Here in Britain we didn't have much to shout about in music terms from 1700
to around 1900.  Then Elgar came along to end the drought.  Of course we
always tried to claim Handel as our own but our european friends would not
let us get away with that.  And, in truth, although we love them both very
much, Handel was about as British as Greg Rusetski.

Still we always had Purcell to fall back on.  And, as far as I can see
musicologists used to think that Purcell just shaded it over Elgar.

Now though it looks like some people are trying to devalue the man.  It
appears as though some of "his" most popular works are either spurious or
apocrythal.  Then, recently I read a booklet with a Purcell CD, the thrust
of which was (amazingly) that we overrate the man because much of his
output is derivative of the european style existing at the time.

I didn't give the idea much credence until I heard a CD of music by
Heinrich Albert (1604-1651).  This album of lieder sounds very Pucellian.
Perhaps not as rich but the similarity is there.  Yet Albert died 8 years
before Purcell was born.

So I ask this exactly what status should we bestow on Purcell? Why should
we value him above his contemporaries?

Does anyone have any views?

Bob Draper
[log in to unmask]