Suite I

::LSS, y Therc exists a whole legend with regard to this work, known as Suite en La or the \X/eiss Suite,
r>.

1,._.0S and for many years Ponce's authorship was complctely ignored. Written by the middle of 1929
or at least in the Fa!! of that vear at a request by Segovia, who uscd to affirm that he needed
works within the classical and baroque stvle for his programs, this suite continues within the
f~la neo-classic period that was started with Sonata IV. Therc have been many theories about the
~. ,)111 attribution of this work to another cornposer but nene of them has becn completely proved.
r"\1e However, in a conversation that Carlos Vzquez had with Segovia in 1964 at a meeting in
n111a- Madrid, when talking about this, Segovia explaincd that this decision, of attributing works to
'~.e other composers, was taken in order to avoid having to play only works by Ponce in his recitals
)licar and that he would give a11the credit of the creation of these works to Ponce at the publication
rt<:
. )s of his memoirs. As this never happened, players like Manuel Lpez Ramos and Alirio Daz,
began toannounce Ponce's authorship in their programs.
The success of this work was such, that even though the original manuscnpt also perished
erte- in Barcelona in 1936, this was no obstaclc for the publication of several editions of ir. By being
Weiss' rnusic part of the public domain, this would avoid any legal problems and in fact would
edad
~
save the royalty payments to Ponce who was the composer. In some of these editions, it was
made clear that the musical text presented came from the Segovia recording made in London
}-Q()r in 1930, since in a11the libraries that possessed works by Weiss this suite could not be found,
uen- which resulted in several approaches and renderings of the musical texto Since Segovia's
recording is the only musical source of this text, 1 also consulted it, and considered, from a
abor philological point of view, that the work of the criticis the restoration of a text to its original

105
del crtico es la restauracin del texto, dentro de lo posible, a su forma original, en el prlude he
optado por el comps de 9/8, ya que dentro de su mtrica, se da la nica posibilidad de tocar, me
~
con toda exactitud, el motivo sobre el cual est basado. Las otras danzas, allemande, sarabande
y gavatte, siempre eran escritas en un mismo comps, y slo la gigue poda variar entre 3, 6 o cq
12/8. Por cierto, Segovia no qued satisfecho con la primera versin de esta ltima pieza, y en
una carta, de finales de 1929, as se lo manifestaba a Poncc:

La SHite de J ulius Weiss est en dedos. Es preciosa, y pienso tocarla en Nueva York el S. Pero
necesito otra gigue ... La que me hiciste es demasiado inocentona para finalizar. Ponte un cuarto
de hora al piano, y hazme una toda en arpegios, con unas notitas, destacadas, de meloda unas
veces arriba y otras en el bajo ... Quieres?

De la descripcin hecha por Segovia, al sugerirle a Ponce la creacin de una nueva gigue,
podramos asegurar que lo que tena en mente era una pieza similar a la gigue de la Partita I
B\W 825 de J. S. Bach. Sin embargo, Ponce tambin debe haber captado que lo que Segovia
quera era un final brillante, por lo que escribi una gigue bastante ms extensa que los otros tal';
r=;
movimientos de la suite, pero con un cierto aire de tarantella, lo que le confiere una gran bri-
llantez. Ms adelante, en la misma carta, le anunciaba que ya haba hecho la prueba de tocar, aro
~
como encare, la sarabande y la gavotte, las cuales haban despertado un gran entusiasmo. Y en
otra carta, escrita en Chicago ellO de febrero de 1930, le deca:

Tengo prisa y no me extender mucho hoy. En otra te informar del xito de Silvius Leopold
Weiss. Estoy encantado del triunfo de este viejo maestro. Los crticos ms enterados y cultos
han hecho mencin, en la crtica, de muchos detalles pintorescos de su vida. Y ha sido muy
apreciada su semejanza con Bach. El Preludio, la Allcmande y la Sarabande, sobre todo, han
gustado muchsimo. Te guardo toda la prensa.

Posteriormente, en una carta del verano de 1931, le consultaba acerca de la posible edicin edil
con Schott:

Le he propuesto igualmente la edicin de la Suite de \\'!eiss. No le he dicho que sea absoluta-

mente de ste, sino atribuida. Pero que como poseo un manuscrito nico ser necesario hacer
condiciones muy diferentes de las ediciones que l hace de las cosas de Bach. Veremos lo que con-
testa, y si aceptase y propusiera una buena suma, te encontraras con ella para reparar pequeas
necesidades caseras. Por si acaso, aconsjame sobre el modo de presentar la edicin. En efecto: en
qu documentos o razones apoyarse para atribuir la Suite a Weiss? Qu decir? Piensa y provee.

Desgraciadamente, la Suite I no fue publicada por Schott, lo que habra venido a salvar, pa- l

106
rr-.
he formo 1 decided to use the 9/8 measure for the prlude, since within it, there exists in an exact
r"\ lllanner, rhe only possibility of playing the motif on which it is based. The other dances,
tcle allemande, sarabande and gavotte were always written in the same measure and only the gigue
;~ '. could change between 3,6 or 12 beats. Segovia was not happy with the first version of this last

en picce and in a letter of the end of 1929 he told Ponce about this:
~
The [ulius Weiss Suite is studied. It is beautiul and 1hope to play it in New York on the Sth.
But 1 need another giguc ... The one you madc is too naivc tu end. Sit down 15 minutes at the
piano and make me one in arpeggios with somc detached notes of melody, sornetimes on the top
and others in the bass ... wil] you?

Frorn rhis description for the creation of a new gigue, we can guess that what Segovia had
in mind was something like the gigue ofBach's Partita I B\X/V 825. However, Ponce must have
understood that what Segovia wanted was a brilliant ending and so he wrote a gigue, much
IJ., ... more extended than the other movements of the suite, but within the character of a
.~ tarantella, which gives it a bravura quality. Further, in the same letter Segovia announced
that he had made the test of playing the sarabande and the gavotte- as an encore which
aroused great enthusiasm. In another letter, written in Chicago on 10 February 1930 he told
en him:

1 am in a hurry and 1 won't write much todav. At some other time 1 will inform vou of the
success of Silvius Leopold Weiss. 1am enchanted with the triumph of this old master. The most
prepared and cultivated critics have mentioned in their reviews many colorful anecdotes of his
life. And his similarity with Bach has been wel! appreciated. The Prelude, Allemande and
Sarabande, above all have been very wellliked. 1 am keeping you all the press reviews.

Later, in a letter of the summer of 1931 he asked Ponce about the possibility of a Schott
5n edition:
~
1have also proposed to him the edition of the Weiss Suite. 1have not told him that it is not
completely his, but attributed to him. Bllt since 1possess the only manuscript it will be necessary
to establish conditions quite different from the editions that he makes ofBach's music. We'l1 see
what he answers and ifhe would propose a good surn you could use it to mend some household
necessities. But just in case advise me how to present the edition. In fact: on which documents
-,
or reasons could the attribution of this Suite to Weiss be grounded? What could be said? Think
and deliver.

a- llnfortunatelv the Suite I was not published by Schott, which could have saved the original

107
ra la posteridad, la versin original de ella. Sin embargo, en una carta de finales de 1932, hay
otra mencin que arroja luz acerca de las motivaciones segovianas para seguir guardando el some.li

secreto de esta obra:

~
y no creas que no me ha pasado por la cabeza tocar con tu nombre la Suite de Weiss. Pero ya B
est impresionada y podra haber jaleo.
H~
El verbo impresionar es en ocasiones interpretado como imprimir, pero a lo que se refiere Spanisl

Segovia es a la grabacin realizada por l en 1930. Il~

En 1983 apareci en Pars, en Editions Musicales Transatlantiqucs, una versin de esta this wo

obra que s reconoce la autora de Ponce. Corazn Otero, quien escribi una nota introducto- note'~

ria, nos informa respecto de esta edicin lo siguiente: "El guitarrista espaol Jos Luis Gonz- Gonzl
r>.
tez la digita tomando la obra directamente de una copia del original que le diera su maestro Segc.

Andrs Segovia". Esta viene a ser la primera noticia de un manuscrito de Segovia, puesto que disciple
rr<;

varios de sus discpulos ignoran la existencia de dicha copia, y tambin resulta contradictoria by S,
con varias declaraciones hechas por el propio Segovia, quien aseguraha que el manuscrito de that he
Ponce haba desaparecido en Barcelona, durante la guerra, y que l no tena ni la necesidad ni wor],

el tiempo ni el deseo de sentarse a volver a escribir esta obra. Tambin aparecen varios errores suiteA

de escritura, de acuerdo a la ejecucin hecha por Segovia en su grabacin, que se contraponen of th., e,

a la ejecucin de esta suite, as como cambios al ritmo natural de varias de las danzas. La pri- Manue,

mera grabacin de la Suue I, que reconoce a Ponce como su autor, fue realizada en 1973, para
EMI-Capitol, por Manuel Lpez Ramos.

108
r;
lay version of it for posteritv. However, in a letter of 1932 there is another mcntion that sheds
some light on the Segovia rnotivations to continue on keeping the mystery of this work:

And don't believe that it has not passed by my mind to play the Weiss Suite with your name.

But since it is already impressed thcre could be some problcrns.

Here Segovia was referring to the recording he made in 1930, but by the employment of the

:re Spanish verb impresionar -rarely used in this sense- it rcsulted arnbiguous.
In 1983, there appeared in Pars, with Editions Musicales Transatlanriques, a version of

ta this work that recognizes Ponce's authorship and Corazn Otero, who wrote an introductorv
~
note, tells us with regard to this edition the following: "The Spanish guitarist Jos Luis
Gonzlez did the fingering directlv from an original copy given to him by Maestro Andrs
Segovia." This is the first notice of a Segovia manuscript of this suite, and since most of his
disciples ignore the existence of such a copy it also contradicts many of the statements made
by Segovia himself who assurcd that Ponce's manuscript had disappcarcd during the war and
that he had neither the necessity, nor the time, nor the desire of sitting down to rewrite this
work. Also, thcre are sevcral mistakes in the writing that contravcnc Segovia's playing of this
suite, in his recording, as well as thc natural rhythm of many of the dances. The first recording

n of the Suite 1 that recognizes Ponce as the composer, was made in 1973 for EMI-Capitol by
Manuel Lpez Ramos.

109
 Prlude

~ ~JJI~ml
8 -e'. -o-

~m ~tim
8 -e'
IIDm flltJ
~'
j ~iW~

[W: j.J~1IIl~
8 Ubfr' #f' r
.nJ m J1 fJcl1J I iJl flJ ~4m V I

110
 ~ r.nmrH I~Fm;Q 1"j3m~.QIpJTfflrw

W!j# m ~.p 191m:gPJG f:J ID ~ W :4

r
8 r #f' r #f' f' r- f' r-

!TI ~ :=rn1p1 :--n PAtEf1:~

f' r- f' f' f' f' f' f' f'
t~ _rn .rJ1m ~rd1J.J~-m
8

r- I
m m I
P1.c-H9f
~I
8 -
u-
"~

j"

8e' r 11
 r

,1~

112
 113

L
, 114
I
L
115
 J

116
 "

.~

117