Learn a super easy piece with me: Ferdinando Carulli's Opus 241, No 5 - Andantino

[mc1]

I have played guitar as an amateur for many years, although I haven’t been playing much for the last few. I decided to learn this very easy, simple piece, and thought I would chronicle my thoughts and discoveries as I learn it.

My hope is that others will join in and learn it too. If you are a beginner it’s an excellent piece, and perhaps I can help with any questions you might have. So don’t in any way be intimidated to comment or ask for help. That will make it more fun for me. It would be great for more experienced players to share their thoughts as well. It's a popular piece, but one that I've never played until today, perhaps because it is so short.

The piece is an Andantino by Ferdinando Carulli, who was an Italian guitarist and composer who lived from 1770 to 1841. Carulli’s full name is Ferdinando Maria Meinrado Francesco Pascale Rosario Carulli, which I find very impressive and maybe longer than the Andantino. Learn more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinando_Carulli

It’s a very simple tune, 16 bars long, in the key of G, but I think there is some real music to be found in it. There is also some basic technique that will be required. So I’ll focus on getting a good tone, basic technical requirements, and trying to make it sound musical.

The piece is from his École de guitare, Op.241. That would translate to Guitar School, or School of Guitar if one were to make a movie. It is in the public domain, and available here:

https://imslp.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_de...%2C_Ferdinando)

My preference is for the Josef Krempl edition (3th one down), as it is quite clean and legible, and has an English translation for Carulli’s remarks.

Here is the tune as presented in that very book:



However, I think I will re-notate it in MuseScore, which is free music notation software available for any computer platform. It’s more than powerful enough for this task, and you can get it here: https://musescore.org/en

Why am I going to enter it into MuseScore? A few reasons. One, even though the picture above is quite clear and easy to read, it still could be clearer. Using MuseScore will allow it to be crystal clear at any resolution. Also I can create one version without fingerings and another with very easily. Carulli uses a now uncommon way to mark the right hand fingerings with *-a-b-c rather than p-i-m-a. Also, I already see one left hand fingering that I might change. There are other useful features, such as being able to hear it played back at different tempos, change the key, etc.

The title Andantino is a tempo designation. So not so much a name as the speed Carulli envisioned playing it. It’s common for that to become the name of the piece. Since he wrote many pieces with that tempo marking, the Opus 241, Number 5 makes it unique. Opus 241 means a number assigned to a source (the École de guitare in this case), and No 5 is its place in this book. However, if I look at the book this isn’t the 5th piece. So I’m not quite sure why No 5, but that is its known name and so I will stick to it. As I look at the source it’s hard to be sure what is a considered a piece and what just a technical exercise (like the scales in a key), but I still don’t quite get the numbering.

I just looked at a couple other versions of Opus 241, the School of Guitar, and another version clearly has it marked as 5. So I guess that’s why.

Wikipedia defines the tempo marking andantino as “slightly faster than andante (although, in some cases, it can be taken to mean slightly slower than andante) (80–108 bpm)”, which seems a tad confusing. Andante is defined as “at a walking pace (76–108 bpm)”. I’ll probably play it rather slowly and hope for the best.

I had a look on youtube for versions, and there are many, but none that I really liked, mainly I'd guess because it's such a beginner's piece.

Well, that's more than enough for today.

[cmd612]

Thanks for translating that "a, b, c." I was wondering.

I love this piece. I learned it from Frederick Noad's Solo Guitar Playing, where it's presented as a practice exercise, and I've always marvelled at how musically satisfying it is for such a simple piece. It's sort of a go-to for me if I have about 2 minutes for a quick guitar break and just want to play something soothing.

I tend to play it quite slowly, possibly much slower than Carulli intended if your listed bpm ranges align with his intentions. More of a very relaxed stroll sort of walking pace, I guess. Maybe that's why it seems so pretty but also sad to me.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by cmd612

Thanks for translating that "a, b, c." I was wondering.

I love this piece. I learned it from Frederick Noad's Solo Guitar Playing, where it's presented as a practice exercise, and I've always marveled at how musically satisfying it is for such a simple piece. It's sort of a go-to for me if I have about 2 minutes for a quick guitar break and just want to play something soothing.

I tend to play it quite slowly, possibly much slower than Carulli intended if your listed bpm ranges align with his intentions. More of a very relaxed stroll sort of walking pace, I guess. Maybe that's why it seems so pretty but also sad to me.

Gee whiz, I might have that book around here somewhere. Maybe I'll work out my own fingerings then compare them.

I was just playing through it and I think slower is better as well. It's kind of bittersweet, the tune, with a few bars being happy and a few sadder. I'll probably go through each bar, since there's so few. Lol.

Yes, I find the *-a-b-c notation confusing, especially since I associate a with my ring finger. It is mentioned in the original book.

Carulli didn't seem to have a lot of use for his ring finger, as c only shows up once in the penultimate bar. I tend to use mine a lot more. But I like to alternate i-a and use a on the high e. Just my own preference. Seems like with Sor and Carulli and those guys the ring finger was used when needed and otherwise avoided. Maybe they thought it was less toneful, maybe they had their pinkie on the soundboard which made it harder? Not really sure.

Thanks so much for weighing in, and please add comments willy-nilly.

[mc1]

Here's a picture of him from the wikipedia page, apparently very content to be in, what, quicksand? Maybe he hit something solid at the bottom and the artist wanted to capture that. Or maybe it's someone's birthday and he's popping out through some paper. Surprise!

[cmd612]

Originally Posted by mc1

Here's a picture of him from the wikipedia page, apparently very content to be in, what, quicksand? Maybe he hit something solid at the bottom and the artist wanted to capture that. Or maybe it's someone's birthday and he's popping out through some paper. Surprise!

Pretty sure he's chilling in a snowbank there.

[mc1]

I had a read through Carulli’s notes, and they are at times entertaining, and at times out of date, and at times rather dull.

Here is one note in the Description of the Guitar section: “The top of the body is called the sound-board; it is provided with a sound hole. At times that hole is covered with a rosette, which looks nice, but is not favorable to the tone of the instrument.”

Perhaps he means rather than a rosette inlaid around the sound hole, it is actually covering the sound hole.

I found this instruction about tuning the guitar interesting as well: “The best way is (like with the violin) to tune the open strings by ear. But it is not everybody that can do that, and the following method may be used by those who cannot.”

His alternate method is then tune A with a tuning fork, tune D to the 5th fret of A, tune G to the 5th fret of D, tune B to the 4th fret of G, tune high E to the 5th fret of B, and finally tune the low E to to the high E.

Another highlight: “Some teachers strictly forbid the use of the left thumb on that string which is opposite the other fingers, namely the sixth string, and also sometimes the fifth. But I encourage all who want to play the guitar with facility unhesitatingly to use that thumb, for the fuller the harmony the more beautiful the music, and as four fingers are not enough for playing a melody and basses with full chords, it is absolutely necessary to employ also the thumb.”

One last quote about the right hand: “The hand is supported by the tip of the little finger, which rests on the sound-board near the first string, exactly midway between the sound-hole and the bridge.”

Just to be clear, my amateur opinion is not to wrap the thumb over the neck (which must have been thinner and/or narrower back then), nor to rest the pinkie on the sound-board.

I compared the 4 editions available at IMSLP. As far as I could tell, all agreed on dynamic markings (there’s only 1), and left hand fingerings. Only the edition I recommend had any right hand fingerings. Since this doesn’t appear to be the earliest edition I’d guess they were editorial changes and not original. Nothing very controversial though, and I don't really plan on paying them too much attention. I find them interesting to look and and ponder, however.

I created a score and added in the notes. There’s always the risk of making an error here. You can play it back which helps find any out of key errors, but it’s easy to have, say, an incorrect A not that should be a C, but the chord is D7 so it sounds alright. Or in G chord mix up a B and G notes in the middle of the staff. I looked it over a few times, and it’s pretty short, so I’m reasonable confident it’s correct. 3 gold stars to anyone who points out a difference.

So here it is without fingerings. I couldn't resist putting his whole name in there.

[TBman]

I'll try it this weekend (I'll have to key it into GuitarPro for the tab, )

I've been meaning to dust off my classical for a day or two each week.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by TBman

I'll try it this weekend (I'll have to key it into GuitarPro for the tab, )

I've been meaning to dust off my classical for a day or two each week.

Hi Barry,

Thanks for mentioning that. MuseScore does tab, so perhaps this will work for you and anyone else who would like the tab.

For those interested in MuseScore, when you add it in you often need to adjust where the notes are played, as it will guess. In this case it didn't like the way some of the notes where stemmed to both the high and low voices, for example bar 9 or 10. The first note of bar 9 it should as the open D string as well as the fretted A string at the fifth fret. Things like that. So I had to remove one of the voices. Still looks pretty readable to me.

[mc1]

Well, 3 gold stars for me. So I was having a look at the 3 different editions on IMSLP (it looks like 4 editions, but the first 2 are different scans of the same edition), and double checking my musical notes in the score I entered.

I proceeded to note (textually, not musically) above that it's easy to mistranscribe an A note for a C note, or a B and G, or vice versa. I wrote that because that's what I did. Or so thought...

As it turns out, the 3 editions are different! In bar 14, they all have different notes. Here is a picture of the 3 bar 14s:



Can you sport the differences? Stuff like this can drive me crazy. So I need to sort that out, and in the meantime, I removed my score.

I've searched on Google to no avail, although I did find a page dedicated to this piece, with plenty of good information, that I'll link to later. I have asked this question at a forum dedicated to classical guitar, but my post needs to be approved by a moderator. I also will check to see what printed versions I have to see if they agree or I can come to any consensus.

It's just a tiny difference, and they all sound pretty good. So it may just come down to picking one (plucking one?).

[cmd612]

FWIW, the version presented by Noad agrees with the middle of the three. Noad also has the whole piece in 4/4 with eighth notes instead of 2/4 with 16ths.

It sounds like you were right that the reason for limited use of the right hand ring finger was pinky-planting. Also very interesting that Carulli encouraged thumb-over!

[mc1]

Originally Posted by cmd612

FWIW, the version presented by Noad agrees with the middle of the three. Noad also has the whole piece in 4/4 with eighth notes instead of 2/4 with 16ths.

It sounds like you were right that the reason for limited use of the right hand ring finger was pinky-planting. Also very interesting that Carulli encouraged thumb-over!

Thanks for the update. I was just updating the music links and I decided to go with the same choice as Noad! My guess is the first one is incorrect, the jump from the C note to the open G doesn't work so well. I also like the third one, but decided the second one was the best. I did find a nice video of the Noad version, linked below, and he uses the C and B notes, so I already sort of confirmed my choice.

Thanks again for checking this. Funny how I'll obsess over this. I spent like 2 or 3 hours this morning on it, and now am out of time! Oh well, that's what tomorrow is for. I looked in Solo Guitar Playing but couldn't find it. I think I have an older version, before it was books 1 & 2.

Here is a nice version, after the waltz. Barry, this player plays without nails.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by mc1

It's just a tiny difference, and they all sound pretty good. So it may just come down to picking one (plucking one?).

That is what it comes down to.

If one wants to go crazy on it, one can look at the harmonizing and voice leading. There are two chords in that bar. The first is a D major chord, the second a E minor (V and vi of the key).

For the first chord, if one adds a C note one adds the 7th, making it a dominant seventh chord, as was done it the first two of the three versions. If, as in the last version, one plays the A note, it adds the fifth of the chord, rather than the seventh. Normally, the resolution to the dominant seventh is for the 7th to fall to the third of the tonic, in this case the B note, as is done in the second version.

Looking at the previous bar, there can be a step-wise voice leading of the G, A and B notes, as is done in the third version.

In the first version, the E minor chord doubles the third, the G note. In doing so, the fifth of the chord is left out and the chord sounds less "full" having doubled the third, rather than play the fifth. Usually, one doesn't double the third, which is the case in the first and third versions.

To me the 16 bar piece just cries out to be a theme and variations. When I play it, I hear a bunch of obvious variations. Perhaps, I'll work a few out and write them down.

In the end, the piece is simple, the harmonies uncomplicated: one can chose to play any of the three variations without altering the feel of the piece.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

That is what it comes down to.

If one wants to go crazy on it, one can look at the harmonizing and voice leading. There are two chords in that bar. The first is a D major chord, the second a E minor (V and vi of the key).

For the first chord, if one adds a C note one adds the 7th, making it a dominant seventh chord, as was done it the first two of the three versions. If, as in the last version, one plays the A note, it adds the fifth of the chord, rather than the seventh. Normally, the resolution to the dominant seventh is for the 7th to fall to the third of the tonic, in this case the B note, as is done in the second version.

Looking at the previous bar, there can be a step-wise voice leading of the G, A and B notes, as is done in the third version.

In the first version, the E minor chord doubles the third, the G note. In doing so, the fifth of the chord is left out and the chord sounds less "full" having doubled the third, rather than play the fifth. Usually, one doesn't double the third, which is the case in the first and third versions.

In the end, the piece is simple, the harmonies uncomplicated: one can chose to play any of the three variations without altering the feel of the piece.

Charles, thanks so much for the input and analysis. I like that you, cmd612, and Mr. Noad, and I all agree.

I just came back to add, that while I went with the second version (for now), I kind of like how the third one rises to A after the previous bar's G.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

In the first version, the E minor chord doubles the third, the G note. In doing so, the fifth of the chord is left out and the chord sounds less "full" having doubled the third, rather than play the fifth. Usually, one doesn't double the third, which is the case in the first and third versions.

To me the 16 bar piece just cries out to be a theme and variations. When I play it, I hear a bunch of obvious variations. Perhaps, I'll work a few out and write them down.

The third version doesn't double the third, it moves the A to the B. I think you are experiencing what I have been, which is staring at G and B notes so much they blur together.

Writing out some variations would be super cool. I hope you will and I have some other harmony/analysis questions for you that I hope you will be gracious enough to answer.

I can't believe I've spent 3 hours trying to decide if an A or a C note sounds better.

To B or not to B - that was the question. But I've never have to wonder again.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by mc1

The third version doesn't double the third...

Typo: should have read second and third versions don't double the third, rather than first and third versions.

I have some other harmony/analysis questions for you that I hope you will be gracious enough to answer.

I'll try. Fire away.