Fernando Sor, The Beethoven of The Guitar? [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Juan Marulanda

Fernando Sor, the “Beethoven of the guitar”? Fernando Sor (1778-1839) was supposedly named the “Beethoven of the guitar” by François-Joseph Fétis, a Belgian music critic who was his contemporary. Many seem to accept this designation without major objections while others consider it an imprecision. How relevant is Sor’s comparison with Beethoven? Although the question appears to be very direct, we should ask ourselves if the criterion for seeking an answer to it would be the same today as it would have been by the first half of the nineteenth century. In order to be in a better position for discerning whether it is worth trying to respond to it or not, or if the comparison would be feasible, it is convenient to approach an unbiased appreciation of the figure of Fernando Sor, beyond the vague image of him which is projected through the sporadic inclusion of his music in guitar recitals and study programs. In this paper, I will point out how the designation given to Sor implies a recognition on behalf of his contemporaries of the composer’s extraordinary achievements during his lifetime, while simultaneously reinforcing the marginality of his instrument, the guitar.

Fernando Sor, between Classicism and Romanticism The musical life of Fernando Sor was marked by major transformations that the guitar underwent during the second half of the 18th century, coinciding also with a change in musical tastes and the development of late classical (Viennese) style.1 The change from five double strings to six individual strings, as well as the range expansion made the guitar easier to tune,

1

Rattanai Bampenyou, “A Performance Guide to the Multi-Movement Guitar Sonatas of Fernando Sor and Mauro Giuliani.” (DMA thesis, University of Miami, 2012), 39-40.

more accurate in its intonation, and allowed a greater projection and harmonic definition.2 These changes also facilitated the prompt adoption of the conventional staff notation system. As Robert C. Liew suggests, with all these changes the guitar was being integrated “into the mainstream of musical development”.3 In fact, the guitar had a period of heyday during the first half of the nineteenth century. Analogously to the piano, the instrument became integrated into domestic musical practice, which led to an abundance of methods and small pieces being published and also favored the creation of larger works, such as sonatas, even if in a much smaller scale.4 It was in this context that Fernando Sor was highly admired as a virtuoso guitarist and as composer for his instrument. Indeed, his guitar music is considered as the backbone of his work. However, he also stood out as a composer of ballet, instrumental, vocal and stage music. Lluis Gásser comments that the diversity of Sor’s musical work shows his need and ability to adapt to a changing environment, in a “vital journey” that “reflects the vicissitudes of those days and his journey in pursuit of fortune.”5 Until 1813, Sor stayed in his native Spain where began his musical activity, both as a performer and composer and acquired a certain reputation.6 He did not find family support for

2

Philip Sparks, “The Guitar Variations of Fernando Sor” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 423.

3

Although the six-string guitar could still function with the old tablature system, the use of the stave was soon implemented. (See: Robert C. Liew, “The Guitar Chamber Trio from 1780 to 1830: Its Style and Structure.” [PhD dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1983], 10-11)

4

Marcos Pablo Dalmacio. “A Sonata Para Guitarra Em Viena Na Época De Beethoven.” Revista Vórtex, no. 1, (2013), 65.

5

Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are by the author. “El periplo vital de Sor es el de un artista a caballo entre los siglos XVIII y XIX, que refleja los avatares de aquellos días y de su recorrido en pos de la fortuna.” See: Lluis Gásser, ed. Estudios sobre Fernando Sor = Sor Studies. (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 7.

6

Brian Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist (London: Tecla Editions, 1977), 11.

music, despite showing great ability from an early age.7 However, he entered the Monserrat monastery, in his natal Barcelona, where he received an intense musical training.8 Due to the social condition of his family, Sor had to leave the monastery and choose a military career. In the Spanish army he was soon promoted to full lieutenant, notes Jeffery, primarily because of his performance on the guitar and the piano.9 At least for a while, this path would give him time and stability for dedicating himself to music with greater artistic freedom. At Monserrat, Sor was able to get acquainted with the music of other composers of his time, among them Haydn. He also had contact with the opera and, later on, with the music of the Italian guitarist Federico Moretti (ca. 1765-1838), which would exert a considerable influence on his vision of the instrument. From the music composed at this stage of his life, his early opera Il Telemaco nellÍsola di Calipso (1797), which had 15 performances, should be mentioned foremost. Also, while living in Spain, he composed a significant number of works for guitar, including three of his four sonatas.10 In addition, a series works that reinforce the image of Sor’s versatility as a composer belong to this period, including several choral works, three string quartets and two symphonies, most of them lost. Like many other Spanish intellectuals of his time, after the expulsion of the French troops that had invaded his country in 1808, Sor had to go into exile in France in 1813. From that moment until his death, Sor would never again set foot on his native land and would start a

7

Ramón García-Avello, “Sor Montadas, Fernando.” Diccionario de la Música Española e Hispanoamericana (Madrid: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, 2002), 1169.

8

The students of the Monserrat monastery received a solid formation in order to become chapel masters.

9

Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist, 15.

10

Jeffery notes that Sor’s sonatas or sonata-like works are unusually long for his time, adding that few guitar music composers dared to engage in this type of composition. See: Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist, 38.

somewhat transhumant life that would take him to Paris (1813-1815), London (1815-1823), Moscow and Saint Petersburg (1823-1826/7) and back to Paris (1826/7-1839). His condition of exile would force him to adapt to various musical environments, which surely led to a restriction on his artistic independence but allowed him to expand his experience through direct contact with some of the major centers of musical activity in Europe. In Paris, where Sor enjoyed some recognition and several of his works had been published, he failed to integrate to the local musical circles, so he left for London. There, he was well received and also enjoyed wide prestige, not only as a concert guitarist and composer, but also as a singer and composer of vocal music. During this period, Sor wrote at least eleven small collections of Italian arietts for voice and piano, as well as other vocal music in the “purest tradition of belcanto.”11 Most of these works were received enthusiastically, as it can be seen in local critical reviews.12 His admiration for the music of early nineteenth century Italian opera composers and Mozart’s influence are both present in this body of works that reveals Sor’s maturity as a composer.13 A pair of works that have had more permanence in time should also be highlighted: Variations on a theme by Mozart, op. 9, one of his most well-known guitar pieces, and the ballet Cendrillon (Cinderella), premiered with a magnificent reception in London, in 1822, and with even greater success in Paris, where it reached more than 100 performances.14

11

Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist, 53.

12

Jeffery draws attention to a comment that appeared in Ackermann’s Repository of Arts, which very well illustrates the fame that Sor enjoyed in London: “Mr. Sor’s vocal compositions have gained such favour among the higher order of musical dilettanti, that a new set of arietts from his pen causes almost as much sensation as the publication of a new novel by the author of Waverley.” (Rudolph Ackermann, “Musical Review”, in The Repository of Arts, Literature, Fashions, Manufactures. Vol IX. [London, 1820], 162.).

13

María Encina Cortizo, “Arietas y duetos italianos de Fernando Sor” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 339.

14

Some years later, in 1825, it was also used at the opening show for the new building of the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. (Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist, 70-74).

Sor’s permanence in Russia (1823-1826/7) is the least known period of his life. Richard Long and Matanya Ophee have written articles that shed some light on it. It is known that Sor left behind the stability he had in London for going after Felicité Hullin, a ballet dancer who was his romantic partner at that time.15 While being in Russia, he moved within the circles of the nobility. In fact, he composed the funeral music for Tsar Alexander I, as well as the ballet Hercule et Omphale for the coronation of his heir. The overture of the ballet was considered by Sor himself as one of his finest creations.16 The separation of Sor and Hullin led to the composer’s return to Paris, where he remained until his death, having fully dedicated himself to the guitar, as a performer, composer and pedagogue. His most relevant work from this period is the famous Méthode pour la Guitare, which appeared in 1830. The Italian guitarist Federico Moretti exerted a crucial influence on how Sor developed his guitar technique and in the way he was to write for his instrument.17 Surely due to his comprehensive musical training—unlike other guitarists of his time—, Sor came to appreciate Moretti’s rigor in voice leading when using the guitar as an accompanying instrument, but moved ahead by setting himself the purpose of adding a melodic line. In fact, Philip Sparks notes that other guitar virtuosos who were contemporaries to Sor, such as Mauro Giuliani (1781-1829) and

15

However, in his article “Fernando Sor on the move in the early 1820s”, Erik Stenstadvold suggests other possible causes that may have prompted Sor’s departure from England.

16

Ramón Sobrino, “El ballet Hercule et Omphale” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 210.

17

In his Méthode Complète pour la Guitare, Sor wrote about Moretti: “I heard one of his accompaniments performed by one of his friends; and the progression of the bass, as well as the parts of harmony which I distinguished there, gave me a high idea of its merit; I regarded him as the torch which was to serve to illuminate the wandering steps of guitarists.” (“J'entendis un de ses accompagnements exécuté par un, de ses amis; et la marche de la basse, ainsi que les parties d' harmonie que j'y distinguai, me donnèrent une haute idée de son mérite; je le regardai comme le flambeau qui devait servir à eclairer la marche égarée des guitaristes.” See: Ferdinand Sor, Méthode pour la Guitare-Guitarre-Schule [Bonn: Simrock, 1831], 3; and its translation into English: Ferdinand Sor, Method for the Spanish Guitar, trans. A. Merrick. [London: R. Cocks & Co., 1832], 6).

Ferdinand Carulli (1770-1841), gave more importance to the overall effect of a composition than to the correct voice leading of inner parts. Furthermore, Sor was also interested in relating the guitar to orchestral instruments and even suggesting in detail how some instruments could be appropriately imitated, not only through the production of sound in the guitar but also by taking advantage of the possibilities of guitar scoring, as can be read in his Méthode.18 And although at the time Sor was not the only guitarist interested in innovating with his instrument, “he uniquely combined a passion for solo instrumental writing with a desire to transpose pianistic values from the keyboard to the fretboard.”19 From all of the above, it can be deduced that, at the time, Sor was an innovator in the way of conceiving the guitar as an instrument for performance and creation. On the other hand, Haydn has been frequently being mentioned as one of Sor’s main musical influences. Stanley Yates raises a striking discussion in this regard. On the one hand, Yates offers some details about the type of Haydn’s works that Sor may have come to know, including an interesting reference to a series of guitar arrangements of Haydn and Pleyel’s works that were available in Barcelona during the late eighteenth century.20 On the other hand, Yates disagrees with those who point out Haydn’s music as a main influence on Sor’s work, specifically in his sonatas. According to Yates, “any attempt to measure [Sor’s] guitar sonatas against the symphonies of Haydn, Boccherini or Pleyel would hardly be reasonable… and comparison with contemporary piano sonatas would be unrealistic also.”21 Yates’ opinion is

18

Sor, Method for the Spanish Guitar, 15-18

19

Sparks, “The Guitar Variations of Fernando Sor”, 428.

20

Stanley Yates, “Sor´s Guitar Sonatas: Form and Style” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 453.

21

Yates, “Sor´s Guitar Sonatas: Form and Style”, 456.

based on his analysis of Sor’s guitar sonatas. Within this set of works Yates did not find frequent use of development patterns in the manner of Haydn. Nevertheless, is the cited evidence blunt proof that Haydn was not a major influence on Sor’s music? After all, Yates’ analysis rests on a limited sample of Sor’s work. However, it should be borne in mind that, despite the fact that Sor wrote only four guitar sonatas, of which only two are multi-movement works, these compositions constitute a significant portion of Sor’s output. As Yates explains—and this point might be harder to refute—the sonatas show his firm intention to write music with deep content for an instrument that was not considered fit to bear this responsibility. Sparks situates Sor as a composer who despite living most of his artistic life during the nineteenth century, was always deeply rooted in the philosophy of the previous century. As for his beliefs and attitudes—and this can be seen in his technical approach to the guitar, which he himself described in his Méthode22—he was more with the rationalism of the Enlightenment philosophers rather than with the intuitive approach of the romantic creators.23 When it comes to musical language, Sor also assumed a position that placed him closer to his predecessors than to early Romantic composers. In this sense, if the comparison with Haydn has been considered “hardly reasonable”, to propose a similar exercise in relation to Beethoven, in the light of Fétis's comment—in the sense of looking for musical similarities in their musical work—, seems even more unlikely. However, Walter Clark describes Sor as a kind of exception since unlike other well-known composers who had some familiarity with the guitar, such as Berlioz, Schubert or Paganini, he was capable of making important contributions to the guitar repertoire and, at the

22

Here is a short and telling quote from Sor’s Méthode: “I state how I have reasoned in order to guide myself alone, and my playing is the result of my reasoning.” (Sor, Method for the Spanish Guitar, 21).

23

Sparks, “The Guitar Variations of Fernando Sor”, 426.

same time, was also recognized for writing “music other than for the guitar.”24 If Sor transformed anything, it was guitar music.

About Fernando Sor by Fétis and other contemporaries Sor was allegedly pictured by Fétis as the “Beethoven of the Guitar.”25 This comparison seems reasonable during the first decades of the nineteenth century because, as Linda Goehr asserts, at the time Beethoven “changed and was believed to have changed so many things having to do with how musicians thought about composition, performance and reception.”26 Although this designation is widely spread, it is not easy to locate a documentary source to confirm it. And to top it off, Fétis does not enjoy a good reputation among musicologists, in part because of many inaccuracies contained in his Biographie Universelle des Musiciens.27 This may be one of the reasons why this supposed comment by Fétis has not deserved much attention. In my opinion, it should be understood essentially as a positive judgment on Sor for his innovation in the composition and performance of music for his instrument; this is the impression left by Fétis’ writings in relation to Sor. In these writings there seems to be no intention of comparison with other composers, nor are there any claims to undertake musical analyses of any depth. On the other hand, it does not seem appropriate to look for stylistic or compositional parallels between Beethoven and Sor in order to validate Fétis’ supposedly judgement. In light of what several 24

Walter Aaron Clarke, “Fernando Sor’s Guitar Studies, Lessons, and Exercises, op. 6, 29, 31 and 35, and the London Pianoforte School” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 360.

25

Benet Casablancas, “Fernando Sor: El ballet Alphonse et Leonore. Observaciones analíticas” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 108.

26

Lydia Goehr, Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music (Oxford University Press Inc., 1992. ProQuest Ebrary), 208.

27

Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist, 104.

studies on the music of the Spanish creator have shown, Sor’s work reflects consistency and knowledge of his craft but not in a degree of innovation comparable to what he achieved in the manner how he conceived his own instrument. In addition to the Biographie Universelle des Musiciens, Fétis’s writings on Sor appear basically in the Revue Musicale, a publication which he had founded in 1826. In the latter, it is possible to find reviews on some of Sor’s works that were being published as well as on concerts offered by him during his final stay in Paris. According to Jeffery, Fétis had a very high opinion of Sor as a performer and composer, despite the fact that he really disliked the guitar.28 The following review on the publication of the Morceau de concert for guitar fully shows how Fétis regarded Sor without expressing his unfavorable opinion of the instrument: M. Sor has written for the guitar as nobody has written before him, and as very few artists will be able to write if they take him as their model; but perhaps in none of his compositions can one find qualities so remarkable as in the morceau that we are now discussing. An introduction, broad and vigorous, as if it could have been a morceau written for orchestra, serves to introduce a theme of rare elegance, written with as much purity as one could achieve in music for piano. Then come variations, sometimes graceful, sometimes brilliant, and always filled with that harmonic good taste that one finds in the compositions of M. Sor, and that one does not find elsewhere.29 Other complimentary comments about Sor had appeared years earlier, while he was in London, in Ackermann’s Repository of Arts. Some lines in the following comment draw attention

28 29

Jeffery, Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist, 104

François-Joseph Fétis, ed., “Publications nouvelles” in Revue Musicale, vol. XIII (Paris, 1833), 63. (“M. Sor a écrit pour la guitare n’avait écrit avant lui et comme fort peu d’ artistes pourront écrire en le prenant pour modèle; mais dans aucune de ses compositions on ne trouve peut-étre de qualités aussi remarquables que dans le morceau que nous annonçons Une introduction large et qu’on nous passe le terme, vigoureuse comme pourrait l’être un morceau écrit pour l’orchestre, sert d’entrée à un thème d’une rare élégance écrit avec autant de pureté qu’on pourrait le faire dans de la musique pour le piano. Puis viennent des variations tantôt gracieuses, tantôt brillantes et toujours remplies de ce goût d’harmonie qu’on retrouve dans toutes les compositions de M. Sor, et qu’on ne trouve que là.). Translation by Brian Jeffery.

because they clearly suggest that the guitar was regarded as a second-rate instrument, which Sor had raised to an unsuspected level in performance and composition: … we recently chanced to hear Mr. Sor touch the guitar, and our previous prejudice instantly gave way to astonishment and admiration… but our readers may form some idea of what we felt, when we state, that this gentleman executed, with the greatest precision, and with the deepest expression, scores of five and six distinct parts… This unrivalled perfection we find [in Sor’s guitar playing], upon inquiry, to be the result of a system at once simple and efficient, the fruit of matured experience, and of diligent inquiry into the nature and capabilities of the instrument… Of the merit of the pieces themselves [referring to the Six Divertimentos for the Guitar, Op. 8], we shall say quite enough by stating that they are such as we were led to expect from the knowledge of Mr. Sor’s vocal compositions, of which we have, on several occasions, spoken in the terms of highest commendation…30 The mention of a certain “prejudice” towards the guitar that is left a little aside by the author since he is pleasantly surprised by Sor’s musicality with the instrument, is striking. Returning to Fétis’ comments on Sor, he used to be more direct and openly express his distaste for the guitar, as can it be read in the following lines: “To speak of M. Sor is to say that one has heard the guitar played with great perfection. What a pity that someone with such a sense of harmony should have spent so much talent and patience in mastering such an unrewarding instrument.”31 In fact, the sharpest criticisms of Sor by his contemporaries do not focus so much on his music or on his performance as much on the fact that he had chosen the guitar as his instrument and had tried to elevate its status and integrate it into a musical mainstream. Sor apparently carried this burden even at times when he was not acting as a guitarist. The performance of his ballet Cendrillon in Paris, which was surely Sor’s greatest success during his lifetime, had a

30

Rudolph Ackermann, “Musical Review”, in The Repository of Arts, Literature, Fashions, Manufactures. Vol IX. (London, 1820), 100-101.

31

Fétis, ed., “Nouvelles de Paris” in Revue Musicale, vol. VII (Paris, 1830), 267. (“Citer M. Sor, c’est dire qu’on a entendu jouer de la guitare avec une perfection rare. Quel dommage qu’une tête si harmonique ait employé tant de talent et de patience à vaincre un instrument ingrat!”). Translation by Brian Jeffery.

mixed critical reception, which is not unusual. Curiously, it is noteworthy that certain unfavorable comments deal mainly with Sor’s primary dedication to the guitar, which was considered problematic for French critics, as noted by Michael Christoforidis and Elizabeth Kertesz, who perceive “a disdain for a ‘lowly’ salon instrument like the guitar” in a comment about the ballet and its composer that appeared in the Journal des débats politiques et littéraires:32 … It is difficult to explain how a performing artist who has earned a fair reputation on the guitar, could suddenly rise from the type of ornaments that are specific to this instrument, to the vast and sublime creation of an interesting and passionate dramatic action; for it is only from this point of view that M. Albert considered his theme...33 In another article published in the Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review in 1824, to which Erik Stenstadvold draws attention, Sor is also not very well off. What is most ironic is that the article was to be a review of a piece by another composer. As Stenstadvold observes, Sor ends up somewhat scolded, “despite his extraordinary mastery of the instrument—or precisely for that reason,” in an article that Christopher Page believes is a ‘guitar review-essay’.34 Like Fétis, the article’s author regrets that, in his opinion, Sor’s talent and industry have been so misapplied and observes that “the same quantity of labor would have given him great, perhaps unrivalled

32

Michael Christoforidis, and Elizabeth Kestesz, “Cendrillon, Cinderella and Spectacle: Insights into Sor’s most successful work” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003), 140.

33

“Academie Royale de Musique” in Journal des Débats Politiques et Littéraires (March 10, 1823), 4. (“On a de la peine à s'expliquer comment un artiste exécutant qui s'est fait sur la guitare une juste réputation, auroit pu s´élever tout à coup du genre d´agrémens qui sont propres à cet instrument, aux vastes et sublimes conceptions d´une action dramatique grande, intéressante et passionnée; car c'est uniquement sous ce point de vue que M. Albert a, envisagé son sujet.”). Adapted from a partial translation by Michael Christoforidis and Elizabeth Kestesz.

34

Erik Stenstadvold, “We Hate the Guitar: Prejudice and Polemic in the Music Press in Early 19th-century Europe.” Early Music 41, no. 4 (2013), 601.

superiority upon an instrument in every way more worthy of his genius; and in him we would have hailed another Kiesewetter, Lindley, or Dragonetti.”35 A certain rejection of the guitar in specialized music circles, despite the rise of the instrument among amateurs and the emergence of prominent performers, was a commonplace in Western Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century. After his review of the specialized press in Germany, France and England, Stenstadvold concludes that the unfavorable opinion of the instrument may be associated with two ideological forces of the epoch: the notion of genderspecific instruments and the rise of musical idealism. The guitar was tied to femininity, domestic surroundings and amateur music practice. Any attempt to push the instrument outside these limits met with disapproving voices. On the other hand, the emergence of a new aesthetic where music was no longer seen exclusively as an object of entertainment, posed an unfavorable situation for the guitar. Among the factors related to this new reality were the trend for so-called pure music, in orchestral or chamber formats, which gradually displaced the preference for the miscellaneous concert to which the guitar adapted so well, and also the increasing size of the concert halls, which neither was not favorable for the instrument due to its reduced sound projection.36 Even Sor, with all his solid musicianship, could not get rid of the stigma generated by having dedicated himself to the guitar. Perhaps he would have excelled in another instrument if he had devoted himself, as it had been suggested by some critics in his time. But possibly he

35

“A Collection of admired Italian, French, German, Spanish and English Songs, with a progressive accompaniment for the Spanish Guitar, by George Hervey Derwort” in the Quarterly Musical Magazine and Review, v. 6 (London, 1824), 544.

36

Stenstadvold, “We Hate the Guitar”, 595-596. Furthermore, Stenstavold notes that “as late as 1823, the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung reported about the state of music in London that ‘for young men of class, to play the piano, or even the guitar, is still always a kind of shame, unless they intend to teach. Besides, both are regarded as only women’s instruments here’.” (Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, xxv/37 [1823], col.6).

would not have transcended because he would not have had the opportunity to innovate, which perhaps justified his comparison with Beethoven credited to Fétis.

Conclusion The nickname apparently given by Fétis to Fernando Sor as the “Beethoven of the guitar” should be understood as a recognition of Sor’s relevance, both as a composer and performer on the guitar, during his epoch. Beyond a narrow vision that would imply an evaluation of the extent to which Sor was an innovative composer or not, to be measured against the “Beethoven” yardstick – an intellectual task that can lead some to disregard the former qualifier –, Fétis’ designation should be understood as a proof of admiration and respect for a musician capable of achieving as unprecedented level of expressiveness in his instrument. During his time, this expressiveness, both in creation and in interpretation, was the real novelty. Even though Sor’s field of action was not limited to the guitar since he had significant achievements in other areas, his strong bond with the guitar, an instrument whose acceptance by the musical elites was to be a slow process, may have also led to the long delay in the full recognition of his figure in the history of music.

Bibliography Bampenyou, Rattanai. “A Performance Guide to the Multi-Movement Guitar Sonatas of Fernando Sor and Mauro Giuliani.” DMA thesis, University of Miami, 2012. Accessed January 29, 2020. https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_dissertations/888/?utm_source=scholarlyreposit ory.miami.edu%2Foa_dissertations%2F888&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFC overPages Casablancas, Benet. “Fernando Sor: El ballet Alphonse et Leonore. Observaciones analíticas” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003. Christoforidis, Michael, and Elizabeth Kestesz. “Cendrillon, Cinderella and Spectacle: Insights into Sor’s most successful work” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003. Cortizo, María Encina. “Arietas y duetos italianos de Fernando Sor” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003. Dalmacio, Marcos Pablo. “A Sonata Para Guitarra Em Viena Na Época De Beethoven.” Revista Vórtex, no. 1, (01, 2013): 51-66. García-Avello, Ramón. “Sor Montadas, Fernando.” Diccionario de la Música Española e Hispanoamericana. Madrid: Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, 2002. Gásser, Lluis, ed. Estudios sobre Fernando Sor = Sor Studies. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003. Goehr, Lydia. Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music. Oxford University Press, Inc. 1992. ProQuest Ebrary. Jeffery, Brian. Fernando Sor: Composer and Guitarist. London: Tecla Editions, 1977. Liew, Robert C. “The Guitar Chamber Trio from 1780 to 1830: Its Style and Structure.” PhD dissertation, Texas Tech University, 1983. Accessed March 25, 2020. https://ttuir.tdl.org/handle/2346/9859?show=full Sobrino, Ramón. “El ballet Hercule et Omphale” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003. Sor, Ferdinand. Méthode pour la Guitare-Guitarre-Schule. Bonn: Simrock, 1831. Sor, Ferdinand. Method for the Spanish Guitar. Translated by A. Merrick. London: R. Cocks & Co., 1832.

Sparks, Philip. “The Guitar Variations of Fernando Sor” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003. Stenstadvold, Erik. “We Hate the Guitar: Prejudice and Polemic in the Music Press in Early 19thcentury Europe.” Early Music 41, no. 4 (2013): 595-604. Yates, Stanley. “Sor´s Guitar Sonatas: Form and Style” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser. Madrid: Instituto Complutense de Ciencias Musicales, 2003.