Let’s learn Sor’s Opus 60 together, shall we?

[mainterm]

Hello all,

Hopefully it is not too late to enter into this discussion of #18. As I previously mentioned, I'm working on my own edition of this set of studies.

I have two facs. sources that I am working with - both may be found on IMSLP. Presumably one or both of these have been used as sources by the editors who have published the so-called "urtext" editions from Tecla and Chanterelle. There are some minor differences between these sources and small errors in them too. I haven't looked at Brian's Tecla edition, I do have the Chanterelle, but am working exclusively with the facs. sources.

If Brian removed the half note rest in measure #1 I'm sure he has a good reason and in my experience would be happy to talk about it. Nonetheless, I would respectfully disagree with the editorial change.

If one examines the origins of the term "anacrusis" and reviews baroque and classical sources where the anacrusis was used in D.C. score formats it is clear that a "pick-up" or "anacrusis" is typically used in cases where the musical material begins on an unaccented metric position - either on an unaccented beat or between beats and leading to an accented beat.

In common time (modern 4/4) beat 3 is accented. Not as much as beat 1, but it is considered a secondary accent. I would cite this as the reason that "anacrusis" notation style wasn't used in the original editions for #18. It's not that this was foreign to the 19th century editors - it is clearly employed on unaccented beats or between them in nos. 4, 6, 7, 10, and 12.

Now with respect to phrasing - counting the first measure with the half rest as measure one, and allowing from a simple point of view, that the musical phrases begin on beat 3 and end on beat 2 - the phrase structure of this study is very clear. Without getting into phrases within phrases ... if you simply map out phrases of 4 measures in length for this study (though the phrases overlap barlines), you get this with very typical harmonic alignment:

Phrase 1: mm.1-5. i (tonic) to V (dominant)
Phrase 2: mm. 5-9. i (tonic) to i (tonic) This is also the "fine"
Phrase 3: mm. 9-13. i (tonic) to VII (V/rel. major)
Phrase 4: mm. 13-17. VII to III (rel. major)
Phrase 5: mm. 17-21. III to iv (setting up shift to V/E major)
Phrase 6: mm. 21-25. iv to V
Phrase 7 & 8 mm. 25-33 - this is a written out repeat simply alternating between V and V/V.
Phrase 9 m.33, m.2-5 (same as Phrase 1)
Phrase 10 (same as Phrase 2)

There are clear stops in mm 9 and 17 (establishing tonic, ending the piece, and in the shift to rel. major key). Again totally typical.

[Yisrael van Handel]

Hopefully it is not too late to enter into this discussion of #18. <snip>
I have two facs. sources that I am working with - both may be found on IMSLP. Presumably one or both of these have been used as sources by the editors who have published the so-called "urtext" editions from Tecla and Chanterelle. There are some minor differences between these sources and small errors in them too. I haven't looked at Brian's Tecla edition, I do have the Chanterelle, but am working exclusively with the facs. sources.

If Brian removed the half note rest in measure #1 I'm sure he has a good reason and in my experience would be happy to talk about it. Nonetheless, I would respectfully disagree with the editorial change.

<snip>

mainterm,
I have 4 editions of Opus 60, #18. We have already discussed the Tecla edition, which strives to be a modern typeset version of the literal original. In addition, I have José Getino's edition, which has the anacrusis the way the Tecla edition does, but I discount that as evidence, because his purpose was to provide tabs, not to make a historically accurate copy of the notes. I have an edition published by Gitarrefreund München, which is like your editions. And I have a facsimile of an edition published by one Fernando Sor in Paris and signed by him. I would suspect forgery, except that I know that starting with Opus 33, I think, he did indeed publish his own music. It is like you said. So your reasoning must be valid. And your explanation very enlightening. I have no explanation why the Tecla edition is different, unless he simply meant to write the musical equivalent that would be familiar to modern readers.
Of course, your harmonic analysis is spot-on and exactly how I read the text. So it seems that as far as Sor is concerned, you are right about the anacrusis necessarily being on the off-beat. Thank you for this valuable instruction.

[Jorge Oliveira]

Hello all,

Hopefully it is not too late to enter into this discussion of #18. As I previously mentioned, I'm working on my own edition of this set of studies.

...

Now with respect to phrasing - counting the first measure with the half rest as measure one, and allowing from a simple point of view, that the musical phrases begin on beat 3 and end on beat 2 - the phrase structure of this study is very clear. Without getting into phrases within phrases ... if you simply map out phrases of 4 measures in length for this study (though the phrases overlap barlines), you get this with very typical harmonic alignment:

Phrase 1: mm.1-5. i (tonic) to V (dominant)
Phrase 2: mm. 5-9. i (tonic) to i (tonic) This is also the "fine"
Phrase 3: mm. 9-13. i (tonic) to VII (V/rel. major)
Phrase 4: mm. 13-17. VII to III (rel. major)
Phrase 5: mm. 17-21. III to iv (setting up shift to V/E major)
Phrase 6: mm. 21-25. iv to V
Phrase 7 & 8 mm. 25-33 - this is a written out repeat simply alternating between V and V/V.
Phrase 9 m.33, m.2-5 (same as Phrase 1)
Phrase 10 (same as Phrase 2)

There are clear stops in mm 9 and 17 (establishing tonic, ending the piece, and in the shift to rel. major key). Again totally typical.

Hi mainterm:

Thank you for your explanations. I did not have a formal musical education, unfortunately, so I was not at all familiar with the notation you used to specify the phrases in #18. But, well, with a bit of research I understood the most of the symbols and expressions you used above - i (tonic Minor), I (tonic Major), v (dominant Minor), V (dominant Major), etc. - and I could identify in the score the tones used. In fact when starting a new piece I should first do this type of analysis and I don't do it simply because I wouldn't know how to . But I always identify which is the tone of a chord or arpeggio in the score and I arm my LH fingers in the corresponding position (full or partial) trying afterwards to move them as little as possible and reserving most of the "effort" to my RH fingers (this also improves my tone, I believe). So, in the case of the #18, the first phrase starts with A Minor (tonic), proceeds to a chord which sounds as a variant of E Major but which I don't know how to name, goes back to A Minor (tonic again), and son on until if finishes in E Major (dominant). Always learning...

Thanks again and best regards,

Jorge

Edited to correct simple spelling mistakes...

[Henny]

hi mainterm, hi all,

thanks for the analysis of nr 18.
making an analysis takes effort and time, so thanks for that..i do it now and with nr 16 i have almost finished to the point i can upload it.
I got into the habit of singing the part without guitar however singing nr 16 has some tricky spots which are hard to memorize, i find it a helpful aid to play and memorize the score.
hope to upload soon.
regards,
joannes

[mainterm]

So, in the case of the #18, the first phrase starts with A Minor (tonic), proceeds to a chord which sounds as a variant of E Major but which I don't know how to name, goes back to A Minor (tonic again), and son on until if finishes in E Major (dominant). Always learning...

Yes.

The "variant of E major" is simply an E7 chord with G# in the bass. Some refer to this chord voicing as "first inversion" - it just means the third of the chord is in the bass position.

[Chariot0]

Below you will find my recording of Number 3. Thank you for any comments.

https://soundcloud.com/roger-ramirez-24/sor-op-60-nr-3

[Jorge Oliveira]

Below you will find my recording of Number 3. Thank you for any comments.

https://soundcloud.com/roger-ramirez-24/sor-op-60-nr-3

Well done, Roger, good tempo, clear notes (thumb only? ). This one is done, time to move on to the #4 which I, incidentally, play, the whole of it, in rest stroke mode. In my view, this #4, has an inherent drama, a sombre mood if you like, that can only be perceived if played slowly. The same happens with the #14 later in the Opus. Enjoy it, it is beautiful...

With this rendition of yours, the table of posted records is now as follows:

Sor's Opus 60 recorded pieces as of 18Dec17.png

[Chariot0]

Well done, Roger, good tempo, clear notes (thumb only? ). This one is done, time to move on to the #4 which I, incidentally, play, the whole of it, in rest stroke mode. In my view, this #4, has an inherent drama, a sombre mood if you like, that can only be perceived if played slowly. The same happens with the #14 later in the Opus. Enjoy it, it is beautiful...

Thank you Jorge. No I ended up not doing it all thumbs. I practiced it that way for several days and then after we chatted I decided to see what kind of sound I would get form not using the thumb only and I really liked it.

#4 is one I tried to learn a couple of years ago when I was first starting out. It is in Frederick Noad's book of 100 progressive studies.

I can't remember if anyone has shared this before in this list or not but this is a playlist of someone playing through all 25 of the Opus 60 etudes. I listed to #3 several times as inspiration for my playing and I just now listened to #4 and really like it. I haven't listened to any of the other recordings but I figured anyone might still enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... rF2DK8ovug

[Henny]

i also like laurence johnson but be aware that he is not adhering to the tempo, he takes the liberty to
adjust several measures playing them half the tempo etc..all to his own liking
however his interpretation is quite remarkable, i like his playing a lot.

[Jorge Oliveira]

So, in the case of the #18, the first phrase starts with A Minor (tonic), proceeds to a chord which sounds as a variant of E Major but which I don't know how to name, goes back to A Minor (tonic again), and son on until if finishes in E Major (dominant). Always learning...

Yes.

The "variant of E major" is simply an E7 chord with G# in the bass. Some refer to this chord voicing as "first inversion" - it just means the third of the chord is in the bass position.

Thank you, mainterm. I guess I have to dig more into this issue of chords. I bought some time ago a 12 page book called The Chord Wheel, written by Jim Fleser and published by Hal Leonard (ISBN 978-0-634-02142-8), which explains chord progression, transposition, the circle of fifths, scales, chords, major and minor, etc. I think, however, that the author assumes the reader already has some intermediate knowledge of music theory, which may not be my case as I'm having some difficulty in understanding some of what is written there. But, well, this is not surely "rocket science", I'll persevere and I'll certainly be able to improve my knowledge a bit . Thanks again for your help.

[Jorge Oliveira]

...

I can't remember if anyone has shared this before in this list or not but this is a playlist of someone playing through all 25 of the Opus 60 etudes. I listed to #3 several times as inspiration for my playing and I just now listened to #4 and really like it. I haven't listened to any of the other recordings but I figured anyone might still enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... rF2DK8ovug

i also like laurence johnson but be aware that he is not adhering to the tempo, he takes the liberty to
adjust several measures playing them half the tempo etc..all to his own liking
however his interpretation is quite remarkable, i like his playing a lot.

Yes, Roger, in my wanderings in the Internet looking for different interpretations of pieces of Sor's Opus 60, I did come across Lawrence Johnson's renditions. Well, who am I to criticise him - I which I ever come to play as well as he does - but I share Henny's opinion. He tends to adorn far too much for my taste, pieces which were written at a time - the so-called Classic Period - when keeping with the written tempo was important. He also exaggerates with rubato. Mind you, about a year ago, when I initiated this Topic, I used to play a bit like him - I called it to play with "expression" - and was politely but firmly chastised by Rob McKillop, 2handband and by our friend Yisrael as well, for not keeping a firm tempo. So, when looking for how a new piece of Opus 60 might be played, I rather look into Norbert Neunzling renditions, which you can find in the You Tube as well. This is his excellent rendition of Sor's Opus 60 #4, although I prefer to play it in a rather slower tempo.

Edited to change the link name from Sor's Opus 60 #14 to Sor's Opus 60 #4

[Yisrael van Handel]

Below you will find my recording of Number 3. Thank you for any comments.

Roger,
Well done. Very clean, phrasing is clear, dynamics make sense, tempo is solid. I am curious: did you play this entirely with rest strokes and alternating fingering? That is what it sounds like. I think playing a tiny little bit slower will allow you to bring out the tensions in the piece with a little more drama.

[Chariot0]

Yes, Roger, in my wanderings in the Internet looking for different interpretations of pieces of Sor's Opus 60, I did come across Lawrence Johnson's renditions. Well, who am I to criticise him - I which I ever come to play as well as he does - but I share Henny's opinion. He tends to adorn far too much for my taste, pieces which were written at a time - the so-called Classic Period - when keeping with the written tempo was important. He also exaggerates with rubato. Mind you, about a year ago, when I initiated this Topic, I used to play a bit like him - I called it to play with "expression" - and was politely but firmly chastised by Rob McKillop, 2handband and by our friend Yisrael as well, for not keeping a firm tempo. So, when looking for how a new piece of Opus 60 might be played, I rather look into Norbert Neunzling renditions, which you can find in the You Tube as well. This is his excellent rendition of Sor's Opus 60 #4, although I prefer to play it in a rather slower tempo.

Edited to change the link name from Sor's Opus 60 #14 to Sor's Opus 60 #4

I would suggest you listen to that Norbert link again and try keeping time with him. I do like his playing but he fluctuates his tempo pretty dramatically as well.

Yeah yeah, classical period should be played closer to tempo. If that's your thing, that's cool. To each his own. But I'm doing this for fun and to make pretty music. It is really important as a beginner to be able to play a piece in proper tempo. I think you can't use rubato effectively if you can't play the whole piece at the proper tempo. Also rubato should be used sparingly not throughout an entire piece. Rubato is a good thing and useful when done right. If playing 100% in tempo and making the first beat the loudest is your thing and what you want to do then cool all the power to you. But it is not the RIGHT way to play it. It is just A way to play it.

[David Norton]

Yeah yeah, classical period should be played closer to tempo. If that's your thing, that's cool. To each his own. But I'm doing this for fun and to make pretty music. It is really important as a beginner to be able to play a piece in proper tempo. I think you can't use rubato effectively if you can't play the whole piece at the proper tempo. Also rubato should be used sparingly not throughout an entire piece. Rubato is a good thing and useful when done right. If playing 100% in tempo and making the first beat the loudest is your thing and what you want to do then cool all the power to you. But it is not the RIGHT way to play it. It is just A way to play it.

With the above in mind, this post today from a different thread is rather fitting:

AK.png

Or to quote another website I saw some while ago: "We are musicians, not watchmakers."

[ElRay]

With the above in mind, this post today from a different thread is rather fitting:

AK.png

Or to quote another website I saw some while ago: "We are musicians, not watchmakers."

I remember, in the late 80's, the Peabody Conservatory of Music in Baltimore was going through a bit of "controversy". The standard at that time was that in any piece that included an improvised section, auditioning students must learn and play exactly, one of the approved historical improvisations. The scandalous bit was that there were faculty that actually wanted to hear prospective students actually improvise.

Ray