Julian Arcas
Angelo Gilardino
(1832-1882)/Una biografia documental" written by Javier Suarez-Pajares and
Eusebio Rioja Vazquez.
A fine example of how a rather dark time in the history of the guitar can be
illuminated by the results of a thorough research, scholarly written. All
those who are interested to understand who actually was Arcas and what he
did, and how he did it, will find in this book a clear path through a series
of documents and news. I strongly recommend the volume.
Incidentally - a minor point. So far, it was believed that Tarrega copied
from Arcas the "Jota Aragonesa",, but with adding an introduction of his
own. The authors have discovered that also such an introduction was
plagiarized by Tarrega from another work and author: "Recuerdos de Palma" by
José Viñas (1886-1888).
AG
Antuco
Sounds very interesting. Where can we purchase this book ?
Who is the publisher ? I presume that it is written in Spanish. Therefore is
the publisher in Spain?
Regards,
Antuco
"Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:5pHza.237964$K35.5...@news2.tin.it...
Angelo Gilardino
"Antuco" <ant...@bellsouth.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:BWJza.66948$l66....@fe10.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Angelo:
>
> Sounds very interesting. Where can we purchase this book ?
> Who is the publisher ? I presume that it is written in Spanish. Therefore
is
> the publisher in Spain?
>
> Regards,
>
> Antuco
Yes, it is written in Spanish. The Publisher is: Instituto de Estudios
Almerienses, Diputacion de Almeria, ISBN 84-8108-273-2.
AG
Matanya Ophee
>
>Incidentally - a minor point. So far, it was believed that Tarrega copied
>from Arcas the "Jota Aragonesa",, but with adding an introduction of his
>own. The authors have discovered that also such an introduction was
>plagiarized by Tarrega from another work and author: "Recuerdos de Palma" by
>José Viñas (1886-1888).
The plot thickens!
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
Arturo
> from Arcas the "Jota Aragonesa",, but with adding an introduction of his
> own. The authors have discovered that also such an introduction was
> plagiarized by Tarrega from another work and author: "Recuerdos de Palma" by
> José Viñas (1886-1888).
>
> AG
Interesting, so, you're saying that the book states this incidence of
plagiarism by Tarrega? This is not the first time I've heard it
claimed that Tarrega was a plagiarist -- there was a thread here, a
few weeks ago, questioning the origin of "Recuerdos", etc -- What are
your views on the subject of Tarrega being a plagiarist? Is there
evidence of other instances? Should we just assume that Tarrega was a
thief, with no real talent for composing his own pieces, then?
Arturo
Tony Morris
One of Tarrega's students/patrons was a British guy, a Dr. Leakey
(sp?), who paid Tarrega money for his music and his arrangements of
pieces that Tarrega performed. Tarrega wrote down what he thought that
Dr. Leakey would like. One of these pieces was "Grand Jota", which had
long been thought to have been a Tarrega composition, but is actually
a Julian Arcas piece.
Did Tarrega intend to "steal" Julian Arcas' music by writing down an
arrangement for a student? - a piece that was not intended for
publication, but rather for the eyes of one person only?
Doubtful.
But, we tend to judge people of the past by current standards.
Therefore, right or wrong, poor Francisco Tarrega is now held
accountable by 21st Century standards of copyright law, and is
admonished for being a scoundrel.- For supposedly "stealing" Julian
Arcas's music. It's sort of like the local guitar teacher writing out
the tablature to "Stairway to Heaven", and then some scholar two
centuries from now asserting the the guitar teacher was claiming to
have composed the piece.
Hardly.
{Disclaimer: while this may appear to be common sense, it is only my
opinion}
Tony Morris
Classical Guitar Alive!
Coming to PBS television stations nation-wide!
Angelo Gilardino
"Arturo" <Gm...@AOL.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> Interesting, so, you're saying that the book states this incidence of
> plagiarism by Tarrega?
Yes, the book does this, and it is not a statement, it is a demostration.
> This is not the first time I've heard it
> claimed that Tarrega was a plagiarist -- there was a thread here, a
> few weeks ago, questioning the origin of "Recuerdos", etc --
Nobody has so far demonstrated that this is not an original composition by
Tarrega. I have never suggested it is not, and I have discouraged those who
maintained it was derivated from Bizet romanza (from "Les pecheurs de
perles"), because there is only a similarity in the first measures of the
melody.
> What are
> your views on the subject of Tarrega being a plagiarist? Is there
> evidence of other instances?
My views are obvious. Tarrega used some pieces he took from other authors.
He copied those pieces by his own hand for his own use and for the use of
his students and aficionados, and it is out of question that on those
manuscripts he missed to report the name of their authors. After his death,
some of his followers - who were not cultivated musicians - sent to print
everything found in Tarrega's handwriting as an original work of his, thus
making much heavier the consequences of his behaviour toward the authorship
of those works which he copied. These are unquestionable facts, and
unquestionable are also the damages that composers like Arcas, Schumann,
Garcia Tolsa, Vinas, have reported from Tarrega's and his student's action.
The fact that Tarrega did not publish the Jota Aragonesa or the Fantasia on
La Traviata under his own name does not make him free from responsibility,
because he performed those works in his concerts under his own autorship,
whilst they were Arcas' products.
> Should we just assume that Tarrega was a
> thief, with no real talent for composing his own pieces, then?
We should assume that in order to achieve merits as a composer one does
enough with writing and publishing his own works - as Tarrega unquestionably
did with composing his own nice pieces - and that he has no need of using
other composer's works with missing the names of their authors - as Tarrega
unquestionably and regrettably did.
AG
Angelo Gilardino
"Tony Morris" <TonyMor...@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:13cdf06a.03052...@posting.google.com...
> One of Tarrega's students/patrons was a British guy, a Dr. Leakey
> (sp?), who paid Tarrega money for his music and his arrangements of
> pieces that Tarrega performed. Tarrega wrote down what he thought that
> Dr. Leakey would like. One of these pieces was "Grand Jota", which had
> long been thought to have been a Tarrega composition, but is actually
> a Julian Arcas piece.
>
> Did Tarrega intend to "steal" Julian Arcas' music by writing down an
> arrangement for a student? - a piece that was not intended for
> publication, but rather for the eyes of one person only?
> But, we tend to judge people of the past by current standards.
> Therefore, right or wrong, poor Francisco Tarrega is now held
> accountable by 21st Century standards of copyright law, and is
> admonished for being a scoundrel.- For supposedly "stealing" Julian
> Arcas's music. It's sort of like the local guitar teacher writing out
> the tablature to "Stairway to Heaven", and then some scholar two
> centuries from now asserting the the guitar teacher was claiming to
> have composed the piece.
This is untrue. Tarrega used to perform the Jota Aragonesa, as well as other
Arcas' works, in his own concerts, with giving them his own autorship in the
programs. No matter by which standard of which epoque such a behaviour is
judged, it is unacceptable.
AG
Sarn Dyer
> This is untrue. Tarrega used to perform the Jota Aragonesa, as well as other
> Arcas' works, in his own concerts, with giving them his own autorship in the
> programs. No matter by which standard of which epoque such a behaviour is
> judged, it is unacceptable.
>
It does seem to be looking bad for the reputation of Pujol's 'Saint
Francisco'. Certainly, Tárrega's, erm...unrestrained 'Variations on
Carnival of Venice' are sufficiently of the same genre to make his
authorship of the Gran Jota appear seemingly plausible. To have stolen
Arcas' music would have been extraordinarily disrespectful to another
composer whom Tárrega must have admired and who was only 22 years his
senior. Was Arcas still alive when Tárrega was performing the piece
under his own name? What are the facts of the Arcas m.s.? Presumably
Daniel Benko worked from this for his edition.
Tárrega's first appearance in public is said to have been a performance
of a guitar concerto by Arcas. I've never seen an edition of this and
wonder if it is mentioned in this new book.
Best wishes,
Sarn Dyer
Matanya Ophee
>Presumably
>Daniel Benko worked from this for his edition.
He did? I have been to his house in Budapest many times, and he never
mention this and never showed me anything along these lines. At one
point he gave me a free access to his entire music library from which
I copied a lot of materials. Never saw this. I'll have to ask him
about that.
>
>Tárrega's first appearance in public is said to have been a performance
>of a guitar concerto by Arcas. I've never seen an edition of this and
>wonder if it is mentioned in this new book.
Said where? I must have missed this one. I ordered the new book, but
it has not arrived yet.
Matanya Ophee
>
>One of Tarrega's students/patrons was a British guy, a Dr. Leakey
>(sp?),
Strange fellow. Walter Ja. Leckie. A British military doctor who spent
a considerable amount of time in South America and India. Moser gives
quite a bit of information about him, including a copy of the entry
for him in the British medical records.
Angelo Gilardino
"Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3ED0D54A...@lineone.net...
> Angelo Gilardino wrote:
>
> > This is untrue. Tarrega used to perform the Jota Aragonesa, as well as
other
> > Arcas' works, in his own concerts, with giving them his own autorship in
the
> > programs. No matter by which standard of which epoque such a behaviour
is
> > judged, it is unacceptable.
> >
>
> It does seem to be looking bad for the reputation of Pujol's 'Saint
> Francisco'. Certainly, Tárrega's, erm...unrestrained 'Variations on
> Carnival of Venice' are sufficiently of the same genre to make his
> authorship of the Gran Jota appear seemingly plausible. To have stolen
> Arcas' music would have been extraordinarily disrespectful to another
> composer whom Tárrega must have admired and who was only 22 years his
> senior. Was Arcas still alive when Tárrega was performing the piece
> under his own name? What are the facts of the Arcas m.s.? Presumably
> Daniel Benko worked from this for his edition.
The works by Julian Arcas - with the exception of some of them which are
missed, perhaps and regrettably for ever - are published in a volume by
Ediciones Soneto, Madrid.
This book containes reproduction of the 19th century publications.
> Tárrega's first appearance in public is said to have been a performance
> of a guitar concerto by Arcas. I've never seen an edition of this and
> wonder if it is mentioned in this new book.
Arcas did not write any Concerto - I mean, a Concerto for Guitar and
Orchestra. I am planning to write a version for Guitar and Orchestra of his
solo guitar piece entitled "El punto de la Habana/Fantasia sobre el Paño",
based upon the song employed by Manuel de Falla in the first of his "Siete
Canciones" for voice and piano, and used also by Mikhail Glinka.
AG
Matteo Contaldi
What is original by Tarrega?
Thank You.
MATTEO
Angelo Gilardino
"Matteo Contaldi" <mcon...@libero.it> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:TnsAa.34309$Ny5.1...@twister2.libero.it...
Several - not many - good pieces and a powerful legend.
AG
Sarn Dyer
> At the End.......
> What is original by Tarrega?
I'm finding this question regarding the true authorship of the Gran Jota
rather confusing. Although I don't have the Arcas score and this is
hardly the best way to conduct research,there is a c.6 minute midi
(seemingly described as a fragment) of the Arcas piece at:
http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
Assuming that this is the piece referred to, it appears to have little
or nothing in common with the Tárrega work other than the folk music of
Aragon which, of course, has endless variations on the Jota. It's also a
comparatively inferior work.
Would anyone else having the Tárrega score like to compare it with this
midi?
Sarn Dyer
Angelo Gilardino
"Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3ED27587...@lineone.net...
No confusion, all is clear. A comparative reading of the two scores shows
that Arcas was the author of the setting of the "Jota Aragonesa" which
Tarrega used as a basic reference for his own setting, which is richer and
larger, but unquestionably in a debt toward Arcas. Here it is not a matter
of which version is better, but of how fair and correct Tarrega has been
toward Arcas - the man who revealed the guitar to him! We learn now, from
the book written by Suarez-Pajares and Rioja, that not even the introduction
(not existing in Arcas) is a fruit of Tarrega's pen, because it is taken
from Viñas. It is surprising: I announced the publication of a major study
which makes justice to the work of an author - Arcas - whose importance in
the history of the guitar has been so far underestimated or ignored at all,
and only incidentally I referred the observations the writers did about
Tarrega, but all the discussion here goes on about Tarrega. God, for having
written two dozens of short guitar pieces he has got more literature than
Brahms!
AG
Sarn Dyer
> "Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
>>I'm finding this question regarding the true authorship of the Gran Jota
>>rather confusing. Although I don't have the Arcas score and this is
>>hardly the best way to conduct research,there is a c.6 minute midi
>>(seemingly described as a fragment) of the Arcas piece at:
>>
>>http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
>>
>>Assuming that this is the piece referred to, it appears to have little
>>or nothing in common with the Tárrega work other than the folk music of
>>Aragon which, of course, has endless variations on the Jota. It's also a
>>comparatively inferior work.
>>
>>Would anyone else having the Tárrega score like to compare it with this
>>midi?
> No confusion, all is clear. A comparative reading of the two scores shows
> that Arcas was the author of the setting of the "Jota Aragonesa" which
> Tarrega used as a basic reference for his own setting, which is richer and
> larger, but unquestionably in a debt toward Arcas.
On the evidence of the midi in question, I must differ substantially
with Angelo's assessment. I have no doubt that Tárrega knew Arcas' Jota
but the two pieces are totally different.Is Angelo saying that there was
'a debt' or that Tárrega stole this work and fraudulently performed it
under his own name?
> We learn now, from
> the book written by Suarez-Pajares and Rioja, that not even the introduction
> (not existing in Arcas) is a fruit of Tarrega's pen, because it is taken
> from Viñas.
Well, let us deal with one thing at a time. If the same authors are
saying that Tárrega stole the Jota from Arcas, this is not, on the above
evidence, very re-assuring.
I wonder if Stanley Yates would like to give an opinion on the
similarities between the two pieces?
Sarn Dyer
Matanya Ophee
>
>On the evidence of the midi in question, I must differ substantially
>with Angelo's assessment.
I just listened to the midi in question, with the original score in
hand, practicing Alain Reiher's sight reading exercise. For what it's
worth, Señor Jesus de Las Heras did a pretty good job of duplicating
the score in MIDI. Now what you need to do, is get the _score_
yourself, and compare it to the score of Tarrega.
> I have no doubt that Tárrega knew Arcas' Jota
>but the two pieces are totally different.Is Angelo saying that there was
>'a debt' or that Tárrega stole this work and fraudulently performed it
>under his own name?
That's exactly what he is saying and when you compare the two scores,
you will have to come to the same conclusion.
Angelo Gilardino
> Angelo Gilardino wrote:
> On the evidence of the midi in question, I must differ substantially
> with Angelo's assessment. I have no doubt that Tárrega knew Arcas' Jota
> but the two pieces are totally different.Is Angelo saying that there was
> 'a debt' or that Tárrega stole this work and fraudulently performed it
> under his own name?
I have not written a book about Arcas, I have reported of it and I would
have not referred to the Tarrega-Jota affair if I would not feel in tune
with the writers.
"...De hecho, como veremos mas adelante, la brillantisima y celebre
introduccion en Mi menor de la Jota atribuida generalmente a Tarrega - que
es poco de una expansion de la jota original de Arcas - tampoco es original
de Tarrega, sino un plagio de la introduccion del capricho guitarristico
"Recuerdos de Palma", un tremolo en La mayor publicado en 1868 por José
Viñas Diaz (1823.1888), contemporaneo y hombre cercano a Arcas". (pag. 29).
[Actually, as we will see in the following, not even the very brilliant and
celebrated introduction in E minor of the Jota generally assigned to
Tarrega - which is little more than an expansion of the Jota by Arcas - is
original by Tarrega, but it is a plagiarism of the introducion of the guitar
capricho "Recuerdos de Palma", a tremolo in A major published on 1868 by
José Viñas Diaz (1823.1868), a contemporary and a close person to Arcas".
Also "La Murciana - Fantasia de aires nacionales " by Arcas was copied by
Tarrega - with some adjustment in the form - and published under his name on
1927.
> Well, let us deal with one thing at a time. If the same authors are
> saying that Tárrega stole the Jota from Arcas, this is not, on the above
> evidence, very re-assuring.
Yes, of the fact that Tarrega and his band deserve shame for what they did
to Arcas and other authors. I wish to you - as to a composer - of never
passing by the same experience Arcas enjoyed thank to these gentlemen.
AG
Arturo
> and only incidentally I referred the observations the writers did about
> Tarrega, but all the discussion here goes on about Tarrega. God, for having
> written two dozens of short guitar pieces he has got more literature than
> Brahms!
>
> AG
I agree, but if his popularity is not deserved, then this is all the
more reason why it is important to discredit him (if, indeed, he is a
fraud) -- there is no more offensive crime, in my eyes, than stealing
the work of others (dead or alive). It is very important to get at
the truth.
Arturo
Angelo Gilardino
"Arturo" <Gm...@AOL.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> more reason why it is important to discredit him (if, indeed, he is a
> fraud) -- there is no more offensive crime, in my eyes, than stealing
> the work of others (dead or alive). It is very important to get at
> the truth.
> Arturo
Arcas wrote his own works. Then, a few of them - either almost literally,
like the "Fantasia on La Traviata", or expanded, like the "Jota Aragonesa",
or modified in their form, like the "Murciana " ("Cartagenera" in Tarrega's
copy) - were played and published under the name of Francisco Tarrega.
Tarrega was also given author's credit for other pieces - like the Tango
"Maria" or the "Oremus" - which were written by other authors (Garcia Tolsa
and Schumann). We learn now that also the Introduction of his version of the
Jota Aragonesa was copied from Viñas. This is the truth, unquestionably
placed under our eyes.
How would have it been possible to avoid to damage the true authors of the
pieces which he copied? Simply, by doing as Arcas did: with mentioning the
author's name in the title of his work ("Sueno de Rosellen",) or Llobet
did when expanding Sor's Variations on "La Follia" (he entitled them:
Variaciones sobre un tema de Sor). I have expanded the "Gran Solo" by Sor in
a version for guitar and string trio and, more recently, the "Sonata
Romantica" by Ponce in a version for cello and guitar: all of this evidence
is given in the titles, of course! Shame to all those who violate autorship,
even if they are - as in the case of Tarrega - good composers of their own
good music.
AG
Sarn Dyer
Jota is an 'expansion' of Arcas' composition on the evidence of the midi at:
http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
Does Angelo have any direct connection with the authors of the book he
has mentioned and from which he has quoted? Are we talking here of one
opinion or of three?
The Jota is Aragon's most famous folk dance. There are innumerable
versions of its accompaniment and many arrangements of it.
I will be happy to provide a full analysis of the two pieces. However,
this would be so entirely superfluous that there would be little point
other than to include it in a future article on the perils of going to
an extreme in revisionism.
>I wish to you - as to a composer - of never
>passing by the same experience Arcas enjoyed thank to these gentlemen.
>
>
>
Alas, this has already happened to me. I can very well imagine the
feelings of others who have suffered the same, but I do not see
plagiarism where none exists.
Sarn Dyer
Angelo Gilardino
> I can only repeat that it is simply not possible to claim that Tárrega's
> Jota is an 'expansion' of Arcas' composition on the evidence of the midi
at:
>
> http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
I share the judgement of the authors of the book on Arcas upon the evidence
of the text of the two works, which I have from longtime, and not upon the
evidence of any midi file.
> Does Angelo have any direct connection with the authors of the book he
> has mentioned and from which he has quoted? Are we talking here of one
> opinion or of three?
I have a very good and a friendly connection with both the authors of the
book, even because of their previous contribution to the history of the
guitar. Javier Suarez-Pajares is a professor of musicology at Madrid
University (Complutense), and he is one of the few professional
musicologists all over the world to have also a background as a guitarist.
Eusebio Rioja is one of the most qualified scholars of the flamenco. I share
their judgement of what Tarrega did as a plagiarism. So, here we have
different sources for the same judgement. In what I have written here, I
have not confused their judgements with mine: it happens they coincide.
> The Jota is Aragon's most famous folk dance. There are innumerable
> versions of its accompaniment and many arrangements of it.
> I will be happy to provide a full analysis of the two pieces. However,
> this would be so entirely superfluous that there would be little point
> other than to include it in a future article on the perils of going to
> an extreme in revisionism.
Each reader of this ng and each reader all over the world has a chance to
pick up his/her own judgement: all the works in question (not only the Jota
Aragonesa) are available in print from longtime, and whether the Tarrega's
versions are the works of an original thought which deserves to be labelled
with his autorship, or not, is a question to which everybody here can
provide his/her own answer. I spoke for myself, and I added my witness to a
list of preceding judgements already expressed by other scholars about
Tarrega's integrity when coming to the use he did of other composer's works.
I have nothing against Tarrega, but I cannot tolerate the fact that a part -
even a minor one - of his glory is founded upon plagiarism. I share the
choice of Dr. Suarez-Pajares and of Dr. Rioja, to publish in their book a
list with the names of all those performers who have recorded Arcas'
Fantasia on La Traviata as a work of Tarrega.
AG
Sarn Dyer
> "Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:3ED34759...@lineone.net...
>
>>I can only repeat that it is simply not possible to claim that Tárrega's
>>Jota is an 'expansion' of Arcas' composition on the evidence of the midi
>
> at:
>
>>http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
Has Angelo verified that the midi file is of the Arcas Jota? If it is,
then Tárrega's version would not even qualify as 'an expansion'.
Has Angelo discussed his belief about Tárrega's plagiarism of Arcas'
Jota with these authors?
I'm rather disinclined to invest in Arcas' inferior composition to so
little point, and look forward to hearing others' views on the alleged
similarity between the two pieces.
Sarn Dyer
Angelo Gilardino
> Angelo Gilardino wrote:
> > "Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> > news:3ED34759...@lineone.net...
> >
> >>I can only repeat that it is simply not possible to claim that Tárrega's
> >>Jota is an 'expansion' of Arcas' composition on the evidence of the midi
> >
> > at:
> >
> >>http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
>
> Has Angelo verified that the midi file is of the Arcas Jota? If it is,
> then Tárrega's version would not even qualify as 'an expansion'.
No need of doing this. I have the text, and this is enough.
>
> Has Angelo discussed his belief about Tárrega's plagiarism of Arcas'
> Jota with these authors?
No, I didn't, thought I could do this in any moment if I would see any
utility in such a discussion, but I do not: what they say is coincident with
what I believe.
>
> I'm rather disinclined to invest in Arcas' inferior composition to so
> little point, and look forward to hearing others' views on the alleged
> similarity between the two pieces.
Agree. Of course, Tarrega's behaviour can't be judged only from the reading
of one of his "uses" of Arcas' (or other composer's) pieces:
one has to consider all of his "uses": Traviata, Cartagenera, Oremus,
Introduction of Jota Aragonesa, Preludio (de Fossa), etc. etc.
Sorry to have missed from your preceding message the news of the plagiarism
you suffered: you have all my simpathy.
AG
Richard Yates
the Tarrega version:
http://www.classicalguitarmidi.com/Tarrega_Gran_Jota.mid
>> http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid (Arcas)
Matanya Ophee
>
>I will be happy to provide a full analysis of the two pieces. However,
>this would be so entirely superfluous that there would be little point
>other than to include it in a future article on the perils of going to
>an extreme in revisionism.
Not at all. If nothing else, such an article would help you to
understand who did what, and with which, and to whom. Of course, I
assume you will be comparing not a score to a MIDI recording, but
three separate scores: those of Viñas, Arcas and Tarrega. Looking
forward to your analysis.
Matanya Ophee
>
>I'm rather disinclined to invest in Arcas' inferior composition to so
>little point, and look forward to hearing others' views on the alleged
>similarity between the two pieces.
You put the issue is perspective, by including _your_ personal
evaluation of the comparative worth of the two versions, as a factor
in deciding authorship. That is not how things work out in the real
world. There is no question that Luigi Mozzani's 1906 version of Feste
Lariane is a far better composition that either the 1906 version of
the same by Jose Sancho, or the 1889 Peruvian Air by Luis T. Romero.
You can evaluate all three versions right here:
http://www.orphee.com/festa/festa.htm
It is still plagiarism.
Consider that in today's legal situation, it is enough for a
plagiarist to take as little as four bars from a composition by
another, to be slapped with a law suit. Right now, I am confronted
with a wonderful composition for guitar which is based on a theme by
Alban Berg, and which, unfortunately, reproduces verbatim more than
four bars of the original. The only way I can do this legally, is by
obtaining a permission from the Berg estate to use the theme. The same
thing happened when I published M.D. Pujol's Variaciones Sobre un tema
de Atahualpa Yupanqui. I agreed to publish it, only after Maximo got
all four sons of Yupanqui to agree.
Obviously, copyright laws in Spain in the late 19th century were
different. But laws are based on the moral conditions of the time. If
we think, today, that it is immoral to quote more than four bars of
someone else's work and publish it as your own, than we have no other
choice but apply the same moral judgment to plagiarisms of the past.
yat...@apsu.edu
wrote:
>Well, let us deal with one thing at a time. If the same authors are
>saying that Tárrega stole the Jota from Arcas, this is not, on the above
>evidence, very re-assuring.
>
>I wonder if Stanley Yates would like to give an opinion on the
>similarities between the two pieces?
Comparing the two original editions, I would say that about a dozen of
Tarrega's 30 variations are clearly based on those of Arcas (whose
version has only about half as many variations). Listening to the midi
file, I can see that this may not be entirely obvious; the order of
events is different and many passages sound quite different to a real
performance. Looking at the scores, there's really no doubt about it.
I would characterize the version published under Tarrega's name as an
elaboration of the Arcas original in which an introduction was added,
and additonal variations were incoprarated. Some of Arcas variations
form the basis for an elaborated variation; some are almost
note-for-note quotes, often using specific fingering systems not
discernable from the midi file.
Ultimately, the two pieces are different works - with the Tarrega
version quite superior to the Arcas - but there's just too much of the
Arcas there (about 40%) for the attribution to be simply Tarrega.
In the case of the Traviata Fantasie, I would say the the Tarrega
piece is %95 Arcas!
One caveat, the early edition of Tarrega's Jota variations - published
by Ildefonso Alier in 1909, the year of Tarrega's death - is
attributed:
Por Fco. TARREGA / (Revisanda por su discipulo Daniel Fortea)
I don't suppose we know what Tarrega actually played in his concerts.
All the best,
Stanley
Stanley Yates
http://www.StanleyYates.com
Doug Cummings
> Sarn Dyer <sd...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
<<Snip.. lot's of good stiff>>
> Obviously, copyright laws in Spain in the late 19th century were
> different. But laws are based on the moral conditions of the time. If
> we think, today, that it is immoral to quote more than four bars of
> someone else's work and publish it as your own, than we have no other
> choice but apply the same moral judgment to plagiarisms of the past.
>
>
Is this last statement true? As people doing historical research
should we judge those we study by the morals of their time or ours? In
our time Thomas Jefferson would have been a child molester in his time
he was a gentleman exercising his property rights. Does anyone in the
thread or NG know what was considered moral for the use of another's
music, in the manner described above, in 19th century Spain?
Regards,
Doug
Sarn Dyer
> I would characterize the version published under Tarrega's name as an
> elaboration of the Arcas original in which an introduction was added,
> and additonal variations were incoprarated. Some of Arcas variations
> form the basis for an elaborated variation; some are almost
> note-for-note quotes, often using specific fingering systems not
> discernable from the midi file.
As I stated at the start, a midi file is certainly not ideal for making
a comparison and similarities may indeed, be more evident from the
score. The problem with Stanley's assessment for me, is that *all* the
very numerous versions of the traditional Jota are elaborations of each
other, essentially improvisations on a simple rhythm and chordal
structure. This is very common in Spanish folk music and with such a
simple basis, it seems unlikely that accusations of plagiarism would
ever arise. The musical structure of a Jota usually consists of
contrasting variations, some more static, some more running, some in
semiquavers, some in triplets etc.. Comparing, for example, Larregla's
famous concert Jota 'ĄViva Navarra!' there are many similarities to both
Tárrega's and Arcas' pieces, but with such a simple structure, Larregla
had no need to plagiarise them, or anyone else.
There are also numerous Jota songs, Las flores de Zaragoza, La Fematera,
Ansotana, La Fiera and so on.
Perhaps we now need an expert in the Jota to give an opinion!
Sarn Dyer
Matanya Ophee
>Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message news:<18u6dv8pmqpt64au1...@4ax.com>...
>> Sarn Dyer <sd...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>
><<Snip.. lot's of good stiff>>
Who's that?
>>
>> Obviously, copyright laws in Spain in the late 19th century were
>> different. But laws are based on the moral conditions of the time. If
>> we think, today, that it is immoral to quote more than four bars of
>> someone else's work and publish it as your own, than we have no other
>> choice but apply the same moral judgment to plagiarisms of the past.
>>
>>
>MO,
>Is this last statement true? As people doing historical research
>should we judge those we study by the morals of their time or ours?
As one who is doing historical research all the time, the question is
very relevant. The only reason people were able to plagiarize at the
time, is not because it was an OK thing to do, but because they could
get away with it. By the time Tarrega died in 1909, there were
probably no descendants of Julian Arcas who could do anything about
it, or if they were, that cared enough about the issue to kick up a
fuss. If you want to get an idea of what copyright was like in the
18th century, read Berlioz' Les Soirées de l'Orchestre and look up his
discussion of Charles de Marescot, the Guitaromanie guy.
The great majority of the guitar works of Tarrega were published
posthumously. As Stanley pointed out, this one was "revised" by Daniel
Fortea. Do we know exactly what kind of revision was made by Fortea?
and what was the material he was revising?
I am afraid we do not. As point of reference: the Chanterelle
facsimile of this is a reproduction of the original Ildefonso Alier
edition which comes from _my_ collection. In his edition, Melchor
Rodriguez gives two versions, based as he says, on two separate
mansucripts, which he does not identify. For all I know, he could have
made the whole thing up, as so could Fortea. In short, it does not
matter if the theft was made by Tarrega himself or by any of his
followers and apologists. The reputation of Julian Arcas was damaged
either way.
When is the last time you heard in concert music by Arcas?
> In
>our time Thomas Jefferson would have been a child molester in his time
>he was a gentleman exercising his property rights.
Irrelevant. In our time genocide is a great evil. But we do look the
other way whehn it is more convenient, and we treat the several
genocides described in the Bible as the Word of God.
> Does anyone in the
>thread or NG know what was considered moral for the use of another's
>music, in the manner described above, in 19th century Spain?
Why Spain alone? In his Variations on Nel Cor Piu, Nikolai Petrovich
Makarov included one variation, complete with no changes, from the set
of Variations by Johann Kaspar Mertz. I published the Makarov in
Soundboard in 1982.
In 1817, Mauro Giuliani published a set of six preludes, his Op. 83,
which are a direct rip-off of the Six Excercises op. 27 by Antoine de
Lhoyer, published earlier, in 1812, for the 5 string guitar.
In 1817, Lhoyer was back in France, and an officer in the French Army.
The Giuliani rip-off must have been known to him, since it was
republished in France by Richault. Did he do anything about it at the
time? Was he paid and asked to shut up? did his military career
prevent him from pursuing a civil suit? who knows?
A few years earlier, one fellow named Marechal did go to court and
sued both Ignac Pleyel and Jean-Baptiste Phillis for stealing from him
the design of the lyre guitar. You can read in the Devriès-Lesure
Dictionary of French publishers about the many law suits for
plagiarism and other offences ion the publishing trade that were
conducted in France in the 19th century. There is no reason to believe
that in other countries in Europe the situation was much different,
and there may be many different reasons why we do not know about it
today.
Matanya Ophee
>
>As I stated at the start, a midi file is certainly not ideal for making
>a comparison and similarities may indeed, be more evident from the
>score. The problem with Stanley's assessment for me, is that *all* the
>very numerous versions of the traditional Jota are elaborations of each
>other, essentially improvisations on a simple rhythm and chordal
>structure. This is very common in Spanish folk music and with such a
>simple basis, it seems unlikely that accusations of plagiarism would
>ever arise.
Except that in this case, as stanley already pointed out, what is
plagiarized is not the tune or the rhythmical structure, but actual
entire variations, including their fingerings. And as long as the
Tárrega piece includes the _Introduction_ which is ripped off from
Viñas, and which has nothing to do with the Jota per se, and as long
as we are faced with all the _other_ rip offs practiced by Tárrega and
promoted by his disciples, there is no way of spin doctoring this out
of here.
>Perhaps we now need an expert in the Jota to give an opinion!
The Jota entry in the new Diccionario de la Musica Española is 8.5
pages long and contains many musical examples, none of which look like
the theme of the Jota as used by Arcas and Tárrega. But they do
mention that the first use of the Jota in a classical composition was
its use by Mikhail Glinka, where, indeed, it is the same theme.
Glinka, as is well known, took it from some street musician named el
Murciano in 1845 or so.
But Glinka's elaboration of the same theme, done _before_ Arcas and
Tárrega, is not at all similar to them, which leaves us with the
notion that as far as the documental evidence tells us, the
_variations_ and they way they were fingered, plus all the special
effects of tambora, Imitacion Fagot, Tremolo, mano izquierda sola etc,
were lifted off from Arcas by Tárrega and presented as his own. case
closed.
Arturo
> In 1817, Mauro Giuliani published a set of six preludes, his Op. 83,
> which are a direct rip-off of the Six Excercises op. 27 by Antoine de
> Lhoyer, published earlier, in 1812, for the 5 string guitar.
>
> In 1817, Lhoyer was back in France, and an officer in the French Army.
> The Giuliani rip-off must have been known to him, since it was
> republished in France by Richault. Did he do anything about it at the
> time? Was he paid and asked to shut up? did his military career
> prevent him from pursuing a civil suit? who knows?
>
Ha -- I find this really intriguing -- I've actually been
wondering why Giuliani's 6 preludes in Op. 83 stood out as
surprisingly good, in comparison to his other work (which I consider
to be mostly "crap"), and really had no compositional relation to his
other work -- Now, I know why ! He didn't write it -- he stole it!
This is very funny (actually, it's sad, for the real composer) --
these guys were wandering around ripping each other off, like crazy,
in the 19th century -- I've often wondered about a few other pieces of
other composers, that stand out as being "uncharacteristically good"
in comparison to their other work -- (we've already discussed
"Recuerdos", which is one of the suspect works) -- another one I find
suspect is Sor's Op.6, # 11 (the ever-popular Segovia Study # 17)--
it's too "uncharacteristically good" to be Sor's -- I suspect he
bought (or stole) it from Carcassi -- it is very much in the Carcassi
style -- just one of my "pet theories".
I'm finding this all very interesting.
Arturo
Arturo
I've looked at both midi files, and there is no question of them being
almost identical -- however, the Tarrega midi file (offered above)
does not have the introduction section (attributed to Vinas) in it --
so, one would have to find another source to do that comparison.
I've also compared the Arcas Jota midi file (offered above) to a
version published by Frederick Noad in his anthology entitled "The
Romantic Guitar", in which he assures us that it has come directly
from the Arcas manuscript for the work --- the midi file matches the
Noad version, note for note, measure for measure -- so, one can assume
the midi file of the Arcas version to be accurate.
However, Noad makes a somewhat ambivalent statement in
introducing the piece when he refers to it as both an "arrangement"
and a "composition", in the same sentence --- it reads as follows, on
pg. 89, under "Jota Aragonesa":
"This arrangement of the Jota was one of Arcas' most successful
compositions."
Which leads one to wonder...well, did Arcas write it, or did he also
borrow it from a common folk theme?
Apparently, Arcas was known as a player, not a composer -- and the
question is: did he compose any works, or just arrange and transcribe
works that already existed in regional folk themes of the day?
In the intro section of Noad's anthology, on pg. 10, he states:
"...the most celebrated guitarist to emerge was Julian Arcas
(1832-1882). Contemporary accounts bear witness to Arcas' dazzling and
flawless technique, and his highly successful concert ... Apart from
serving as a role model for Tarrega and other Spanish guitarists,
Arcas introduced new material to the concert stage in the form of
'classicalized' compositions based on regional folk dances. The
'Jota' and 'Panaderos', included in this book, are among the best
examples of his work in this area. ..."
Ok, more food for thought. Did Tarrega feel justified in not giving
Arcas credit, because Arcas himself, did not compose the piece? --
but, rather, borrowed it from common folk music, himself?
Arturo
John Wasak
Giuliani "crap"?
Carcassi better than Sor?
Oh my!
jw
Steven Bornfeld
better for what? Degustibus, etc, etc.
Personally, I love Giuliani and Sor. I'm just an ol' fashioned guy.
Steve
>
>
Larry Deack
> Giuliani "crap"?
> Carcassi better than Sor?
>
> Oh my!
I seem to smell a troll?
Angelo Gilardino
"Arturo" <Gm...@AOL.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:923968f5.03052...@posting.google.com...
> Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
news:<gpt6dvkc4629v2hne...@4ax.com>...
> > Sarn Dyer <sd...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> I've looked at both midi files, and there is no question of them being
> almost identical -- however, the Tarrega midi file (offered above)
> does not have the introduction section (attributed to Vinas) in it --
> so, one would have to find another source to do that comparison.
The fact that the Arcas setting of the "Jota Aragonesa" does not report an
introduction does not imply that it was not given in Arcas' performances.
Arcas had been the pupil of José Asencio in Malaga, and Asencio was a
student and a follower of Dionisio Aguado. In his "Nuevo Metodo" (Madrid
1843) Aguado gives a series of examples of "Preludios/o indicaciones del
tono en que se va a tocar una pieza", thus confirming a practice which was
customary at the epoque and which he encouraged: to introduce a piece with a
cadenza for creating the proper tonal ground. Those introductions could be
more or less developped, according to the skills of the performer and to the
situation. It is obvious that Arcas did not begin his public performances
of his "Jota" without an improvisation, and he did not write it because he
kept for himself the pleasure of creating it from time to time according to
his inspiration.
>
> Apparently, Arcas was known as a player, not a composer -- and the
> question is: did he compose any works, or just arrange and transcribe
> works that already existed in regional folk themes of the day?
Arcas wrote a good deal of pieces of his own, not depending from existing
material (either popular or operas), and even when adopting popular themes,
he created music of his own, eg in the set of Variations. His work "El punto
de la Habana/Fantasia sobre el Paņo" is a strong example of music invented
by him on a popular theme, but there are also pieces like "Polaca
Fantastica", "Rondo", "El delirio", which are entirely based upon his own
ideas. All these pieces are published in a book devoted to Arcas' music by
Ediciones Soneto, Madrid. It is not a fresh book - it is available from ten
years.
> Ok, more food for thought. Did Tarrega feel justified in not giving
> Arcas credit, because Arcas himself, did not compose the piece? --
> but, rather, borrowed it from common folk music, himself?
No, Tarrega had no justification.
AG
Sarn Dyer
> Ok, more food for thought. Did Tarrega feel justified in not giving
> Arcas credit, because Arcas himself, did not compose the piece? --
> but, rather, borrowed it from common folk music, himself?
That is probably closer to the truth.The form of the variations is already present in the traditional jota. Both pieces are crowd-pleasing folkloric diversions using only three chords, both contain 'virtuoso' clichés that no doubt could be found in folk music and earlier compositions, both contain effects. Clichés and effects don't qualify as plagiarism.
On the subject of plagiarism in general, Igor Stravinksy said something to the effect of 'Steal from everyone but never from yourself'. Perhaps he should have added '..but don't get caught'!
Advice not taken by Joaquin Rodrigo, who had no compunction in quoting from his own work.
Sarn Dyer
Klaus Heim
"Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:X5vAa.255932$K35.6...@news2.tin.it...
>
> It is surprising: I announced the publication of a major study
> which makes justice to the work of an author - Arcas - whose importance in
> the history of the guitar has been so far underestimated or ignored at
all,
> and only incidentally I referred the observations the writers did about
> Tarrega, but all the discussion here goes on about Tarrega. God, for
having
> written two dozens of short guitar pieces he has got more literature than
> Brahms!
Is it really surprising? No, I think not. The pot-pourri mentality which is
so suited to playing Tarrega's music will also surface in discussions of
that music. Why should we be interested in Arcas, our repertoire is good as
it is, thank you, and it has served us well for over 100 years. This
information on Arcas will go unnoticed by 99% of guitarists, which is a good
thing, because Tarrega can continue to rest in peace in the Pantheon of
guitar composers, where he takes the premiere position along side Barrios.
As long as there is still music available for transcriptions, we will hardly
see an interest in the likes of Arcas.
Klaus
Larry Deack
> Is it really surprising? No, I think not. The pot-pourri mentality which
is
> so suited to playing Tarrega's music will also surface in discussions of
> that music.
What sells is fantasy. What else is new?
I agree it's not surprising but I disagree about your analysis of
"pot-purée mentality". People are much more complicated than that kind of
simplistic sloganeering implies. It's much more interesting to examine the
potential of those people half in and half out of the media fantasyland that
greets n00bs in ANY field.
Sarn Dyer
> People are much more complicated than that kind of
> simplistic sloganeering implies.
Very true, and trying to promote the lesser known Arcas at the expense
of the better known Tárrega is just plain ill-judged, resulting, as
here, in distracting attention away from Arcas.
SD
Angelo Gilardino
"Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3ED51E58...@lineone.net...
Acknowledging to a composer the autorship of what he actually wrote is not a
promotion, is an act of justice - albeit a delayed one. As for distracting
attention from Arcas, it was already done: by Tarrega, and not quite
successfully, if somebody is able nowadays to present to his memory a list
of expenses.
AG
yat...@apsu.edu
Tarrega:
As part of the series edited by Miguel LLobet the United Musica
Espanola published, under the catalogue number UME 21654, a "Fantasia
sobre la Jota Aragonesa," with the attribution "Arcas. arr. Tarrega."
I haven't seen the edition, but what this undoubtedly indicates is
that one of Tarrega's closest students, Miguel Llobet, regarded the
piece as having been written by Arcas and subsequenbtly arranged by
Tarrega.
Sarn Dyer
Stanley, would that not depend on the date of this publication? Was it
published in Llobet's lifetime? If Llobet indeed believed this, he would
have been wrong as I hope to show in due course. However, if he knew the
Arcas Jota as he very probably did, I can see why he might have given it
this ascription. Perhaps this controversy was equally alive when the
piece was published!
Perhaps there is a clue in the change in the title to 'Fantasia'. A
fantasia can be either a piece of a free or improvisatory nature or a
pot-pourri of popular themes. In my view, only one of these descriptions
is correct.
Best wishes,
Sarn
yat...@apsu.edu
wrote:
>Stanley, would that not depend on the date of this publication? Was it
>published in Llobet's lifetime?
Since Lllobet edited the piece for UME, it must have been...
Sarn Dyer
attention. I wonder what exactly Llobet edited.
Sarn
Matanya Ophee
>If Llobet indeed believed this, he would
>have been wrong as I hope to show in due course.
Let me give one quick clue, before you go and hang yourself in public.
The issue here is not if the _theme_ used by both Arcas and Tarrega is
a folk theme. Of course it is. It was also used by Mikhail Glinka in
_his_ Jota Aragonesa years before both Arcas and Tarrega. And if you
read the Jota entry in the Diccionario de la Musica Española, you will
find that it was also used by many other composers.
The issue is the lifting of entire variations, in exactly the same way
they were written by Arcas, with his fingerings and with his dynamic
markings, and the lifting of the Introduction in the same manner from
a work by Viñas, and incorporating it into a composition on which
Tarrega claimed authorship for the _whole_ of it.
If your really care about not destroying reputations, you might wish
to consider that arguing in defense of the indefensible is one good
way to secure the agreement of fellow believers, and the scorn of
scholars who insist on documental evidence. Your choice.
Sarn Dyer
Publishers may sit on music for years. The artist dies, suddenly
publication. Did Llobet edit any other Tárrega pieces and change their
titles?
Sarn
Matanya Ophee
>The issue here is not if the _theme_ used by both Arcas and Tarrega is
>a folk theme. Of course it is. It was also used by Mikhail Glinka in
>_his_ Jota Aragonesa years before both Arcas and Tarrega. And if you
>read the Jota entry in the Diccionario de la Musica Española, you will
>find that it was also used by many other composers.
One notable guitar piece is the one published by Domingo Prat in
Buenos Aires in the 1920s, with Romero y Fernandez. I have that one.
It still uses the same Jota motive, but the Introduction is entirely
different than the Viñas piece, and the variations are all different
from both Arcas and Tarrega, though some similarity is inevitable. Any
bar by bar comparison of Arcas and Tarrega, should also deal with
Prat.
yat...@apsu.edu
wrote:
>Sorry again, on second thoughts, that doesn't, in fact, follow.
>Publishers may sit on music for years. The artist dies, suddenly
>publication. Did Llobet edit any other Tárrega pieces and change their
>titles?
UME's Coleccion Llobet seems to have consisted of about 60-70 works,
including original compositions, transcriptions and editions of music
by Sor and Tarrega. It's interesting to note that in the case of a
composer such as Albeniz, some works are attributed to Llobet as
arranger, others to Tarrega as arranger, and these these attributions
correspond to what we have traditionally believed about the early
arrangements of Albeniz for guitar: that Tarrega appears to have been
the first to arrange Granada and Sevilla while Llobet appears to have
been the first to arrange Cadiz and Torre bermeja. Whatever the case,
it appears Llobet was quite careful in attributing authorship, even in
the case of an arrangement of something like Albeniz's Granada -
something he performed in a concert in 1906 at the invitation of
Albeniz himself. One can easily imagine that, performing this Tarrega
arrangement over the the years, Llobet may have introduced a few ideas
of his own. Still, he was quite careful in the attribution in his
published version when he could very easily have done otherwise.
I don't have a copy of Llobet's UME edition of the Arcas-Tarrega Jota,
so I can't state categorically that it was ever published at all.
However, its reasonable to assume that it was, an durong Llobet's
lifetime. Why not? Perhaps someone could find out. Whatever the case,
this edition, or the advertizing for it, would appear to be the first,
if not the unique, edition to givesan attribution Arcas, arr. Tarrega
for this piece.
The term "Fantasia" in all liklihood came from a manuscript copy
Tarrega surely gave to his student. By the way, the original Alier
advertizing wrappers referred to the piece in Tarrega's version as
"Gran jota de concierto."
Matanya Ophee
>
>I don't have a copy of Llobet's UME edition of the Arcas-Tarrega Jota,
>so I can't state categorically that it was ever published at all.
If it has a plate number, it must have been published. There is a
complete Catalogue of UME published in 2000 by Carlos José Gosálves
Lara, and it should be an easy matter to date the piece precisely. I
only have the general monograph by Lara on Spanish publisher, but it
does not include the UME data. Perhaps Julio Gimeno or Luis Briso de
Montiano can help here?
Angelo Gilardino
"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:jnvhdv0hsacf6sr2s...@4ax.com...
> The issue here is not if the _theme_ used by both Arcas and Tarrega is
> a folk theme. Of course it is. It was also used by Mikhail Glinka in
> _his_ Jota Aragonesa years before both Arcas and Tarrega. And if you
> read the Jota entry in the Diccionario de la Musica Española, you will
> find that it was also used by many other composers.
Matanya, you have surely noticed that there is a curious issue going around
here. It seems that the discussion about whether Tarrega - besides his being
the great guitarist and the good composer he unquestionably was - did also
some plagiarisms, has to be restrained to the case of the "Jota Aragonesa".
But this is a minor point, after all. What Tarrega did with Arcas "Fantasia
on La Traviata" is much heavier. Let us quote from the Spanish guitar forum
a message posted today by Julio Gimeno:
Publicado: Sab May 31, 2003 12:22 pm Asunto: Re: ¿Fantasía sobre motivos
de la Traviata de Arcas?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Amigo Oscar,
No hay ninguna duda de que La fantasía sobre La Traviata de Verdi, se
atribuye a Tárrega de manera errónea.
La ópera La Traviata de Verdi fue estrenada en 1853. En la década de 1860,
Julián Arcas (1832-1882) incluía en sus conciertos una Fantasía sobre esta
ópera. La editorial Soneto de Madrid publicó, en 1993, un volumen dedicado a
las composiciones de Arcas, entre ellas la Fantasía para guitarra sobre
motivos de la ópera Traviata de Verdi. Se trata del facsímil de una edición
publicada en Barcelona por "Hijos de A. Vidal y Roger". Por su número de
plancha podemos fechar esta edición barcelonesa en 1892, es decir tras la
muerte de Arcas. Esta obra coincide con la atribuida a Tárrega en ediciones
de Bèrben (1978), Ariel (1980) o Soneto (1993) ¿de dónde parte esta falsa
atribución?
En este caso no podemos culpar a los alumnos de Tárrega, ya que ni Pujol, ni
Roch, ni Prat, mencionan esta obra. La edición de Ariel es una selección
realizada por Carlos Bonell a partir de unos manuscritos autógrafos de
Tárrega que pertenecieron al discípulo inglés de Tárrega, Walter J. Leckie.
Segun Wolf Moser, en la colección Leckie hay dos manuscritos de la Fantasía
sobre La Traviata, uno fechado en Londres el 25-7-1893 y el otro en Nápoles
el 8-5-1903. No he podido examinar estos manuscritos. La edición Ariel no es
facsímil, aunque en la portada se reproduce en parte uno de los dos
manuscritos y podemos leer el título "Fantasía sobre motivos de la
Traviata". Otra vez estamos ante uno de esos casos de ambigüedad en los que
Tárrega no se atribuye directamente la obra, pero tampoco señala a su
verdadero autor, Julián Arcas.
Curiosamente, tanto la edición Bèrben como la de Ariel, comienzan con tres
"re" en la voz aguda, mientras que en el manuscrito reproducido en la
portada de la edición Ariel la voz aguda comienza con re-do-si. En la
edición de Soneto, la obra comienza también con re-do-si. Adrián Rius me
dice que esta edición se basa en otro manuscrito de Tárrega perteneciente a
la colección de Melchor Rodríguez. En este manuscrito el título sería
"Fantasía sobre motivos de la Traviata por Francisco Tárrega", es decir, en
este caso el propio Tárrega se atribuye una obra que no compuso.
_________________
Un saludo.
Julio Gimeno.
http://perso.wanadoo.es/j.gimeno
Dear Friend Oscar,
there is no doubt that the Fantasia on la Traviata by Verdi is credited to
Tarrega in a wrong way.
The Verdi opera was premiered on 1853. In the decade of the Sixties, Julian
Arcas (1832.1882) included in his concerts a Fantasia upon this opera. The
publisher Soneto in Madrid published, on 1993, a book dedicated to Arcas'
compositions, among them the Fantasia for guitar on airs from the opera
Traviata by Verdi. It was a facsimile of a publication issued in Barcelona
by Sons of A. Vidal & Roger. From his plate number we can date such a
Barcelona publication on 1892, after Arcas' death. The work is the same
credited to Tarrega by Edizioni Bèrben (1978), Ariel (1980), Soneto (1993).
Where was such a false credit originated from? In this case we cannot throw
the guilt on Tarrega's students, for neither Pujol, nor Roch, nor Prat,
recall of that composition. The Ariel publication is a selection edited by
Carlos Bonell based upon some autograph manuscripts which belonged to
Tarrega's English pupil, Walter J. Leckie. According to Wolf Moser, in the
Leckie collection there are two manuscripts of the Fantasia on La Traviata,
one dated 25.7.1893 in London and the other one dated 8.5.1903 in Naples. I
have not been abel to study these manuscripts. The Ariel edition is no
facsimile, still in the cover we can see the reproduction of a part of one
of the two manuscripts and we can see the title "Fantasia sobre motivos de
la Traviata". Once more, we are in front of one of those ambiguous cases in
which Tarrega does not credit directly himself the authorship of the work,
but he does not report the name of its true author, Julian Arcas.
(omissis)... Adrian Rius tells me that Soneto edition is based on another
manuscript by Tarrega, which belongs to Melchor Rodriguez collection. In
this manuscript, the title is "Fantasia sobre motivos de la Traviata por
Francisco Tarrega": in this case, Tarrega gives himself a credit for a work
which he never composed.
-----
AG: Adrian Rius is the author of the recently issued biography of Tarrega,
not an Arcas' devotee.
AG
Sarn Dyer
Editor 'por su discipulo Daniel Fortea', title (first page) "Jota, sobre
motivos populares, pub. Ildefonso Alier.
Editor, Francisco Tárrega Jnr. (Tárrega's son?), title:'Gran Jota de
Concierto', pub. Ediciones Musicales Madrid.(20 albums of pieces.)
Editor, Daniel Fortea, title: Gran Jota, pub.Biblioteca Fortea, Madrid.
No editor given (probably Isaias Savio), title: Gran Jota Aragonesa,
pub. Ricordi Americana, Buenos Aires.
Editor, Gangi-Carfagna, title: Gran jota de Concierto, from Opere per
Chitarra - Composizione Originale, Edizione Bèrben, Ancona - Milano.
(The editors were aware of Arcas, but did not change the title.)
It may also appear in 'Compositions for guitar, ed Schwartz-Reiflingen,
pub. Edition Sikorski, Hamburg.
No 'Fantasias'.
Stanley writes:
> The term "Fantasia" in all liklihood came from a manuscript copy
> Tarrega surely gave to his student.
Is there evidence for this, or was this re-naming just Llobet's or the
publisher's way of distinguishing this version from others?
Very interesting, Stanley - thank you.
Sarn
yat...@apsu.edu
Purcell's Chanterelle Llobet edition. One "Fantasie Espagnole" appears
quite regularly as the closing item in the concert. Attributed:
M. Llobet (Philadelphia , October 29, 1912)
Arcas (New York, January 17, 1916)
Tarrega (Boston, April 25, 1916)
Since no "Fantasie espagnola" appears in the known works of Arcas,
Tarrega or Llobet, the piece must surely be our Jota...
Matanya Ophee
>
>"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:jnvhdv0hsacf6sr2s...@4ax.com...
>
>> The issue here is not if the _theme_ used by both Arcas and Tarrega is
>> a folk theme. Of course it is. It was also used by Mikhail Glinka in
>> _his_ Jota Aragonesa years before both Arcas and Tarrega. And if you
>> read the Jota entry in the Diccionario de la Musica Española, you will
>> find that it was also used by many other composers.
>
>Matanya, you have surely noticed that there is a curious issue going around
>here. It seems that the discussion about whether Tarrega - besides his being
>the great guitarist and the good composer he unquestionably was - did also
>some plagiarisms, has to be restrained to the case of the "Jota Aragonesa".
>But this is a minor point, after all. What Tarrega did with Arcas "Fantasia
>on La Traviata" is much heavier.
Or with Oremus by Schumann or with the de Fossa campanela etude or
with the Garcia Tolsa Enriquetta. As I mentioned before, Domingo Prat
stated in 1934 that being a student of Tarrega himself, he can only
assign true authorship to only 27 works. Sarn's attempt to somehow
defend Tarrega's reputation by reference to the Jota being a folk
theme, is really a sad example of a man being completely out of his
element and not understanding what this is really all about. Now let's
change the subject a little:
Prat says Tarrega was a marxist and an anarchist. Pujol says he was
not. Did tarrega's politics have anything to do with his en masse
arrogation of other people's work as his own?
Sarn Dyer
> It seems that the discussion about whether Tarrega - besides his being
> the great guitarist and the good composer he unquestionably was - did also
> some plagiarisms, has to be restrained to the case of the "Jota Aragonesa".
> But this is a minor point, after all.
The assertion has repeatedly been made here that, since Tárrega appears
to have been less than scrupulous in his ascriptions, then there is
every likelihood that he also stole the Gran Jota. This is akin to the
central 'ad hominem' fallacy by which it is said; 'Because X was
incorrect on this subject, then everything else he says about other
subjects is likely to be incorrect.' In musicology, this is poor
scholarship indeed.
My interest here is not to vindicate Tarrega in any context other than
the Gran Jota - extremes of revisionism are surely never desirable.
It is also to suggest that all claims should be examined on their own
merits without a lazy, and, frankly, suspect, resort to the 'ad hominem'
fallacy above.
Sarn Dyer
yat...@apsu.edu
Moonbeams:"
Barrios recorded and played a version of the Grand Jota, apparently
based on Tarrega's version. He finished many concerts with the piece,
from the very beginning of his career to the end. The concert programs
invariably attribute the piece to Barrios as composer - until around
1934, from which point the attribution becomes "Tarrega-Barrios."
Matanya Ophee
>
>My interest here is not to vindicate Tarrega in any context other than
>the Gran Jota - extremes of revisionism are surely never desirable.
>It is also to suggest that all claims should be examined on their own
>merits without a lazy, and, frankly, suspect, resort to the 'ad hominem'
>fallacy above.
Wrong tack. Ad hominem refers to living people, not to historical
figures. Besides, the issue is not Tarrega's character as a person.
Obviously he was a very nice guy and his students admired him greatly,
including Domingo Prat who was the first to expose his authorial
peccadillos. The issue here is one of trust in the veracity of what is
being claimed on a printed edition. But even if Tarrega was a saint
who religiously gave credit where credit is due, it is clear that in
this particular case, no matter how you slice it, he plagiarized
Arcas.
yat...@apsu.edu
wrote:
>Stanley writes:
>
>> The term "Fantasia" in all liklihood came from a manuscript copy
>> Tarrega surely gave to his student.
>
>Is there evidence for this, or was this re-naming just Llobet's or the
>publisher's way of distinguishing this version from others?
>
Llobet must have received a lot of music from his teacher in
hand-written form, since hardly any of it was published during
Tarrega's lifetime. I also suppose Tarrega may have sometimes taught
his students by direct imitation, the way Segovia is reputed to have
learned Granados Spanish Dance No. 5 from Llobet. I'm speculating that
the title Fantasia may have derived from such a copy. On the other
hand, Llobet may have made it up himself, simply because he liked the
sound of it.
I do understand the implication that "Fantasia" connotes a multi-theme
pot-pourri form, which - to a considerable extent - the Gran Jota
undoubtedly is, though I don't believe this is enough to refute a debt
owed by Tarrega to Arcas in deriving his inspiration (and, in my
opinion, much material) for his piece.
Sarn Dyer
> I don't have a copy of Llobet's UME edition of the Arcas-Tarrega Jota,
> so I can't state categorically that it was ever published at all.
> However, its reasonable to assume that it was, an durong Llobet's
> lifetime. Why not? Perhaps someone could find out.
An afterthought. A possible clincher might to find out many other
editions of Tárrega were available at the time that Llobet submitted his
edition to UME.
Sarn
Angelo Gilardino
"Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3ED915B2...@lineone.net...
> The assertion has repeatedly been made here that, since Tárrega appears
> to have been less than scrupulous in his ascriptions, then there is
> every likelihood that he also stole the Gran Jota. This is akin to the
> central 'ad hominem' fallacy by which it is said; 'Because X was
> incorrect on this subject, then everything else he says about other
> subjects is likely to be incorrect.' In musicology, this is poor
> scholarship indeed.
I refuse this. I have never seen a personal attack against Tarrega or his
memory.
The literature about thim is pretty abundant indeed, and - with the
exception of Wolf Moser's book, which I cannot read because I do not know
German - I think I have read all of it, from Domingo Prat's entry in his
Diccionario to the recent biography by Adrian Rius and I never saw something
which can be read alike an ad hominem accusation.
Also the authors of the book about Arcas deal with works and publications,
and not with the person. As for rating the scolarship of the musicologists,
let us do this upon the evidence of their books, essays and articles, after
an accurate reading of what they wrote: like composers, also musicologists
can be the object of ad hominem attacks.
AG
Sarn Dyer
I was speaking of assertions made *here*, not of assertions made
elsewhere. Please do not seek to extend my remarks, Angelo, since it may
appear that you are trying to recruit authors of published works to your
support on an entirely false premise.
Sarn Dyer
Angelo Gilardino
> Angelo Gilardino wrote:
The whole affair is getting clear now. Everybody who has a knowledge of the
authors who revealed the use Tarrega did of other composer's works (the list
begins with Domingo Prat, 1934, and follows with the various Abloniz, Ophee,
etc,, until the recent revelation of Suarez and Rioja) can see that I have
not added one word to their statements, and that I have only (incidentally)
reported them here. Still, there is just one thing that makes your object:
to attack my reports as they were the statements, and as I were in one
person all the exponents of the line Prat-Suarez, and as I had invented all
these statementsand I were the guilty of all of them. It is too clear that
you haven't read any of the sources which I referred to. If one looks for an
example of ad hominem attack, here it is. Your attempt to separate my
witness from the facts and from the witness of those who firstly brought
those facts to public evidence, will receive all the attention,
appreciation and cares it deserves, with no need on my side to defend my
integrity as a musician and as a musicologist: you are not the only person
in this world to assign ratings to the level of musicologists, and perhaps
you have still to learn that also giving marks as you do is an action which
goes itself subject to a rating, because you are ultimate no ultimate judge
in no musicologial cause, and you are exposed for each single word you
write. Beginning from this NG, whose members - be sure - will be able to
pick up their judgements: I submit them what I wrote and what you wrote, and
I follow leaving in a productive peace as I did so far, in spite of your
attempts to make my life heavier.
AG
Reza (www.rezamusic.com)
news:bbd4d3$824b3$1...@ID-91010.news.dfncis.de...
Dear Angelo: You've been around longer than I and surely you know that the world is full
of people who are quite eager to make your life heavy. I've always wondered about that and
sometimes think, well, no thanks, you can continue carrying that load or you can drop it,
but to impose it on my shoulder, I could live without. It's not easy to investigate this
aspect of the psyche, but my experience has been that those who attempt to load another
with burden are burdened themselves -- carrying loads -- perhaps without even knowing
it -- and when they see a light donkey (speaking about myself :-)) they're like "how could
it be?" -- so that indicates jealousy which is such a deep rooted human condition -- and
vanity which often due to fear, takes that jealousy offline, behind the person's back and
makes it into gossip... what do we do? Happy light journey.
Sarn Dyer
> If one looks for an
>> example of ad hominem attack, here it is. Your attempt to separate my
>> witness from the facts and from the witness of those who firstly brought
>> those facts to public evidence, will receive all the attention,
>> appreciation and cares it deserves, with no need on my side to defend my
>> integrity as a musician and as a musicologist: you are not the only person
>> in this world to assign ratings to the level of musicologists, and perhaps
>> you have still to learn that also giving marks as you do is an action which
>> goes itself subject to a rating, because you are ultimate no ultimate judge
>> in no musicologial cause, and you are exposed for each single word you
>> write.
Anyone reading this will note, that, as is so often the case with 'ad
hominem', you make it in preference to anwering what you cannot answer.
I have given 'marks' only to David Irving. Would you like to argue?
The exposure is your own and by your own hand.
Sarn Dyer
Angelo Gilardino
> Anyone reading this will note, that, as is so often the case with 'ad
> hominem', you make it in preference to anwering what you cannot answer.
No question addressed to me in this NG since when I read it has been left
unasnwered. None.
> The exposure is your own and by your own hand.
This is far from representing a danger for me. I have quite something to
expose and it is in a full light from 35 years.
AG
Sarn Dyer
> No question addressed to me in this NG since when I read it has been left
> unasnwered. None.
I guess that that must include answering by not answering...
No hard feelings on my part, Angelo.
Has Lorenzo Micheli given the debut yet of the piece you wrote for him?
Sarn Dyer
Angelo Gilardino
> Angelo Gilardino wrote:
>
> > No question addressed to me in this NG since when I read it has been
left
> > unasnwered. None.
>
> I guess that that must include answering by not answering...
I answer as well as I can, considering that English is not my language.
> Has Lorenzo Micheli given the debut yet of the piece you wrote for him?
He has scheduled the first performance of the piece, entitled "Sonatine des
fleurs et des oiseaux". on August 19th, at Lagonegro Festival.
AG
Matanya Ophee
>
>I was speaking of assertions made *here*, not of assertions made
>elsewhere.
Angelo's premise still stands. No one, not even here, has made an ad
hominem attack on Tarrega. Not even me. Besides, you seem to over look
Angelo's list of people of who wrote about Tarrega's plagiarism, and
the list begins with Domingo Prat in 1934, and someplace along the
line it includes me. Now, what Angelo is certainly referring to by
mentioning my name is _not_ anything I have said in *here*, but my
several articles on the subject published in many guitar magazines in
English, German, Italian and Japanese in 1981-2, more than 20 years
ago.
http://www.orphee.com/public.htm#public
There is nothing that I have seen in writing since then, to convince
me that the basic premise of these articles, needs to be altered in
any way. Of course, at the time, I did not see the several autograph
manuscripts which came to light since then, but if anything, these
manuscripts strengthen my position.
I would strongly advise you to acquaint yourself with the entire
published literature on the subject, before you go out on a limb.
Arfur Dogfrey
> > Angelo Gilardino wrote:
>
> > On the evidence of the midi in question, I must differ substantially
> > with Angelo's assessment. I have no doubt that Tárrega knew Arcas' Jota
> > but the two pieces are totally different.Is Angelo saying that there was
> > 'a debt' or that Tárrega stole this work and fraudulently performed it
> > under his own name?
>
> I have not written a book about Arcas, I have reported of it and I would
> have not referred to the Tarrega-Jota affair if I would not feel in tune
> with the writers.
> "...De hecho, como veremos mas adelante, la brillantisima y celebre
> introduccion en Mi menor de la Jota atribuida generalmente a Tarrega - que
> es poco de una expansion de la jota original de Arcas - tampoco es original
> de Tarrega, sino un plagio de la introduccion del capricho guitarristico
> "Recuerdos de Palma", un tremolo en La mayor publicado en 1868 por José
> Viñas Diaz (1823.1888), contemporaneo y hombre cercano a Arcas". (pag. 29).
>
> [Actually, as we will see in the following, not even the very brilliant and
> celebrated introduction in E minor of the Jota generally assigned to
> Tarrega - which is little more than an expansion of the Jota by Arcas - is
> original by Tarrega, but it is a plagiarism of the introducion of the guitar
> capricho "Recuerdos de Palma", a tremolo in A major published on 1868 by
> José Viñas Diaz (1823.1868), a contemporary and a close person to Arcas".
>
> Also "La Murciana - Fantasia de aires nacionales " by Arcas was copied by
> Tarrega - with some adjustment in the form - and published under his name on
> 1927.
>
Hmmmmm. This is 18 years or so after Tarrega died. Whoever published it
"under his name" couldn't have been Tarrega.
I'm reminded of one of Mozart's symphonies which turned out to not be
by Mozart after all. It was found among Mozart's manuscripts in Mozart's
handwriting and assumed to be a composition by him rather than a copy
of another's work that he made for his own use.
> > Well, let us deal with one thing at a time. If the same authors are
> > saying that Tárrega stole the Jota from Arcas, this is not, on the above
> > evidence, very re-assuring.
>
> Yes, of the fact that Tarrega and his band deserve shame for what they did
> to Arcas and other authors. I wish to you - as to a composer - of never
> passing by the same experience Arcas enjoyed thank to these gentlemen.
>
> AG
Arfur Dogfrey
> > >
> > >>I can only repeat that it is simply not possible to claim that Tárrega's
> > >>Jota is an 'expansion' of Arcas' composition on the evidence of the midi
> > >
> > > at:
> > >
> > >>http://aliso.cnice.mecd.es/~jheras1/laj-2.mid
> >
> > Has Angelo verified that the midi file is of the Arcas Jota? If it is,
> > then Tárrega's version would not even qualify as 'an expansion'.
>
> No need of doing this. I have the text, and this is enough.
>
>
> >
> > Has Angelo discussed his belief about Tárrega's plagiarism of Arcas'
> > Jota with these authors?
>
> No, I didn't, thought I could do this in any moment if I would see any
> utility in such a discussion, but I do not: what they say is coincident with
> what I believe.
>
>
> >
> > I'm rather disinclined to invest in Arcas' inferior composition to so
> > little point, and look forward to hearing others' views on the alleged
> > similarity between the two pieces.
>
> Agree. Of course, Tarrega's behaviour can't be judged only from the reading
> of one of his "uses" of Arcas' (or other composer's) pieces:
> one has to consider all of his "uses": Traviata, Cartagenera, Oremus,
> Introduction of Jota Aragonesa, Preludio (de Fossa), etc. etc.
>
"Jota Sobre Motivos Populares"(AKA "Gran Jota" & "Jota Aragonesa")
"Fantasia Sobre Motivos de 'La Traviata'"
"La Cartagenera"
"Oremus"
Were all published after Tarrega died. In judging "Tarrega's behavior"
it would seem that this should be taken into account.
> Sorry to have missed from your preceding message the news of the plagiarism
> you suffered: you have all my simpathy.
>
> AG
Matanya Ophee
>
>> Agree. Of course, Tarrega's behaviour can't be judged only from the reading
>> of one of his "uses" of Arcas' (or other composer's) pieces:
>> one has to consider all of his "uses": Traviata, Cartagenera, Oremus,
>> Introduction of Jota Aragonesa, Preludio (de Fossa), etc. etc.
>>
>
> "Jota Sobre Motivos Populares"(AKA "Gran Jota" & "Jota Aragonesa")
> "Fantasia Sobre Motivos de 'La Traviata'"
> "La Cartagenera"
> "Oremus"
>
>Were all published after Tarrega died. In judging "Tarrega's behavior"
>it would seem that this should be taken into account.
Damn good point. It should be taken into account. And if it is taken
into account, then we must also take into account the fact that the
entire Tarrega mystic was a creation of his students after he died. If
not for them, he would have ended on the back benches of history like
other guitarists of his time, people such as Alfred Cottin, David del
Castilio, Jacques Bosch, Sarrablo Clavero and other people whose names
you probably never heard before. The problem is different. The
students published music that was given to them in manuscript. Some of
these manuscripts eventually surfaced and they clearly indicate that
Tarrega took the music of others and put his name to them.
Not all Tarrega manuscripts to all the music published posthumously
has survived. So we have a rather large output, some of which can be
authenticated to have been a plagiarism by reference to a manuscript,
and some of which can be authenticated as a plagiarism by reference to
a comparison of printed edition, to an earlier printed edition of a
piece by some one else. All the rest, can be authenticated as original
pieces by Tarrega himself. Domingo Prat went through this exercise and
came up with 27 works that are authentically by Tarrega. Pujol counts
74 pieces.
The only qualification we can put on the notion that the Jota as
published, may not have been plagiarized by Tarrega, but perhaps by
Fortea, putting Tarrega's name on the edition. Could be. Except that
Melchor Rodriguez claims to have two separate autograph manuscripts by
Tarrega for this work, and any final determination cannot be made with
a detailed examination of those.
Angelo Gilardino
"Arfur Dogfrey" <dogs...@dog.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:b8a07d3f.03060...@posting.google.com...
> > Has Angelo verified that the midi file is of the Arcas Jota? If it is,
> > > then Tárrega's version would not even qualify as 'an expansion'.
I have two texts, clearly readable: why on earth, for comparing them, I have
to use a midi file of one of them? What is evident in a midi file recently
prepared by a Spanish guitarist (who is not a professional musician), which
makes it more reliable than the facsimile reproduction of the text as
printed by its first publisher?
> > > Has Angelo discussed his belief about Tárrega's plagiarism of Arcas'
> > > Jota with these authors?
Did you?
>
> "Jota Sobre Motivos Populares"(AKA "Gran Jota" & "Jota Aragonesa")
> "Fantasia Sobre Motivos de 'La Traviata'"
> "La Cartagenera"
> "Oremus"
>
> Were all published after Tarrega died. In judging "Tarrega's behavior"
> it would seem that this should be taken into account.
Done. They were published by Tarrega's students, not invented by them. If on
the manuscripts they found - which were also given by Tarrega to his
students with warm dedications - the names of the true author's works had
been written, and not replaced with the name "Francisco Tarrega", the
ignorance of those students could have been prevented from doing the damages
it did.
Eg:"Tarrega/Obras competas para guitarra/Nueva edicion/Basada en sus
manuscritos y ediciones originales/Volumen IV (Parte 1°)/31 Piezas
originales para guitarra/3 ineditas/..../Soneto/Ediciones Musicales/Madrid,
Espana". On pages 16-17 it is reproduced a manuscript of Tarrega, "Tango
Maria", with the dedication "A la bellissima Srta
Mercedes Agunaya/Recuerdo de su Maestro y admirador/Fran.co
Tarrega/Barcelona, 29 Sept.bre 1906". This manuscript lacks only one thing:
the name of the guitarist who had published the music in Argentina years
before: Carlos Garcia Tolsa. This was discovered by Domingo Prat on 1934,
not yesterday.
AG
Angelo Gilardino
"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:safldvkulu2jbphrn...@4ax.com...
> dogs...@dog.com (Arfur Dogfrey) wrote:
>
> >
> >> Agree. Of course, Tarrega's behaviour can't be judged only from the
reading
> >> of one of his "uses" of Arcas' (or other composer's) pieces:
> >> one has to consider all of his "uses": Traviata, Cartagenera, Oremus,
> >> Introduction of Jota Aragonesa, Preludio (de Fossa), etc. etc.
> >>
> >
> > "Jota Sobre Motivos Populares"(AKA "Gran Jota" & "Jota Aragonesa")
> > "Fantasia Sobre Motivos de 'La Traviata'"
> > "La Cartagenera"
> > "Oremus"
> >
> >Were all published after Tarrega died. In judging "Tarrega's behavior"
> >it would seem that this should be taken into account.
>
>
> Damn good point. It should be taken into account.
A good point up to a certain point, Matanya. If I give you - and to you
only - a manuscript with a piece of a fellow of mine with my name and with
missing its true author's name, is this less a plagiarism than if I publish
it with giving myself its autorship? The fact that Tarrega gave to don
Gualterio (Walter Leckie) a work by Arcas labelled as his (Tarrega's) one is
not an episode of plagiarism?
AG
Matanya Ophee
>
>
>> >Were all published after Tarrega died. In judging "Tarrega's behavior"
>> >it would seem that this should be taken into account.
>>
>>
>> Damn good point. It should be taken into account.
>
>A good point up to a certain point, Matanya. If I give you - and to you
>only - a manuscript with a piece of a fellow of mine with my name and with
>missing its true author's name, is this less a plagiarism than if I publish
>it with giving myself its autorship? The fact that Tarrega gave to don
>Gualterio (Walter Leckie) a work by Arcas labelled as his (Tarrega's) one is
>not an episode of plagiarism?
Of course it is. But what I was trying to emphasize, using the Dogfrey
sudden revelation of the posthumous nature of some of these pieces,
was to show that the entire Tarrega shtick was manufactured by his
students, and that there was no such thing as a School of Tarrega. In
my article, “In Difesa dei Due Amici”, in Il Fronimo IX/36 # 1981
July, I argued that the major thrust in the promotion of Tarrega was
based on a negation of the role of Les deux Amis, Sor and Aguado, in
the pantheon of Spanish guitarists. Obviously, that article, as valid
as it was then, is begging for a major update considering what we know
today.
By the way, I wonder if you know about this: there was this book by
Walter Leckie in which he praises to the skies the adventures of
Benito Mussolini in Ethiopia. I used to have that book at one time but
I can find it. I tried a web search, but without much success.
Angelo Gilardino
> "Angelo Gilardino" <angelog...@tin.it> wrote:
> Of course it is. But what I was trying to emphasize, using the Dogfrey
> sudden revelation of the posthumous nature of some of these pieces,
> was to show that the entire Tarrega shtick was manufactured by his
> students, and that there was no such thing as a School of Tarrega. In
> my article, "In Difesa dei Due Amici", in Il Fronimo IX/36 # 1981
> July, I argued that the major thrust in the promotion of Tarrega was
> based on a negation of the role of Les deux Amis, Sor and Aguado, in
> the pantheon of Spanish guitarists. Obviously, that article, as valid
> as it was then, is begging for a major update considering what we know
> today.
I perfectly recall that article, Matanya. It was also coincident with the
views of our common friend Ruggero Chiesa. Nowadays, after the powerful
rescue of Sor and Aguado music and influence, we see that the
guitarist-composers of the following generation in Spain was not as
unaccountable as it has appeared: besides Arcas, there are still some
figures to be studied: Tomas Damas firstly (we know too little about him and
his music).
One of the remarkable features of the just issued book about Arcas stands
with the fact the authors demonstrate how the art of guitar in Spain during
the Romantic era was much a result of the presence and activity of artists
working and living in Barcelona, whilst Madrid was silent to death. Also
Arcas - who was originary from Andalucia - lived for a while in Barcelona,
where - despite his being an outsider - he gave appreciated concerts, he
taught and published some of his works.
> By the way, I wonder if you know about this: there was this book by
> Walter Leckie in which he praises to the skies the adventures of
> Benito Mussolini in Ethiopia.
The big problem was that here in Italy there were millions people like him.
AG
Julio Gimeno
> yat...@apsu.edu wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't have a copy of Llobet's UME edition of the Arcas-Tarrega Jota,
> >so I can't state categorically that it was ever published at all.
>
> complete Catalogue of UME published in 2000 by Carlos José Gosálves
> Lara, and it should be an easy matter to date the piece precisely. I
> only have the general monograph by Lara on Spanish publisher, but it
> does not include the UME data. Perhaps Julio Gimeno or Luis Briso de
> Montiano can help here?
Dear Matanya,
In the catalog "Archivo Histórico de la Unión Musical Española"
(Madrid: SGAE, 2000), compiled by Yolanda Acker et Al., there is a
"Fantasía sobre la jota aragonesa" by Julián Arcas "Adaptador:
Tárrega, F. [...] Revisado por Miguel Llobet". Plate number 21654,
year of publication: 1971.
A Tárrega's disciple, Pascual Roch, published in 1924 the Jota with 30
variations with the title: "Aires nacionales españoles". Pascual Roch
wrote: "Transcription by F. Tárrega". Roch attributes some variations
to Arcas or to himself.
--
Un saludo
Julio Gimeno
http://perso.wanadoo.es/j.gimeno
Sarn Dyer
> A Tárrega's disciple, Pascual Roch, published in 1924 the Jota with 30
> variations with the title: "Aires nacionales españoles". Pascual Roch
> wrote: "Transcription by F. Tárrega". Roch attributes some variations
> to Arcas or to himself.
Dear Julio,
Is this the same as the version in the Roche's method? I have seen this
but cannot recall whether the title says 'variations'. These are clearly
not variations, but, as the title of the early Alier edition says,
'motivos' or 'themes'.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of, for example, Tárrega's
second theme at bar. 37, Arcas third theme at bar 17.
Has this been stolen from Arcas by Tárrega?
With thanks,
Sarn Dyer
Tony Cassie
for what its worth.
I just dug out my copy of the Pascual Roch Method.
Pascual Roch, a modern method for guitar.
School of Tarrega
G.Schirmer, Inc. New York ed 1830. copyright 1924.
page 24.
Aires Nacionales Espanoles
transcription by F Tarrega.
only Var 7 has the name Julian Arcas printed over it .
Later in Vol 3 Roch briefly lists a selection of 'Arrangements' and
'Original Compositions' by Tarrega published by Alier Madrid, this Jota is
not included under either heading.
Regards Tony
"Sarn Dyer" <sd...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3EDB3C1F...@lineone.net...
Matanya Ophee
>
>One of the remarkable features of the just issued book about Arcas stands
>with the fact the authors demonstrate how the art of guitar in Spain during
>the Romantic era was much a result of the presence and activity of artists
>working and living in Barcelona, whilst Madrid was silent to death.
I will have to get this book. I wonder if they mention the name of
Jose Campo y Castro, who was Aguado's chief student and the person
responsible for the publication of the Apendice to the Nuevo Metodo
posthumously. While it is true that many performers settled in
Barcelona, I would not dismiss the publishing activity in Madrid,
Seems to have been quite extensive.
Sarn Dyer
> Hello Sarn
>
> for what its worth.
>
> I just dug out my copy of the Pascual Roch Method.
>
> Pascual Roch, a modern method for guitar.
> School of Tarrega
> G.Schirmer, Inc. New York ed 1830. copyright 1924.
> page 24.
>
> Aires Nacionales Espanoles
> transcription by F Tarrega.
> only Var 7 has the name Julian Arcas printed over it .
>
> Later in Vol 3 Roch briefly lists a selection of 'Arrangements' and
> 'Original Compositions' by Tarrega published by Alier Madrid, this Jota is
> not included under either heading.
Thank you for that, Tony. A student kindly brought in a copy of the Roch
today and I took a moment to look at it. It's interesting that Roch is
so specific in the ascription to Arcas, just 'Variation' VII, none of
the others. Roch was a student of Tárrega's so this ascription has, at
the least, some weight. Perhaps Tárrega quoted it as a little tribute to
Arcas' although compared to the other themes, it doesn't have much to
recommend it.But then most of the others come from a common source
freely used by other composers such as Falla.
Roch's titling is all over the place. As you show, he describes the
piece as a 'transcription'! He also appears to have added some
variations of his own, but doesn't indicate which these are. Perhaps the
later edition mentioned by Julio Gimeno corrects this. Roch doesn't use
Tárrega's title, 'Jota', changing it to 'Spanish National Airs', and
then defines these airs incorrectly as 'variations'! All rather
unreliable...
Best to you,
Sarn
Julio Gimeno
>
> Roch's titling is all over the place. As you show, he describes the
> piece as a 'transcription'! He also appears to have added some
> variations of his own, but doesn't indicate which these are.
Dear Sarn
In the page 34 of Roch's Method, there is a "Copla-Couplet", before
the variation "XVIII" of "Aires Nacionales Españoles". The "Copla" is
signed "P.R." (Pascual Roch).
Sarn Dyer
> In the page 34 of Roch's Method, there is a "Copla-Couplet", before
> the variation "XVIII" of "Aires Nacionales Españoles". The "Copla" is
> signed "P.R." (Pascual Roch).
Dear Julio,
Thank you for this. I now recall seeing the initials PR somewhere in the
music, but presently cannot remember if it applied only to the material
added or whether there was more of this material. So I must look at the
Roch method *again* next week!
I did have time to notice that the rhythm of the 5th bar of Theme 7
marked 'Arcas' was not the same as in the Arcas' original, but this is
probably just a typographical error.
I agree with you that this theme is a 'copla', the point in the
folkloric jota that the introduction ends and the song begins while the
dancers stand stationary.
I wonder if you would agree that these traditional themes originate in
the introductions to the purely folkloric jota?
Best wishes,
Sarn Dyer