Go with the best, G natural. Never mind Larrocha

What an extraordinary thing to happen!
Never heard of him, so I looked him up and apparently he is - horror of horrors - something of a Granados expert. But more so than Alicia? Who knows.
It says he was assistant director and she director of an edition of Granados's complete piano works. To think they might have actively disagreed about it is intriguing, but it's probably not that big a deal.
Just do what your gut tells you. Given conflicting instructions, it falls to subjective interpretation.

For my two cents, I would note that Spanish editions are notorious for typographical errors. A natural sign (as Chris points out) makes no logical sense because there is neither a G# in the key signature nor has there been one earlier in the same bar which would need to be cancelled; there hasn't even been a G# anywhere previously in the whole piece, so it can't even be a reminder. So if Granados wanted a G natural, one would think he would have just written a plain G, without a natural sign. This suggests the original UME edition's natural sign is simply a misprint for a sharp sign which is probably present in the manuscript, a misprint which has been corrected in the Dover edition.

While there is merit in Chris's statement that second thoughts are not always better, and while it is his prerogative to "cling stubbornly" to what he is used to, there is no reason in this case to assume that a second thought of the composer himself was involved. Sight of the manuscript would probably resolve the question, but in the absence of that, I would intuitively plump for the G#.

That said, one might like to undertake a musicological dissection of the piece, and ask which version makes more musical sense. A G# suggests a temporary tonality shift into A major, but that doesn't seem to fit too well into the context. I give up.

It gets better. Later in the day, Danza lenta came on again - this time played by Thomas Rajna, so I had more freaking out time! (Seriously, I still can't believe this - like it was Danza lenta Day or something.) I've listened to a lot of Rajna's Granados over the years and he's very good too. His technique is unbelievable, however I prefer Douglas Riva because I think he plays with more depth and sensitivity. And fyi - Riva is the most preeminent Granados expert there is!! He worked closely with de Larrocha and the two of them recently put out a complete set of Granados' works - I have several volumes already and plan to purchase more.

Anyway, although Riva plays a G-natural, Rajna plays a G-sharp and probably it is merely a difference in the score, whether it was the original version, or if Granados changed it later on. I just re-recorded my version of the piece tonight; some of the trills are better, some are worse--I'll never get it perfect! I also stuck with the G-sharp because that's what I'm used to.

So that's it.... now I'm listening to the piece once again while sipping some red wine and dreaming about a tropical paradise. Life is good!

As I wrote, that natural sign is in front of the following A, where it makes even less sense than had it been on the G.
In any case I keep believing the G nat sounds much more idiomatic. It anticipates on the temporary shift to minor. I am pretty convinced that this was what Granados meant (and that Riva and Larrocha thought so when preparing the scholarly edition).

Yes, probably. But since the original UME edition is from "ca. 1915", he would not have had terribly much opportunity to change it before he died in 1916.
Ah, so you did. Sorry, I sloppily misread that, and thought you had said it was on the G. Still, these hamfisted Spanish typesetters are as likely to stick symbols in the wrong place as to use the wrong ones, so I wouldn't dismiss altogether the possibility of them doing both at the same time when preparing your 1966 edition.
Perhaps, but for X to "anticipate" Y, one would have thought X should involve actually changing something, which sticking in a pointless natural sign, wherever it goes, does not do. Perhaps it should have been a flat sign instead, and on the B. OK, while this isn't really a serious suggestion, you've got to admit that it would sound nicely idiomatic too, and really would anticipate the minor, specifically the B-flats which do actually occur two bars later.
That the two of them discussed this difference and that Riva persuaded Larrocha to change her mind is an interesting thought. If Monica is planning to purchase more volumes of this new edition, perhaps the one containing this piece should move up to the top of her shopping list, if it isn't there already. Do you think they would have been able to consult the original manuscripts, or are they likely to be lost/destroyed?

A B-flat would make sense too. Maybe a G-sharp AND a B-flat. I'm sure Granados tried all kinds of possibilities. Isn't it funny how one little half-step can matter so much? Just like the Chopin Prelude....

Well, my expert friend just told me that it is supposed to be a G-natural. That's the way Granados himself played it shortly before his death.
A. de Larrocha is the one who changed the note to a G-sharp.
I've now changed my recording to reflect this issue.

(grrr...I hate when I'm wrong.... )

Well, perhaps your friend is right, but AdL was an expert too. On what basis can we choose whose expertise to respect more than the other's, and how does your friend know how Granados played it, and why didn't AdL?

Anyway, I've been starting to play this piece, and the more I play it, the more I like it. I'm sure you know the feeling. But the more I get to know it, the more I notice when things are not quite as I expect them to be. Where passages recur, they are sometimes identical, sometimes not. When they're different, sometimes the differences are obvious mistakes, sometimes they are almost certainly intentional, and at other times one just can't tell, and when that happens, given the unreliability of some of these editions, I'll perhaps too quickly jump to the conclusion that what's in the score is wrong.

OK, so I'm looking at the version from imslp. There are little things which are obvious mistakes, quite apart from the grammatical error in the title (españoles should be españolas).

Take bars 54 and 55 (top line of 3rd page). It seems pretty clear that these two bars which are almost identical should really be completely identical, specifically the 6 groups of 4 grace notes should all be D-F#-A-B, but the second group has a G instead of the F#.

Look at the four "molto ad lib" sections ending in a 2/4 bar. All four of these 2/4 bars (28, 35, 53, and 61) are completely identical. Now focus on the 3/4 bars immediately in front of each of the 2/4 bars (i.e. bars 27, 34, 52, and 60); they are identical except for two differences: One is that in 27 and 52 there is a trill while in 34 and 60 there is not. I'd say this difference is likely to be deliberate. The other is that 27, unlike the other three, omits the tie on the LH high G, and I suggest this is a misprint. Next, focus on the upbeats to these 3/4 bars (i.e. the last beats of bars 26, 33, 51, and 59). In bar 51 the legend "molto ad lib" is missing, presumably unintentionally. The last 8th-note chord is identical on all four occasions (in 33 there is a reminder sharp sign on the F# because there were F naturals in 31 and 32, and the lowest 3 notes aren't always printed in the same staves, but the actual notes are all identical). In the penultimate 8th-note chord it gets complicated: it's different every time, and I'm not sure what to make of this. The first instance (bar 26) has a C# in the RH where all the others have a B. Mistake? The last instance(bar 59) omits the lower G. Mistake? Apart from the differences already mentioned, the basic notes in this chord are (bottom to top) C#-G-A-B-G, but in 33 there is an extra lower-staff chord G-B-C#-E (the C# duplicating one in the higher-staff), and I'm wondering whether this may also be a mistake.

Here's more: See how the passage from (the 2nd beat of) bar 10 to (the end of) bar 20 is note for note identical to the passage from bar 36 to bar 46? Well, it isn't. One difference is that high E and D are added across the 44/45 bar line (presumably deliberately). Another is on the last RH 8th notes of 14 (B-E) and 15 (E) which differ from how they are in 40 (F#) and 41 (B-E). My suspicion is that 14/15 and 40/41 should be alike, and that 40/41 are correct, and therefore 15 should have the B added and 14 should have F# instead of B-E. With this in mind, I listened to a few YT recordings, and found that two of them do in fact play an F# in bar 14, one of them being AdL! It really made me feel good to find my humble intuition confirmed by someone like that.

Hi, Monica!

This is a nice romanze!
The danza is very interesting also!

Thank you, Luis!



I chose 'my' expert, because he really is THE Granados expert! His expertise is equal to that of AdL (or maybe even higher). He is the same man I mentioned earlier, the one who worked closely with AdL for years on the new Boiler edition books. He knows everything about Granados - something even Granados' daughter claims is true.

I'm not going to repeat my conversation with him, but basically AdL changed that note to make the passage sound more conventional. It is a G-natural in the original manuscript. Regarding 'knowing' what Granados played - my friend mentioned the piano rolls that Granados recorded in New York just before his death. And just a moment ago, I light bulb went off in my head and I remembered that I actually have that recording on my computer! The whole "Masters of the Roll" album. I forgot all about it!!! Wow!!! Now I just listened to Granados himself play Danza lenta and it is just the neatest and nicest thing ever!!!! You should hear his trills...OMG, they are so fast and clean. And yes, he plays a G-natural!

Regarding the other issues you mentioned -- you are correct that it should be an F-sharp on the last top note of bar 14. Those chords before the molto ad lib. -- don't worry about them. What you see in the IMSLP score is correct and how Granados plays them. However, he does trill ALL spots right before the 2/4 bars. The 4 little grace note runs, you are correct that they should be identical - I had already caught that one myself too.

Well, now I will have to re-re-record myself playing this piece so as to make those corrections. But it's still okay because I still love "Danza lenta". And you know...it's been a while since I've been so immersed in one piece like this. It's fun! Especially a piece like "Danza lenta" - it's only three pages and sounds so beautiful and makes you feel so good, etc....

Thanks for clearing that up, Monica, it's always interesting to get a bit of the background associated with such little details. What luck to have such an expert among your friends!

I love the Schumann Romance and you play it beautifully. It is quite difficult to bring out and requires lots of concentration. I recall when I was young my teacher assigned this to me and warned me that it is more difficult than it appears. I didn't think so and promptly played it for her after a few weeks. Her reaction was unexpected: she declared this piece obviously too difficult for me right now. Instead we proceeded to the Waldstein sonata! This is just to show there are different kinds of difficulties. But you play it as if there are none!

Cute story, Joachim. And thank you!

Maybe this recording came out okay because I had the music memorized. I actually tried to make a video-recording, but everything went wrong. I got frustrated, gave up, and settled for just the audio recording.