phone: 210-226-8167
Fax: 210-223-4537
Web: www.southernmusic.com
E-mail: info@southernmusic.com
103
APPENDIX E
Numbering Discrepancies Among the Published Editions
Gallet Thévet * Sansone Chambers Leloir

Key
(1933) (1948) (1960) (1968) (1976)
21 CM 20 21 21 24
22 am 21 22 22 22
23 GM 22 23 23 23
24 dm 23 24 24 26
25 CM 24 25 25 21
26 em 25 26 26 27
27 FM 26 27 27 29
28 am 27 28 28 28
29 GM 28 29 29 31
30 cm 29 30 30 32
31 CM 30 31 31 25
32 gm 31 32 32 33
33 BbM 32 33 33 30
34 AM (FM)** 33 34 34 36
35 EbM 34 35 35 35
36 bm 35 36 36 34
37 GM 36 37 37 39
38 cm (CM) *** 37 38 38 37
39 f#m 38 39 39 38
40 CM 39 40 40 40
* Thévet’s ordering is identical to Gallet’s EXCEPT for the fact that Thévet included one
fewer measured prelude and so all his numbers are exactly one less than Gallet’s.
** Number 34 begins in AM, has a middle section in FM, and ends in AM.
*** Number 38 begins in cm and ends in CM.
Bold print indicates that the numbering of this etude is identical to the numbering of the
edition edited by Gallet. The Gallet edition is being considered the norm from which the
others are judged because it is 1) the earliest edition I could find, and 2) the earliest
published edition still in existence.
104
APPENDIX F
Comparison of Published Editions
Each entry consists of the Gallet prelude number in bold type followed by
explanations of discrepancies by edition. Each edition is listed by editor, and the number
of the prelude is given in parentheses after the editor’s name. Remarks are confined to
substantive additions, alterations, and deletions of pitch, rhythm, tempo markings,
dynamic markings, articulation markings. In some cases, later editors have replaced the
indication “cresc.” with a symbolic crescendo indication. Or they have replaced “Forte”
with the indication “f.” Or they have inverted the stems on groups of beamed notes.
Where these changes do not affect the execution of the desired effect, it is not noted.
The Sansone edition is a mechanical reproduction of the Gallet edition and is
exact in nearly all respects. The very few deviations will be noted, where appropriate. but
a few general remarks are in order: the title on page 19 “Préludes non mesurés” has been
translated into English as “Preludes (Without Measures)”; the French text “Préludes par
Gallay” has been replaced with “1st PRELUDE” in the indented space to the left of the
first staff; “Ouvre 27” has been replaced with “J. F. GALLAY” and “Edited by
LORENZO SANSONE” in the upper right corner; and the title “40 Preludes Op. 27” has
been added to the centered top of the page. The other alterations are noted below.
105
To discuss specific pitches, lines, or figures, I shall cite the following items in the
following format:
(line number, [pitch numbers])
Every pitch, including notes in ornament groups, is counted.
For example, to refer to the 7th pitch on the 3rd line, I will cite (3, 7).
To refer to the 7th and 8th pitches on the 3rd line, I will cite (3, [7-8]).
The Gallet text is taken to be the standard from which all other editions will be
judged. Deviations, when noted, are understood to be deviations from the Gallet edition.
There is only one correction or clarification to make in the Gallet text. That
occurs in number 39. The accidental preceding the printed f’ at (2, 4) should be a double-
sharp instead of what appears to be a sharp.
One important note in the Leloir edition is that Leloir prints 3 or 4 suggested keys
for transposition practice at the beginning of each prelude. These keys include B-flat
basso, B, C, D-flat, D, E-flat, E, G-flat, G, A, and B-flat alto.
The use of the terms “slur” and “phrase marking” are practically interchangeable
terms for slurred lines connecting notes. Where these curved lines are nested one inside
the other, I consistently refer to the longer marks as “phrase markings” and the shorter,
nested marks as “slurs.” Where no such nesting occurs, the choice of term is somewhat
arbitrary, based on the length of the mark: “phrase marking” for longer marks, and “slur”
for shorter ones.
Gallet appears to assume a given accidental applies to all occurrences of that pitch
in multiple octaves, unless explicitly cancelled by a new accidental or after the beginning
of a new phrase.
106
Prelude 21
Gallet (21):
appears in 5 lines
partially non-measured
measured section begins near middle of 3rd staff
Thévet (20):
appears in 3 lines
non-measured section begins near end of 2nd staff
slur from (1, 6) has been shortened to the b’ at (1, 9) instead of to the printed c” at (1, 10)
slur begins on the b-flat” at (1, 13) instead of the g” at (1, 12)
staccato marks have been added to (1, [14-18])
slur ending on the e” at (2, 6) should end on the f” at (2, 7)
slur beginning on the b” at (2, 9) should begin on the g” at (2, 8)
slur beginning on the g” at (2, 12) should begin on the e” at (2, 11)
slur beginning on the e” at (2, 15) should begin on the c-sharp” at (2, 14)
addition of “cédez” at (3, 23) and “Tempo” at (3, 33)
Sansone (21):
(1, [1-2]) have been changed from whole notes to half notes
Chambers (21):
appears in 4 lines; non-measured section begins near beginning of 3rd staff
added “p” dynamic indication before crescendo at (1, 1)
added “p” dynamic indication on (2, 4)
added “accel.” at (3, 39) to supplement “cresc.” in next bar
added “f” dynamic indication on (4, 17)
added decrescendo mark after (4, 17)
added “p” dynamic indication on (4, 18)
Leloir (24):
appears in 5 lines; non-measured section begins at beginning of 4th staff
changed duration of (1, 2) from whole note to half note
added staccato marks to (1, [11-12])
slur beginning on the b-flat” at (1, 13) should begin on the g” at (1, 12)
added “p” dynamic indication at (2, 9)
slur beginning on the b” at (3, 9) should begin on the g” at (3, 8)
slur beginning on the g” at (3, 12) should begin on the e” at (3, 11)
slur beginning on the e” at (3, 15) should begin on the c-sharp” at (3, 14)
107
changed duration of (3, 16) from sixteenth note followed by sixteenth rest to eighth note
tied to a quarter note followed by no rest
added accents to (3, [23, 26, 29])
removed the decrescendo markings from figures beginning at (3, [23, 26, 29])
(5, 5) through (5, 12) should be beamed together as one unit, not two
added slur from trill on b’ at (5, 15) to beginning of nachschlag at (3, 16)
removed barline before final c”
108
Prelude 22
Gallet (22):
appears in 3 lines
completely non-measured
the ends of lines 1 and 2 lack a clean end of line, possibly lost to a printer error
Thévet (21):
appears in 3 lines; same line breaks as Gallet
added comma (phrase mark) at end of line 1
slur beginning on the f” at (2, 12) should begin on the e” at (2, 11)
changed durations of the b-flat” and d” at (2, [21-22]) from whole notes to half notes
changed duration of the f” at (2, 25) from whole note to half note
Sansone (22):
no changes
Chambers (22):
appears in 3 lines
line breaks differ from Gallet
added “mp” dynamic indication at (1, 1)
added comma (phrase mark) after g-sharp” at (1, 32)
added crescendo beginning at (3, 18)
added “f” dynamic indication at (3, 27)
Leloir (22):
appears in 4 lines
added “mf” dynamic indication at (1, 1)
removed comma (phrase mark) that would appear after d” at (2, 27)
(4, [13-14]) should be beamed together
(4, [15-20]) should be beamed together without the f-sharp” at (4, 14)
removed barline before final pitch a”
109
Prelude 23
Gallet (23):
appears in 7 lines
completely non-measured – only exception is a single barline before the final note (whole
note)
Thévet (22):
appears in 5 lines
removed staccato marks on (1, [32-33])
added “p” dynamic indication to end of diminuendo at (3, 20)
added staccato marks on (5, [39-43])
Sansone (23):
the natural sign on the d” at (1, 23) is ambiguous in this printing, but should definitely be
a d”-natural and not d”-sharp
Chambers (23):
appears in 7 lines, first two lines conform to Gallet layout, but the remaining line breaks
deviate, Chambers’ 3rd line containing four more notes than Gallet and continuing to
‘stay ahead’ from there on out
the d” at (1, 23) should be natural, not sharp as indicated [perhaps a misreading of
Sansone?]
added “cresc” dynamic indication at (5, 4)
added “ff” dynamic indication at (5, 27)
added crescendo marking at (6, 11) ff.
Leloir (23):
appears in 7 lines: the length of 4th line and the 7th line are the same in Leloir & Gallet;
others vary
added slur under ornament at (1, [4-7])
the four eighth notes (2, [10-13]) should be beamed as one group, not broken into two
the two eighth notes at (2, [21-22]) should be beamed with the four eighth notes that
follow, forming a group of six notes
crescendo that begins at (3, 1) should begin at (3, 8)
changed rhythmic value of f” at (3, 23) from whole note to half note with a fermata
added sixteenth rest before (3, 24)
110
decrescendo that begins at (3, 27) should begin at (4, 1)

two sixteenths and eighth note at (4, [5-7]) should be beamed with the figure that follows,
forming a group of eight notes
replaced dolce stylistic indication with “p” dynamic indication at (4, 15)
removed comma (phrase mark) after half-note d” at (5, 38)
added fermata to half-note g” at (6, 32)
added staccato marks on (7, [22-26])
added agogic accent on (7, 27)
the six eighth notes (7, [22-27]) should be beamed together as a group of six notes, not
two groups of three notes
removed barline before the final whole note
111
Prelude 24
Gallet (24):
appears in 6 lines
non-measured section for 2 lines; measured section for nearly 2 lines; second non-
measured section to end (2 lines + 7 notes)
final non-measured section contains a few barlines that divide phrases, not regular bars
Thévet (23):
appears in 5 lines
added staccato marks to (1, [10-16])
changed duration of (2, 19) from eighth note to sixteenth note
gives duration of (2, 20) as half note – one Gallet printing is ambiguous, but another
(1936) shows remnants of a stem, indicating a half note
added staccato marks to (3, [27-28]), (3, 32), and (3, 36)
slur that begins on f” at (3, 29) should begin on e” at (3, 28)
slur that begins on d” at (3, 33) should begin on c-sharp” at (3, 32)
slur that begins on b’ at (3, 36) should begin on a’ at (3, 35)
added decrescendo markings at (4, 6) and (4, 13)
removed two notes after (4, 7). Should be sixteenth note followed by whole note, both of
them are g’ marked with “f” dynamic indication
Sansone (24):
duration of f’ at (2, 28) appears to be half note, but stem is faint
Chambers (24):
appears in 6 lines
first line of Chambers contains 4 more notes than Gallet
all other lines are laid out with same beginning and ending points
added “pp” dynamic marking at (1, 1)
added “p” dynamic marking at (1, 4)
added “mf” dynamic marking at (1, 8)
added decrescendo marking at (2, 22)
changed duration of (2, 24) from half note to whole note [same pitch as (2, 20) in Gallet
& Sansone]
added staccato mark to (4, 11)
added “f” dynamic marking on a” at (6, 17)
112
Leloir (26):
appears in 7 lines
added staccato marks to (1, [10-11]) and (2, [1-5])
added crescendo marking at (2, 1)
moved “pp’ dynamic marking from (4, 1) to (3, 21)
added long crescendo beginning at (4, 1) that should begin at (5, 12)
removed decrescendos that should appear on (4, [5-7]), (4, [13-15]), and (4, [21-23])
added staccato marks to (5, [11-12]), (5, 16), and (5, 20)
slur that begins on f” at (5, 13) should begin on the e” at (5, 12)
slur that begins on d” at (5, 17) should begin on the c-sharp” at (5, 16)
slur that begins on b’ at (5, 21) should begin on the a’ at (5, 19)
added tempo marking (q = 80) to “Moderato” at (6, 10)
changed “pp … e … cresc” indication to “pp” dynamic marking followed by
crescendo mark
removed barline before final note
113
Prelude 25
Gallet (25):
appears in 5 lines
Thévet (24):
appears in 4 lines
line endings coincide with phrase endings, as indicated by breath marks
added accent at (1, 2)
added slur under phrase mark to (1, [11-14])
added staccato markings under phrase mark to (1, [15-18])
added staccato marking to (1, 21)
slur that ends at (1, 20) should end at (1, 21)
added staccato markings under phrase mark to (1, [38-41])
added staccato marking under phrase mark to (1, 44)
added staccato markings under phrase mark at (2, [30-31])
added staccato marking under slur at (2, 35)
added staccato marking under slur at (2, 41)
Sansone (25):
added slash to grace note d’’ at (5, 22)
Chambers (25):
appears in 5 lines; same layout as Gallet
added agogic accent at (1, 1)
added crescendo mark from (1, 12) to (1, 19)
114
added decrescendo mark from (1, 21) to (1, 23)

added crescendo mark from (2, 11) to (2, 18)
added decrescendo mark from (2, 21) to (2, 23)
added “p crescendo …” to (3, 8) ff.
Leloir (21):
appears in 4 lines; lines break in middle of phrases
the sixteenth notes at (1, [11-18]) should be one group of 8, not 2 groups of 4
the three eighth notes at (1, [20-22]) should be beamed together, not 2 + 1
removed breath mark after (1, 23)
the sixteenth notes at (2, [5-12]) should be one group of 8, not 2 groups of 4
the three eighth notes at (2, [14-16]) should be beamed together, not 2 + 1
all sixteenth notes from (2, 33) to (3, 19) should be one group, not groups of 4 (+ 1 group
of 3 at the end)
changed diminuendo to accent at (3, 31)
added staccato mark at (4, 5)
added slash to grace note at (4, 26)
115
Prelude 26
Gallet (26):
appears in 7 lines
only barline is before final note
Thévet (25):
appears in 6 lines
added two-note slurs under phrase mark beginning on (1, [19, 21, 23, 25, 27])
added two-note slurs under phrase mark beginning on (2, [19, 21, 23, 25])
removed slur from g’’ to a’’ at (2, [33-34])
added staccato marking to g’’ at (2, 33)
added staccato marking to b’ at (3, 8)
slur that begins on c’’ at (3, 9) should begin on b’ at (3, 8)
added staccato marking to e’’ at (3, 16)
slur that begins on f’’ at (3, 17) should begin on e’’ at (3, 16)
slur that begins on f” at (3, 25) should begin on e’’ at (3, 24)
added staccato marking to f-sharp’’ at (3, 32)
slur that begins on g’’ at (3, 33) should begin on f-sharp’’ at (3, 32)
removed accent or diminuendo marking from a-sharp’ at (5, 1)
added staccato marking to a-sharp’ at (5, 1)
added two-note slurs under phrase mark beginning on (6, [1, 3, 5])
added agogic marking to e’’ at (6, 8)
added staccato marks under phrase mark to (6, [22-26])
Sansone (26):
no alterations
116
Chambers (26):
appears in 6 lines
added crescendo marking at (1, [12-18])
added “f” dynamic marking at (1, 19)
added “accelerando poco a poco” indication at (3. 3) ff.
Leloir (27):
appears in 5 lines
added staccato marking on g’’ at (2, 33)
removed slur marking from g’’ to a’’ at (2, [33-34])
slur that begins on g’’ at (2, 41) should begin on f’’ at (2, 40)
added accent to (2, 49) and (3, [1, 5, 9, 13, 17])
removed phrase mark from b’ to g’’ (3, [26-56])
added two-note slurs to (4, [57-58]), (5, [1-2]), and (5, [3-4])
added agogic mark to d-sharp’ at (5, 19)
slur that begins on f-sharp’ at (5, 20) should begin on d-sharp’ at (5, 19)
removed barline before final note
Russell – comments (26):

possible correction – add staccato mark to a-sharp’ at (5, 13); all others are marked in this
fashion; there seems to be no reason to do otherwise
possible clarification – slur into a’’ at (7, 27) or f-sharp’’ at (7, 26)??
117
Prelude 27
Gallet (27):
appears in 6 lines
completely non-measured; only barline is before final note
Thévet (26):
appears in 4 lines
added slur from (1, 2) to (1, 3)
added staccato to (1, 4)
added staccato markings to (1, [30-34])
removed slur from (3, 29) to (3, 30)
slur that begins on (3, 32) should begin on (3, 31)
added staccato to (4, [27-28])
118
Sansone (27):
no alterations
Chambers (27):
appears in 5 lines
added “mf” dynamic marking to (1, 1)
added “p” dynamic marking to (3, 19)
added crescendo marking to (5, 35)
added diminuendo marking to (5, 38) [last note]
Leloir (29):
appears in 6 lines; line breaks are different than Gallet
added “poco f” dynamic marking to (1, 1)
broke single long string of sixteenths from (1, 2) to (1, 15) into groups of 3 + 4 + 4 + 3
removed phrase mark from (1, 2) to (1, 15)
added slurs to each of the four groups above
broke single long string of sixteenths from (2, 1) to (2, 9) into groups of 4 + 5
added slurs to the two groups above
broke single long string of sixteenths from (2, 17) to (2, 30) into groups of 4 + 4+ 6
added slurs to the three groups above
turned diminuendo markings on (3, 9) and (3, 13) into accent marks
broke string of 6 eighth notes (3, [19-24]) into groups of 2 + 2 + 2
slur that ends on (4, 6) should end on (4, 11)
eighth note d’’ at (4, 14) should be beamed with (4, (16-17])
broke single group of 7 eighth notes from (4, 22) to (5, 3) into groups of 4 + 3
slur that begins on (5, 4) should begin on (5, 3)
each of the six sets of three eighth notes that begin at (5, 10) should be slurred in threes,
not (1 tongued + 2 slurred) or (2 slurred + 1 tongued)
turned diminuendo markings on (5, 10), (5, 13), (5, 16), (5, 19), (5, 22), and (5, 25) into
accent marks
broke beamed group from (6, 20) to (6, 25) into groups of 4 + 2
119

Should the c’’ at (3, 7) be a c-sharp’’? It would create a diminished triad, of which Gallay
seems particularly fond. As printed (c-natural), that triad is a V7. As altered (c-sharp), it
would be a fully-dim vii°7. It is not cancelled (to c-natural) in the next figure; that would
argue for c-natural. Can you find more examples of V7 chords? Compare to the number
of vii°7 chords.
120
Prelude 28
Gallet (28):
appears in 7 lines
only first line is non-measured; all else is in 6/8
Thévet (27):
appears in 5 lines
changed (1, 1) from whole note to half note
added staccato markings to (2, 1) and (2, 2)
slur that ends on f’’ at (3, 9) should end on e’’ at (3, 10)
slur that ends on g’’ at (3, 39) should end on f’’ at (3, 40)
added staccato marking to c’’ at (3, 43)
slur that ends on a’’ at (3, 45) should end on g’’ at (3, 46)
removed dot (duration) from half note at (5, 1)
removed second bar of half-note trill after (5, 1)
removed penultimate barline
Sansone (28):
no alterations
Chambers (28):
added “mp” dynamic marking at (2, 1)
added (cautionary) accidental to f-sharp at (5, 6)
added (cautionary) accidental to f-sharp at (5, 24)
121
Leloir (28):
appears in 6 lines
changed duration of (1, 1) from whole note to half note
added “p” dynamic marking to (1, 1)
added “mf” dynamic marking to (2, 1)
slur that begins on f’’ at (2, 15) should begin on c’’ at (2, 14)
added staccato marking to f’’ at (2, 30)
slur that begins on a’’ at (2, 39) should begin on g’’ at (2, 38)
removed staccato marking from b’ at (3, 1)
broke string of 6 eighth notes at (4, [14-19]) into two groups of 3
added “p” dynamic marking to b-flat’ at (5, 28)

should add accidentals to f-sharp’’ at (5, 6) and to f-sharp’ at (5, 24)
122
Prelude 29
Gallet (29):
appears in 10 lines
first 2 lines are non-measured
last 8 lines are measured in 4/4 time
Thévet (28):
appears in 8 lines
first 1 line is non-measured
changed opening dynamic from “f” (Gallet, (1, 2)) to “p” (Thévet, (1, 1))
added agogic accents to (1, [32-36])
added decrescendo marking from (4, 1) to (4, 2)
added “f” dynamic marking to (4, 3)
added decrescendo marking from (4, [13-14])
“p” dynamic marking at (5, 6) appears one note later in Gallet
added staccato marking to (6, [14-15])
slur from (8, 11) should extend as phrase mark to (8, 16)
slur that begins on f-sharp’’ at (8, 19) should begin on d’’ at (8, 18)
Sansone (29):
no alterations
Chambers (29):
appears in 10 lines
same line breaks as Gallet
123
Leloir (31):
appears in 10 lines
changed opening dynamic from “p” (Gallet, (1, 2)) to “mf” (Leloir, (1, 1))
added initial upper neighbor to all trills
added slur from d’’ at (1, 3) [trill] to c-sharp’’ (1, 6) [end of termination]
added slur under turn at (1, [4-6])
added slur from b’ at (1, 12) [trill] to (1, 15) [end of termination]
breaks beam of six notes from (2, 16) to (2, 21) into two groups of 2 + 4
added accent to e’’ at (3, 10)
added “p” dynamic marking to f’’ at (4, 6)
breaks beam of 4 notes at (4, [22-25]) into two groups of 2 + 2
breaks beam of 6 eighth notes at (5, [7-12]) into two groups of 2 + 4
breaks beam of 6 eighth notes at (5, [19-24]) into two groups of 2 + 4
turns decrescendo marking into accent at (6, 5)
breaks beam of 3 eighth notes at (6, [6-8]) into 1 + 2
turns decrescendo marking into accent at (6, 11)
breaks beam of 3 eighth notes at (6, [12-14]) into 1 + 2
changes decrescendo marking into accent at (6, 16)
changes decrescendo marking into accent at (6, 19)
added decrescendo marking throughout bar at (6, [15-20])
“p” dynamic marking at (6, 20) appears one note later in Gallet
removed “rf” markings from (8, 10) and (8, 20)
removed decrescendo markings from (9, [1-4]) and (9, [9-14])
removed “rf” marking from (10, 1)
slur that ends on (10, 12) should end at (10, 16)
added slur to (10, [15-16])
slur that begins on f-sharp’’ at (10, 19) should begin on d’’ at (10, 18)
added agogic accent to (10, 34)
124
Prelude 30
Gallet (30):
appears in 6 lines
first 1.75 lines are non-measured; remaining 4.25 lines are in 12/8
Thévet (29):
appears in 5 lines
no other alterations
Sansone (30):
no alterations
Chambers (30):
Leloir (32):
appears in 6 lines
only different line break is between lines 2 & 3; Leloir’s line 2 contains fewer notes to
allow 12/8 section to start on new line
added “p” dynamic indication to (1, 1)
added “f” dynamic indication to (1, 17)
added “mf” dynamic indication to (2, 1)
breaks all groups of 6 eighth notes into 2 groups of 3 from (3, 1) through (4, 19)
added duration dot to half note d-flat’’ at (4, 7)
removed phrase marking from e-flat’’ at (4, 39) [last note] to a’ at (5, 3)
added agogic accent to e-flat’’ at (5, 21) [last note before ‘Lento’]
moved “pp” dynamic indication from c’’ at (6, 25) to e-flat’’ at (6, 26)

use Leloir’s line breaks
add duration dot to (4, 7), as in Leloir
125
Prelude 31
Gallet (31):
appears in 4 lines
all non-measured
Thévet (30):
appears in 3 lines
no other alterations
Sansone (31):
no alterations
Chambers (31):
no alterations
Leloir (25):
appears in 4 lines
decrescendo that ends on g’ at (1, 21) should end at a’ at (1, 17)
added “f” dynamic indication to g’ at (1, 22)
changed duration of f’’ at (1, 27) from quarter note to half note
crescendo that begins on f’’ at (1, 27) should begin on d’’ at (2, 1)
decrescendo that ends on g’ at (2, 15) should end on f-sharp’ at (2, 10)
added agogic accent to f-sharp’ at (3, 35) [last note of line 3]
added agogic accent to g’’ at (4, 21)
changed duration of c’’ at (4, 32) from eighth note to dotted quarter note
126
Prelude 32
Gallet (32):
appears in 9 lines
first 2 lines + 2 notes are non-measured
remaining 6+ lines are measured in 6/8 time
Thévet (31):
appears in 9 lines (crosses page break after fermata)
replaced dotted eighth note g’ at (1, 18) with eighth note and sixteenth rest
added decrescendo marking from (2, 34) to (2, 40)
added “p” dynamic marking at Moderato 6/8 at (3, 1)
added staccato marking to d’’ at (3, 25)
slur that begins on g’’ at (6, 32) should begin on g’ at (6, 31)
added staccato marking on d’’ at (7, 23)
added staccato marking on g’ at (9, 1)
added staccato marking on f-sharp’ at (9, 7)
added staccato marking on g’ at (9, 13)
added staccato marking on f-sharp’ at (9, 19)
Sansone (32):
no alterations
127
Chambers (32):
appears in 9 lines
only different line break is to accommodate last two non-measured notes at end of line 2
so that line 3 starts with the measured Moderato 6/8 section
added “mf” dynamic marking at (3, 1) “Moderato”
Leloir (33):
appears in 9 lines
only last 2 line breaks are same as Gallet
added “poco f” dynamic indication at (1, 1)
removed phrase marking from (1, 22) to (2, 8)
removed slur from (2, [17-18])
added “p” dynamic indication to g’ at (3, 11) [beginning of Moderato]
added MM=69 indication to Moderato section
does not break beam between (4, 1) and (4, 2)
does not break beam between (4, 25) and (4, 26)
slur that begins on g’’ at (6, 23) should begin on g’ at (6, 22)
changed decrescendo markings to accent markings on (6, 30), (6, 32), (7, 2) , (7, 4),
(7, 6), (7, 8), (7, 10), and (7, 12)
added staccato marking to g’ at (9, 1)
added staccato marking to f-sharp’ at (9, 7)
added staccato marking to f-sharp’ at (9, 19)
slur that ends on d’’ at (9, 31) should end of g’’ at (9, 32) [last note]

f-sharp’ at (1, 29) should have a # in front of the pitch
change second line break to be like Chambers so that the Moderato 6/8 starts at the
beginning of line 3
last note of second bar of Moderato 6/8 should be e-flat’’ instead of e-natural – note
pattern of first bar – this should be the same
e’’ in bar 4 of line 5 should be marked e-natural
last note of line 6 (e’) should be marked e-natural
use Chambers’s line break between lines 2 and 3
128
Prelude 33
Gallet (33):
appears in 4 lines
Thévet (32):
appears in 3 lines
added slur from a-flat’’ at (1, 37) to f’’ at (2, 1)
Sansone (33):
no alterations
Chambers (33):
appears in 4 lines
line break after line 3 is only one in different location
added agogic accent on b-flat’ at (4, 41) [last note]
added decrescendo marking on b-flat’ at (4, 41) [last note]
129
Leloir (30):
appears in 4 lines
all line breaks are same as Gallet EXCEPT between lines 3 & 4
added “dolce” indication to (1, 1)
broke 12-note beamed figure at (2, [1-12]) into 3 groups of 4 each
slur that ends on c’’ at (3, 4) should end on f’’ at (3, 6)
added (correct) natural sign to e’’ at (3, 20)
slur that ends on e’’ at (3, 25) should end on f’’ at (3, 26)
slur that ends on d’’ at (3, 31) should end on e-flat’’ at (3, 32)
added staccato marking to e-flat’’ at (3, 32)
slur that ends on c-sharp’’ at (3, 37) should end on d’’ at (3, 38)
slur that ends on e-flat’’ at (4, 7) should end on b-flat’ at (4, 13)
added slur from g’’ at (4, 8) to f’’ at (4, 9)
added natural sign to a’ at (4, 20)
added b-flat’ initial note to trill on a’ at (4, 29)

add flat sign to d’’ at (3, 19)
add natural sign to e’’ at (3, 20) [near end of ascending sixteenth notes]
add (cautionary) natural sign to d’’ at (3, 27)
use Leloir’s line break between lines 3 and 4
130
Prelude 34
Gallet (34):
appears in 9 lines
first 2.75 lines are non-measured
remaining 6.25 lines are measured in 4/4 time
Thévet (33):
appears in 7 lines
added agogic accent to c-sharp’’ at (1, 11)
added phrase mark from (1, 33) to (1, 36)
omits 2 entire bars – the pickup to the 5th bar of Moderato through beat 3 of the 6th bar
should be repeated once (!)
omits another bar – the last bar of line 4 should be repeated once (!)
all four quarter notes in the first bar of line 5 should instead be half notes (thereby
spanning 2 bars)
slur that ends on c-sharp’’ at (5, 24) should end on d’’ at (5, 23)
omits another bar – the last bar of line 5 should be repeated once (!)
the final three pitches should have durations of half-half-whole instead of
quarter-quarter-half (the “pp” is correctly marked under the c-sharp’’)
Sansone (34):
dot is missing from a-sharp’ quarter note at (8, 2)
Chambers (34):
appears in 9 lines
only the last line break is the same as Gallet
added “rit.” indication at (6, 8)
131
Leloir (36):
appears in 9 lines
line breaks are all different from Gallet
decrescendo that ends on a’ at (1, 24) should end on e’’ at (1, 22)
added “p” dynamic marking on c-sharp’’ at (2, 1)
decrescendo that ends on a’ at (2, 13) should end on e’’ at (2, 11)
added slur from d’’ at (3, 5) to c-sharp’’ at (3, 6)
added “mf” dynamic indication to c-sharp’’ at (3, 26)
changed decrescendo markings to accents on (4, 24), (5, 2), (5, 5), (5, 11), (5, 14), (5, 17),
(5, 23), (5, 26), and (5, 29)
added slur from e’’ at (6, 13) to f’’ at (6, 15)
removed decrescendo from (6, [15-17])
added slur from e’’ at (6, 18) to f’’ at (6, 20)
decrescendo that begins on e’’ at (6, 18) should begin on f’’ at (6, 20)
same decrescendo: ends on e’’ at (6, 23) and should end on d’’ at (6, 22)
phrase marking that ends on b’ at (7, 5) should end on c-sharp’’ at (7, 4)
a’ at (7, 7) should NOT be beamed with a’ at (7, 8)
three eighth notes at (7, [8-10]) should be a single beam, not 1 + 2
b’ at (7, 22) should NOT be beamed with b’ at (7, 23)
3 eighth notes at (7, [23-25]) should be a single beam, not 1 + 2
e’’ at (8, 2) should NOT be beamed with d’’ at (8, 3)
e’’ at (8, 18) should NOT be beamed with c-sharp’’ at (8, 19)
132
Prelude 35
Gallet (35):
appears in 6 lines
Thévet (34):
slur that begins on a’ at (1, 22) should begin on b-flat’ at (1, 23)
phrase mark that ends on g’ at (1, 27) should end on a’ at (1, 22)
added (cautionary) accidental to f-sharp’ at (1, 26)
added slur from a-flat’’ at (2, 25) to g’’ at (2, 26)
slur that begins on a-flat’’ at (5, 17) should begin on g’’ at (5, 16)
Sansone (35):
no alterations
Chambers (35):
appears in 6 lines
133
Leloir (35):
appears in 5 lines
all line breaks different from Gallet
very unusual line break in middle of 20-note group between lines 4 & 5
phrase mark that begins on g’ at (1, 12) should end g’’ at (1, 15)
removed phrase mark from g’’ at (1, 15) to a’ at (2, 7)
slur that begins on a’ at (2, 7) should begin on b-flat’ at (2, 8)
same slur should end on f-sharp’ at (2, 11), not on b-flat’ at (2, 10)
added cautionary sharp sign to f-sharp’ at (2, 11)
added agogic accent to f-sharp’ at (2, 11)
9 eighth notes at (2, [13-21]) should be beamed as one group, not 2 + 2 + 5
added slur from b-flat’ at (2, 13) to d’’ at (2, 15)
decrescendos on e-flat’’ at (3, 10) and c’’ at (3, 12) are ambiguous; appear as accents;
should be decrescendos to next note
changed staccatissimo markings on (3, 9), (3, 11), and (3, 13) to staccato markings
added agogic accent to a-flat’ at (3, 14)
removed “6” sextuplet indication from (3, [19-24])
correctly adds natural sign to e’’ at (4, 28)
phrase mark that ends at end of line 4 (4, 48) should continue and end on e-flat’’ at (5, 8)
added slur from b-flat’’ at (5, 1) to a-flat’’ at (5, 2)
added slur from d’’ at (3, 6) to f’’ at (3, 7)
added crescendo marking from c’’ at (5, 21) to g’’ at (5, 26)
removed phrase marking from g’’ at (5, 25) to d’’ at (5, 28)
added slur from c’’ at (5, 27) to d’’ at (5, 28)
added decrescendo marking from c’’ at (5, 27) to d’’ at (5, 29)
added “poco rit.” to d’’ at (5, 29)
removed staccato marking from b-flat’ at (5, 34)
Russell - comments (35):

e-flat’’ at (5, 4) should be e’ natural
134
Prelude 36
Gallet (36):
appears in 4 lines
Thévet (35):
appears in 3 lines
removed breath mark after (1, 32)
removed “9” indication from (2, [25-33])
Sansone (36):
no alterations
Chambers (36):
appears in 4 lines
added agogic accent to f-sharp’ at (3, 20)
135
Leloir (34):
appears in 4 lines
all line breaks are different from Gallet
added “mf” dynamic indication and “dolce” to (1, 1)
3 eighth notes (1, [2-4]) should be beamed together
slur that ends on a-sharp’ at (2, 13) should end on c-sharp’’ at (2, 12)
removed staccato marking from a-sharp’ at (2, 13)
added “3” triplet indications to three triplet figures at beginning of line 3
removed phrase marking from 9-tuplet at (3, [11-19])
decrescendo on e-sharp’ at (3, 21) is ambiguous; looks like accent; should be decrescendo
added “3” triplet indications to first two triplet figures at end of line 3
added breath mark after g’’ at (4, 5)
3 eighth notes at (4, [14-16]) should be beamed together

add sharp sign to a’ at (4, 19) [penultimate note]
136
Prelude 37
Gallet (37):
appears in 8 lines
next 1.25 lines are measured in 4/4 time
last two lines are non-measured
there is a final barline before the last note
Thévet (36):
appears in 6 lines
next 1 line is measured in 4/4 time
remaining 1.5 lines are non-measured
removed “f” dynamic marking from e’’ at (4, 8)
added phrase mark from (4, 8) to (4, 11)
slur that begins on e’’ at (5, 26) should begin on g’ at (5, 25)
slur that begins on g’’ at (5, 30) should begin on b’ at (5, 29)
slur that begins on b’’ at (5, 34) should begin on d’’ at (5, 33)
slur that begins on e’’ at (6, 1) should begin on d’’ at (5, 41)
137
slur that begins on c-sharp’’ at (6, 5) should begin on b’ at (6, 4)

added staccato marking to (6, [7-8])
added slur from c’’’ at (6, 24) to (6, 25)
Sansone (37):
no alterations
Chambers (37):
appears in 7 lines
only last 2 lines are same length as Gallet
added decrescendo marking at (3, [26-27])
corrected placement of “f” dynamic indication from (3, 29) to (3, 28)
added agogic accent to d’’ at (4, 7)
added agogic accent to c’’ at (4, 16)
added “cresc. e accel … f” to (6, [4-35])
added “rit.” to (6, 32)
added crescendo marking to (7, [6-10])
added decrescendo marking to (7, [14-17])
Leloir (39):
appears in 6 lines
next 1 line is measured in 4/4 time
remaining 1.5 lines are non-measured
all of the line breaks are different than Gallet
removed slur from f-sharp’ at (1, 2) to g’ at (1, 3)
removed slur from a-sharp’ at (1, 5) to b’ at (1, 6)
removed phrase mark from g’’ at (1, 7) to e’’ at (1, 21)
added slur from f-sharp’’ at (1, 10) to g’’ at (1, 11)
added slur from a’’ at (1, 12) to g’’ at (1, 13)
added slur from b’’ at (1, 14) to a’’ at (1, 15)
added slur from c’’’ at (1, 16) to b’’ at (1, 17)
slur that begins on f-sharp’’ at (2, 1) should end on g’’ at (2, 4)
slur that begins on d-sharp’’ at (2, 7) should end on e’’ at (2, 10)
added slur from f-sharp’’ at (2, 9) to e’’ at (2, 10)
slur that begins on b’ at (2, 13) should end at c’’ at (2, 16)
added slur from d’’ at (2, 15) to c’’ at (2, 16)
slur that begins on a-sharp’ at (2, 19) should end on c’’ at (2, 23)
138
added slur from c’’ at (2, 21) to d’’ at (2, 22)

slur that ends on c’’ at (2, 28) should end on b’ at (2, 29)
removed staccato from a’ at (2, 30)
moved “f” dynamic marking from (3, 16) to (3, 15)
3 notes at (3, [24-26]) should be beamed together
added slur from a-flat’’ at (3, 30) to b’ at (3, 31)
removed slur from a-sharp’ at (4, 4) to e’’ at (4, 5)
removed “f” dynamic marking from e’’ at (4, 5)
added accent marking to e’’ at (4, 5)
added slur from e’’ at (4, 5) to d’’ at (4, 6)
slur that begins on g’’ at (4, 10) should begin on a-sharp’ at (4, 9)
added accent to g’’ at (4, 10)
removed “dolce” indication from a’ at (4, 17)
added slur from b’ at (4, 18) to c’’ at (4, 19)
a’-b’-c’’ at (4, 23) and (4, [28-29]) should be beamed together
added slur from b’ at (4, 33) to c’’ at (4, 34)
slur that begins on f’’ at (5, 1) should begin on d’’ at (4, 35)
same slur that ends on c’’ at (5, 8) should end on d’’ at (5, 7)
slur that begins on e’’ at (5, 26) should begin on g’ at (5, 25)
slur that begins on g’’ at (5, 30) should begin on b’ at (5, 29)
slur that begins on b’’ at (5, 34) should begin on d’’ at (5, 33)
slur that begins on e’’ at (5, 42) should begins on d’’ at (5, 41)
slur that begins on a’ at (5, 5) should begin on g’ at (5, 4)
added staccato markings to f-sharp at (5, 7) and g’ at (5, 8)
phrase marking that begins on d’’ at (6, 10) should end on a’ at (6, 25)
added slur mark from c’’’ at (6, 20) to a’’ at (6, 21)
removed phrase marking from a’ at (6, 27) to c’’ at (6, 35)
139

added slur from f-sharp’’ at (6, 31) to e’’ at (6, 32)
added slur from c’’ at (6, 35) to a’ at (6, 36)

“f” dynamic marking should appear at (4, 16), not (4, 17)
turn at (6, [7-8]) should have a sharp to indicate g-sharp’
staccato pattern should continue to include staccato on a’ at (7, 29) and maybe even
f-sharp’ and e’ at (7, [33-34])
140
Prelude 38
Gallet (38):
appears in 8 lines
Thévet (37):
appears in 6 lines
remaining 3 lines are measured in 4/4 time
slur that begins on b-flat’’ at (2, 30) should begin on g’’ at (2, 29)
slur that begins on d-sharp’ at (4, 6) should begin on e’ at (4, 5)
slur that begins on d-sharp’’ at (4, 10) should begin on c’’ at (4, 9)
added “p” dynamic marking on b’ at (5, 23)
Sansone (38):
no alterations
Chambers (38):
appears in 7 lines
only the last line is the same length as Gallet
added decrescendo marking at (7, [30-32]) [last 3 notes]
141
Leloir (37):
appears in 7 lines
added initial upper neighbor to trill on b’ at (1, 9)
added slur from b’ at (1, 9) to a’ in trill termination at (1, 12)
added slur from c’’ at (1, 24) to b’ in trill termination at (1, 27)
phrase marking that begins on g’’ at (1, 33) should begin on c’’ at (1, 31)
added slur from c’’ at (1, 31) to e-flat’’ at (1, 32)
phrase marking that begins on b’ at (2, 19) should begin on b’ at (2, 15)
added slur from b’ at (2, 15) to a’ in trill termination at (2, 18)
removed slur from e’ at (2, 31) to g’ at (2, 32)
added slur from g’ at (2, 32) to b-flat’ at (2, 33)
slur that begins on b-flat’’ at (3, 1) should begin on g’’ at (2, 36)
added initial upper neighbor to trill on e’’ at (3, 4)
(no natural sign on e’’ at (3, 1) or (3, 4), even though it’s across line break)
added slur from e’’ at (3, 4) to e’’ in trill termination at (3, 6)
added crescendo at (3, [37-39])
changed “rf” marking to “f” dynamic indication at (4, 1)
added accent marking to e’’ at (4, 1)
slur that begins on d-sharp’ at (4, 6) should begin on e’ at (4, 5)
slur that begins on d-sharp’’ at (4, 10) should begin on c’’ at (4, 9)
changed rhythm of a’’ at (4, 12) and g’’ at (4, 13): should be two eighth notes, not dotted-
eighth and sixteenth
removed “rf” marking from f-sharp’’ at (4, 14)
added accent to f-sharp’’ at (4, 14)
g’ at (4, 20) should be an a’
added correct sharp sign to f-sharp’’ at (4, 23)
added accent to g’’ at (5, 1)
all set of eighth notes on line 5 should be beamed together in groups of 4
slur that ends on g’ at (5, 7) should end on e’’ at (5, 9)
added “p” dynamic marking to d’’ at (5, 31)
added staccato markings to d’’ at (5, [31-33])
142
decrescendo marking that begins on g’’ at (6, 10) should begin on g’’ at (6, 9)
added slur from e’’ at (6, 11) to c’’ at (6, 13)
added slur from c’’ at (6, 21) to e’’ at (6, 23)
added slur from e’’ at (7, 3) to g’’ at (7, 5)
added accents on a’ at (7, 17) and (7, 21)

add cautionary natural signs to b’ at (3, 5) and (3, 9)
add cautionary natural signs to e’’ at (3, 24) and (3, 25)
add cautionary sharp signs to f-sharp’’ at (6, 5) and (6, 8)
143
Prelude 39
Gallet (39):
appears in 3 lines
Thévet (38):
appears in 2 lines
added agogic accents to (1, 9) and (1, 10)
corrected sharp indication to double-sharp on f-double-sharp’ at (2, 21)
added staccato marking to g-sharp’ at (2, 39)
Sansone (39):
no alterations
Chambers (39):
appears in 3 lines
added decrescendo marking at (3, 28) [last note]
144
Leloir (38):
appears in 3 lines
only line 3 is same length as Gallet
added “f” dynamic marking to (1, 1)
phrase marking that begins on c-sharp’’ at (1, 3) should begin on f-sharp’ at (1, 1)
added slur from f-sharp’ at (1, 1) to a’ at (1, 2)
d’’ quarter-note at (2, 16) tied to d’’ dotted-eighth-note at (2, 17) should be a double-
dotted-quarter-note
changed staccatissimo markings on (3, 17), (3, 19), and (3, 21) to staccato markings
changed duration of final note f-sharp’ at (3, 28) from quarter-note to dotted-quarter-note
with a fermata

correct sharp to double-sharp on f-double-sharp’ at (3, 4)
145
Prelude 40
Gallet (40):
appears in 9 lines
Thévet (39):
appears in 7 lines
slur that ends on g’ at (1, 5) should end on e’ at (1, 8)
added staccato marking to e’ at (1, 6)
added slur from d-sharp’ at (1, 7) to e’ at (1, 8)
added staccato marking to f’’ at (1, 16)
removed “p” dynamic indication from (2, 25)
added slur from a-flat’’ at (2, 30) to g’’ at (2, 31)
added staccato markings to (2, 38-40])
added crescendo dynamic indication from (2, 40) to (3, 11)
added slur from g’’ at (2, 41) to e’’ at (2, 42)
added slur from d-sharp’ at (3, 1) to f-sharp’ at (3, 2)
added slur from f-sharp’’ at (3, 6) to d-sharp’’ at (3, 7)
added slur from f’’ at (3, 26) to e’’ at (3, 27)
added slur from b’ at (3, 30) to a’ at (3, 31)
added slur from c’’ at (3, 32) to b’ at (3, 33)
146
removed breath mark after f-sharp’ at (5, 30)

removed “f” dynamic indication at (7, 8)
clarifies staccato marking on g’’ at (7, 19)
f’’ at (7, 20) should be g’’
e’’ at (7, 21) should be f’’
slur that ends on e’’ at (7, 34) should end on g’’ at (7, 35) – this alteration is most likely
correct since it makes the articulation identical to the articulation of the
immediately preceding passage (of which this is an exact repetition), even thought
it does not match the printed Gallet
Sansone (40):
accidental is unclear on f’’ at (1, 12) – should be a natural sign
accidental is unclear on d’’ at (1, 14) – should be a sharp sign
Chambers (40):
appears in 9 lines
line breaks same as Gallet EXCEPT break from line 3 to line 4 – Chambers includes 2
extra notes on line 3 that appear at the beginning of line 4 in Gallet
(9, [1-4]) is all slurred; Gallet is ambiguous: could be 3 slurred + 1 staccato OR 4 slurred
Leloir (40):
appears in 10 lines
first 4 are non-measured
remaining six are measured in 2/4 time
phrase marking that ends on e’’ at (1, 19) should end on c’’ at (1, 21)
phrase marking that ends on g’’ at (2, 6) should end on d’’ at (2, 11)
slur that ends on a’ at (2, 27) should end on b-flat’ at (2, 29)
slur that ends on a-flat’ at (3, 4) should end on f’’ at (3, 7)
slur that ends on f’’ at (3, 9) should end on f’ at (3, 13)
slur that ends on g’ at (3, 15) should end on e’’ at (3, 18)
slur that ends on e’’ at (3, 20) should end on e’ at (3, 24)
slur that ends on f-sharp’ at (3, 26) should end on d-sharp’’ at (3, 29)
slur that ends on d-sharp’’ at (3, 31) should end on d-sharp’ at (3, 35)
147
removed slur from e’’ at (4, 3) to g’’ at (4, 7)

removed slur from d’’ at (4, 10) to e’’ at (4, 15)
removed slur from b’ at (4, 17) to c’’ at (4, 22)
added slur from b’ at (4, 17) to a’ at (4, 18)
added slur from c’’ at (4, 19) to b’ at (4, 20)
slur that ends on d-sharp’’ at (5, 2) should end on e’’ at (5, 3)
slur that ends on f-sharp’ at (5, 6) should end on g’ at (5, 7)
added beam between c’’ at (6, 25) and e’’ at (6, 26)
changed “sf” indication to accent marking on e’’ at (6, 26)
added beam between f-sharp’ at (7, 1) and e’’ at (7, 2)
changed “sf” indication to accent marking on e’’ at (7, 2)
added “mf” dynamic indication to e’’ at (7, 16)
added accent to e’’ at (7, 16)
added accent to e-flat’’ at (7, 18)
added “p” dynamic indication to e-flat’’ at (7, 18)
added “mf” dynamic indication to f’’ at (8, 2)
added accent to f’’ at (8, 2)
added “p” dynamic indication to f’’ at (8, 4)
added accent to f’’ at (8, 4)
added “pp” dynamic marking to f’’ at (8, 6)
added crescendo marking to (9, [7-13])
148
slur that ends on b’ at (9, 15) should end on c-sharp’’ at (9, 17)
slur that ends on c-sharp’’ at (9, 19) should end on d-sharp’’ at (9, 21)
slur that ends on d-sharp’’ at (9, 23) should end on g’’ at (9, 25)
slur that ends on b’ at (10, 2) should end on c-sharp’’ at (10, 4)
slur that ends on c-sharp’’ at (10, 6) should end on d-sharp’’ at (10, 8)
slur that ends on d-sharp’’ at (10, 10) should end on g’’ at (10, 12)
changed staccatissimo markings at (10, [23-25]) to staccato markings

bar 3 of line 9 should be articulated in the same manner as bar 1 of line 9:
(all sixteenths) 3 slurred, 1 staccato; 2 slurred, 2 staccato
149
APPENDIX G
Transcripts of Horn Lessons with Gardner, Hill, and Seraphinoff
Lesson with Randy Gardner
June 5, 2003, 9:00 A.M.
2003 International Horn Symposium
Parsifal Room, Musical Arts Center
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
RG = Randy Gardner SR = Scott Russell
RG: Have you worked on these as hand horn pieces?
SR: No.
RG: I think that’d be great for you to get insight into what Gallay had in Gallay’s ear.
RG: (Regarding the International edition’s dynamic markings): it’s edited dynamically
according to a tradition that I was taught. Some of these …
RG: (Regarding Farkas) He came from the almost direct lineage. He studied with Louis
Dufrasne who was … and he goes back to that school of playing. There’s almost this line
from Gallay to Farkas and working with Gallay.

150
RG: No, no … it’s just that he was trained in Europe in the French school of playing. It
goes back to this tradition. … The Belgian school of playing and the French school of
playing, particularly at that time, was indistinguishable. It was one school of playing, and
still very much that way.
[ 9:30 – 11:28: I play No. 23]
RG: (Regarding Mr. Michael Hatfield) He’s very strongly schooled in these with Mr.
Farkas, as well.
RG: A few basic principles in working with these: they’re non-measured, but there needs
to be still a very strong relationship between quarter notes, triples, 16ths , and so forth.
There’s a basic fluid pulse. A quarter note is still a quarter note. You have a basic unit of
time that can be fluid. Another thing is that … D-natural is correct … You have this basic
sense of pulse that needs to be followed. Then, what I find most useful about these is that
they develop a sense of musical expression and musical thinking, musical maturity, they
develop a sense of musicianship as opposed to Kopprasch that develops your technique.
It develops your musical side, your interpretive side.
RG: The breath marks are not treated equally. The breath marks that separate musical
sections are much larger than those that are within a musical idea.
151
RG: Every one of these has a different sentiment, a different message, a different
emotion, a different idea. Before you ever work on developing the fine points, you need
to come to the conclusion about what this music is saying to you. Is this music bold?
melancholy? At the end of the first phrase (of number 22), I want the little old ladies in
the first row pining away for a lost lover (*sigh*). And some of them are like, “BAM!!”
You need to assess what music, what emotional impact is in each of these.
RG: Another thing, traditionally, … many times you have these long melismas,
especially when you have a crescendo: With crescendo almost always comes
accelerando. It’s the way it was handed down. So that there’s some things implied in the
style.
RG: I would not want you to be metronomic, but there has to be a basic pulse.
[18:34 – 19:00: He conducts me through number 23]
[19:17 -
[19:50 – 26:26: with interruptions]
RG: Make the ornaments a little less more graceful.
RG: These fully stopped tones … how many of these are on longer notes. Lean into them.
Nudge them. Give them a lot of expression and then resolve them.
RG: That F [end of quintuplets] should be very strong.

152
RG: I hear them as duples because I hear them broadening out.
RG: I’ve programmed these on recitals. They’re wonderful recital pieces. Hey, pianists
play Chopin etudes all the time – why can’t I play Gallay?
[29:55 - 31:11: I play No. 39]
RG: (Regarding Thévet edition) You’ll find measures missing. Notes changed. (why?) I
guess his own musical instincts.
RG: What is this piece saying to you?
RG: It’s not horn playing – it’s [hand on chest] there.
RG: You’ve got all this G Major stuff going on. Who on earth is expecting this g-sharp?
45:10 begins interview-style questions

153
SR: Who should study these?
RG: I use these with every single grad student that comes to school. This is lesson
number 1 is to get people started on these for interpretive reasons. We don’t go through
all of them. I rarely go through them all, but for a period of time I want to open up
people’s musical imagination. [not one correct musical interpretation]
RG: I also use these with more advanced undergraduate students who are polishing
musicianship. These have certain technical demands, they’re not real easy, but they’re not
virtuoso show pieces. For students who are technically advanced, I want to use these to
develop their musical side.
SR: What sorts of things do you teach with these?
RG: Kopprasch starts things off. It’s so fundamental. And I use the Gallay Op. 57. Any
freshman who comes to CCM is going to get the Kopprasch and the Op. 57. Then to Bk.
3 or 4 of Max-Alphonse. Not through all 60 Kopprasch. I use Kopprasch selectively for
technical work. Of the Gallay studies, it’s really Op. 57 because they’re really good
music but they’re not that technically demanding. They’re really good music. These (Op.
27) I use for more advanced students because they’re more sophisticated. I also like the
Bitsch studies.
SR: How vital is it to study hand horn to understand these pieces?

154
RG: You can learn these very, very well without ever touching a hand horn. When
returning to the valve horn after practicing on hand horn, the interpretation is on an
entirely different level. [Learning hand horn is important because we] understand what
hand horn composers wanted to hear.
SR: How do you find a right pulse, right tempo, other stylistic concerns? Is there a “right”
way to do these, or is there a lot of flexibility?
RG: I’m not dogmatic, but I do have strong feelings about what’s being expressed in each
one. As long as it fits the overall sentiment of the piece, and as long as what you’re doing
is not abrupt or off the wall, … [it’s OK].
RG: (Regarding long melismas) There need to be groupings. You can’t just play helter-
skelter. These are non-measured – they’re not spastic!

155
Lesson with Douglas Hill
June 5, 2003, 10:30 A.M.
2003 International Horn Symposium
Parsifal Room, Musical Arts Center
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
DH = Douglas Hill SR = Scott Russell
DH: Jeff Snedeker might be able to bring some more information on Meifred – someone
at the conference was talking to him about some other materials on Meifred that were
previously undiscovered
DH: I have never really talked about these [in lessons] as hand horn pieces.
DH: (Regarding choice of editions) I don’t have any religion here.
[11:10 – 12:46: I play number 26]
DH: If there’s one thing I could say, it’s “expansiveness.”
DH: The times that I use this is usually fairly early on, and you’re encouraging me to take
some more of the advanced players and bring them back into this thing. But a lot of the
156
reasons that I use it are just to loosen people up. Our students all come out of marching
band. It’s darn hard to get them out of that space. … These are the easiest ones to hand to
them and say, “Here, here’s a cadenza.”
DH: Rhythms relate within the phrase.
DH: I think this opening statement is very tender, very lovely. Then there’s this
explosion. I think you want to set a mood that can be interrupted.
DH: When he [Farkas] was teaching me [Hill] these, basically all he was telling me was
to look at the note relationships, be interested in them, and then make music. Don’t feel
committed to them, because that’s the whole point. You don’t have a bar line.
[42:55 – 44:00: I play number 23]
[50:35 – 52:03 again]
DH: There’s so much theatre in these pieces.
DH: “extreme horn playing” 
DH: So you’re going to be playing all of these key signatures with your hand horn, then?
[provocative question]
157
DH: (after my second “extreme” playing) You were taking chances. You were saying
stuff! I have nothing to say … because that convinced me.
DH: We’ve got notation. Notation tells us a lot, but because of all the things he’s left out,
all the things he’s asking for, we are going to have to set the parameters to a little bit
more of a drastic shape.
DH: (On diminuendo) Instead of “Bow-oo,” it’s “Boo-ah” – the aperture is opening more
and the air stream is speeding up to maintain vibration to the end.
[57:49 – return to number 26 to try diminuendo again]
[60:00 – 62:05: number 26 again]
DH: Breathe in using the word “how.”
[73:40 – begin questions]
SR: Who should study these?
DH: Usually freshman, sophomores. Any student who I feel is absolutely locked in to the
meter, locked in to the march.

158
SR: Do you use these in conjunction with anything else?
DH: If not Kopprasch, then Kling (something technical). Maxime-Alphonse for
articulations, contrast for key signatures. Pretty early on, Gunther Schuller. If they’re
pretty young, Barboteau. These are the first Gallay etudes he uses.
DH: I’ll have them perform them for horn class or on recitals.
SR: Do you insist that these be studied on natural horn?
DH: I might now, thanks to you!
SR: Finding pulse, tempo … Is there a right tempo?
DH: Instinct, because he’s not giving you any other information. I feel these things are
very expansive. When it runs, it runs; when it doesn’t, it doesn’t. That’s another part of
the freedom, the charm of these pieces.

159
Lesson with Rick Seraphinoff
June 26, 2003, 11:00 A.M. – 12:30 P.M.
Mr. Seraphinoff’s Home Workshop
Bloomington, Indiana
Rick = Richard Seraphinoff Scott = Scott Russell
Rick: [tape starts] … so I think we can be fairly certain that this is what he meant
in terms of printed editions.
Scott: What do you do with big gap (97 years) between 1839 and 1936? What are
you going to do with those 97 years?
Rick: That is a very good question. One thing that you can do, just make sure you
cover all the bases, to see if you can locate some earlier edition. Might be from the
Bibliotheque nationale, might be from some other library, but the earliest edition you can.
My guess would be that it would look identical to what you have here [Gallet, Sansone]
just because of the way printing was done in those days. In the Dauprat Method book, his
first edition which was what this music was re-printed from was by a company Dauprat
owned a share in. It was called Souder & Company, and then they sold the plates to
somebody called Schoenenberger. The plates made the rounds again until they were just
so worn out they made bad prints. I think the same thing happened with a lot of these
etudes, but the only way to find out is to track them down and see what you can find. To
160
be really complete to see if there are any great differences. Because sometimes the breath
marks in the early edition that you have and then which transferred over to the Chambers
one are a little puzzling and you can figure out ways to make them sound legitimate, but
did Gallay really mean that? And, did he really beam things together in the way that they
are, which might imply phrasing or grouping, because one of the great challenges is when
you have a string of 10 notes, are those three triplets with a resolution or are they groups
of 4 with 2 at the end, or is it 2 pick-ups to 2 groups of four? And many times the music
will tell you fairly clearly what it’s supposed to be, but maybe it looked different and it
would have implied that. Because there are any number of ways to imply things without
giving them note values and then there are the times as though it looks like he’s writing
out a ritard, or those sort of things, like number 23 is an example of something that’s
open to interpretation, like … so is it 3 then groups of 2? because it sounds really neat to
do that. If you go [he plays]. Really long appoggiatura on the end? Like another group of
six that’s slowing down? Or what does he mean?
Scott: Are these exact doublings of note values, or written out ritard?
Rick: The way I’ve played this one is, in fact, to go [plays] and to make it very
operatic. because you have to remember this guy spent most of his career in an opera pit.
So the more dramatic you can make these pieces, the better. The interpretation … it was
somebody said, that their teacher asked them to bring it back with two totally
diametrically opposed interpretations, just as completely different as they could make
them, so that the whole dramatic effect of the piece would be completely different, and
161
you can do that. Because the music is so flexible in how you interpret it. So what sort of
things do you want to get into? Key signatures?
Rick: We should talk about why they’re written as they are. Another interesting
concept is what a prelude is, what they’re for.
David Lasocki, Classical Woodwind Cadenza … Art of Preluding
The way that I’ve used these in the past is that you’ve got your crook in and
you’re about to play the Beethoven Sonata, but you don’t get right into it. You start and
play number 22, and then at the end of it, it ends in a minor, and then you go … and
you’re off into the Beethoven Sonata. And I saw this concept once, I don’t know if you
knew why he was doing it, but Sören Hermansson played the Lars Erik Larssen
Concertino at the Horn Workshop in Rochester, NY, and before the orchestra started to
play the piece, Sören played just once through the little tune of a Swedish folk song that
was very much like the thematic material of the Larssen Concertino and the orchestra
started, and everybody thought it was excessively cool, and we got things started, and it
happened to be the beginning of the concert, too.
Scott: That’s what these were designed to do.
Rick: Yeah, they were also designed as etudes to take the horn into places it
hadn’t been before. They really were … All Gallay’s etudes were the Verne Reynolds
162
etudes of the time. They were just as hard as it got, and but they also did have musical
purpose, and it probably shows us the kind of things that as the other books talk about are
things that people improvised anyway. And you can improvise things like this, you know
just sort of noodle around and ends up in the key you want to be in. There’s another
example of that. Thomas Binkley, who is the director of the early music institute here,
he’s a lutenist, the only time I got to hear him play was a concert that he gave of
Medieval pieces with some other people on the faculty, and he walked out onto the stage,
and he started tuning his lute, and his tuning became more organized, and then all of a
sudden he was playing the piece. He said it’s something you read about how they warm
up into the performance. That’s part of the purpose of them.
In your question about the key signatures, if we get into Dauprat, you start to look
at his scale sections. He recommends that students play them on the E-flat crook. What
he does is that he takes, he goes through all the scales, all on the E-flat crook, you play
them in the written key. They get into some very odd keys. He considered 4 sharps and 4
flats to be about the limit of what the horn should be expected to do. There’s a B major
scale and all the notes are there since it’s a completely chromatic instrument. You might
introduce this, how things got that way. One thing to talk about is how natural horn
played overtone series, then got the overtones to play in tune, the ones they were working
with, the open notes. then it’s very sketchy when hand stopping came in. So Handel
Water Music, Brandenburg Concerto, or anything like that, it’s strictly overtone series.
Then there’s a second period, in which where things are altered. Like If you play that
melody (Mozart number 1), it’s just overtone series notes with just one half-step written
163
in, a couple of appoggiaturas that are non-harmonic tones. But basically it’s a D horn,
you’re playing a piece in D. But basically what I talk about as the second period, or
“altered overtones.” So that’s the overtone series period, the second part of it. Then
something odd happened after 1800 they decided that the overtone series was immaterial
and that you could play in any key. And that meant that these preludes didn’t have to
conform to anything. number 39 … 3 sharps …
Scott: [more here, I think. I ask the question about at what pitch these are meant to
sound.] That could really be considered on F crook? E-flat crook? And the tonic note in
f-sharp minor is an altered note.
Rick: I could easily start on a G and play … Or an A and play … [higher pitch
level, different stop/open] The only thing that’s different is the colors. He wrote it in
f-sharp minor … Really, he could’ve written it in any key and it would’ve been fine. He
could have gone very far afield. The only thing that’s different is the colors. If you play it
on that horn [my horn], it’s just at different pitch levels. It doesn’t really matter.
Scott: So that’s sort of built into these? Appoggiaturas would be colored
differently so stopped notes would be for effect…?
Rick: For effect or just getting the notes to happen. In that period [Mozart’s
lifetime], a c-sharp or a d-sharp meant something very specific. It was always a closed
note, it could never be anything else. But in this period when things were totally
164
chromatic, it certainly became more difficult for composers to write for the instrument to
know what they were going to get unless they really knew the instrument well. Berlioz
was one who sort of got the act together and wrote for natural horns in 4 different keys
and knew what he was going to get. The reason he knew what he was going to get was
because of all these charts in the third part of Dauprat. To get into this key, you can use
horns in these keys. He gives different ways of getting different notes out of the horns.
The colors are really the big issue here, why they’re in the written keys that they’re in. It
was very well-planned. It wasn’t just “Oh, I’ll write a piece in f-sharp minor.” The colors
you would get were very important to him. What I do to illustrate that sometimes when
I’m teaching a class is to first of all I’ll play, [plays], and then I would put in my E crook
[plays] and then I would put in my E-flat crook [plays] or if I went to the D horn, I’d play
it in a minor (which would be a very good key), and I would get [plays]. And you hear all
the diff colors there. The open and stopped notes happen in different places. And if I put
in my G crook, you’d hear a bright horn playing in a dull key. It wouldn’t be out of the
question for Gallay to have had students transpose them and do things of that sort. He,
probably knowing how people thought at the time, and how everybody composed,
probably had them write them, too. The transposition idea was something that was
around. Do you know the Dauprat Duos, Op. 14 for horns in different keys?
Scott: Yes.
165
Rick: So, very obviously, Dauprat had his students transpose all the time into
different written keys. So they made it into a chromatic instrument. That totally explains
why that (number 39) is written in 3 sharps.
Scott: But then are we to assume that these are at F pitch? You can’t really?
Rick: F wasn’t quite as much of a standard of what horn pitch was, but on the
other hand there’s the whole school of cor mixte playing that played on the F crook that
started with Frederic Duvernoy. Gallay went both ways, because in his solos for horn and
piano, almost all of them are for F horn. Only a couple are in E-flat. I haven’t seen all of
the 14 that I know of, but of the ones I have seen, most of them were in F and one was in
E-flat, and that was a low horn solo, and he was certainly thinking about Dauprat’s
advice that low horn players should practice on the E-flat crook to get the most
characteristic horn sound. I think the most characteristic horn sound changed after that,
sometime in the 19th century, too. F horn happened to be a key that was user-friendly
because it speaks well, and it also is in a key that is compatible with a lot of other keys,
with just one flat. There would be no reason why horns wouldn’t have evolved as G
horns that we play today. There would be a lot of advantages to playing on a valve horn
in G, a double horn in G and C alto, especially as an orchestral instrument, but F horn
was more compatible with band music and wind bands and wind instruments. So F horn
did come to the surface as the one that worked best and was most compatible. It’s
interesting to follow why that horn is the way it is, and there are a lot of good reasons,
and you can pretty much track them down. Influences from all over go into it: instrument
166
makers, players, and different conditions … Gallay wrote mostly for the F horn, and
apparently played mostly on the F horn, but then he wrote the Grand Quartet in G, E, D,
& C. Certainly played Dauprat’s music that went into all sorts of different keys. Dauprat
was very adamant about using all the keys. In his solo pieces and his ensemble pieces he
used all the different crooks. He doesn’t really favor one over the other, but he was trying
to make a statement about it, which he very clearly made in the Preface to those Duos,
that he wanted his students to play in all the keys. so he’s writing music that maybe one
person could play on the F crook, but nobody else could. So I guess they were probably
played on different crooks, but if I were going to make a recording of them, I would stick
around F or E. I have played these on the E crook because it’s a comfortable crook, as a
low horn player, the F crook gets a bit strenuous at times. He asked the low horn players
in his method to use the E-flat crook and the high horn players to use the E crook. That
was their basic starting instrument, which is not quite giving into the F crook idea. You
can’t really definitely say that.
Scott: E and not F because all the cor mixte people were saying F, and you don’t
want to agree with them…
Scott: How do you go about teaching these? How do you use them? Do you use
them in conjunction with any other etudes? Do you use something specifically to contrast
with these? How do these fit into your curriculum?

167
Rick: Since I teach two kinds of horn, I approach them very, very differently for
both horns. For the valve horn, they’re etudes that we use, not necessarily for technical
development, but only for musical interpretation and for giving the student the ability to
interpret things that don’t give you a whole lot of information. The first times I did these
was when I was a student here 20 years ago with Phil Farkas. He loved these pieces. He
loved doing them in lessons because there was always something to talk about in terms of
how to interpret this or that. If the interpretation that you brought in wasn’t the one that
agreed with him, he would say, “OK, well, play it for me a couple of times and let’s hear
if that’s a legitimate one, too.” We’d talk about them in those terms. That’s how they’ve
gone into my valve horn teaching. Sometimes if a student is really oriented toward the
notes on the page and really is a bit stiff musically, they can be really good for opening
them up. There have been times when I’ve had to talk actually about them operatically
and say “Well what might be happening in the opera at this point?” and we always come
up with heroines who are about to plunge a knife into her breast but she decides that life
is OK anyway, stuff like that, and they start to mean something and they make them into
operatic singing sorts of things. So that’s the approach there. And they can be transposed,
too, on the valve horn into reasonable keys.
On the natural horn, they’re a little different. Obviously those same purposes still
apply. The way we start, if someone starts natural horn lessons, and they’re obviously
already a pretty skillful valve horn player, we’ll get started on some of the exercises out
of Part I of Dauprat. We get them playing in different keys. Over the years I’ve changed
my approach because of the Dauprat Method and because of Gallay’s etudes. I’ve
168
changed my approach in teaching into considering it a chromatic instrument from the
very beginning. We talk about what the overtone series is and how it applies to the horn,
but then we immediately start using it as though all the notes are there. So we do a little
bit of simple solo pieces: the Saint-Saëns Romance, and the Romance from Mozart Third,
sort of get into pieces, but pretty soon I move them into the Opus 57 etudes and a couple
of the other etude books (Twenty-Two Studies? One of those…), and then the next thing
after that is the Preludes. Usually by the end of the semester of natural horn playing,
they’re ready to study quite a number of the Preludes, just like they’re ready to play and
study the Beethoven 9 fourth horn solo, which is as out of the way as in terms of the keys
that you play in as these since you have to play an A-flat major scale at the end of it.
There is no real evidence that it was played on anything but a natural horn, as much as
people would like to talk about that. And it’s an interesting thing to talk about, but
nobody has come up with anything. The technique was around everywhere. Even in the
18th century, check out the Rosetti E major concerto, the 2nd movement of it and you’ll
find scales that are as complex as anything in the Preludes. The second movement is in c
minor for the E crook and it’s got scales with all sorts of flats in it. Goes into E-flat Major
at one point. Anyway, I use them to … The Preludes in my natural horn teaching are a
sort of turning point because we work on scales and exercises out of Dauprat, and then
we work on the Opus 57, the second horn studies, and then these are the ones that fool
them into playing music on the natural horn because it takes the emphasis off what are
you doing with the right hand, and what articulations do you have to do to make the
articulations come out the way they are on the page because they’re different. On the
valve horn they’re the same, but on the natural horn, they’re different. And it takes the
169
emphasis off of that and puts them onto the music. Almost everybody discovers that they
get so into the music that they sort of forget about what they’re doing here [right hand]
and it works better. Just like a lot of other ways that we fool students into playing better
by not talking about the thing you want to get better. That’s how I use them. And then
they turn into pieces that they can perform. At a lot of masterclasses, somebody will play
a Prelude or a Caprice, which takes things even further just because they’re more
involved, more extended, and they actually have a musical form. That’s a dissertation for
somebody else.
There is the aspect, too, of the etude as it developed in the 19th century because
this is the point when Chopin was writing piano etudes, and Paganini was writing violin
Caprices, and even Kreutzer and there a violin method book from the Paris Conservatory
probably around 1800 (what’s his name?) Anyway, it’s full of etudes that were pieces of
music, which was a new concept. Gallay got right on the band wagon and wrote etudes
that were concert-worthy pieces of music. He was one of the high-class players in
Parisian musical life. If you were having a soiree, it was very possible you would ask
Gallay to come and play at it; you know, at Rossini’s house or something. He did a lot of
solo things. He was at the top of the business; that meant that he felt like he had to keep
up with Chopin and all these other people who were doing high-class stuff. Make the
horn legitimate. That’s an aspect that would be good to touch on: the development of the
etude at that point into unaccompanied pieces. There was nothing like an unaccompanied
horn piece before that.

170
Scott: That’s an aspect I’m tracing – history of the non-measured prelude.
Rick: I guess the woodwind preludes are really the link. For wind players, it
sounds as though they were more often improvised things. There are things written down:
recorder players seemed to play things by (What’s his name?) sort of 16th C. things that
were written down that are unaccompanied pieces for recorder. And viola da gamba
music that are short unaccompanied pieces. (Tobias?) The ideas of preludes for the
woodwind players was more of an improvised thing, and they must have done a lot of
digging to find the few written-down examples they did. Some came from Hotteterre and
some other sources like that? In the Dauprat method, you’ll find something similar in the
cadenzas that he writes out, and some of the sections in the Dauprat solos. Some of the
them [Dauprat solos, Gallay horn/piano solos] have sort of free-form sections in some of
them that are very cadenza-like. When I came to Ball State, I played a Gallay solo with a
long cadenza that could stand alone as a prelude, starts on tonic, ends on tonic, in a way
that’s much different from number 39. So I guess we could think about cadenzas to be
one of the links. Nothing else was really written down. There is the piece that …
apparently there were a lot of them that were not written down. But one of them was
written down in the painting of Gottfried Reich, the trumpet player, Bach’s trumpet
player. He’s holding a little piece of paper and … The notes are very clear. It’s a little
prelude. I’m trying to think of the book that it appears in. It might be the Edward Tarr
trumpet history. It’s very much a prelude, sort of a fast trumpet piece, it’s a little piece of
about 30 seconds that is a very clear little composition. That’s sort of a link. How many
of those were there, that Gottfried Reich played? And maybe that was his favorite so the
171
artist put it onto the painting. Maybe he wrote it. Maybe, who knows? The link is one we
can’t get to because it was an unwritten tradition. I’m not quite sure where you could go
with that, but there are lots of hints here and there. I wonder if Frederick Neumann who
wrote Ornamentation and Improvisation in Mozart [has written anything on that]. That’s
a good place to see if there was anything of that sort because he talks about cadenzas and
things like that.
Scott: (Regarding valve vs. natural horn students) As a valve-horn student of
yours, how much would I be informed by the natural horn side of things? Can you
divorce one from the other …?
Rick: I can’t because of the way the musical approach of one influences the other.
That can go both ways. The fact that I can play lots of fast notes on the valve horn more
than I can on the natural horn would make me aspire to be able to do that on this [natural]
horn, sort of a backwards way. The other thing would be that if (this would only be a
subconscious thing) that the one in f-sharp-minor might sound dark and sinister while the
one in C Major might be very happy and open. A passage that comes to mind is that one
we were looking at the end of number 23. On the natural horn, Let’s look at it from …
What is that going to do to the way I play it on valve horn? [plays] I play it all differently,
don’t I? I changed the articulation here because I wanted to … [plays] I decided that I
wanted to hear the triplets. I think I just discovered something that the natural horn did
for me. If I play this articulation [plays] because I have to tongue c-sharp to d and I have
to tongue f-sharp to g, and that implies triplets so I stayed with that throughout the group
172
and I don’t have to tongue a-sharp to b but I’ve done it in the other 2 groups so I have to
be consistent. That’s a way in which the natural horn shape… because if I try to do
[plays], it’s really hard to differentiate dashes on these and dots on these. It just seems
that [plays]. That’s a case of that [natural horn] has definitely influenced this [valve
horn]. If I were just to play that on the valve horn … It’s really hard to make those into
triplets. That’s one place I can say that the natural horn has really shaped that.
Scott: That’s a way that the articulation that you’re seeing on the page and what
you play break down. These long slurs become less of an idea of real articulation, than
they do of signifying a group?
Rick: I have to tongue every note or I get [plays – slurs all muddled together]. I
get used to the idea of tonguing a lot. It just doesn’t seem right to slur all those notes, and
the valve horn player would just naturally do that [slur long groups]. Hmm. Yeah, more
than I thought: influence of the natural horn on the valve horn. And some of that just has
to do with cleanness. The natural horn teaches us to do pairs of notes a lot. I wonder if I
had never touched the natural horn if that would be the case?
Here’s another example in the next one (24). That’s one where you have to tongue
every note, and the real trick on natural horn is to make them as smooth as possible. Then
I could put in the e-f is one I could slur. So what has that done to the valve horn? It works
perfectly fine slurred. Maybe the concept of how ornaments are done, too, because like
[plays] comes directly from [plays natural], with no articulation on the ornaments. I do
173
have the disadvantage of having played these pieces on the valve horn before I played
them on the natural horn.
Scott: Would these be in 2’s predominantly again? 2’s or 4’s?
Rick: OK. This is very weird. Let me show you exactly: [marks the score]. 2 + 2
+ 2 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 6. Let’s see if you hear that when I play it. [plays] There are probably a
lot of other ways of grouping that, but that’s the one that seems to make the most sense
because the groups … these are obviously linked together because they’re resolving to
each other, this is a group of four; this, in the way it’s articulated, implies a group of 6,
but in pairs, not triplets.
Scott: Why is that one a group of four?
Rick: Because it’s going one direction only. These are going in pairs. So that’s
what comes to mind for me. Someone else could come along and say, “No, it goes like
this.” And if you wanted to get, … somebody could decide that Gallay was not as simple
as all that and could say … [plays] I can’t even think how it would be in triplets, but you
could find some ways to offset things and make them interesting that way, which Gallay
may very well have done. But that’s the first thing that comes to mind. You could also
think of these as sticking with this idea of four, and then the sixes happen. [plays] So,
both of these appear to be fours. And then, I have no idea if this is what he had in mind,
174
but … [plays] … kind-of a tossed-off ending. And once I get these shapes in my head,
it’s hard to get another one to sound right.
How that influences the valve horn? I might want to hear a little bit of edge on
that g-sharp. Those are some ways that one horn influenced the other.
In smoothness, there a lot of different passages: La Gazza Ladra is one. The
natural horn has taught to play more organic scale passages like that. Or, stuff from
Mozart that on the natural horn you think of as groups of notes that don’t have fingerings.
You just kind of slide over these musical figures. And in that way, and certainly for these
pieces the natural horn would have made things more cohesive musically. In other words,
is isn’t “one dot, one fingering” which is how we learn to play the valve horn. The natural
horn helps make it into a musical phrase. It’s like a singer: singers don’t think “one note,
one fingering.” They think about text and all that sort of thing. So, yeah, that’s a very
good question how one influences the other. I think the natural horn does encourage
musicality in that way. So where does that leave us?
Scott: Questions of interpretation. One of the hardest issues is how do you find
the right tempo. The only tempo indications are over the measured sections and they’re
usually just things like “moderato.” That’s all you get.
Rick: Right. That moderato probably tells us these are cadenza-like passages. The
measured parts probably tell us these are the parts that move along in a more metric way.
175
Notice in the beginning of number 25 that the first note is a quarter note. That’s pretty
obvious as we figure out … There’s an accelerando implied there. The next one starts
with a quarter note, too, but later on in the piece, he doesn’t do that, which probably
means to get on with it. That’s an indication of the flexibility of the pieces: the kind of
operatic ideas. It becomes a real judgment call of what’s interesting to your listeners. And
that’s the universal thing that hasn’t changed, though the taste of the listeners has
changed. The fact that they were willing to sit through all the da capos of menuets in
Mozart’s time, but by Schubert’s time they were getting bored with hearing the menuet 6
times. That does change, and people had more time to listen to music. The slow-moving
parts of these and of the Caprices might be interesting to listen to. That’s the whole
dilemma of ears changing. That does change.
In terms of re-creating things on period instruments, we’re shooting in the dark.
We don’t know. We have no idea. Phil Farkas played for me once a recording of Edward
Biermos, who was professor at the Paris Conservatory around 1910, and for a few years
around then. This recording was of the Glazunov Reverie, and he was playing probably
on a piston single F horn, whatever mouthpiece, having learned out of method books like
Dauprat Methode and whatever valve horn methods were around, and if somebody had
given me that instrument, that mouthpiece, this music, and method books to study, and
Paris Conservatory solfege books to study, there’s no way in the world I would have
come up with a performance that would sound like that. It just wouldn’t have come to
mind from all the written sources. And you can put that a couple centuries ahead. And
when all the CDs are worn out and there’s no record left of what a big band chart
176
sounded like, someone’s going to find some music and say, “Oh let’s play a Glenn Miller
piece.” and what would they come up with? Nothing like what was originally there
because there’s so much unwritten nuance of how things are played. You might just make
a comparison when you’re talking about interpretation with Herbert Clarke. If you ever
heard any of the Herbert Clarke cornet solos, recorded in 1902 or whenever and then you
listen to some really fine recordings: Wynton Marsalis recorded some of those same
Herbert Clarke solos and there’s some other recordings done really well. They’re nothing
like Clarke. They might be better, they might be worse – who knows? But they’re so
completely different. You hear in Clarke’s playing the operatic flexibility you imagine in
these. Some of the problems we have in Gallay etudes, we wonder if Gallay had 3 lungs
or something because of the long things you have to play. I think it came down to musical
flexibility in a way that let him breathe wherever he wanted to. And that shape the music
the way 19th-century opera singers did, which we can’t know about, except in written
reports. And you know what they say about writing about music: Writing about music is
like dancing about architecture. It doesn’t mean very much. So, you’re really kind of
open to what you want to do. But we have some clues, like you play here: [plays].
This now implies to my mind [plays, pairs of notes] I would do lots more
accelerando and lots more crescendo so that I really landed. [plays] The puzzling part
here (and this does exist in your little edition) is the breath mark. And then it would seem
when the measures run out again, then it becomes cadenza-like and totally free again. But
the measuredness of them doesn’t mean metronomic, as far as I can tell, and the way you
hear things described. You could think of this Moderato as measured, but on its way
177
somewhere. You might even start [plays, slowly then accels] When I play this one, I get
caught on this breath mark.
Scott: Is that a moment of operatic suspense?
Rick: And you don’t give it to them quite yet. That’s like measuredness – he gives
you the barlines to give you something to put them in, but I don’t think he meant them to
be metronomic. Or this one down here. This one never quite gives you any measure lines,
but the same sorts of things are happening. Oh, here’s another interpretive thing: is that
an accent or a decrescendo?
Scott: What’s it look like over here (in Gallet)?
Rick: This is a time when looking at the original…
Scott: They’re pretty long over here. But would that still imply an accent on the
top note?
Rick: Whenever I start asking that question, I say “Wait a minute: an accent is a
decrescendo.” That’s really what it is, you can do it over a longer period of time.
(number 25) One thing that Gallay seemed to have like (it shows up in his Grand Quartet
and it shows up in his solos) is the idea of building up momentum. [plays] Then he starts
over again. [plays] And then my ear tells me to go [plays] and just goes out with a flash.
178
It’s like a little tag at the end. Piece ends there. All this stuff, the way playing these
comes down to what the horn has told me and what the music has told me and then what I
have done with it. Just like in the recording of Biermos: I have no idea. It just is sort of
pleasing to hear it this way. It goes along with some early recordings, the ideas of how
Robert Pryor and Herbert Clarke played their cadenzas in their pieces and also the
flexibility of time. If you get a chance to hear the Clarke recordings again, you’ll hear
places where the Sousa band is chugging along metronomically and he meets them on the
barline, if that. Sometimes he delays his note until he’s good and ready, and things of
that sort. Precision wasn’t part of the art of interpretation at that point. You can tell that
it’s very calculated: he’d hold back and then catch up, which is the real definition of
rubato. It’s not a ritardando, it’s a rubato where you rob and give back before it’s too late.
Let’s see if there are other things, a passage where the natural horn gives you the
half-step emphasis of the non-harmonic tones. [plays from number 26] And what does 5
mean here? [quintuplet figure in last line] To me it means pick-ups in a triplet sort of
way. The half steps are really important to Gallay in that they resolve from a really tense
note to a resting note. And the volume didn’t seem to bother him that the non-harmonic
tone was softer than the open tone. It had to deal with the color and the fact that the color
resolved to a nicer color. I think that’s what he’s more concerned with. It’d be interesting
to know if that “5” exists in the other edition.
Scott: Yes, that “5” is there. With those color changes between the stopped and
open notes, would that be an argument for or against certain crooks?

179
Rick: No. If I played in one sharp, it doesn’t matter what crook I play on, the
d-sharp will be stopped and the a-sharp will be open. He wrote the music he wanted first
and then thought about the implications on the horn later. That’s closed to open and open
to closed, and the opposite here. And these are the same way: closed open, open closed. It
isn’t like the non-harmonic tone has to be closed.
Scott: They’re alternating within a figure, but it’s not consistent that the non-
harmonic tone isn’t always a closed tone?
Rick: No. It just depends on the written key. And this diminished triad that goes
up: it’d be really nice if that high a were a brilliant, open note, but it’s not. It could be that
was OK because it had enough edge on it or it could be that the aesthetic was to make
everything so close [near], because you can really get, if you sit down and play one of
these long enough on the natural horn, you can play everything pretty open so they’re just
slight color changes. So if I fool around with this long enough [plays]. These don’t have
to be that closed. Sort of a noncommittal hand position that get you the notes. It’d be
interesting to hear how open or closed he played closed notes. This is a big question in
natural horn playing: when do you make them as effects and when do you not? In the
Mozart Horn Quintet, in the 1st movement, you go [plays] and it’s really nice with the
notes that are happening underneath in the strings to play that really closed and very
buzzy, but then in the rest of the piece where you just simply play melodies that just
happen to have closed notes in them, then you want to play them as even as possible. I
180
think you might find some places in here where you want the closed notes to be an effect.
There are a couple of places in the Caprices and a couple of the Solos where there are
entire sections written in B Major, where he obviously wanted a stopped horn effect.
Scott: If this [Chambers] edition didn’t exist, would you be inclined to interpret
this in the same way?
Rick: You could think of this as a very gentle ending. [plays] These are the little
musical fragments in my mind. [plays] Actually, that makes more sense because of the
stopped a’’ and stopped e-flat’ [d-sharp’]. These are not brilliant notes. That’s kind of a
gentle ending. And the way he sort of makes them into little fragments, because of the
breath marks. I hear a really operatic [plays]. I think I would take that much time with
those breath marks. So probably a lot of the breath marks have to do with musical
considerations rather than “you need to breathe here.” This one might mean you’re
coming along [plays] It could just mean a total break. You can only keep this inertia
going for so long, playing louder and faster for so long. Maybe it means to start over
again, and it looks that’s how you’ve decided to do it. On the valve horn, you might be
able to keep a crescendo and accelerando going all the way to there, but it’s still hard.
Scott: It’s somehow more fun to restart. It’s less effective, I think, to take the
drama all the way from here to there.

181
Rick: So this will be an important thing to talk about: the breath marks and what
they really mean. And this question of the 20th-century interpretation of the brilliant
ending as opposed to a piece of music that dies out gently.
Scott: I’m trying to figure out if a critical edition is really necessary. But then
discussion of why this [end of 26] is correct or not.
Rick: It’s always good if you dissertation can end up being publishable. So what
you might end up with is a scholarly edition with a preface that says something about the
breath marks and talks about natural horn technique. In other words, a kind of highly
condensed version of all the things you’re talking about that could be a 2 or 3 page
preface to a very clean edition of these. But then having a couple of paragraphs about the
implications of the breath marks, and the idea of flexible tempos, and the difference
between measured vs. unmeasured portions, and all that kind of thing. And how stopped
notes are affected and articulations are affected. You may have to go into Dauprat to find
out how the natural horn has to articulate things one way to make them sound another
way. You saw in number 23 how I couldn’t slur because it ended up with all kinds of
glissandos and all you can do is play them as smoothly as you can, articulated. And that’s
been a concept of wind instrument playing since the time of the cornetto. The idea being
that you many times have to tongue every note. And that came into the 20th century with
people like Dennis Brain who, as far as we know, tongued every note he played. If you
listen to recordings, all the slurred things seem to have a little something to help them
along. Maybe that was left over from the fact they played inefficient F horns that were
182
old French instruments, basically this with some valves on it. And how the “slow-moving
vehicle” aspect of the instruments they played made them articulate a lot and what that
did to Dennis Brain’s technique when he picked up the B-flat horn. It made him sound
really clean on slow-moving things. But that’s what like I was playing some of these
passages on the valve horn. For me it makes it cleaner and gives me more of what I want.
That may be the result, a sort of scholarly edition or critical edition.
[discussion of what could be included in critical edition]
Rick: In the end, the only answer is “use your tonal sense.” For the most part, it’s
pretty obvious.
[more discussion of some specific notes – f-double-sharp in number 39,
diminished intervals in number 33, etc.; he agrees with my judgments]
Rick: [see Reicha for notation of double-sharp]
Rick: Another interesting interpretive thing, and I’m sure when Gallay played this
piece [Prelude 23], I’m sure there’s a good explanation for what this means:
as opposed to what that means: . When
I’ve played this piece, I’ve played on the first one [plays] which is not too much different
from [plays].
183
Scott: What does the difference in notation imply to you then?
Rick: Could be he really meant a group of five.
Scott: Which could mean getting through the last note of that a little quicker?
Rick: Actually, the more French way is to double-dot it. Though in my ear it
doesn’t flow as well as the other. Whenever you look, the way we learn of how turns are
done in the German way is from Kopprasch. In German sources, they’re played [sings] In
every French source when you find a turn like that, it’s always double-dotted and the last
note is a 32nd. It’s pretty early on in Dauprat when he gives those, and he always makes
those into a 32nd. [reading Dauprat] “The hand in the bell does not participate.” …
That’s the accidental question, which is a big one and one that you certainly have to
address.
You’ve talked about the questions of rubato and tempos, which are absolutely up
for grabs, just like any other tempo is when you’re trying to decide what they might have
been doing in a particular period. Whenever I play the Mozart Horn Quintet, there’s
always a big dilemma in the 2nd movement about how fast is Andante? And to early
string players, Andante is pretty fast, but it can only be as fast as I can go [whistles,
16ths]. It either means that it goes at a tempo I can play that or it gets really messy, either
of which could have been true at the time. Again it gets into realms we can’t know about
184
because we’re dealing in real numbers of metronome marks. We also come to the fact
that not everybody played everything the same way then as now. In fact probably less so
because of the fact that mass communication was not there. If you lived in your town and
someone lived in the next town, not even the a’ was the same. If you went to the next
town, the a’ may be a quarter-step different from your a’. And that means every other
aspect of musicality could be different. Just like people who try to decide, “What is an
18th century horn mouthpiece?” And you start to look in collections and you find that
whatever you decide is one, you can find an example to prove that. The same is true of
interpretation. CPE Bach, Leopold Mozart, and all these people wouldn’t have written
down how to do the ornaments if everybody did them the same and there wasn’t anything
to prove. Then you read other sources that talk about how this and that was done, and
how it should be done. It just means that lots of things were going on. After H.C. Robbins
Landon went through the whole thing of proving that the C alto horn was used in a lot of
Haydn symphonies, Dauprat comes along and tells us that the Marie Therese symphony
is C basso, in 1810. My first thought is to say, that disproves what Landon said. But if
you talk to German players from the time of … Again, we come down to finding a
written source doesn’t prove anything. It just means one person thought of it that way,
which makes history a very interesting subject because all we can do is speculate. We can
have a signed document saying that they did it this way, but all it means is that there at
that point they did it that way. … That’s what we run into finally when we’re working
with these sorts of things. You’ll probably run across all sorts of things that could go into
a critical edition. It may involve a facsimile and a reprinted thing, a newly set thing with
185
your ideas of what those marks meant, and then lots of commentary. It could be a real
interesting thing. … [tape ends]

186
APPENDIX H
Gallay’s Essay “On the Subjects of Taste, Style, Nuance, Expression,
and on the Effects of Stopped Sounds”
English Translation by Dr. Louis MacKenzie, Associate Professor of Romance
Languages and Literature, University of Notre Dame
Cover letter from Louis MacKenzie to Scott Russell

RE: translation of Gallay’s essay
Scott,
I have tried to translate in a way that, while respecting the “information,” does make a
sometimes clumsy text more readable in English. Certain conjunctive words and
punctuation are added; and I have at times reworked the syntax to make for a better flow.
In other words, I thought it best to consider the needs of your reader, rather than the
exigencies of an “academic” translation. I hope you find this a reasonable and effective
approach.
Bon courage.
Louis
187
On the Subjects of Taste, Style, Nuance, Expression

And on the effect of Stopped Sounds.222
The word Taste expresses the feeling one has for both the beautiful and the
defective aspects in all art. Taste is not acquired; it is a gift of nature that comes to
humans at birth; it is one of the hidden and mysterious senses they either possess or of
which they have been deprived. But this natural taste which induces us instinctively to
choose and discern what is beautiful, and to reject what is base, does, all the same, need
to be guided and directed by a kind of education; for it is open to all sorts of impressions
and can change, develop and reach a certain perfection; or it can deteriorate, depending
on whether it contemplates good or bad models. Taste is closely linked to the demands of
fashion, to the whimsy of the times, and is only sometimes a function of the common
agreement on a work that is composed or performed in such or such a manner and thus
finds itself in line with prevailing ideas and is, therefore, generally accepted. To play
music today in a way conforming to Lully’s taste, to sing as one used to sing before the
great Louis XIV, would be neither in good taste nor in fashion; it would be, at the very
most, music of historical interest, as was seen at the concerts given by Fétis.
Style consists in the way ideas are expressed, in accordance with the form that
thought presents itself; this applies to the composer as well as to the musician and the
singer. Garat sang in the style indicated by the composer, and always admirably –
222
This essay has been translated from the original French by Dr. Louis MacKenzie,
Associate Professor of Romance Languages and Literature at the University of
Notre Dame. The original essay is part of Gallay’s 1843 Methode pour le Cor.
Somewhat surprisingly, this essay is not included in the 1855 English publication
Grand Method for the French Horn (see under Meifred in the References section
below), which includes all of the exercises from the Gallay Methode as well as
selected exercises by Meifred and Dauprat.
188
whether from the great operas of Gluck, or la Gasconne, or the romance Bouton de rose;
the fact is that Garat was an artist blessed by nature. He had in his way of arranging
things enough suppleness to account for all styles, to endow phrases with local nuance
and with the cachet of good taste. Someone tried to persuade Gluck that Garat was not
completely formed as a musician. “What of it” responded the immortal creator of Armide,
“if in truth he is music itself.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau said: “Expression is a quality by which the musician
keenly feels and energetically renders all the ideas he is supposed to render and all the
feelings he is supposed to express. There is expression in composition and in
performance, and it is in their coming together that the most powerful and agreeable
musical effects are achieved.”
Whether music has the human voice or an instrument as its mode of
interpretation, it cannot come to life, could not exist without expression or nuance.
Knowing how to ingeniously nuance a vocal performance, how to add fitting
expression to it, is to posses the secret of contrast, which is so potent in the arts, in poetry,
in painting and in music as well; it is to lead the audience from one surprise to another,
by effects that are both sudden and unexpected, which astonish and persuade. It is to put
on display before everyone’s eyes all the riches of the imagination: consequently the
listeners are fascinated by the magic of this chiaroscuro which takes hold of them and
carries them away, just as they would be in contemplating a painting by Rembrandt or
Claude Lorrain. They experience the profound emotion we all feel when Rubini signs the
cavatinas of Il Pirata or La Sonnambula, or when the Society of Conservatory Concerts
performs with its inimitable skill the Symphonies of Beethoven.

189
Is it so much to require of the Horn, of its very nature, to ask it to sing with
expression? Of course not: insofar as this artificial voice imitates the human singing
voice, the person who plays this instrument can add to it as much expression as he might
bring to a piece sung with his natural voice. But let us forget for a moment the
mechanical workings of the horn; let us forget all the study and perseverance it took to
become one of the small number of those who have extended the art of the horn; let us
leave aside the basic ideas of method; let us see what we come up with – putting aside
consideration of the means – if we allow ourselves to no longer view the Horn as a brass
instrument, but rather as an organized voice capable of translating and transmitting the
impressions it has received and wants to excite in others, whether expressing its own
song or inspired by the work of another. Does the horn not try to paint the state of the
soul? The passions of the heart? Does it not have joyous accents for expressing pleasure
as it has tears for expressing sorrow? Yes, there are two kinds of expression: written
expression and performed expression. The former comes from the composer; it is drawn
from his very being, it is subordinate to the state of mind under the influence of which the
musician wrote; sometimes it betrays the emotion he felt; sometimes it paints his
happiness; it communicates memories; often his music is his own life story; sometimes it
is but an episode in his life.
The second depends on the performer whose responsibility it is to bring life and
movement to this inanimate painting he has before him; he must identify with it, must
look for a way to seize the intimate thought of the author. He needs to assume the role in
order to adopt the tone and choose the idiom most in harmony with the subject it is
supposed to translate. He must not give warmth, power and energy to that which demands
190
but calm and sweetness. In a melody, for example, where each phrase is imbued with a
graceful simplicity, it must show itself facile, naïve and touching. With tact and an
instinctive sense, one successfully gives each piece of music the expression that befits it.
That is what truly constitutes the artist; it is thus that he can reach the sublime reaches of
the art.
The use of “stopped sounds” is one of the most important means of expression
that one can turn to on the Horn.
In the course of this Méthode, I have limited myself to indicating the manner of
producing stopped sounds in the most accurate way, deciding neither to make them a
special object of study and to speak of their effects. This nuance, this contrast, this
continual opposition endows music with an immense variety and adds an inexpressible
charm to its beauty. And one must agree here that while it is not in the nature of the Horn
to be completely perfect, it does have this indisputable advantage: superiority of
expressiveness223 that belongs to it alone. Is it possible to produce the same effects on
wind instruments such as the Flute, the Oboe, the Clarinet or the Bassoon? No. One can, I
know, modify the action of the breath, one can play at half-volume,224 but whether loud or
soft, the sound is always the same; the only difference is in the degree of intensity;
whereas on the Horn it is another voice which sings, a voice that emulates the initial
223
Translator’s Note: I think “expressiveness” works better here than either “language” or
“idiom,” even if this choice does to a certain extent “crowd” the term
“expression,” one of the terms the author is trying to define in other parts of the
essay.
224
Translator’s Note: “jouer à demi-jeu” (literally, to play at half-game).
191
voice, and which in no way resembles it: there is a difference in terms of strength and a
difference in terms of its ability to sing.
These essays on stopped sounds, specific written examples of which I have found
neither in past nor current studies, have been submitted on several occasions to the
appreciation of the public,‡ and I must say, without being prideful about it, but in order to
express the satisfaction that I feel in being able to add something to the ideas of those
who came before me, that the favor with which this musical novelty has been welcomed
and the approval that one has willingly given it, have proven to me, without any doubt,
that this innovation has been accepted as timely and tasteful.
Let us summarize what we have said: when added to serious and dogged study,
taste, style and expression complete the art of playing the Horn in the same way they
serve the formation of a good singer. If students, rather than getting discouraged, not
waver in their persistence and strict adherence to the prescriptions I lay out here, which,
whether in detail or taken together, are indispensable, I predict for them in advance
genuine success. By likening the student who wants to play the horn and the student
learning to sing, we recall here what the celebrated Garet and the great maestro Rossini
told us one day: that the best school for the instrumentalist is the same one as for the good
singer. As for us, we might very well turn the phrase around in this way: the best school
for the singer is the same one as for the good instrumentalist.
‡
[Gallay’s Note:] Les Fantaisies sur les Martyrs, sur la Straniera, and the 9th and 11th
solos contain entire phrases where I have purposefully combined the effects of
stopped sounds.
192
References
Austin, Paul. (1993). A Modern Valve Horn Player’s Guide to the Natural Horn.
Cincinnati, OH: Paul Austin.
Beccia-Schuster, Donna. “Interpretation of the Unmeasured Preludes of Louis Couperin
as Applied to Prelude No. 9 in C Major.” M.M. thesis, California State
University, Long Beach, 1991. Digital Dissertations, AAT 1344359.
Betts, James. “[A Comprehensive Project in Horn Literature with an Essay Consisting of]
A Comparison of Concepts of Horn Technique as Expressed in Selected
Instructional Materials for Horn Dating from 1798 to 1960.” D.M.A. diss.,
University of Iowa, 1984. UMI# 84-28309.
Bibliothèque nationale de France website. Retrieved 21 June, 2004, <http://www.bnf.fr>.
Brown, Clive. (1999). Classical and Romantic Performing Practice 1750 – 1900. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, Thomas. “Clarino Horn, Hunting Horn, and Hand Horn: Their Comparative
Roles in the Classic Music of the 18th Century.” D.A. diss., Ball State University,
1978. UMI# 79-18786.
Coar, Birchard (1952). A critical study of the nineteenth century horn virtuosi in France.
DeKalb, IL: self-published.
Coar, Birchard (1950). The French horn. DeKalb, IL: self-published.
Cone, Edward T. (1968). Musical Form and Musical Performance. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Couperin, François (1933). L’Art de toucher le Clavecin [The Art of playing the
Harpsichord], trans. Anna Linde. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Dart, Thurston. (1967). The Interpretation of Music, 4th edition. London: Hutchinson &
Co.
Dauprat, Louis-François (1994). Method for cor alto and cor basse (Viola Roth, Ed.).
Bloomington, IN: Birdalone Music.
Dauprat, Louis-François (1999). 20 Duos for Horns in Different Keys (Viola Roth, Ed.).
Bloomington, IN: Birdalone Music.
Donington, Robert (1992). The Interpretation of Early Music. New Revised Edition. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Dorian, Frederick (1942). The History of Music in Performance. New York: Norton.
Fako, Nancy Jordan. (1998). Philip Farkas and His Horn: A Happy, Worthwhile Life.
Elmhurst, IL: Crescent Park Music Publications.
Farkas, Philip (1976). The Art of Musicianship. Bloomington, IN: Musical Publications.
Ferguson, Howard (1975). Keyboard Interpretation from the 14th to the 19th Century: An
Introduction. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
Fuller, David and Bruce Gustafson (2001). Louis Couperin. Grove Music Online, L.
Macy (Ed.). Retrieved 11 November, 2002, <http://www.grovemusic.com>.
Gallay, Jacques-François (1843). Méthode pour le Cor. Paris: Schonenberger.
Gallay, Jacques-François (1960). 40 Preludes for Horn including 20 Preludes without
measures. Edited by Lorenzo Sansone. San Antonio, TX: Southern Music.
193
Gallay, Jacques-François. Non-Measured Preludes Nos. 27, 28, 35, and 37 [Recorded by
Philip Farkas]. On Shared Reflections: The Legacy of Philip Farkas [CD]. Tempe,
AZ: Summit Records. (1995).
Gallay, Jacques-François. Non-Measured Preludes Nos. 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 31
[Recorded by Richard Runnels]. On Hornocopia [CD]. Australia: Move Records.
(1997).
Gallay, Jacques-François. Non-Measured Preludes Nos. 26 and 31 [Recorded by Lucien
Thévet]. On Lucien Thévet Recital 1 [CD]. Paris: International Music Diffusion.
(2000).
Glen, Nancy L. (1996). “A Study of Four Nineteenth-Century Horn Professors at the
Paris Conservatory and their Methods.” M.M. thesis, University of Northern
Colorado, 1996. UMI# 13-81202.
Greene, Grady Joel, Jr. (1970). “Louis François Dauprat: His Life and Works.” D.D.E.
diss., University of Northern Colorado, 1970. UMI# 71-14526.
Gustafson, Bruce (1977). A letter from Mr. Lebegue concerning his preludes. Recherches
sur la musique francaise classique, 17, 7-14.
Hiebert, Thomas (1989). “The Horn in Early Eighteenth-Century Dresden: The Players
and Their Repertory.” D.M.A. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1989. UMI# 89-
16424.
Higginbottom, Edward (2001). Nicolas Lebègue. In S. Sadie (Ed.), The New Grove
Dictionary of Music and Musicians (2nd ed., Vol. 14, pp. 429-430). London:
Macmillan.
Hill, Douglas (2001). Collected Thoughts on Teaching and Learning, Creativity, and
Horn Performance. Miami, FL: Warner Brothers.
Howe, Marvin (1966). “A Critical Survey of Literature, Materials, Opinions, and
Practices Related to Teaching the French Horn.” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa,
1966. UMI# 67-2633.
Huggel, Martin (1988). Preludes non mesures: Eine wenig bekannte
Kompositionsgattung im Barock [Unmeasured preludes: A little-known genre in
the Baroque]. Musik und Gottesdienst, 42 (2), 61-67.
Humphries, John (2000). The Early Horn: A Practical Guide. Cambridge, UK:
University Press.
Janetzky, Kurt and Bernhard Brüchle (1988). The Horn. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus
Press.
Lasocki, David and Betty Bang Mather (1978). The Classical Woodwind Cadenza: A
Workbook. New York: McGinnis & Marx.
Ledbetter, David (1987). Harpsichord and Lute Music in 17th-Century France.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Mather, Betty Bang (1973). Interpretation of French Music from 1675 to 1775: For
Woodwind and Other Performers. New York: McGinnis and Marx.
Mather, Betty Bang and David Lasocki (1984). The Art of Preluding 1700-1830: For
Flutists, Oboists, Clarinettists and Other Performers. New York: McGinnis and
Marx.
Meifred, Joseph (1840). Méthode pour le Cor Chromatique ou à Pistons. Paris: Richault.
194
Meifred, Joseph, Jacques-François Gallay, and Louis-François Dauprat (1855). Grand

Method for the French Horn. London: J. R. Lafleur and Son.
Meucci, Renato and Gabriele Rocchetti: ‘Horn,’ Grove Music Online ed L. Macy
(Accessed 19 December 2002), <http://www.grovemusic.com>.
Morley-Pegge, Reginald (1973). The French Horn: Some Notes on the Evolution of the
Instrument and of its Technique (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Moroney, Davitt (1985). Pièces de clavecin by Louis Couperin. Les Remparts, Monaco:
Éditions de L’Oiseau Lyre.
Moroney, Davitt: ‘Préludes non mesuré’, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 11
November, 2002), <http://www.grovemusic.com>.
Moroney, D. (2001). Prélude non mesuré. In S. Sadie (Ed.), The New Grove Dictionary
of Music and Musicians (2nd ed., Vol. 20, pp. 294-296). London: Macmillan.
Quantz, Johann Joachim (1985). On Playing the Flute (Edward R. Reilly, Trans.). New
York: Schirmer Books. (Original work published 1752)
Randel, Don Michael (Compiler). (1998). Harvard Concise Dictionary of Music.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reicha, Anton (2000). Treatise on Melody (Peter M. Landey, Trans.). Harmonologia
Series (Thomas Christensen, Ed.), no. 10. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press.
(Original work published 1814/1832)
Rekward, Susan J. “The Horn at the Paris Conservatoire and its Morceaux de Concours to
1996.” M.A. thesis, University of North Texas, 1997. UMI# 13-86000.
Reynolds, Verne (1997). The Horn Handbook. Portland, OR: Amadeus Press.
Robinson, Margaret Ann. “The History, Use, and Influence of Cor Mixte .” D.M.A.
thesis, Univ. of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, 1998. UMI# 99-
05359.
Schultz, Timothy. (2001). Performing French Classical Music: Sources and
Applications. Hillsdale, NY: Pendragon Press.
Snedeker, Jeffrey L. “Joseph Meifred’s Méthode pour le Cor Chromatique ou à Pistons
and Early Valved Horn Performance and Pedagogy in Nineteenth-Century
France.” D.M.A. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1991. UMI# 92-11644.
Snedeker, Jeffrey (1994). The early valved horn and its proponents in Paris 1826-1840.
The Horn Call Annual 6, 6-17.
Snedeker, Jeffrey: ‘Jacques François Gallay’, Grove Music Online ed L. Macy (Accessed
19 December 2002), <http://www.grovemusic.com>.
Tilney, Colin (1991). The art of the unmeasured prelude for harpsichord: France 1660-
1720 (Vols. 1-3). London: Schott.
Tuckwell, Barry (1983). Horn. New York: Schirmer Books.
Veilhan, Jean-Claude (1979). The Rules of Musical Interpretation in the Baroque Era
(17th – 18th centuries): Common to all instruments. Paris: Alphonse Leduc.
Whitehead, Alfred North (1978). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New
York: The Free Press.

Scott Russel Dissertation Gallay Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scott Russel Dissertation Gallay Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scott Russel Dissertation Gallay Pedagogy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HISTORY AND PEDAGOGY OF JACQUES-FRANÇOIS GALLAY’S

NON-MEASURED PRELUDES FOR HORN, OP. 27, NOS. 21–40

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

for the degree

Dr. Fred Ehnes, Co-Chair Date

Dr. Peter McAllister, Co-Chair Date

Dr. John Seidel Date

Dr. Eleanor Trawick Date

Dr. Joseph Misiewicz Date

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

NON-MEASURED PRELUDES FOR HORN, OP. 27, NOS. 21–40

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

DR. FRED EHNES AND DR. PETER MCALLISTER

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

Scott Edward Russell

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

regarding the interpretation of non-measured preludes through historical and contextual

analyses, and presents a sample of modern pedagogical opinions regarding performance

of Gallay’s Non-Measured Preludes.

I compared four published editions to the earliest available edition (published by

of historical and pedagogical materials so as to provide a single source of information

regarding performance practice and interpretative issues. In addition, I took lessons on

sample of current pedagogical opinion.

non-measured preludes as one of the most important considerations in developing a

conceptual framework for interpretation. Other important considerations include hand

required of professional-level playing.

Need for the Study 3

Purpose of the Study 5

Delimitations of the Study 7

Chapter 2. Review of Related Literature 16

History of Non-Measured Preludes (Préludes non mesurés) 16

Definition, Description, and Function 16

Non-Measured Preludes for Lute (pre-1600 – 1700) 17

Non-Measured Preludes for Harpsichord (1650 – 1720) 20

Non-Measured Preludes for Woodwinds (1790 – 1830) 33

Gallay, Non-Measured Preludes for Horn (ca. 1839) 39

Horn History and Pedagogy 1800 – 1840 43

General Horn History 43

General Horn Pedagogy 51

Horn Professors of the Paris Conservatory 56

Gallay’s Life and Works 60

General Remarks about Performance Practice 62

Issues Specific to the Horn at the Paris Conservatoire 69

Appendix A. Commercially Available Recordings of the Non-Measured Preludes 99

Appendix B. The Recorded Non-Measured Preludes 100

Appendix C. Published Editions of the Gallay Preludes, Op. 27 101

Appendix D. Availability of Published Editions 102

Appendix E. Numbering Discrepancies Among the Published Editions 103

Appendix F. Comparison of Published Editions 104

Lesson with Randy Gardner (Notes) 149

Lesson with Douglas Hill (Notes) 155

Lesson with Richard Seraphinoff (Transcript) 159

The Non-Measured Preludes of Jacques-François Gallay are considered by many

Douglas Hill, Professor of Horn at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, cites high-

particularly these non-measured preludes, to be the “antidote to [the more technically

These preludes also highlight an interesting era in the horn’s development.

by low horn players.