johnhall wrote: Most of us would agree that Sor was the "better" composer.
Well, I'd agree with that.
In Carulli's defense however, parallel intervals in arpeggiated textures are not uncommon. Composers allowed themselves some wiggle room when the notes are spread out in time where the ear might not be able to trace the lines as easily.
And remember what I said in my posts for the analysis - it is guitar music. There are idiomatic things we do or even must do that create the need for some concessions. Most of us would agree that the "Am Shape" to "Dm Shape" move in the measures in question (even with the C on the bottom of the Am chord) is a quite common one and one of the most "basic" moves.
So we don't "fault" composers writing parallels or taking other liberties - especially in this kind of texture.
There are a huge number of instances where music changes from an apparent 4 voice texture to a 3 voice, 5 voice, or even 2 voice texture, etc. So composers didn't necessarily "follow the rules" of 4 part writing even in textures that resemble or could be seen as 4-part, especially in instrumental music (and even more so in solo instrument instrumental music, no less one with only 6 strings and 4 fingers avaialable).
It might be just as valid to consider this a "doubling" of the bass line in an inner voice and not an independent part at all, despite the fact the first measures begin that way.
So I wouldn't judge Carulli's compositional ability on this element. There are far greater reasons to consider him a lesser composer before we we ever get to this example of parallels
It seems to me this is a "basic" piece, and despite the "more advanced" nature of the chord in m. 9, really comes off as a "beginner" piece to me, with basic chord forms and basic harmonies for the beginner's eyes, ears, brain, and fingers. It's a "prelude", and basically, an "exercise". In fact, I tip my hat to Carulli for making a fairly consistently playable piece that though short, contains enough variety to maintain interest for the player and listener.
It's not supposed to be (or, I don't think it was intended to be) a solo concert piece, nor would I consider it a "masterwork" of the genre, so I don't think I'm going to judge Carulli's work here by those standards. Taken on its own, for what it is, I think he did an excellent job of writing and attractive, playable piece for the beginning guitarist and does a much better job at making an otherwise dull exercise more interesting than many of his peers.
In fact, that's one thing I've noticed about Carulli - his "easy" pieces do tend to be a little more interesting - it seems the other composers had trouble writing "simply" but could write really well complex pieces. I don't know all of Carulli's output but of what I know, he seemed to have a better handle on the simple pieces but when it gets to more complex pieces, he doesn't seem to show the same craftsmanship as his peers.
I'll give him an A.
And honestly John, I was hoping for an A+ on my analysis!