What makes a good guitarist?

[Alain Reiher]

An interview with Alvaro Pieri

Part I

http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-Alvaro-Pierri.Bgr4IsBsWAo.shtml

Part II

http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Interview.8CDs1dSPKcc.shtml

Alain

[Alcibiades]

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

His explanation is thoroughly Platonic, and thus superb. Those who
know Plato understand.

[Steve Perry]

Post by Alcibiades

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

His explanation is thoroughly Platonic, and thus superb. Those who
know Plato understand.

Geez, is ole Plato still around? I heard he died a while back. You knew
him?

[Larry Deack]

Post by Steve Perry
Geez, is ole Plato still around?

Evidently.

Post by Steve Perry
I heard he died a while back.

Evidently not.

Post by Steve Perry
You knew him?

He thinks he knows him.

[Alcibiades]

Post by Steve Perry
Geez, is ole Plato still around? I heard he died a while back. You knew
him?

No. I know him.

[dsi1]

Post by Alcibiades

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

His explanation is thoroughly Platonic, and thus superb. Those who
know Plato understand.

Sounded like his explanation was thoroughly Oprahistic - all one has to
do to become a good guitarist is to be a nice guy, and humble and
curious about the world - he probably forgot "must love rainbows and
kittens and schnitzels with noodles." Good thing he said nothing about
practicing - which would pretty much leave me screwed.

He offers little if any, practical advice but I'm glad that you deem
this advice "superb." It has taken a while, but the ToR Minions are very
patient, yes. Sooner or later, you will join our ranks here on the dark
side, yes.

Or was that the light side? I can never remember which...

Miss Whoppie Goldberg

[bill folk]

Post by dsi1
Sounded like his explanation was thoroughly Oprahistic - all one has to
do to become a good guitarist is to be a nice guy, and humble and
curious about the world - he probably forgot "must love rainbows and
kittens and schnitzels with noodles."

Kittens OR schnitzels with noodles. I find kitten clashes with the
schnitzel. Free range kitten works really well in strudel. Match with
a spicy, off-dry gewurtzraminer.

Bill

[dsi1]

Post by bill folk

Post by dsi1
Sounded like his explanation was thoroughly Oprahistic - all one has to
do to become a good guitarist is to be a nice guy, and humble and
curious about the world - he probably forgot "must love rainbows and
kittens and schnitzels with noodles."

Kittens OR schnitzels with noodles. I find kitten clashes with the
schnitzel. Free range kitten works really well in strudel. Match with
a spicy, off-dry gewurtzraminer.
Bill

Oh an aristocrat eh? You guys kill me with your free range meat
products and it's always that kittens in pastry stuff. Well I got
news for you buddy - them free range kitty cats you chaps can't get
enough of are really "alley cats." It's called marketing, son... Oddly
enough, this is also the main ingredient of "pressed duck." Go
figure.

Unka Dave

[bill folk]

Post by dsi1

Post by bill folk

Post by dsi1
Sounded like his explanation was thoroughly Oprahistic - all one has to
do to become a good guitarist is to be a nice guy, and humble and
curious about the world - he probably forgot "must love rainbows and
kittens and schnitzels with noodles."

Kittens OR schnitzels with noodles. I find kitten clashes with the
schnitzel. Free range kitten works really well in strudel. Match with
a spicy, off-dry gewurtzraminer.
Bill

Oh an aristocrat eh? You guys kill me with your free range meat
products and it's always that kittens in pastry stuff. Well I got
news for you buddy - them free range kitty cats you chaps can't get
enough of are really "alley cats." It's called marketing, son... Oddly
enough, this is also the main ingredient of "pressed duck." Go
figure.
Unka Dave

Yes, after being disappointed on several occasions by the quality of
kitten available commercially from unscrupulous purveyors, I began
raising my own, to insure organic status and humane treatment. Oddly,
kitten ranching appears not to run afoul of agricultural - residential
zoning statutes. Kitten sashimi is quite a delicacy, although, as an
island boy, you might prefer my recipe for poke. Yearling cat has a
more robust flavor profile, and can stand up to a light red, like
pinot noir. Older cat tends to to tough and gamy: I have had only
limited success with slow-roasting or stewing. Where mature cat excels
is in making stock. Cat demi-glace will add a unique character to just
about any dish. You should see the look on my guest's faces when I
tell them about my "secret ingredient".

As you can see at the link below, pressed duck is indeed duck, at
least at the Tour D'Argent. Pressed cat may indeed be delicious, but
I have been unable to locate a cat press, and attempts at
improvisation have fallen flat.

http://fxcuisine.com/default.asp?Display=13

Bill

[dsi1]

Post by bill folk
Yes, after being disappointed on several occasions by the quality of
kitten available commercially from unscrupulous purveyors, I began
raising my own, to insure organic status and humane treatment. Oddly,
kitten ranching appears not to run afoul of agricultural - residential
zoning statutes. Kitten sashimi is quite a delicacy, although, as an
island boy, you might prefer my recipe for poke. Yearling cat has a
more robust flavor profile, and can stand up to a light red, like
pinot noir. Older cat tends to to tough and gamy: I have had only
limited success with slow-roasting or stewing. Where mature cat excels
is in making stock. Cat demi-glace will add a unique character to just
about any dish. You should see the look on my guest's faces when I
tell them about my "secret ingredient".
As you can see at the link below, pressed duck is indeed duck, at
least at the Tour D'Argent. Pressed cat may indeed be delicious, but
I have been unable to locate a cat press, and attempts at
improvisation have fallen flat.
http://fxcuisine.com/default.asp?Display=13
Bill

Thanks for the info on urban meat production. It is surprising that many
are not using the apparent loopholes in the zoning restriction and
getting into this big time. :-)

Thanks also for the link. Those crazy French dudes! It's a fantastical
site and looks like a keeper.

Mahalo brah!

david

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-Alvaro-Pierri.Bgr4IsBsWAo.shtml
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Interview.8CDs1dSPKcc.shtml
Alain

I heard a much hairier (older) version of him playing Sor/Segovia #17 on
youtube. He had chops even then.

I liked his interpretation better than Segovia's, but that is not
much of a complement. It was ok until he got to the last page,
which of course was sheer butchery. He played that part just as badly as
Segovia, which demonstrates their willingness to ignore Sor's clear
directions to play the E major part at a *slower tempo* than the
preceding minor section. There were many wrong notes and omitted
chromaticism which is *not* an improvement on what Sor wrote. Even in the
melody there is a wrong note in the Segovia arrangement. Amazingly inept
rearranging by Segovia. daveA

[Alcibiades]

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

I heard a much hairier (older) version of him playing Sor/Segovia #17 on
youtube. He had chops even then.
I liked his interpretation better than Segovia's, but that is not
much of a complement. It was ok until he got to the last page,
which of course was sheer butchery. He played that part just as badly as
Segovia, which demonstrates their willingness to ignore Sor's clear
directions to play the E major part at a *slower tempo* than the
preceding minor section. There were many wrong notes and omitted
chromaticism which is *not* an improvement on what Sor wrote. Even in the
melody there is a wrong note in the Segovia arrangement. Amazingly inept
rearranging by Segovia. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html:::: You can play the cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Original easy guitar
solos, duets, exercises.http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html

Additionally, his rendition of Limosna features many wrong notes.

[Alain Reiher]

Post by Alcibiades

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

I heard a much hairier (older) version of him playing Sor/Segovia #17 on
youtube. He had chops even then.
I liked his interpretation better than Segovia's, but that is not
much of a complement. It was ok until he got to the last page,
which of course was sheer butchery. He played that part just as badly as
Segovia, which demonstrates their willingness to ignore Sor's clear
directions to play the E major part at a *slower tempo* than the
preceding minor section. There were many wrong notes and omitted
chromaticism which is *not* an improvement on what Sor wrote. Even in the
melody there is a wrong note in the Segovia arrangement. Amazingly inept
rearranging by Segovia. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of
practice:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html:::: You can play the
cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Original easy guitar
solos, duets, exercises.http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html

Additionally, his rendition of Limosna features many wrong notes.

Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Alain

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by Alain Reiher

Post by Alcibiades

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

I heard a much hairier (older) version of him playing Sor/Segovia #17 on
youtube. He had chops even then.
I liked his interpretation better than Segovia's, but that is not
much of a complement. It was ok until he got to the last page,
which of course was sheer butchery. He played that part just as badly as
Segovia, which demonstrates their willingness to ignore Sor's clear
directions to play the E major part at a *slower tempo* than the
preceding minor section. There were many wrong notes and omitted
chromaticism which is *not* an improvement on what Sor wrote. Even in the
melody there is a wrong note in the Segovia arrangement. Amazingly inept
rearranging by Segovia. daveA
--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of
practice:http://www.openguitar.com/dynamic.html:::: You can play the
cards
you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. Original easy guitar
solos, duets, exercises.http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html

Additionally, his rendition of Limosna features many wrong notes.

Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.

The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.

The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.

It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.

I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

[h***@verizon.net]

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.
The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.
The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.
It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.
I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking. However, this does not necessarily
reflect Sor's intention to make the rest of the piece slower. Marks
of temporary alterations to the tempo were usually written under the
staff in smaller type with no capitalization. Marks of a global tempo
change were usuallly written over the staff, in larger type and
capitalized. This rallentando is written under the staff with small
type and not capitalized. (See B. Jeffrey facsimile edition)

It is not unusual in these old publications for all sorts of details
to be left out. For example, on the topic of articulation, slurs are
almost never present on grace notes or turns. Does that mean that Sor
plucked out all grace notes without ligado technique?

Most modern interpreters confronted with an ambiguous tempo situation
such as the above in which a rallentando is not cancelled by an a
tempo, will treat it like the missing slurs I have described, they
will fill it in. DRA has felt that the missing mark is the global
tempo change after the double bar and that the rallentando leads into
a new slower tempo.

Who is right? The printed sheet music doesn't say. DRA should record
his version and try to sway us to his interpretation.

S

[John Nguyen]

Post by h***@verizon.net

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.
The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.
The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.
It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.
I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking. However, this does not necessarily
reflect Sor's intention to make the rest of the piece slower. Marks
of temporary alterations to the tempo were usually written under the
staff in smaller type with no capitalization. Marks of a global tempo
change were usuallly written over the staff, in larger type and
capitalized. This rallentando is written under the staff with small
type and not capitalized. (See B. Jeffrey facsimile edition)
It is not unusual in these old publications for all sorts of details
to be left out. For example, on the topic of articulation, slurs are
almost never present on grace notes or turns. Does that mean that Sor
plucked out all grace notes without ligado technique?
- Show quoted text -
Most modern interpreters confronted with an ambiguous tempo situation
such as the above in which a rallentando is not cancelled by an a
tempo, will treat it like the missing slurs I have described, they
will fill it in. DRA has felt that the missing mark is the global
tempo change after the double bar and that the rallentando leads into
a new slower tempo.
Who is right? The printed sheet music doesn't say. DRA should record
his version and try to sway us to his interpretation.
S

I agree with this explanation. The double bar signifies an end of a
movement and a start of a new movement. Without the explicit tempo
change at the start of a new movement (in the piece, the E major
section), one has to assume the tempo is the orginal marking of
Allegro Moderato at the beginning. It does not make any sense to me
that the Rallentando marking from a previous movement could over-
influence the next movement. I could be wrong here, but common sense
is a little overwhelming for me.
Cheers,

John

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by John Nguyen

Post by h***@verizon.net

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.
The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.
The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.
It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.
I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking. However, this does not necessarily
reflect Sor's intention to make the rest of the piece slower. Marks
of temporary alterations to the tempo were usually written under the
staff in smaller type with no capitalization. Marks of a global tempo
change were usuallly written over the staff, in larger type and
capitalized. This rallentando is written under the staff with small
type and not capitalized. (See B. Jeffrey facsimile edition)
It is not unusual in these old publications for all sorts of details
to be left out. For example, on the topic of articulation, slurs are
almost never present on grace notes or turns. Does that mean that Sor
plucked out all grace notes without ligado technique?
- Show quoted text -
Most modern interpreters confronted with an ambiguous tempo situation
such as the above in which a rallentando is not cancelled by an a
tempo, will treat it like the missing slurs I have described, they
will fill it in. DRA has felt that the missing mark is the global
tempo change after the double bar and that the rallentando leads into
a new slower tempo.
Who is right? The printed sheet music doesn't say. DRA should record
his version and try to sway us to his interpretation.
S

I agree with this explanation. The double bar signifies an end of a
movement and a start of a new movement. Without the explicit tempo
change at the start of a new movement (in the piece, the E major
section), one has to assume the tempo is the orginal marking of
Allegro Moderato at the beginning. It does not make any sense to me
that the Rallentando marking from a previous movement could over-
influence the next movement. I could be wrong here, but common sense
is a little overwhelming for me.
Cheers,
John

PLAY IT! daveA

[Alain Reiher]

Post by h***@verizon.net

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.
The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.
The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.
It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.
I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking. However, this does not necessarily
reflect Sor's intention to make the rest of the piece slower. Marks
of temporary alterations to the tempo were usually written under the
staff in smaller type with no capitalization. Marks of a global tempo
change were usuallly written over the staff, in larger type and
capitalized. This rallentando is written under the staff with small
type and not capitalized. (See B. Jeffrey facsimile edition)
It is not unusual in these old publications for all sorts of details
to be left out. For example, on the topic of articulation, slurs are
almost never present on grace notes or turns. Does that mean that Sor
plucked out all grace notes without ligado technique?
Most modern interpreters confronted with an ambiguous tempo situation
such as the above in which a rallentando is not cancelled by an a
tempo, will treat it like the missing slurs I have described, they
will fill it in. DRA has felt that the missing mark is the global
tempo change after the double bar and that the rallentando leads into
a new slower tempo.
Who is right? The printed sheet music doesn't say. DRA should record
his version and try to sway us to his interpretation.
S

Well ... that is the (narrow) liberty of the art of interpretation ... tempo
marking, dynamics marking, choices of global tempo (the word global is
starting to have bad press) , articulation, all that and more will be used
to reflect the players affection and intention for the music.
So yes, only an interpretation (recording/video performance/Live
performance) can truely reflects the player's imtention.

Alain

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by Alain Reiher

Post by h***@verizon.net

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.
The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.
The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.
It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.
I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking. However, this does not necessarily
reflect Sor's intention to make the rest of the piece slower. Marks
of temporary alterations to the tempo were usually written under the
staff in smaller type with no capitalization. Marks of a global tempo
change were usuallly written over the staff, in larger type and
capitalized. This rallentando is written under the staff with small
type and not capitalized. (See B. Jeffrey facsimile edition)
It is not unusual in these old publications for all sorts of details
to be left out. For example, on the topic of articulation, slurs are
almost never present on grace notes or turns. Does that mean that Sor
plucked out all grace notes without ligado technique?
Most modern interpreters confronted with an ambiguous tempo situation
such as the above in which a rallentando is not cancelled by an a
tempo, will treat it like the missing slurs I have described, they
will fill it in. DRA has felt that the missing mark is the global
tempo change after the double bar and that the rallentando leads into
a new slower tempo.
Who is right? The printed sheet music doesn't say. DRA should record
his version and try to sway us to his interpretation.
S

Well ... that is the (narrow) liberty of the art of interpretation ... tempo
marking, dynamics marking, choices of global tempo (the word global is
starting to have bad press) , articulation, all that and more will be used
to reflect the players affection and intention for the music.
So yes, only an interpretation (recording/video performance/Live
performance) can truely reflects the player's imtention.

PLAY IT! daveA

[David Raleigh Arnold]

Post by h***@verizon.net

Post by David Raleigh Arnold

Post by Alain Reiher
Dave, which Version of Sor #17 are you playing?

Segovia's, just as they do--but, without an added "a tempo" after
the rallentando before E major, which "a tempo" is not in any version I
have seen and was never intended to be there, but seems to be always
played, and with the chromatic notes from the original which I got from
the freefrance web site.
The main thing is not the version but to keep a very slow tempo for the
last part, because if the ending is no good the performance is no good.
Segovia ignored the fact that no "a tempo" was present and that shows that
he did not *understand* this piece.
The very romantic first half of the last part leads into a simple motive
which slowly fades away. It is incredibly mournful at the right tempo,
and the bass represents death. I have yet to hear a recorded performance
which is not inexcusable butchery.
It is the best piece ever written for a funeral, period.
I wrote of this before in this ng. It's all in the archives. daveA

It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking. However, this does not necessarily
reflect Sor's intention to make the rest of the piece slower.

Not the point. The piece sucks if it's not played slower.

Marks

Post by h***@verizon.net
of temporary alterations to the tempo were usually written under the
staff in smaller type with no capitalization. Marks of a global tempo
change were usuallly written over the staff, in larger type and
capitalized. This rallentando is written under the staff with small
type and not capitalized. (See B. Jeffrey facsimile edition)
It is not unusual in these old publications for all sorts of details
to be left out. For example, on the topic of articulation, slurs are
almost never present on grace notes or turns. Does that mean that Sor
plucked out all grace notes without ligado technique?
Most modern interpreters confronted with an ambiguous tempo situation
such as the above in which a rallentando is not cancelled by an a
tempo, will treat it like the missing slurs I have described, they
will fill it in. DRA has felt that the missing mark is the global
tempo change after the double bar and that the rallentando leads into
a new slower tempo.
Who is right? The printed sheet music doesn't say. DRA should record
his version and try to sway us to his interpretation.

You can't play it? How lame is that? daveA

[Andrew Schulman]

Post by h***@verizon.net
It's true that the rallentando written in the extant printed versions
of this piece (Segovia/Sor # 17, originally Opus 6, #11) is never
cancelled by an a tempo marking.

Seth,

The rall. is cancelled two measures later with the fermata over the
first beat of m. 57.

If a new tempo was required it would have been thus marked at the
double bar. However, it should be obvious to anyone, as it is to you
and John, that the tempo remains the same for the E major section as
it is for the E minor section.

Andrew

[Tashi]

Post by Alain Reiher
An interview with Alvaro Pieri
Part I
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-What-makes-a-Good-Guitarist-by-...
Part II
http://www.pcplanets.com/videoyoutube-Alvaro-Pierrri-Second-Part-Inte...
Alain

Nice first string on his Feridrich.
MT