Rodrigo de Sá
This club's crushing bore
I listened to Skip Sempé's recent Louis Couperin. The record also includes the big Froberger Tombeau and other pieces from other composers, but it is definitely a Louis Couperin record.
What about the playing? The obvious comparison is with Leonhardt. Many have said that Leonhardt has a unique relationship with Louis Couperin's music. I agree with that. In fact, I came to dislike his music when played by other harpsichordists. And I came to think that I really did not like L Couperin as such: only when played by Leonhardt.
Leonhardt's rendition is similar to his late Froberger. Very inward oriented, subtly powerful and moving, austere and very obviously Calvinistic - almost a Jansenist's approach to Froberger.
The same happens with Louis Couperin, but Couperin's music is not so overtly dramatic as Froberger's. There is a sombre melancholy, an underlying anguish, but nothing like Nicolas de Grigny, to name but one contemporary.
Listening to Skip Sempé has, almost always, been a pleasant experience. His way of playing is rather elaborate, yet it carries the absolute integrity of playing with feeling: you would say the music is to be played that way. For instance, the Tombeau de Monsieur de Chambonières (in his Chambonières recording) is marvelous, by far the best I have ever heard.
How does he fare with Louis Couperin?
To put it mildly, superbly. He doesn't play like Leonhardt: there is no hidden passion. All the passion is there, in bucketfuls. Does this make it a superficial approach? Not in the least. Leonhardt's passion is for himself. Sempé wants to show his passion to the world. And he is quite sincere about it.
For instance, the Chaconne is marvellously felt. The Tombeau (by Louis Couperin) is superlatively expressive. A good way to compare him to Leonhardt is by comparing the Froberger Tombeau. They are very different. Leonhardt is inward oriented as ever. Sempé is completely passionate: it is all about declamation, all about despair, all angles and broad curves, extreme shortening and dilation of phrases. Yet, it never seems disorganized. It all makes sense and one wonders if there is a better way to play it.
I first thought about Mortensen's Tombeau (by the way, dear Pe-Zulu, I do like his version very much indeed). But no, Sempé is rather different. Mortensen almost 'choreographs' the piece. For instance, the tolling of the bell is extremely impressive (it can give one the creeps); the repetitions are impressive, with a superb build up in ornamentation. Sempé is quite different. It has nothing to do with choreography, all to do with declamation and poetics. What he presents us with is a tragedy, a drama.
I am certain many 'intellectuals' will frown and say that Sempé presents a 'reductionist' view of Couperin. But is Leonhardt's also reductionistic? Both explore possible ways for the music to be understood. They are both legitimate; they both have complete integrity.
In conclusion, a MUST HAVE.
Also, for people who love the sound of a good harpsichord, this one is a must have: Sempé's technique is so superlative that he gives us the idea that a harpsichord has powerful dynamics, much more colour possibilities than a grand piano, and infinite possibilities regarding attacks.
What about the playing? The obvious comparison is with Leonhardt. Many have said that Leonhardt has a unique relationship with Louis Couperin's music. I agree with that. In fact, I came to dislike his music when played by other harpsichordists. And I came to think that I really did not like L Couperin as such: only when played by Leonhardt.
Leonhardt's rendition is similar to his late Froberger. Very inward oriented, subtly powerful and moving, austere and very obviously Calvinistic - almost a Jansenist's approach to Froberger.
The same happens with Louis Couperin, but Couperin's music is not so overtly dramatic as Froberger's. There is a sombre melancholy, an underlying anguish, but nothing like Nicolas de Grigny, to name but one contemporary.
Listening to Skip Sempé has, almost always, been a pleasant experience. His way of playing is rather elaborate, yet it carries the absolute integrity of playing with feeling: you would say the music is to be played that way. For instance, the Tombeau de Monsieur de Chambonières (in his Chambonières recording) is marvelous, by far the best I have ever heard.
How does he fare with Louis Couperin?
To put it mildly, superbly. He doesn't play like Leonhardt: there is no hidden passion. All the passion is there, in bucketfuls. Does this make it a superficial approach? Not in the least. Leonhardt's passion is for himself. Sempé wants to show his passion to the world. And he is quite sincere about it.
For instance, the Chaconne is marvellously felt. The Tombeau (by Louis Couperin) is superlatively expressive. A good way to compare him to Leonhardt is by comparing the Froberger Tombeau. They are very different. Leonhardt is inward oriented as ever. Sempé is completely passionate: it is all about declamation, all about despair, all angles and broad curves, extreme shortening and dilation of phrases. Yet, it never seems disorganized. It all makes sense and one wonders if there is a better way to play it.
I first thought about Mortensen's Tombeau (by the way, dear Pe-Zulu, I do like his version very much indeed). But no, Sempé is rather different. Mortensen almost 'choreographs' the piece. For instance, the tolling of the bell is extremely impressive (it can give one the creeps); the repetitions are impressive, with a superb build up in ornamentation. Sempé is quite different. It has nothing to do with choreography, all to do with declamation and poetics. What he presents us with is a tragedy, a drama.
I am certain many 'intellectuals' will frown and say that Sempé presents a 'reductionist' view of Couperin. But is Leonhardt's also reductionistic? Both explore possible ways for the music to be understood. They are both legitimate; they both have complete integrity.
In conclusion, a MUST HAVE.
Also, for people who love the sound of a good harpsichord, this one is a must have: Sempé's technique is so superlative that he gives us the idea that a harpsichord has powerful dynamics, much more colour possibilities than a grand piano, and infinite possibilities regarding attacks.
