This interesting and thought-provoking essay explores the question of “authentic” interpretation of the music of Franck as presented by the two main schools of organ playing which came about after the death of the composer. The first, which claims direct legitimacy, comes from Franck’s pupils, especially with Tournemire, while the second comes from colleagues of Franck, stemming from Guilmant and Dupré. After comparing recordings of both Tournemire and Dupré of the A minor chorale, the author discusses the root of these approaches to interpretation. The interpretation of Tournemire (of which Langlais and his students are part of the lineage) he considers to be more sensitive to the qualities of the “liberty” which so many firsthand witnesses noted was part of Franck's own playing. However, the other style (Dupré and his pupils) observed a more strict and literal style of playing described by some observers as “dry and pedantic.” The author offers several lengthy musical examples with notations describing these two interpretations, as well as verbal accounts of the two recorded interpretations. Especially enlightening in the interpretation of the opening toccata-like passages and the famous “Adagio” section in A major. In closing, the author characterizes these differing interpretations as “vitalist” and “geometrical” playing, a “provocative dichotomy” which has been advanced by Richard Taruskin.

This brief thesis (which includes a multimedia CD) is the commentary for two recitals which included Adrien François Servais's “Souvenir de Spa” (Op. 2); Henri Vieuxtemps's “Cello Concerto in A minor” (Op. 46); and Eugene Ysaÿe's “Sonate pour violoncelle seul” (Op. 28). The second recital consisted of Joseph Jongen's “Sonate pour violoncelle et piano” (Op. 39) and César Franck's sonata of 1886 (originally for violin).