Here are the complete detailed notes to all the pieces in Volume 1, taken from Volume 1.

OPUS 1. SIX DIVERTIMENTOS

This charming set of short pieces was first published by Monzani & Hill in London at some time between 1813 and 1815, with the title Six Divertimentos for the Spanish Guitar. Sor had already left Spain at the end of the Peninsular War in 1813, and was living first in Paris and then in London. The opus number is an artificial one given to the work later by the Parisian publisher Meissonnier, and does not by any means indicate that this is Sor’s earliest composition.

The six individual pieces contrast admirably with each other, making it evident that the set was designed as a whole. Performers would do well to treat it as such and to play it complete. Nos. 1 and 4, both marked “Andante”, are in fact evidently minuets. The set begins, then, with a minuet followed by a waltz in the same key: so do Sor’s other sets of divertimenti, opp. 2, 8, and 13. This minuet and waltz serve to introduce a contrasting piece in a different key, and then the pattern is repeated, with another minuet and waltz and another contrasting piece. None of the pieces is very difficult, yet their charm, and their great suitability for the guitar, place them among Sor’s most rewarding compositions for the player of moderate accomplishments.

*****

For details of the various early editions of this work (and of the other works in all volumes of this edition), please see the bibliography in my book Fernando Sor Composer and Guitarist, second edition (London, Tecla Editions). This edition is based on the first issue of the Monzani & Hill London edition. The later Meissonnier and Simrock editions have been compared.

In no. 3, the sixth string is to be tuned to D, as is indicated in the Monzani & Hill edition. In no. 6 it is to be tuned to F, which is not indicated in Monzani & Hill but is clear from bar 36, in which the first chord cannot be played in any other way. (The later Meissonnier and Simrock editions indicate the scordatura.)

In no. 3, the Monzani & Hill edition gives the tempo indication “Larghetto”, but the later Meissonnier and Simrock editions both give “Allegretto”. In nos. 1, 4, and 5—as indeed throughout Sor’s works—the indication “Andante” is probably to be taken as meaning “with movement”, that is, rather faster than it would normally be interpreted today.

No. 3, bar 49: Monzani & Hill is in error here, having a superfluous quaver (sixteenth-note) rest after the second chord. Meissonnier (and then Simrock) attempted to correct this by removing the first of Monzani & Hill’s three quaver rests; I have instead removed the second of the three rests, a solution which is more likely to represent Sor’s original.

No. 4: the voicing suggests that the beginning is probably intended to be played at the eighth position.

No. 5, Variation (bars 16-32): this section is doubtless entirely in triplets, the dotted rhythm at bars 25 and 31 being probably only a notational convention. For a discussion of this kind of situation, see the New Grove Dictionary of Music (Grove 6), Notation, III, 4 (iii), pp. 381-387, and cf. op. 9 below, bars 10, etc.

No. 5: the following ties are not present in the original and are here supplied editorially: 36-37, 37-38, 38-39 (on the B), 44-45.

No. 5, bar 37: the last note in the treble: the engraver of the Monzani & Hill edition appears to have omitted the leger line through this A, causing Meissonnier’s engraver to misread it as a G.

No. 5, Minore, bar 33, end of first beat: not dotted in the original.

No. 6: the accent marks are reproduced from the original, perhaps meaning that they are to be played accented with the right hand thumb.

 __________

OPUS 2. SIX DIVERTIMENTOS

This too was first published in London by Monzani & Hill, in about 1815-19, also with the title Six Divertimentos for the Spanish Guitar, and like op. [1] consists of a set of six short and charming pieces evidently designed as a whole. Two minuets, nos. 1 and 4, each introduce a longer waltz in the same key, while the remaining pieces contrast with them both in key and in musical style. Performers, again, would do well to treat the set as a whole and to perform it complete.

The dedicatee, Emanuel Palacio Fajardo, was a South American from what is now Venezuela. An emissary of Simon Bolívar, he was in Europe to obtain guns and money for the liberation movements against Spain, and he returned to Venezuela in 1818. He and Sor could have met either in Paris or in London, and their friendship is no coincidence, for Sor, too, held liberal political views. Palacio Fajardo was a man of literary accomplishments who wrote a book entitled Outline of the Revolution in South America, by a South-American (London, 1817), and he evidently had musical tastes as well. For further details on him, see my book Fernando Sor, Composer and Guitarist.

The original edition contains no opus number, which appears only in later Meissonnier editions and does not by any means indicate the order of composition.

This edition is based on the first issue of the Monzani & Hill edition. The later Meissonnier and Simrock editions have been compared.

No. 6, bars 76-77: the original edition merely indicates that these notes are harmonics; the indications of precise strings and frets are editorial.

__________

OPUS 3. THEME AND VARIATIONS

First published by the expatriate Spaniard Salvador Castro de Gistau in his Journal de Musique Etrangère (Paris, c. 1804-10?), this work was composed in Spain. It has a good deal of fire to it, and evidently became popular, for another French edition appeared in about 1816, put out by Meissonnier, with a minuet added. In Castro the work has the title Air Varié, and in Meissonnier Thema Varié. There are interesting differences between the two editions, and it may well be that Castro’s edition preserves more of the flavour of the piece as it was originally composed in Spain, especially in its more florid ornamentation. The minuet which Meissonnier added is also found in a manuscript of the time in a version for keyboard (see the bibliography). Because of the considerable differences between the two editions we have given both versions here: the first version is Castro’s, and the second Meissonnier’s. It should be noted that it is not known whether Sor had anything to do with Meissonnier’s version; indeed, there is no particular reason to think that he did. It is more than possible that it was not Sor but Meissonnier or another person who prepared the version which is given in second place here. No opus number was given by Castro, nor doubtless originally by Meissonnier; the opus number 3 appears only in later Meissonnier issues.

Castro’s Journal de Musique Etrangère is undated and is difficult to date. Until now I have assumed that it dates from about 1810. However, interesting new light on this has recently been cast by Luis Briso de Montiano in his book Un fondo desconocido de música para guitarra (Madrid, 1995), in which he points out (on page 141) that some pages were engraved by an engraver, Michot, whose work is only recorded up to 1804. Whatever the date, Castro’s edition of op. 3 doubtless derives from a Spanish source.

The work was later adapted to become Sor’s op. 12, dedicated to Kalkbrenner.

__________

OPUS 4. FANTASIA

This delightful work in rondo form, whose limpidity and modest technical demands go hand in hand, was first published in London in about 1815-18. Lewis Lavenu, the publisher, was the same man who had already printed two patriotic songs by Sor in 1810, in Arriaza’s Poesías Patrióticas, which are reproduced in Chapter 1 of my book Fernando Sor, Composer and Guitarist. A gentle introduction marked Andante Largo (that is, in the terminology of the time, “Largo, with movement”) leads into an extended and lively Rondo. Again, the original edition gives no opus number; this appears only in later Meissonnier editions.

The original edition calls it “A 2nd Fantasia”, and until recently it was not known precisely why it was called that. However, following the recent discovery of an early London edition of the fantasia op. [12], we can now assume that it was that which was considered as the first fantasia, and this one (which as we have seen was originally published without opus number) as the second. Details of that discovery are given in the second edition (1994) of my book Fernando Sor, Composer and Guitarist, in which I also gave newly discovered details of concerts which Sor gave in London, in many of which he is said to have played a “Fantasia”. We may guess that most probably opp. 4 and 12 were among the ‘Fantasia’s which Sor then performed. A Fantasia Concertante for guitar and strings was also among the works which Sor played in London; no score of it is known to survive, but perhaps it was a version of either op. 4 or op. 12, more probably op. 12.

The exact date of Lavenu’s edition is something of a mystery. On a copy of it Lavenu’s address is given as ‘26 New Bond Street’, and if that address is correct, then this edition would appear to date from 1811, when Lavenu moved from no. 26 to no. 28 New Bond Street, according to Charles Humphries & William C. Smith (Music Publishing in the British Isles, 2nd edn., Oxford, 1970, p. 206), or before. It would mean in that case that the work would date from Sor’s Spanish period. However, the words ‘Printed & Sold for the Author’ at the head of the music do strongly suggest that Sor was by then in London, where as far as we know he did not arrive until 1815. Moreover, if this is the second fantasia and op. [12] was the first, then this edition of op. [4] must be after the first edition of op. [12] which is not before 1815. I suggest that ‘26 New Bond Street’ may be an error for ‘28 New Bond Street’ and that the edition in fact dates from 1815 or shortly after. In any case it must date from before 1818 when Lavenu died.

*****

In the original edition of this rondo, the sequence of the repeats and of the recurring sections appears to be corrupt. It has been conjecturally restored here. The repeats at bars 99ff. and 159ff. should probably be regarded as optional.

Bar 84: the repeat sign is editorial.

The Meissonnier edition has been compared.

__________

OPUS 5. SIX PETITES PIÈCES

Like opp. 1 and 2, which date from a similar period, this is a set of six contrasting pieces. First published in Paris in 1814 by Mme Benoist, a publisher who for many years had specialised in publishing songs of a popular nature, and especially songs with guitar, it may have been originally composed at that time, or it may possibly incorporate material from Sor’s earlier period in Spain.

The set is dedicated to Sor’s wife, about whom, as yet, almost nothing is known.

This set appears less well balanced than either op. 1 or op. 2. As in those works, a short minuet introduces a longer waltz in the same key; but then another minuet precedes an allegro which is far longer than the other pieces so far. Another long piece follows, one which has become well known in the guitar world: the famous “Andante largo” (note, again, that the term should probably be interpreted as meaning “Largo, with movement”, and not as slow as is the case in some modern performances). Finally, a short waltz ends the set.

The original title-page says that the work was “écrite selon la méthode ordinaire”; for the significance of this, see the notes on op. 7 below.

Again, the original edition gives no opus number, which appears only in later Meissonnier editions.

*****

No. 1, bars 8 and 16: the harmonics are indicated in the original but their precise position is editorial.

No. 2, bars 20-21: the long and doubtless intentional slur suggests lightness of touch.

No. 4: in bar 77 the last two notes are CE in the original. In bar 96 the last note is G in the original. Here emended editorially.

This edition is based on Mme Benoist’s edition. The Meissonnier edition has been compared.

__________

OPUS 6. TWELVE STUDIES

These twelve studies, full of strength and lyricism, were the first of Sor’s famous didactic pieces for the guitar, and were published in London under the title Studio for the Spanish Guitar in about 1815/17. Sor was about 37 and at the height of his powers, enjoying great success in London after he had been forced to flee from Spain at the end of the Peninsular War. He lived in Charlotte Street, near the north London area where most of the Spanish exiles lived, with whom he stayed in touch. His concerts and pupils were many; his songs poured from the presses; and the manager of the King’s Theatre, John Ebers, called him “the extraordinary Spaniard Sor, who is known to be the most perfect guitarist in the world”.

Many of these twelve studies are virtuoso compositions, in which the technique dazzles. Probably nothing like the study in octaves, No. 10, had been heard in England before. But there was another side to Sor’s nature, a side which has meant that his music has endured and is played by many thousands of people two hundred years later: an inner strength, a profundity. A perceptive notice appeared in one of the London periodicals of the time: “Mr. Sor feels what he has to say, and that feeling is not merely true, it is deep and intense”. Surely we here approach the reason why this first set of studies is among the classics for the instrument.

The set first appeared privately printed by William Milhouse, a wind instrument maker whose instruments are still esteemed today. There were twelve studies, in two sets of six, each set with its own title-page; no opus number was given. This edition is based on Milhouse’s edition. In later Paris editions, the whole became a single set of twelve, and in later issues of the Paris editions (not at first) the opus number “6” was given to it.

As usual with many of his sets of pieces, Sor has arranged the twelve studies as a set, with contrasting keys and tempi. It would make excellent sense to perform the twelve as a whole, in the order in which their composer deliberately arranged them, rather than to adopt any of the various other orders in which they have been arranged by modern performers. Some ten years later, in 1827, Sor published twelve more studies as op. 29, numbered from 13-24, indicating that he regarded the whole as a single set of 24 pieces in which the sequence was important.

A careful reading of Sor’s Méthode pour la Guitare (available in English translation from Tecla) will shed much light on the technical intention of these studies. For example, the treble notes in Study no. 11 are almost certainly all intended to be played with the middle finger of the right hand, and not with the ring finger as the unforewarned modern player might assume.

Sor’s Complete Studies, Lessons, and Exercises (opp. 6, 29, 31, 35, and 60, together with op. 44) are also published by Tecla in a modern re-engraved edition in one book (Tecla 101).

*****

Nos. 2 and 3: These two pieces seem to begin on the first beat of a bar, not the third, as indeed Reginald Smith Brindle pointed out (for no. 3) in his edition of op. 6. However, this is not an isolated phenomenon; it is found, for example, in Sor’s op. 29 no. 18, and in op. 31 no. 20, as well as in the Andante largo from opus 5; moreover, the last bars of no. 3 here are obviously correct. On the whole it seems best, as Smith Brindle said, to leave the music as it is.

No. 2: the tempo indication “Andante Allegro” means “Allegro, with movement”. It is an older tempo indication which is found, for example, in Handel.

No. 3 is the only one of the twelve to lack a tempo indication in the original edition, but in a copy in the British Library, London, no. 3 has been marked “Andante” (i.e. with movement) in ink in what appears to be Sor’s hand.

In this piece, Sor probably intended the first note of each group of three notes to be played with the right hand thumb, the left hand fingers slurring the other two notes. “Sometimes my left hand comes to the assistance of the right in descending groups of three notes, and I finger the three at once.” (Method, page 33). The direction of the stems in the original edition tends to confirm this use of the thumb, and certainly he used the right hand thumb on the top string in other pieces, for example in op. 29 no. 16, op. 31 no. 19, and probably op. 6 no. 9.

No. 4: Sor doubtless intended the semiquavers (sixteenth-notes) to be played by the right hand thumb and first finger. He discussed the matter in his method (quoted above): “This observation determined me to execute passages of that kind with the thumb and first finger...”.

In bars 17-29 the fact that the stems on the last chords in each bar point down (rather than up, as one might have expected on purely musical grounds) seems to indicate that Sor intended these chords to be played with the right hand thumb alone. In his Method he writes: “The right hand thumb can slide on two succeeding strings with such a velocity as to make them both be heard together”. At bar 30 the direction of the stems changes, probably deliberately to indicate a return to the use of pim.

The second section of the piece may be repeated if desired: the original gives a repeat mark at the beginning of the second section but not at the end.

Note the distinction between staccato in the first half, and long chords in the second half.

Bar 14: the sharp is editorial.

No. 6: the second section may be repeated if desired: the original gives a repeat mark at the beginning of the second section but not at the end.

Bars 54, 107 and 108: the sharps are editorial (there are none at those points in the original edition). At bar 58, the F could be played as a double sharp.

No. 7: this piece presents a problem of structure. The original had only seven bars in the section now numbered 41-48, and I have accordingly added one newly composed bar at bars 44-45. The original version may be seen in facsimile in Volume 1 of the nine-volume Tecla edition of Sor’s Complete Works for Guitar.

No. 9: the slurs in bars 34-37 are probably intended as musical slurs rather than as notes to be played with the left hand alone.

No. 10: The final section is, of course, “God save the King”. Perhaps we may regard it not only as a tribute to Sor’s country of refuge at the time, but also as a kind of encore after this unprecedented and virtuoso piece.

No. 11: although this piece would constitute an ideal study for the use of the ring finger to play a melody in the manner of Tárrega, it is most unlikely that Sor had that in mind. More probably the fingering for each group of three notes is mpi.

Bar 67: the sharp on the B is editorial.

No. 12: as in no. 11, the fingering that Sor had in mind is unlikely to have involved the ring finger.

_______

OPUS 7. FANTAISIE

This fantasia was first published in Paris in 1814 and was therefore composed either in Spain or very shortly after Sor had left that country. It is undoubtedly a virtuoso work, a major piece from a time when he was at the height of his powers. A contemporary, one who had heard him play at the Argyll Rooms in London in 1817, wrote of it in the Giulianiad in 1833:

...I trust it will not be considered as prejudice on my part when I say, that the beautiful compositions of Sor have touched and inspired my soul above all others. What wonder then that such became the chosen objects of my particular study; and if it is said of Giuliani, that “he must be considered as the inventor of a new method of playing”—perhaps I may be permitted to say, that we ought to consider Sor as the inventor of a new method of composing. Let me point out to you, as a specimen, his delightful fantasia opera 7; the introductory largo, in C minor, with its heart-thrilling combinations of chords (although rather spun out too long), which abounds with elegance and beauty from beginning to end, leading to the tender floating theme in C major, and its variations; all these beauties must be highly relished by the proficient, as they must likewise fascinate every sincere admirer of the guitar! Allow me, especially, to draw your attention to the variations. Nos. 1, 4 and 7, and say, whether music like that is not worthy of study?

The publisher of this Fantasia, and also the dedicatee, was the famous pianist and composer Ignaz Pleyel. The first edition showed a peculiarity in that a new experiment in guitar music notation was used: instead of writing the music on a single stave with a G clef an octave higher than the actual sound, as was the case before and is once again the case today, in this piece the music was written at its actual pitch and on two staves. The short preface declared that the advantage was that the music was shown at its true pitch, and that is indeed so; we may add that the system had the great advantage of giving more space to the music, which on a single stave is often rather cramped, particularly in the case of an elaborate work such as this one.

Since the piece was dedicated to and published by Pleyel, a skilled pianist and all-round musician but not one who is known to have been familiar with the guitar, we may guess that the two-stave system was inspired by conversations between Sor and Pleyel, perhaps indeed by a suggestion of Pleyel that it might be convenient to adapt what was essentially piano notation to the guitar. The two-stave system, however, did not last, and a few years later, in about 1817-22, Meissonnier brought out an edition of this Fantasia in conventional guitar notation.

In this edition I have used Pleyel’s text but written it on one stave. The Meissonnier edition has been carefully examined, but although it has many small changes, there is no reason to suppose that they derive from the composer and they are not reproduced here. Those who wish to consult the Meissonnier edition will find it reproduced in facsimile in Volume 1 of the Tecla facsimile edition.

When op. [5] was published in 1814, it bore on its title-page the words “écrites selon la méthode ordinaire”, that is to say in the normal notation, evidently meaning that it was not in the special two-stave notation used for the Pleyel edition of the Fantasia op. [7].

The original Pleyel edition gave no opus number, which appeared only in later Meissonnier editions.

In the Largo non tanto, bars 61-66, an open G is doubtless intended throughout.

__________

OPUS 8. SIX DIVERTIMENTOS

This is another set of six short pieces from Sor’s London period, published here by Rutter & McCarthy in 1818-19. Once again it is evident that the set has been planned as a whole, with contrast of keys and of tempi, and performance as a whole is recommended. The opus number, again, comes not from the original edition but from later Meissonnier editions.

In No. 3, the harmonics show Sor’s preference for natural rather than artificial harmonics.

In No. 5, the interesting and very carefully marked dynamic contrasts in this March doubtless parallel similar dynamic contrasts in the military music of the time.

The heading for nos. 2 and 6 in the original is “Walze”.

This edition is based on the Rutter & McCarthy edition. The Meissonnier edition has been carefully compared, and it appears to be a copy of the Rutter & McCarthy edition with some inferior readings, such as the harmonics in No. 1 which Meissonnier gives all at the twelfth fret.

__________

OPUS 9. VARIATIONS ON “O CARA ARMONIA” FROM MOZART’S THE MAGIC FLUTE

One of Sor’s most famous works, this set of variations seems to have been inspired by the first London performance of Mozart’s Magic Flute in May 1819. The theme which Sor used comes towards the end of Act I, and the original German words are “Das klinget so herrlich”, which in Italian is variously translated as “O dolce concento”, “O dolce armonia”, and “O cara armonia”. It is this last one which is named on the title-page of the English edition of the work, and it is also that used in, for example, the vocal score Il Flauto Magico published by Birchall in about 1813 (copy: British Library). Sor’s composition was first published in London in 1821 with the title The Favorite Air, “Oh cara armonia”, from Mozart’s Opera Il Flauto Magico, Arranged with an Introduction and Variations for the Guitar. As performed by the Author, at the Nobilities Concerts, Dedicated to his Brother, by F. Sor. The publisher was the Royal Harmonic Institution, and there was no opus number (that appeared only in the later Meissonnier editions).

The work later appeared in Paris published by Meissonnier, but with alterations. The first edition, namely the London one of 1821 which is the basis for the present edition, has an introduction, theme, five variations, and coda, and the fourth bar of the theme begins with the characteristic F double sharp. But at about the same time—no later than 1822—the French publisher Meissonnier brought out an edition which was shortened, simplified, and less interesting; one may guess that it was an attempt to reduce this fine work to the level of amateurs in order to sell more copies. The first and most difficult variation was omitted, the others placed in a different order, the coda was omitted, and the F double sharp was changed into an anodyne A. The ending is so abrupt and unmusical that one cannot help but think that this version cannot have had Sor’s approval. It has not been thought necessary to give this Meissonnier version in this edition.

At the same time as Sor came to live in Paris, in 1826, another Meissonnier edition appeared, with the note on the title-page “Nouvelle Edition augmentée par l’Auteur”. That it is a “nouvelle édition” is true only in the sense that it is a new Meissonnier edition; the implication that it is an entirely new edition by Sor is false, for on examination it turns out to be identical, note for note and in the same position on the page, with the original London edition. Did Sor, dissatisfied with the truncated edition that Meissonnier had previously brought out, insist to him that the full and proper version be published, when he returned to Paris from Russia?

Sor himself performed the work in public, for the London edition says “As performed by the Author, at the Nobilities’ Concerts”, and the second Meissonnier edition “Exécutées par l’Auteur au Concert donné à l’Ecole Royale de Musique” (for more details, see my book Fernando Sor, Composer and Guitarist). All three editions bear the same dedication, to his brother Carlos Sor or Sors, who lived in Paris and was also a guitarist and composer.

Introduction: the rhythm at bars 10, 12, etc., may well be simply triplets, the dotted rhythm being only a notational convention. For a discussion of this kind of situation, see the New Grove Dictionary of Music (Grove 6), Notation, III, 4 (iii), pp. 381-387, and cf. op. 1 no. 5 above.

Bar 91: the double sharp is editorial.

Bar 117, first note: the first (London) edition has no fingering on this D, and it is likely that it is simply to be played at the twelfth fret so that it may be held for its full value. However, in the Meissonnier edition the first note bears the indication “12e touche” (“twelfth fret”), which could be interpreted (though not conclusively) as meaning that the note in question is to be played as a harmonic at the twelfth fret. Because of the reading of the first edition, and because of the absence of any evidence that Sor had any connection with the Meissonnier edition, it is suggested that the note be played in the normal way (not as a harmonic).

Volume 1

Back to the main page for this new edition.

Tecla main page.