Shannon vs Cobo in López

6 Panguelinguas for 4 and Organic Modulations by Tone of Keys.

(Modern Critical Editions - Appendix)

Organic modulations to 4 by the circles of tones, by Félix Máximo López (1742–1821)

I'll begin by clarifying that I was unaware of Shannon's edition until after completing my own, which I based exclusively on the handwritten document in the National Library of Spain, signature: M/769-M/770.

The 6 Panguelinguas for 4 are all composed in the ecclesiastical Dorian mode, which would currently be the key of D major.

I'll present a comparison between William R. Sahnnon's edition posted on IMSLP.org (free of charge), my own edition, Alberto Cobo's, also available for free in the YouTube videos of the 6 Panguelinguas for 4, which he synchronizes with a piano recording, and my more professional, paid edition on this website.

While respecting any previous edition, and admitting that Shannon generally understands the usual characteristics of an edition—design, respect for the voices, and the placement of the stems, whether up or down—I'll go into more detail about the comparison. Not without first speculating, given technological advances, the large production (apparently in 2022) that Shannon has produced more than 500 pieces for López's organ on the IMSLP platform, and given that there is no report or explanation of the methodology used for these editions, that he could have used some editing program, one of those already used by some publishers. These programs almost instantly digitize manuscripts that meet certain readability requirements, such as these, and then have them reviewed by the reviewer.

1. Shannon does not respect the groupings of bar lines written in the manuscripts, which are riddled with them from the first measure to the last. Why is this important? The groupings and ungroupings, by rarely using slurs, in López, and based on my many years of experience, signify micro-breaths, which can carry the connotation of the beginning of small rubatos, which provides greater flexibility and, above all, a very different expression and meaning than simply playing, for example, consecutive eighth notes. Sometimes a repetition in López is not exactly the same due to the slight difference in the separation of a barre, which develops into a different form of verbal communication, a more eloquent thought, or a way of communicating that alters the meaning at an almost imperceptible level but that in the human brain can change the nuance of the message.

Often this is translated as a detour, a sinusoidal reversal that somehow alters the tempo but without actually deviating from it, that is, something similar to micro-rubatos. I don't consider them as micro-breaths (which could be more applied to Mozart, for example), as I say, after my long years of interpreting his works, but rather micro-rubatos, or mental breaths that are not physically audible and that affect the "how to say or explain" the musical message, each cell, semi-phrases or phrases.

Did López really write them, or could it just be a copyist's work? The truth is that if it were just a copyist's work, he took great care in doing so throughout his entire oeuvre, and I've already had the opportunity to review many manuscripts with apparent signs of different handwriting (which are indicated by Félix Máximo López). This already gives a clue. But in addition, for the performer, they are very significant clues or signals, since otherwise there would be little data for the execution of this very particular music, other than the mere fact of lowering the keys, something that, having already studied many of his works, seems unlikely, since D. Félix Máximo was one of those who left things finished, or sought the exact point where each thing begins and ends. In other posts, I talk about the hidden message, that message that Chopin also claimed, "I hate music that doesn't have a hidden meaning." Well, Chopin, yes, Chopin felt the same way too. He used to use those kinds of micro-rubatos with the barred groupings, in addition, of course, to the phrasing slurs (what a combination!).

-          He doesn't indicate when the accidentals are precautionary, most of the time. That is, precautionary accidentals have to be in parentheses (which the performer immediately recognizes as precautionary). Real notes that were altered in previous measures, and when they appear again, so that the performer doesn't repeat them, he warns them with those parenthetical accidentals. Shannon sometimes uses them, and many (not all) are written in the manuscripts, with the meaning of saying, be careful, here it's a natural, or sharp, or flat, because I know I put something else before. Other times, Shannon writes them without parentheses, and this is redundant in musical notation. If the note hasn't been previously altered at that specific pitch in a measure (or for harmonious reasons at other pitches), the key signature of the tonality rules, that is, the accidentals written between the clef and the measure.

This happens, for example, in Panguelingua 1, in measure 6, on the third quaver of the upper voice, López "notices" (without parentheses because at that time this convention wasn't used; the accidental was simply written again) that the C is sharp. Obviously, it's sharp in the key signature and shouldn't be indicated again, but nevertheless, like hearing, even though there is another C# in the bass, it can lead to requiring the natural shown in measure 4 again. Another example is found in measure 9 with the A natural. Shannon clarifies it, that is, he writes it, but today that would be a kind of typo because if nothing is indicated in the key signature, even if it was sharp in the previous measure, the performer must play the A natural, which is why I write it in parentheses.

-          Shannon respects the exposition of these organ pieces established on two staves in the manuscripts, which is typically for the right and left hands. However, my edition adds another staff for the pedalboard. The voice, normally with longer or sustained notes in the bass, is transferred to the lower staff or pedalboard, which offers an edition more in line with current parameters of organ writing. I interpret that in D. Félix's time, simply to make things easier by not having to write more staves, which could be a great effort for the copyist or composer, an attempt was made to capture them—especially if there wasn't a major complication due to difficulty—on the left-hand staff. I believe that by clearing the layout in this way, it makes it easier to approach and view, which can encourage the reader to approach it more calmly. I also try to keep this lower staff not too far from the left-hand staff, as this is possible because there are no barred lines or notes with additional lines that obstruct it. This way, the overall view is more direct.

-          Respect for the pitch of the notes written in the manuscripts, referring to which staff they are written on. While Shannon doesn't attach importance to this, and may place a note on the upper right-hand staff when López writes it on the lower left-hand staff, the actual note that will be sounded is the same, but the performance proposed by the composer is different. Subtle details, yes, but they reveal to the performer the level or class of composer we are working with. For example, in bars 11, 30, and 34.

-          In bar 13, there is a large gap between the first two sixteenth notes; for a professional edition, this is also a design flaw. A professional edition must pay attention to every detail, because a performer sees this and, in theory, backs off, as it seems like an amateur edition, but it also impacts the level of the composer, who didn't even deserve a professional edition.

-          In measure 20, Shannon writes the double bar, which is indicated in the manuscript, but he decides it's better to interpret this, which in the manuscript means that the Da Capo announced at the end of the piece ends there, as a repetition of the exposition. He simply notes it, and when the time comes to repeat said exposition again, he copies it again in his edition, which further expands the overall view. I consider López's presentation more accurate, and I present it that way in my edition, noting what is written "D. C. but to the special sign," and, at that point, in that double bar, he places the sign that signifies the end of the piece. This reduces the score considerably—that is, in my edition, each Panguelingua is almost always two pages—and more gently invites or offers its approach to the reader or performer, as well as a more accessible understanding.

-          A special detail is in measure 31, where López indicates nothing and Shannon writes a sharp on the G of the upper voice, which also walks alone, so it is very noticeable. The G is interpreted as the leading note of the dominant of the dominant, that is, the fifth degree of the tonality, which could make sense, but López doesn't write that; he doesn't add any accidentals; therefore, it is a G natural. In fact, López constantly plays with the G natural or the sharp in the piece, which indicates that there is an obvious concern with this (as I explained in another post, this theory is precisely the evolution of ecclesiastical modes to the rules of classicism), and if he had wanted to include a G #, he would have indicated it clearly. Shannon's interpretation is clearly stated, as in the following measure he writes what would be a cautionary G natural (without parentheses), but as I say, why, if he hadn't previously sharpened (#)?

-          Already in Panguelingua No. 2, apart from the generally mentioned occurrence that I explained before (something that happens in all Panguelinguas), in measure 66 for Shannon, 7 for me, since I renumber the measures from zero in each Panguelingua, the American interprets that the initial eighth note is undotted and therefore the two notes that follow are sixteenth notes, when the manuscript clearly states the dot and the barring of two following thirty-second notes.

-          In measure 19 for me, and in measure 78 for Shannon, we find that López writes exclusively the C clef on the fourth line, which avoids the additional lines Shannon uses to avoid changing clefs. The objective is simply that: to offer a more "accessible" view, to clarify, although it may seem otherwise because today it is thought to be more complicated, since most musicians don't use the C clef on the fourth. That clef, especially that one, was supposedly very easy for an organist of the Royal Chapel, even easier if it doesn't have additional lines. This is to enhance the aesthetics of the score and because additional lines are considered to complicate reading further and therefore offer a less settled or elaborate view.

-          In measure 86 for Shannon (27 for me), he makes another major typo by placing a G natural in the first eighth note of the third voice, when it is clearly written as an F sharp.

-          Regarding the spelling, that is, the placement of the stems of the groupings of several notes, which can be to the left or right of the note head, and therefore this placement can allow the bar to be positioned differently than usual (see measure 28 in my edition of the 2nd Panguelingua, for example), Shannon's edition does not show any change in the barred stereotype, while mine tries to respect this characteristic as much as possible, which I consider to provide a different design and therefore a more attractive or peculiar perception of the musical idea. This, when performed, can translate into different intentions that contain different messages than if nothing had been differentiated there.

-          In Panguelingua No. 3, we find more of the same as described above: groupings, pitches on different staves, etc. In measure 116, Shannon misses the written eighth-note rest that completes the upper voice after the half note at the beginning.

-          In measure 2 of Panguelingua No. 4, Shannon neglects the slurs, giving the impression that they are missing, as happens in automatic MIDI scores. Thus, the two syncopated quarter notes in the middle voice are translated into two eighth notes each, tied with slurs that are aesthetically unpolished for a self-respecting edition. Meanwhile, the bass slur connects almost from the dot, and the curve (which, in theory, should be similar at both ends) is not correctly drawn.

-          In measure 154, he writes what is in the manuscript without giving importance to the fact that the tie that precedes the C natural would have to be re-signaled as a natural in that measure since it is sustained in the key signature. It is understood that that C, if tied, would have to be a natural again, but the way to write it correctly today is to re-signal that accidental since it is a different measure. In addition, the tie that joins the end of that eighth note is obviously left by default by what came out with the program, without giving it any review to outline it more adequately.

-          In bar 7, 156 for Shannon, it is noticeable that he has not revised the score, something that is essential to do for editions, and typical of the rush to copy scores from manuscripts, because he has forgotten to write the second voice of the right hand. Also in the following bar, he literally eats said second voice, which has its musical relevance because it remains practically alone in the last eighth note. In bar 159, he does not literally copy what López writes, which is to clearly outline the four voices, and groups them with the stems two by two, which yes, are the correct notes, but it is a copy without the effort to clearly draw those four lines of voices that López exposes with mastery. The same thing happens in measure 160. In measure 161, a half note written by López in the third voice becomes two tied quarter notes (which, yes, is the same length, but aesthetically uglier), such that the second quarter note merges with the stem of the half note in the upper voice, which is professionally incorrect, since the two notes should have their stems clearly stated separately. In measure 16 (165 for Shannon), I transcribed the high-quality copyist's detail of putting that measure in the left hand in the C clef on the fourth line, to the bass clef with its additional lines.

-          In measure 175, which serves as a link to link back to the repetitions of the exposition to end, Shannon incomprehensibly links the dotted half note that spans the entire ¾ measure with another dotted half note, when López writes very clearly that there is no tie since the second dotted half note is a G natural, not an A again. López writes this G natural to emphasize it clearly, although it is really a precaution (it is in parentheses in my edition), because the harmony sounded in the previous measure with the G# (which we could analyze as a dominant over the dominant but without the tonic, E, which resolves in the dominant seventh chord of D major).

-          In Panguelingua 5, the opening measure features two G# in the melody, the second is an eighth note in 9/8 time preceded by a mordent. In the manuscript, there is no indication that the previously sharp G is now different. However, when playing the measure, a clear difference can be seen between playing it sharp or natural. I believe the latter makes more sense and is more in keeping with Félix Máximo López's style, a purely tonal style.

Can the manuscripts contain errors? If there are some of these types, yes, because we consider that they could be copies. Therefore, I rely on my experience of having performed and studied many of his works to confirm without a doubt that this eighth note is a G natural. Something that is easily verified in measure 6, 195 of Shannon, where the second time the G appears in the sixteenth notes of the left hand, the first time the manuscript indicates #, but the second time it says nothing, and logically, when played, it is also a G natural. Shannon also reaches this second conclusion, but not in the first measure. He does not indicate this change either. I'll add an asterisk and a brief explanation in the score.

In measure 3, 192 for Shannon, he places a dotted quarter note E in the second voice of the third beat of 9/8. It's possible that he saw that voice as incomplete, and in relation to the following measure, where a dotted half note F# also appears in the second voice, he interpreted that the E would also be missing to complete and continue that line. But in my opinion, this isn't possible, since if we play it on the organ (yes, I play all these pieces on an organ similar to a church organ), the dissonance formed by the B, the A#, and the E to finish, plus the following D-E-B-D chord, is quite strong, completely removed from López's harmonies, which could be the case but not in other authors. Therefore, I consider that there, if nothing is written in the manuscript, it is missing that E. It's certainly confusing that there isn't a dotted quarter note rest to complete the measure, but in these four-part pieces, sometimes if three voices are already playing, and since it can also be played in two voices, or just one, the copyist doesn't fully complete it, overlooking this detail. I've preferred to respect the document and not include the rest, also with the criterion that anything that "relieves" the view of unnecessary information enhances the appeal of the piece for the instrumentalist or scholar.

In measure 183, when the A appears in the left hand, the manuscript indicates that it's a natural. Logically, it's a natural unless there's a previous accidental in the same measure. There is an A#, but it's in the range of the right-hand treble, so that shouldn't affect the A in the bass clef, and if nothing were included, that A would be a natural.

Likewise, in the C# of the following measure, López indicates it because in the previous measure a natural sounded, but that sharp is a precautionary measure, and nowadays it should be in parentheses. Then the copyist reiterates it, as does Shannon, thus reiterating the same point in the third beat of 9/8. In this case, I omit it because it was already explained before. The same goes for the B natural in measure 198.

I repeat again that attaching ties to the dot of a note is not aesthetically correct; it should point toward the notehead, avoiding the dot so that it doesn't look dubious or forced, but rather go directly to the dot. Yes, the musician will understand it, but it's not very professional for an editor.

In measure 201, the C# in the left hand is quite redundant and irrelevant; it's not even a precautionary measure. Although it appears in the manuscript, I don't include it because it's already in the key signature.

In measure 214, Shannon ties the dotted half note B to a dotted quarter note B. I imagine he interprets the slur that appears in the manuscript, which in long notes are middle and short slurs, to mean that. But López, instead of the second B, clearly writes a dotted quarter note D. The dot is not seen in the first half note, so it could be that this slur signifies an extension with said dot (that is, an additional quarter note added). My edition summarizes it as a dotted half note B and a dotted quarter note D (measure 25).

In measure 219, Shannon writes an E on the last quarter note of the middle voice, when it is written as a C#.

In Panguelingua 6, measure 243, Shannon omits an F# that forms a third with the A, in the third eighth note of 3/8 time in the upper voice, and which is very clearly written in the manuscript.

The score for the organ work "6 Panguelinguas a 4" is available for purchase at this link: https://www.albertocobo.com/product-page/6-panguelinguas-a-4-f%C3%A9lix-m%C3%A1ximo-l%C3%B3pez-edici%C3%B3n-urtext-pdf-para-%C3%B3rgano

In the manuscript "Organic Modulations a 4 by the Circle of Tones," Shannon does not implement López's indication, "Sentado," at the beginning of the score. I did some research on this term, in case it might be some kind of organic register, and I found none. So, given the Maestro's history of contributing his own term to the Airs or Movements of some pieces, I thought it appropriate to interpret this as one of them, a movement that is therefore calm, posed, seated, as the word suggests, or settled for its realization.

In measure 32, Shannon interprets the G as a natural, even though it's not listed in the manuscript. After studying it and playing the passage, I can't find an explanation for this natural, and therefore what López wrote seems correct to me.

In measure 46, Shannon interprets the E as a natural, even though it's not listed in the manuscript, probably due to the dissonance formed with the bass's F# and sustained for two half notes. This seems logical if we compare it with the initial interval of the theme proposed for its various subsequent modulations. However, when playing the passage, I notice that López indicates the natural at the end of the phrase. However, precisely in the corrected note (measure 46 of my edition), despite the dissonance, it marks the modulation more emphatically than if we omitted that sharp, and therefore the tonality in said modulation would remain poorly defined. Therefore, I choose not to correct anything here.

In measure 49, Shannon modulates to a key with one less sharp than indicated in the manuscript. It was supposed to be in B major, with 5 sharps in the key signature, yet he transcribes it directly to E major, with 4 sharps, supposedly skipping the step of modulation by intervals of fourths that López clearly proposes in 6-measure phrases. My edition, however, respects what is written in the manuscript and Don Félix's original and pedagogical idea. This could have been motivated again by what happens in the fourth measure of the series, where we find the aforementioned dissonance again, in this case between the A# and the B. Shannon must have thought that if the key doesn't have that sharp, the A#, being in E major, shouldn't have any alterations and the dissonance is softened. But it is obviously an error of judgment regarding what López intended, explained, and wrote. Clearly, the key in those bars, from 49 to 55, is B Major, with the A# therefore incorporated into the key signature. This time, it would form an augmented seventh interval because the bass has been transposed down an octave, and the dissonance is further attenuated by this. Then, in bar 50, the sharp to A doesn't need to be signaled because it's already in the key signature, and in bar 52, the same thing happens (this confirms what happened in the previous passage I mentioned).

Let's see, the structure is six bars, which López transforms into the last.

• The score for the organ work "Organic Modulations through the Circle of Keys" is available for purchase at this link: https://www.albertocobo.com/product-page/organic-modulations-through-the-circle-of-keys-by-felix-maximo-lopez-1742-1821