My edition of Félix Máximo López in a review of Mundoclasico
Updated: Mar 31, 2022
As I changed the web page a long time ago, the answer that I had developed in that blog to the attack of the organist John Collins that he makes in the classical music magazine on the Internet called Mundoclasico.com disappeared:
As soon as Alma Espinosa received my edition -because it was I personally who sent it to her home in the US-, Mr. Collins wrote that review. Alma Espinosa replied that she would calmly study my edition, and since then she has never said anything else. However, it was John Collins who did dare to write. He seems to know Alma Espinosa wonderfully for his comments, so much so that he even knows with hair and signals all his work almost better than Alma Espinosa herself ... "Incredible" I would say, because no one I have in mind could refer to those details , and I have met many musicians and experts in early music ...
I turn to research this person, and I find her website:
In which it seems that nothing has changed since 2016.
Well, yes, it is rare to find that you criticize an unusual edition so quickly, and even less at that time, we are talking about the year 2001, in which practically nobody played Félix Máximo López, only something was written in a magazine, and of last, because their painting / portrait should appear beautiful or gave the feeling of a probable historical reference since there are no paintings of musicians, and less of that level and that antiquity. And, by chance, shortly after Alma Espinosa received my edition ... the critique of John Collins expert on Alma Espinosa.
I keep investigating and I see that in his curriculum he seems to have given concerts, but there is no video on YouTube, and I also cannot hear anything interpreted by him on the Internet.
This leads me to suspicion of the general tendency in musicology to write and write, and not to make the slightest real, musical example. Of course, that way nobody is exposed to being judged. But in my opinion this is due to the fact that the musician does not really have anything to exhibit because his worth as such does not deserve it, and they know it. And why don't they deserve it? Well, because in reality, the musician who knows how to play is due to knowledge. Yes, you need to know a lot.
And there I go directly to the 'quit' of the question. My edition is aimed mainly at musicians, "musicians", but really. Why do I say this? Well, because there have been many years studying these works to reach such conclusions. So I exposed as references Joaquín Nin [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_Nin] and Alessandro Longo [https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Longo], although Mr. Collins did not like it, because they were musicians, and when they reviewed their editions, they reviewed them thoroughly.
I don't really like giving free classes because they cost me a lot of money, and you also had to show interest and talent to be given them ... But it is the last straw as with the Internet some people dare to do everything in order to expel their saliva and notch.
Mr. Collins wrote that the Sonata C.A.C. No. 7 in C is a transcription of Haydn's Symphony No. 56. Although it was customary to make transcriptions of known works at that time, past and future of the nineteenth century, this is not exactly how he defines it. The initial theme does agree, but nothing else. Therefore it is not a "transcription", but an arrangement for harpsichord or fortepiano, an "inspiration" if anything, or a typical composer job. This type of "versions" used to be made by the great ones, that is, those who estimated themselves with sufficient capacity and with the desire to demonstrate. But come on, this has happened in all branches of Art throughout History.
I tried at the time to answer Mundoclasico but as we know in the subject of classical music even today mafia and senseless behavior continues to predominate, only the pure dictatorial system of which it has some power. So this magazine must have felt very powerful because of its presence on the Internet to put and remove whatever it wanted, and with the criteria that best suited them. Very despotic (they don't play instruments either). They do not allow comments and never answer. It is curious because for 20 years that MundoClasico has been publishing this note, I am not allowed access to write comments below the text, as they indicate. It is totally false that comments can be published. It is also curious that Google, since then, has always placed it in the first positions when Félix Máximo López is mentioned, as if this criticism or opinion had some value, which is not worth a penny, in my modest understanding.
I was saying at the time on my blog that Mr. Collins has never seen an orchestral score in his life or an opera score, or with choirs. One of those scores thicker than bricks, which need to be tamed like lions so that they can be opened. Thus, the ICCMU publishing house is a specialist in anthological and operatic editions, and the binding is strong and quality enough to withstand the "taming" that the musician has to carry out. In other words, these volumes must be manipulated with wisdom in order to open them, fold them, give them of themselves, and get them to take shape. In short: THEY ARE FOR PROFESSIONALS. And in the case of the ICCMU editions, they are very resistant and durable, of excellent quality for the paper, press and rubber they use.
It's funny because he even complains about the price, 30 euros (of which, because it is so cheap, I have never received royalties from the ICCMU), that for a 313-page volume of sheet music, also edited on sepia paper, it would have to have a price ten times higher.
Well, if this person finds this review pretty, let him make one! That he will see how it costs! Go if it costs, that two centuries passed and nobody made one like that (in fact many pieces are first world editions, although I would qualify almost all of them as unique editions, since those of Alma Espinosa, much to my regret, I would never call them "editions" ).
It turns out that I see how Google continues to place the criticism of John Collins in the first positions by putting my name and Félix Máximo López. And this makes me think that Google also has no notion. To leave the integrity of the teachers in the hands of irresponsible ones is to load the culture.
Regarding why the name of Alma Espinosa does not appear in my book, or there is no detailed index, it is because of Mr. Casares, the director of the ICMMU at that time, who was the one who removed it, because I did mention Alma Espinosa, and yes i edited a perfect paginated index. Regarding data related to the biography of Félix Máximo López, not only have I photocopied all of Alma Espinosa's thesis, but I also investigated with the archivist of the church of San Ginés, and I obtained an extensive bibliography on the matter. I also read that someone said that he had copied some data, but the data must be contrasted with various sources, if in several it is wrong, because it is trying to correct, but I doubt that I was wrong in the biography that the Royal Academy of the history.
How to interpret Félix Máximo López? After almost 30 years playing it, I would say to this question that it requires a whole book to answer. Maybe one day I do. But that is an independent job from doing the main thing, the base, the scores.
My edition is the only one that exists because something that is not printed, mechanized, cannot be called an edition. Alma Espinosa's is not an edition because some scores are handwritten. And I despaired and was very disappointed when I saw how he invented changes of notes to the manuscript of the National Library of Spain, the most reliable source, MS 1234, so that gave me the impulse of reaction to make the edition more "Urtext" (true to original) that has never been seen (maybe Jan Ekier with Chopin surpasses me), and revised and expertized to the last comma, to the last accent and fingering with the greatest possible care, Mr. Collins.
This John Collins -supposed expert in Spanish key music- doesn't talk either about my neatness and good judgment in respecting the spelling of Maestro López, unlike what he promulgates about Alma Espinosa: passing the notes of the left hand to the bass clef because it is more modern and 'standard' today, come on, more commercial.
The spelling of FML, or rather of the professional copyist of the Royal Palace (because I attribute the manuscripts of the "Clave Music" to one of them), consists of using the C clefs in the left hand, mainly in the fourth and third lines , since this allows a cleaner, more aesthetic drawing, and it is easier (for those who are proficient in these keys) to visualize this music almost at first sight, since the notes are immersed in the staff without the need to use almost any additional lines.
Also, respect for the grouping of notes by means of beams, since, by practically not using phrasing ligatures, these groupings give an idea of both micro-phrases and intentions of breathing or internal rhythmic accentuations.
As well as respecting the placement in different voices within each staff, or the structure of placing the corresponding hand at specific moments in one staff, or in another, as this also enriches the possibility of understanding and executing/interpreting each work.
In short, my edition is a deluxe edition (true to the luxury in which it was written), but not for fans who only seek the simplicity of what they are used to, the usual trash....