Ponce Prelude 14 video

VIDEO: Ponce's Prelude No. 23 in A flat major

Manuel Ponce's Prelude No. 23 in A flat major, recorded Wednesday 11 May in Stirling, SA, with rain falling on the roof of the studio. . .

Ponce's Preludes: Part 1 - The confusion of numbering

In concert programs and on recordings, people are referring to Ponce's preludes by number rather than key. This is understandable for a number of reasons, including the fact that several of the preludes exist published in different keys.  (Segovia, presumably, transposed three of the preludes into more 'idiomatic' keys for the Schott publication.) However, the existence of different numbering systems causes confusion.

While the 1981 Tecla edition of the "Twenty-Four Preludes for Guitar", edited by Miguel Alcázar, is now thirty years old, many people nonetheless persist with playing a selection of the twelve preludes that Segovia edited and which were published with Schott in the 1930s. This is evidenced by the prevalent use of the Segovia/Schott numbering when referring to the preludes. However, as players tackle preludes that are outside of the 12 in the Segovia/Schott edition, as well as playing the preludes in their originally composed keys, rather than Segovia's transpositions, there is a need for a new, consistent and logical numbering system.

There are at least three numbering systems, which derive from:

1. Segovia's Schott edition (12 preludes, 2 volumes) (AS)
2. Miguel Alcázar's 1981 Tecla edition of "The Twenty-Four Preludes for Guitar" (MA1981)
3. Miguel Alcázar's 2000 edition of Ponce's Complete Guitar Works (MA2000)


To spare those who don't want to get into too much detail, I'll give the numbering of the Segovia (AS) edition and the relevant correspondences. (Please click on the table to get a larger and less pixilated view.)

The order in MA2000, probably the least well-known source, is the most convincing, despite the many questionable aspects of that volume more generally.  In MA1981, Alcázar, the editor, was following the manuscripts, but changed the order for a number of the preludes to make it correspond to a  circle of fifths scheme. In the 2000 edition, Alcázar presented them, with one logical adjustment, in the order they appear in Ponce's manuscripts. (More commentary on Ponce's MSS in another post.) Here is a table giving those numberings and how they correlate to the 1981 Alcázar edition and the Segovia Schott Edition.

The keys given in the left hand column are original keys. For the three preludes that Segovia transposed, their transposition is given in the right-hand column.

Considering that the Segovia edition, together with the 1981 Tecla publication, are the best-known and most easily sources, and that existing recordings cite either one or the other for numbering, it appears unlikely that the more common-sense MA2000 order that reflects Ponce's manuscripts will gain currency any time soon. It will be interesting to hear Christiano Porqueddu's upcoming recording of the Preludes, which is advertised as being based on the original manuscripts, and see what choices he has made in ordering the set of 24.

In the next post, a discussion of Ponce's autograph manuscripts of the Preludes, and the problem of including Nos. 2 - 6  in the set of 24 Preludes.

INTERPRETATIONAL PROBLEMS: Note durations in Ponce's "Romantica" 2nd movt.

(NOTE: I will refer to the manuscript by the abbreviation MS, and the Segovia Schott Edition as AS)

Recently, I've been working on Manuel M. Ponce's Sonate romantique (Homage a Franz Schubert), and have become interested in the significance of Ponce's precisely-notated note durations generally, and in the second slow movement in particular.

To demonstrate what I mean, take a look at this passage, the opening few lines of the 2nd movement, (MS): 

Here are some (not all) curious points that have arisen in my practice of this passage, listed measure by measure:

(LINE 1)
m. 1  do you stop the bass note (notated as a half-note) precisely at the third beat, or do you let it ring?
         do you stop the treble E precisely at the fourth beat?

m. 3  in the inner voice, do you stop the C# and A to realise the rests?

m. 4  do you effectively play the half note rest in the top and bass voices  after the outer Es have sounded for their half-note duration
(LINE 2)
mm. 5-6  Notice how the bass notes are notated as half notes in m. 5, but only as eighth notes in m .6 (likewise between mm. 7 and 8). Is there a musical purpose to this?

mm. 9 - 12 Notice how the accompaniment is notated in short notes almost exclusively until m. 11 where the G# bass notes become half-notes. Is there a musical purpose to this detail?


Why do these and similar questions come up? Because, in my experience of listening to guitarists (and indeed reflecting on my own development), I've found that we are often a pretty casual bunch when it comes to aspects of notational detail like this. Durations of notes among us, far as I can tell, is determined by a mixture of intiuition (basically a general sense of clarity in the texture) and technical dictates (you hold the note till it "stops itself" due to a LH lift, or RH playing another note on the same string). Often  we (including most of my own playing to-date) do not even attempt to go to the trouble playing the notes legato for the correct duration, without un-notated ringing over. In any case, with the present example, if I had not noticed that in the MS there are those notated differences between bass note durations in mm. 5 and 6, I might not have come to delve into this topic further.

However, having noticed the difference, I have come to conclude that there in all likelihood a significance in how Ponce has notated durations, and that these durations are worth examining seriously, even if it means a more challenging level of technical engagement.

For example, look at the effect of sustained bass notes and thus a more arpegiated sound (in MS) in m. 5 and how well it contrasts well with a leaner, more horizontal rising figure in the accompaninent of m. 6, here "ungrounded" by a lack of sustaining bass note.  Likewise, the lack of sustaining bass notes in mm. 9 and 10 gives more prominence to the melody and makes the held root of the dominant chord G# in m. 11 more weighty.

After spending time and coming to some conclusions while working with the MS, I decided, with some trepidation, to open the old Segovia edition and have a look how he dealt (or not) with these issues.

Here are some observations on how this passage differs from the MS (I'm not going to get into dynamic markings here)

mm. 1 and 2 - the E melody note is held to the end of the bar (no rest on the 4th beat)

m.3  - the bass note "B" on the third beat is now only a quarter (crotchet) duration - presumably to facilitate technical execution.

mm. 5 and 7  -  the lower line is notated in all eighth-notes (no sustained basses in mm. 5 and 7, and thus no contrast in presentation  "m. 5 sustained --- m. 6 not sustained" etc. . . )

m. 12 - The C# in the melody is, in the AS a half note, where in the MS it's a dotted half-note.


So in other words, for mm 5-10, what Segovia's edition (AS) has is actually harder that the MS, because if one were to read it literally, one would be stopping the notes.

But then I thought, did Segovia actually read it literally? And has anyone read them literally since?

I thought I'd have a listen to a few recordings, starting with Segovia himself. I should say right now that I did not approach this listening from a personally critical point of view, but rather to get a representative gauge how details like this are dealt with in the guitar community. In other words, to ascertain the "state of current performance practice" when it comes to this detail.

Here are the recordings I listened to. All of them are CD recordings except Eduardo Fernandez, whose performance of the Sonata live in Tokyo was accessed via youtube at this link.

Andres Segovia
Norbert Kraft
Marcin Dylla
Jason Vieaux
Eduardo Fernandez
Gerardo Arriaga
Ana Vidovic


All of the recordings have strong artistic merit (and some are stunningly beautiful!), but the approach to note durations is rather casual.
As a baseline, most if not all the players maintained a tidiness and awareness of sonority, and within this context controlled some note durations, and usually performed with a clear dynamic layering between melody and accompaniment.
In the more controlled instances, you could infer a level of conscious and controlled individual piano pedaling-like approach (Norbert Kraft and Eduardo Fernandez's playing in particular made me think this, as did Marcin Dylla's handling of a few of the measures in question), but no-one shows any consistent attempt to reproduce the notes at their notated duration. The closest that anyone gets is . . .  not the modern and presumably more detail-oriented players, but . . . . Segovia! . . . Although his approach is not consistent, he is the only one who displays a discernible attempt, in places, to actually play the accompanying notes short. . .

Again I want to reiterate that this is not a value-laden observation, but rather just my attempt to gauge how people approach this aspect of musical notation. Also, I should note that because the Segovia edition (AS), which is what everyone except Dylla appears to have followed for their recordings, does not show the variation between bass note durations in passages like mm. 5-6, it is less likely to have arisen as a point of consequence. I imagine at least some of the players, were they working from the MS, would have noted and absorbed the differing use of bass note durations.

What are my own personal conclusions regarding this, and what have I learnt from comparing editions and recordings?

1. (AGAIN) That the Segovia editions and the manuscripts are really substantively different.
2. That a laissez-faire "l.v." (let vibrate) approach to note-durations might sometimes be appropriate in certain circumstances, and as an attribute of our instrument it is at once something to embrace where possible, but also something we have to be able to control.
3. That the "l.v" approach should not become a hindrance to a controlled execution of detailed note durations where these might plausibly hold interpretive implications, such as in the passage between mm. 5 and 12, where the alternation between different note durations (employed consistently by Ponce in this movement) in different measures is significant in outlining different musical material - the more arpegio like sonority in the measures where the bass notes are held, and a more linear, directed musical discourse in the measures where the accompaniment is all in short note values.

In the end, having conducted this little exercise, I'm going to maintain my own adventure by playing the musical text as though I had answered "yes" to each of the of questions at the beginning of this blog post.

Needless to say, however, that the way one deals with each of those questions and issues fits into a spectrum of priorities, the significance of which is the performer's business to determine.  For instance, it makes little difference if in mm. 1 and 2, I stop the melodic E for the 4th beat rest (see MS), because the note has largely decayed by that point. In contrast, the handling of the duration of bass notes in mm. 9-11 is can have a dramatic effect on how the passage functions when it is played . . .

Left Hand Shifting Problem: Part 2. Opening of Villa-Lobos's Prelude # 5.

This is to follow up to an earlier post called "Left Hand Shifting Problem". There, I invited you to explore issues related to maintaining legato (connection) while playing a scale on one string and executing a position change.

If you've made some conclusions from that little dare, you might find this an interesting follow-up.

I'm sure there are many great examples out there that could illustrate the point, but I can't think of very many that are better, more (maddeningly, in its simplicity) challenging, and commonly played than this:  the opening few bars of Villa-Lobos's Prelude No. 5, one of the bread-and-butter pieces of the classical guitar repertoire.

I suggest you focus just on the first two measures:

The challenge here is the same as before: to keep the scale-like melodic top line completely legato. Each note audibly connected to the next.  First of all, taking care to coordinate right and left hand actions so that the top line really sings as you're playing in one position . . . and then. . . doing what you need to do in order to keep the line legato between position shifts. . .

To me, keeping that line legato is an essential component of giving it a kind of innocence (or maybe a faux-innocence?) that this piece seems to have in its character.  But anyway, it's just a scale up and down. It's simple, right? So it should sound simple. . . and connected.  It doesn't need a different articulation on every other melodic note just coz we're guitarists and, you know, we've gotta change positions and it's hard (or impossible!) to keep it legato!!! "But dude, there's a position shift there. . . " is the shitty guitarist's attitude. You and I, we're better than that, right? ;-)

(OK, my only hint is that we ain't gonna get it with lunging fast movements or harder gripping or harder anything. . . Take a few deep breaths and just play with it gently, checking out what you might need to loosen (or not) in the left hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, fingers. . . in order to allow the legato to happen. Also, remember, music doesn't happen note by note, but gesture by gesture. . . Think about that in how you consider your physical movements to execute this passage. . . )

Acknowledgment:  I've got to thank a lovely student at the Sydney Con that I got the pleasure of working on this with, and around whom I was able to develop a few ideas about how to tackle this, ideas that I won't present here just yet so as not to deprive you of the pleasure of discovering your own answers!

The Heitor Villa-Lobos Preludes were originally published by Editions Max Eschig, and are now published by Editions Durand, Paris. Here is the link to view them on sheetmusicplus.com:
http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Cinq-Preludes/17417131