main text it is clear that at least the first one refers not to the reference given in fn. 39 but to that from fn. 38. There is no consistency as to when the French original of quotations is given in footnotes: on p. 29, fn. 57, we have the original text from a 1660 publication, while on pages 23 to 27 we are not given the original texts from a 1666 publication—nor, for instance, that of a 1643 quotation on p. 35. As one can see in fn. 105 on p. 43, it is good to have the original text: the English translation omits to include a word for the French “diverses” before “complaints”. The study is complemented by two Appendices, the first helpfully listing all the “maîtres de musique” at Saint-Sauveur between 1657 and 1750 (although one wonders why not up to the Revolution) and the second one providing a work catalogue of the Latin church music of the “Aix School” (although strangely not listing the scoring of these pieces). Unfortu nately, most of the pages of Appendix 2 do not have page numbers printed on them (pp. 228 to 256—the same applies to Table 4 on pp. 195–96): this makes detailed reference to individual entries rather difficult. However, more problematic is the issue of missing references for quotations (such as in the first sentence of the Prologue’s main text on p. xxi, or in the middle of p. 152). Quite often the reader is left guessing from where information originates (see the biographical information on Poitevin on pp. 32 and 41, or that on Jaques Cordier on p. 44)—one simply has to trust the author and is left hoping to find this somewhere else in the book. A glossary explains some of the French terms used in the book. However, it is not clear why some of them are included in the first place. For instance, for the French “Chapitre” the main text simply uses the English equivalent “Chapter” for most of the time (see especially the use of both on pp. 40–43). There are several issues in the bibliography: quite apart from the fact that it includes manuscript sources (and is thus a “List of sources” rather than a mere “Bibliography”), it is confusing to have articles separated from the other “Printed Sources since 1800”. The author works with the wide-spread abbreviation system of “last name year” (although it is not understandable what the date adds to identifying the abbreviation). However, there is some inconsistency: when there are several titles by the same author, it seems that the full name of the author is intended to be included only for the first entry. But for the entries for Duron we have the full name each time—and given the abbreviation system, this is actually more user-friendly. The entry for “Gooch 1972” simply lacks the full name and unfortunately, in the actual text there is generally no full citation on the first mention in the footnotes. Regarding the manuscript sources, the listing of the archival sigla is confusingly not distinct from the actual listing, but on the bottom of p. 262 there is a section headed “Unpublished Manuscripts”: should this heading have come after the sigla? This book has little to be commended. Its title appears to have been chosen to achieve maximum attention but without much thought of reflecting the book’s contents. The few paragraphs on “The Transmission of the Court Motet Style to Provence” (pp. 156–57), and possibly those on pp. 151–52, together with the bits on Aix composers going to Versailles, are the only passages that truly correspond to the book title. The biographies of composers from the “Aix School” in the second part at the centre of the book are unmistakably the book’s main raison d’être. These are genuinely interesting and seem well researched. Indeed, these could have worked very well as a contextualising study on André Campra, who is clearly the centre of attention; or as a meaningful volume on Poitevin and his “remarkable legacy” (p. 218). Overall, the book does not live up to its boisterous title, and the quality of the scholarship, while certainly enthusiastic, is in places questionable.

中文翻译：

---

改善早期音乐：Rob C. Wegman，Johannes Menke，Peter Schubert从中世纪晚期到巴洛克早期的即兴音乐史

显然，至少第一个参考文献未引用fn中给出的参考文献。39但来自fn。38.关于何时在脚注中注明引文的法国原文，尚无统一之处。29，fn。在图57中，我们拥有1660年出版物的原始文本，而在23至27页上，我们没有得到1666年出版物的原始文本-例如，也没有p上1643年报价的原始文本。35.在fn中可以看到。第105页 在图43中，最好有原文：英文翻译省略了“投诉”之前的法语“ divers”一词。该研究有两个附录，第一个列出了1657年至1750年之间圣索弗尔的所有“音乐大师”（尽管有人想知道为什么不进行革命），第二个列出了“艾克斯学校”的拉丁教堂音乐作品目录（尽管奇怪的是没有列出这些作品的得分）。不幸的是，附录2的大多数页面上都没有印刷页码（第228至256页-适用于第195-96页的表4）：这使得对各个条目的详细参考变得相当困难。但是，更成问题的是缺少引文引用（例如在第xxi页的序言主要文本的第一个句子中，或在第152页的中间）。读者经常会猜测信息的来源（请参阅第32和41页关于Poitevin的传记信息，或第30页上的Jaques Cordier上的内容。44）—人们只需要相信作者，就希望在书中的其他地方找到它。词汇表解释了本书中使用的一些法语术语。但是，尚不清楚为什么其中一些首先出现。例如，对于法语“ Chapitre”，主要内容在大多数情况下仅使用与英语等效的“ Chapter”（尤其是在第40-43页上使用二者）。书目中有几个问题：除了它包含手稿来源（因此是“来源列表”而不是单纯的“书目”）外，将文章与其他“印刷来源”分开是很混乱的。自1800年以来。作者使用广泛使用的“姓氏年”的缩写系统（尽管不知道日期加上什么来标识缩写）。但是，存在一些不一致之处：当同一位作者有多个标题时，似乎只打算在第一个条目中包含作者的全名。但是对于Duron的条目，我们每次都有全名，并且使用缩写系统，实际上更易于使用。遗憾的是，“ Gooch 1972”的条目缺少全名，但是，在实际文本中，脚注中的第一次提及通常没有完整的引用。关于手稿来源，档案文件sigla的清单与实际清单并没有混淆，而是在p的底部。262有一个标题为“未出版的手稿”的部分：该标题应该在sigla之后吗？这本书值得赞扬。选择书名似乎是为了引起最大的关注，但并没有考虑到反映这本书的内容。仅有的几篇关于“将宫廷风尚传递给普罗旺斯”（第156-57页）的文章，以及第151-52页的内容，以及艾克斯作曲家前往凡尔赛宫的内容，都是真正的唯一段落。对应于书名。该书第二部分的“艾克斯学院”作曲家传记无疑是该书的主要成因。这些是真正有趣的，并且经过充分研究。的确，作为对安德烈·坎普拉（AndréCampra）的情境研究，这些研究本来可以很好地进行，而安德烈·坎普拉显然是关注的焦点。或作为有关Poitevin及其“非凡遗产”的有意义的著作（第 218）。总体而言，这本书并没有达到其喧嚣的标题，而且奖学金的质量虽然肯定是令人兴奋的，但在某些地方还是值得怀疑的。