Fernando Sor Mini-Series Part 5: Sor’s Music and Legacy

This post will be the last in my five part mini-series on Fernando Sor. In previous posts, I have discussed Sor’s contributions to furthering the status of the classical guitar, his compositional style, perceptions of his music during his lifetime, and his approach to pedagogy. In this post, I will attempt to summarize these aspects of Sor’s musical career and illustrate why Sor’s music, pedagogy, and musical philosophy are still important to consider today.

Sor combined his approach to part-writing, pedagogy, and musical philosophy to craft music that challenged stereotypes about his instrument and led the classical music world to take the guitar more seriously as a concert instrument, thus raising its status. Sor’s music uses a deft combination of counterpoint, harmony, classical forms, and clear phrases, illustrating the assimilation of a broad array of styles, ranging from classical composers such as Mozart and Haydn to fellow guitarist-composers Padre Basilio and Federico Moretti. Although Sor is perhaps most famous for his guitar music, he also composed operas, ballets, art songs, and other works, which likely contributed to his synthesis of disparate approaches in his compositions for guitar. Today, his works for guitar are standard repertoire for students and professionals alike. They are taught in private studios and university programs, and performed in concert halls around the world. His music and pedagogy combines classical sophistication, past and contemporary traditions of part writing, and an emphasis on logic and reason, all of which are just as relevant today as they were during the early nineteenth century.

Resources for further information on Fernando Sor’s life and career as a guitarist, composer, and music educator:

Hartdegen, Kenneth. “Fernando Sor’s Theory of Harmony Applied to the Guitar: History, Bibliography, and Context.” PhD diss., University of Auckland, 2011.

Jeffery, Brian. “Sor [Sors], (Joseph) Fernando.” Grove Music Online. Edited by Deane Root. Accessed 9 October, 2019. https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com.

Page, Christopher. “New light on the London years of Fernando Sor (1815–1822).” Early Music 41, no. 4 (November 2013): 557-569.

Rhodes Draayer, Suzanne. Art Song Composers of Spain: An Encyclopedia. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009.

Ribiero Alves, Júlio. “The History of the Guitar: Its Origins and Evolution.” Marshall Digital Scholar (Fall 2015): 1-169.

Sor, Fernando. Method for the Spanish Guitar. London, UK: Robert Cocks & Co., n.d. (ca. 1832). http://ks.imslp.net/files/imglnks/usimg/2/2b/IMSLP260517-PMLP58779-sor_method_merrick.pdf.

Wade, Graham. Traditions of the Classical Guitar. Richmond, UK: Overture Publishing, 2012.

 

 

 

Fernando Sor Mini-Series Part 3: Perceptions of Fernando Sor’s guitar music during his lifetime

Reviews of Fernando Sor’s music generally acknowledge his musical talent while sometimes questioning the musical potential of the guitar. For example, a review of one of Sor’s concerts in an 1832 issue of the French magazine the Revue Musicale states that “on hearing M. Sor one recognizes a superior artist; but, I repeat, why does he play the guitar?” Echoing this sentiment but arriving at a significantly different conclusion, a review of Sor’s first concert in London in 1815 published by The Giulianiad states that “there was a sort of suppressed laughter when he first came forth before the audience, which, however, soon changed into the most unbounded admiration when he began to display his talents.” As these passages illustrate, the musical ability of Sor was generally praised. However, perceptions of the guitar by the classical music world tended to view it as an inferior instrument. This can be evidenced by questioning why Sor plays the guitar and the mention of “a sort of suppressed laughter” when he arrives on stage with this instrument. It should also be noted that The Giulianiad was a publication rooted in the musical ideas of prominent guitarist-composer Mauro Giuliani, which may explain this more complimentary view of the guitar. That being said, the mention of the audience trying not to laugh at Sor playing a guitar in a publication which possessed a core readership of guitarists may be a further indication of the somewhat derogatory role of the guitar at that time. However, upon his arrival in England in 1815, Sor is praised in a concert announcement by the Morning Post as “the most celebrated performer in Europe on the Spanish Guitar” pointing toward him being known as a renowned guitarist in England and probably elsewhere. Furthermore, in an 1817 description by the Morning Post of Lady Langham’s Divertisement, &c., an event in which Sor performed, he is described as “an artist of unrivalled excellence on that instrument.”

Resources for further information on perceptions of Fernando Sor’s music for guitar:

Hartdegen, Kenneth. “Fernando Sor’s Theory of Harmony Applied to the Guitar: History, Bibliography, and Context.” PhD diss., University of Auckland, 2011.

Page, Christopher. “New light on the London years of Fernando Sor (1815–1822).” Early Music 41, no. 4 (November 2013): 557-569.

Stenstadvold, Erik. “‘We hate the guitar’: prejudice and polemic in the music press in early 19th-century Europe.” Early Music 41, no. 4 (November 2013): 595-604.

 

Graduate School

After approximately a year of preparation, research, learning repertoire, visiting colleges, taking the GRE (which is a total bullshit moneymaking scam, by the way-more on this later), and filling out multitudes of forms, the results are in. I will be attending the M.A. in Music program with a concentration in Music Theory and Music History at Hunter College this fall!

When I finished my undergraduate studies last May, I had this gut feeling that this was the one time in my life where the sky was the limit and I could try to get in to some amazing colleges for graduate school. So that’s what I did. I aimed high, applying to Yale, Juilliard, Columbia, The CUNY Graduate Center, and Hunter College. I knew that all of these schools are difficult to get into and that there was a very real possibility that I wouldn’t get accepted to any of them, but for some reason, in my mind, I just had to try and see what happened.

While I did have some fears about this process, rejection wasn’t one of them. As a musician, I’m used to being rejected. It happens…a lot. Most of the time, venues and other music-related jobs don’t even bother to let me know: I just never hear from them, or suddenly never hear from them again (huge props to the people who do let me know-it really is very much appreciated!). Anyone who is a fellow musician, writer, artist, or creative professional knows what I’m talking about. After a while, you realize that it’s not personal; it’s just part of the job. This experience proved to be an asset, as it helped a lot with keeping things in perspective throughout the application process and making an informed and carefully considered decision.

I wasn’t sure what to major in. I love playing classical guitar, and I also love studying music theory, music history, teaching music, and reading lots of good books about almost any topic of interest. As a result, I figured that I would apply to both performance and non-performance based programs in music, prepare as best as I could, and see what happens. My ultimate reason for applying to graduate school is that it is a credential that will put me one step closer to my long-term goal of being a music professor. That being said, I also believe in keeping my options open and strive to view the future in a way that is simultaneously both highly focused and reasonably broad. In short, this was a year in transition. I spent the year working to grow my career as a performer and music educator, and, of course, getting ready for applying to graduate school. For the first time since I began playing music, I was not taking classes or lessons, and I reveled in this newfound freedom, especially with regards to playing classical guitar. I started playing classical guitar to attend an undergraduate program in guitar performance, and as a result have never been able to choose which pieces to work on. I am very grateful for the excellent formal training that I received, and it is because of this training that I am able to choose repertoire that is both inspiring and challenging. However, I love getting to choose my repertoire for the first time, without having to worry about grades, juries, or other academic deadlines.

For the combined M.A./Ph.D. programs, I needed to take the GRE. I bought a test prep book and taught myself by going through the book, focusing on the topics that I struggled most with (such as math), and watching lots of Kahn Academy videos (Kahn Academy is AWESOME! Highly recommended!). I had read about a lot of test center nightmare stories online, so I researched the test centers extensively before signing up, and had a great experience at the one in Purchase, NY-the people there were very professional, kind, and fair. I have a lot of choice words about the GRE, but before I begin my tirade, I would like to point out that the GRE does do one thing reasonably well: it does a good job of measuring your abilities on the subjects that are on the GRE, and only on the subjects that are on the GRE. Predictably, I scored well on the topics that I am generally good at, and did not score as well for the topics that I am not generally good at. It also forced me to learn some basic skills that I had previously not thoroughly learned. Both good things, as far as it goes.

That being said, there are many things wrong with the GRE. First of all, it’s too expensive. It costs $205 just to take the test, the average test prep book is about $50, and if you want to be super prepared and sign up for tutoring, you can spend thousands on preparing for this test. Also, you can take the test multiple times, but you have to pay for the test again for each retake. Sounds like a nice way for ETS to make a hell of a lot of money off of our societal obsession with test scores. This is a marketing strategy that clearly favors people who are wealthy or have wealthy parents, and is a huge disadvantage for those of us (read: most of us) who are not wealthy or have wealthy parents. In addition, the steep cost discourages some very intelligent people from applying to graduate school.

It’s also a huge time suck. Like any other big test, the GRE takes a long time to adequately prepare for, which adds a lot to the time spent preparing for graduate school applications. It’s yet another requirement to prepare for, except unlike most of the requirements (which actually for the most part make sense and relate to your field of study), it is questionable how much my performance on a test which does not cover music or related fields actually demonstrates my readiness (or lack thereof) for graduate school in the field of music. This is also true for other non-STEM majors. Because of these reasons, I recommend that colleges and states stop requiring the GRE as an admissions requirement for graduate school. I realize that I am a comparative nobody in the field of education policy, but I sincerely and firmly believe that it is important to critically think about the way things are, express our views in a reasonable manner, and expound on ways to make things better, or, in this case, reasons to eschew the given thing altogether.

One of the upsides of applying to graduate programs in both performance and non-performance fields was that I learned a lot about multiple disciplines of music. I learned some beautiful and timeless classical guitar repertoire (some of which I’ve discussed on this blog), reviewed and expanded my music theory knowledge, and as a result became a more intelligent and well-rounded musician and person. I applied to the guitar performance programs at Yale and Juilliard; the musicology programs at Columbia and The Graduate Center, CUNY; and the music theory program at Hunter College.

One of the highlights of this journey was making it to the audition round at Juilliard. The audition was located in a music studio room at Juilliard, and consisted of playing for Sharon Isbin. You know, the same Sharon Isbin that has performed with Sting and Billy Joel, has played at The White House, and is an astoundingly incredible guitarist. It was one of the most nerve-wracking 15 minutes of my life. I was asked to choose my first piece, so I chose Variations Mignonnes by Mertz. There were a couple of small mistakes, but I feel that I played it well overall. Then Mrs. Isbin asked me to play what was (for me) the most difficult piece in the audition repertoire: the final movement of Walton’s Five Bagatelles. I stumbled through it as best as I could; there were some good moments, but many mistakes. I was relieved to have finished the piece with no memory slips. As you might have guessed, I didn’t get in to Juilliard, but will never forget that audition.

For Hunter College’s M.A. program, I was required to take a test in music theory and ear training. As I had expected, I did well in the theory portion of the test, but not as well in the ear training section. I wasn’t sure if I would get in. However, I was very happy to receive an email stating that I had been accepted, and would I be interested in a mixed concentration in either music theory and performance or music theory and music history? I appreciate Hunter’s emphasis on a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the study and analysis of music, the option to choose a mixed concentration, the kindness of the students and faculty, and the reasonable tuition costs. I knew right away that Hunter would be a great fit. I chose a mixed concentration in music theory and music history, as I am passionate about both fields and would like to further my knowledge in order to strengthen my musical and academic background, facilitate my long-term career goal of working as a university professor, and become better equipped to advocate for the classical guitar as a legitimate classical instrument. I said yes to the offer of admission, and am very much looking forward to attending graduate school this fall!