Bob Draper writes:

>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.

Good Lord!  Why?

>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.

Originality is overrated.  Purcell is a tremendous choral and theater
composer, one of the greatest songwriters, and as far as his instrumental
works go, a serious musical intellect.  His counterpoint goes far beyond
just about any of his contemporaries throughout Europe.  Not the least of
his achievements in this regard is that if you don't listen for it, it
tends to slip past.

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

Again, look at the individual works.  The fellow who wrote Dido and Aeneas,
the Welcome Odes, and the Funeral Sentences has nothing to apologize for.

Steve Schwartz