Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Classical Guitar technique: studies, scales, arpeggios, theory
Forum rules
IV Laws governing the quotation/citation of music


For discussion of studies, scales, arpeggios and theory.
ric2801
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:55 pm

Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by ric2801 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:36 am

Hi all.
My question is about a note in the measure 63 (repeated in 65).
I have an old score this music and in it (measure 63) there is one D note, the key is E major, so, this D note is # by signature, but, I've heard some recordings and it's commonly played as D natural, but there is no natural sign in my score.

Anyone is sure if it is sharp or natural? is my score wrong?

Thank you.
Last edited by ric2801 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:03 pm
Location: England

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Mark Clifton-Gaultier » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:53 am

If I counted correctly you're at the bottom of page 2 - yes?

So ... page 2, bottom system - all the Ds are natural - no flats.

ric2801
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by ric2801 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:56 pm

Mark Clifton-Gaultier wrote:If I counted correctly you're at the bottom of page 2 - yes?

So ... page 2, bottom system - all the Ds are natural - no flats.

Hi Mark. thank you for reply.

It is in different positions on different editions i think, so, here are prints of two different editions with measures that I'm talking about:
Image

As you can see, all the D notes are # by signature, do you have a different edition with natural signs?
Last edited by ric2801 on Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Desperado
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 5:23 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Desperado » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:00 pm

D natural - modulation to a major?

User avatar
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:03 pm
Location: England

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Mark Clifton-Gaultier » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:37 pm

ric2801 wrote:As you can see, all the D notes are # by signature, do you have a different edition with flat signs?
No. There shouldn't be any flat signs - I think that you mean naturals and these are omitted in error in the original publication.

Where is your "score 2" from? Whoever created that has copied from the original score without criticism or musical thought - further compounding the error of the missing accidentals by changing the fingering and sometimes adding the occasional ligado which accommodates the wrong notes.
Desperado wrote:D natural - modulation to a major?
Not really a proper modulation but the passage in question certainly aims us firmly at the A chord.

Desperado
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 5:23 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Desperado » Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:26 pm

What's a "proper modulation" I think modulation is a change of key however brief it maybe and d natural indicates this?

Bill
Posts: 224
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:43 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Bill » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:24 am

I must be missing something. I read & played through it twice tonight. I played those d's a as sharps not naturals.

User avatar
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:03 pm
Location: England

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Mark Clifton-Gaultier » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:41 am

Bill wrote:I must be missing something. I read & played through it twice tonight. I played those d's a as sharps not naturals.
Assuming that we're talking about the same passage (I don't have measure numbers in either of my UME copies) the score is wrong - they are meant to be Ds but of course you can play them any way you like.
Desperado wrote:What's a "proper modulation" I think modulation is a change of key however brief it maybe and d natural indicates this?
D natural on its own isn't enough to create a modulation, but by "proper" I meant that we don't actually do anything in the key of A.

It's as if, on the musical street-map, we have a look around the corner at the A chord but choose not to go in that direction after all. If you're saying that interpretation is wrong then I will yield to your greater expertise.

ric2801
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by ric2801 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:14 pm

Thank you all guys.
There shouldn't be any flat signs - I think that you mean naturals and these are omitted in error in the original publication.
Mark, I'm sorry, i was writing flat instead of natural, my bad. (my English isn't so good).
Are you sure it is a mistake in the score? do you have a score with natural signs or are you supposing that?
Thank you again.

User avatar
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:03 pm
Location: England

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Mark Clifton-Gaultier » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:05 pm

ric2801 wrote:Are you sure it is a mistake in the score? do you have a score with natural signs or are you supposing that?
I don't "know" it in the sense that Regino Sainz de la Maza told me so but the clues are there in the music. Using the numbering as in your "score 2":

1. Measures 52 and 53 outline the chord of E7 i.e. E, G#, B, D which pulls strongly towards the A chord.
2. The original passage (score 1) is based on both a repeated string pattern and parallel finger formation which device has been used earlier in measures 48 and 49. This earlier passage also provides the harmonic template for 52 and 53 i.e. outlining a B7 resolving on E.
3. The original L.H. fingering perfectly supports both 1 and 2.

"Score 2" disguises the similar sequences by changing the fingering in the earlier measures as well as the ones you were questioning. May I ask again - where is "score 2" from and who fingered it?
ric2801 wrote:Mark, I'm sorry, i was writing flat instead of natural, my bad. (my English isn't so good).
That's ok - I guessed as much - just clarifying.

ric2801
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by ric2801 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:23 pm

Mark, thank you again.
I understand your point and I think it is really possible. But is strange to me that people play the music different from the score, based only in feeling and possibilities, it is not common in classical music, so, i think there is some edition with natural signs or there is a record of Mazza playing it like that.

About the second score: I have one printed copy (score 1), when I realize that some musicians were playing it different from my score I started searching the web for another edition and I've found that edition in a pdf file, it is a Vassilis Gratsounas's revision and fingering.

ric2801
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by ric2801 » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Bill wrote:I must be missing something. I read & played through it twice tonight. I played those d's a as sharps not naturals.
I feel the same :D

User avatar
Mark Clifton-Gaultier
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:03 pm
Location: England

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by Mark Clifton-Gaultier » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:21 pm

ric2801 wrote:is strange to me that people play the music different from the score, based only in feeling and possibilities
My answer is not based on "feelings and possibilities" but years of study, theoretical and instrumental, and decades more practical experience.
ric2801 wrote:it is not common in classical music
On the contrary - it is very common - printed scores are replete with errors - we correct them all the time. One example is the Villa-Lobos étude currently under discussion in another thread. The printed score has been incorrect for many, many years - even when it was reprinted more recently under the (questionable) editorship of Frederick Noad many errors were retained and/or compounded.
ric2801 wrote:i think there is some edition with natural signs
No - at least, I very much doubt this. UME put together a "new" edition of the collected works of R de la M - all the original mistakes are intact - in fact it looks as if the publication simply uses the original plates. As his work is still protected by copyright there are no other official versions.
ric2801 wrote:or there is a record of Mazza playing it like that
If you find one please tell us.
ric2801 wrote:I've found that edition in a pdf file, it is a Vassilis Gratsounas's revision and fingering.
Thank you. Having looked through this score my opinion of it is the same.
ric2801 wrote:
Bill wrote:I must be missing something. I read & played through it twice tonight. I played those d's a as sharps not naturals.
I feel the same
Yes - one can play it that way - the sharps are not particularly offensive to our modern ears. They are still wrong though.

ric2801
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:55 pm

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by ric2801 » Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:35 pm

Mark, thank you again for these great explanations.

theknowle
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:50 pm
Location: Staffordshire UK

Re: Zapateado - Sainz De La Maza - Question

Post by theknowle » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:14 pm

If in doubt, it's often safer to follow the fingering rather than printed notes, (especially in the old Segovia Schott editions). Typesetters seem to pay more attention to the numbers than the dots! This would seem to apply in score 1 above.

Return to “Classical Guitar technique”