Erik Stenstadvold
New member
Re: calle Angosta de Majaderitos
Gracias a Matanya, Silvestre, Julio y todos,
Otra vez, perdonad que escribo en inglés - mi castellano es muy malo :smile: (está muy malo??)
Entonces:
Silvestre, thanks for taking your time to do your translations which, as far as I can judge, are exactly to the point (the one misunderstanding about "planchas" you made in an earlier post, was corrected by Julio). As to my reference to 2(nd). edition, I was in fact alluding to my own classification. As you can all see, the title page of the Faustino Fuentes edition, provided by Matanya, reads: "Gran método, con el Apéndice, 2e. edición". As previosly pointed out, the Campo edition of 1850 should, in bibliographical terms be called a new issue, not a new or 2nd edition: this because it is identical to the 1843 version except the title-page changes. However, if the José Campo y Castro post-1867 edition has the first sections re-engraved - as implied by Jeffery - it should be classified a new (or 2nd) edition whether or not indicated so on the title page. So it would indeed be helpful if somebody could come up with a José Campo y Castro edition.
As to the Schonenberger 1846 being a pirate edition or not: both are possible. At that time, there was no copyright across borders, so it would not be an illegal act by Schonenberger to copy the original 1843 edition without Aguado's consent. However, we also know that publishers or authors sometimes did make arrangements with publishers in other countries for republications of their works, although this normally would be in the context of so-called simultaneous or parallel publication (see the section "Publicación simultánea" in my article "Compositores y editores en tiempos de Sor: ideales artísticos y realidades comerciales", Roseta No. 2, 2009). Since the Schonenberger edition is in Spanish, not in French, and therefore would be a competitor on the same market as the original edition, I for now find it most likely that it was a pirate edition. But future new evidence may change my view on this.
Saludos,
Erik Stenstadvold
Gracias a Matanya, Silvestre, Julio y todos,
Otra vez, perdonad que escribo en inglés - mi castellano es muy malo :smile: (está muy malo??)
Entonces:
Silvestre, thanks for taking your time to do your translations which, as far as I can judge, are exactly to the point (the one misunderstanding about "planchas" you made in an earlier post, was corrected by Julio). As to my reference to 2(nd). edition, I was in fact alluding to my own classification. As you can all see, the title page of the Faustino Fuentes edition, provided by Matanya, reads: "Gran método, con el Apéndice, 2e. edición". As previosly pointed out, the Campo edition of 1850 should, in bibliographical terms be called a new issue, not a new or 2nd edition: this because it is identical to the 1843 version except the title-page changes. However, if the José Campo y Castro post-1867 edition has the first sections re-engraved - as implied by Jeffery - it should be classified a new (or 2nd) edition whether or not indicated so on the title page. So it would indeed be helpful if somebody could come up with a José Campo y Castro edition.
As to the Schonenberger 1846 being a pirate edition or not: both are possible. At that time, there was no copyright across borders, so it would not be an illegal act by Schonenberger to copy the original 1843 edition without Aguado's consent. However, we also know that publishers or authors sometimes did make arrangements with publishers in other countries for republications of their works, although this normally would be in the context of so-called simultaneous or parallel publication (see the section "Publicación simultánea" in my article "Compositores y editores en tiempos de Sor: ideales artísticos y realidades comerciales", Roseta No. 2, 2009). Since the Schonenberger edition is in Spanish, not in French, and therefore would be a competitor on the same market as the original edition, I for now find it most likely that it was a pirate edition. But future new evidence may change my view on this.
Saludos,
Erik Stenstadvold
